|
On July 04 2013 22:51 lebowskiguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 22:27 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 22:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 21:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that? If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will. why can't we choose a possibility in a probabilistic universe? probabilistic in physics means randomness, not choice among possibilities. If the brain worked with the laws of quantum mechanics that would mean that it is throwing dice to make decisions instead of being the direct result of all past events(determinism). For example a potential killer would be a dice roller when he catches his wife on the act of sex with the neighbor , depending on the outcome he kills her or not, whereas the deterministic view would say that it is unavoidable that he kills her or not by everything that has happened in the universe until now. There really is no model in physics to support the concept of free will (or of the soul for that matter) i get what you're saying but that doesn't really answer anything because i could just say that i disagree with your definition of dice, dice rolling ... i could say that i roll it and you can't, your physics can't prove otherwise. edit: argnaergaerg, i should start to refresh more often  this... makes no sense. I really don't understand what you are saying here, maybe if you rephrased it? You have a different definition of dice? Is your brain different than mine in nature?
it's not easy for me to argue against a half deterministic half probabilistic universe since it's what i believe in (99,9%) but fuck if i can let go of my free will.  . (i'm determined to keep it!). this:On July 04 2013 23:02 figq wrote:
Yes, for sure.
1. Humans tend to overestimate their own significance.
(the same dice, the universal dice, i' m rolling it).
semantics!. if you wan't a dice definition then provide a 'probability' definition (as a universal concept).
are probabilities infinite?, if they aren't, then why?, what limits them?.
if they are infinite, then there has to exist a possibility in which i roll the dice else it's cheating.
if i doesn't exist, then the universe is doing everything, rolling the dice and talking to you on these forums so it wouldn't matter anyway.
+ Show Spoiler +(i said somewhere in the middle of this topic that i consider free will as taking an action not making a decision. then someone else jumped in and said then the only debate is to be had is around the decision making. i disagree with that but went along anyway since as far as i was concerned the decision making was determined anyway. i still don't know why decision making > action taking)
|
On July 04 2013 22:09 doubleupgradeobbies! wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 21:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that? If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will. why can't we choose a possibility in a probabilistic universe? It's not really a choice if, by definition, the your choice had to conform to the underlying statistical distribution.Because there are 2 possibilities for a probabilistic universe. Eg either there is no real choice, and the universe conforms unpredictably but consistently with the distribution. Or there is meaningful choice, through choice you could make the universe not be consistent with the underlying statistical distribution, by definition, that universe isn't probabilistic since it's not conforming to probability.
even if the choice conforms with your statistical distribution initially, after it happens it affects that statistical distribution. i call that meaning.
|
20 Posts
I love looking at this topic from both sides. A few months ago I presented a paper at an undergraduate philosophy conference arguing against Cartesian Dualism (the mind body split) and arguing in favor instead for a naturalized (and materialistic) view of the mind. One of my favorite writers to argue this point is Owen Flanagan (he has several books on the subject, The Problem of the Soul is probably the most accessible and well written, I thought).
Since writing that paper, however, I have not stopped thinking about the subject. I would make some revisions to my previous materialistic view, and that is that I now believe there is a lot in the actual experience of consciousness that transcends the ability of science to 'measure'.
I recently wrote this blog article (http://publicorganon.blogspot.com/2013/07/love-n-science.html) where I put down some thoughts on the neurologist attempt at reducing love to mere brain chemistry. The problem that I find is that love goes beyond only pleasure and attraction but leaks instead into hopes, desires, expectations, worries, etc...yes all of these individual things are the results body chemistry on some level, but scientific measurements does not come close to explaining away the actual experience in these moods and outlooks.
Science and philosophy are intricately linked, but we should not simplify our intellectual pursuits / interests to merely what can be analyzed under the microscope or on the computer screen. The value of living an experience goes far beyond only identifying the names of chemicals and the regions of the brain that 'are responsible' for the thought, emotion or motivation.
|
a proof of how love can ruin people...
|
I think that the mind is a metaphysical construct through which we interpret external stimuli to produce our lived reality (the way that we perceive things to be) and the method through which we react to our lived reality. I.E. there is no such thing as a "real" mind in the physical sense, but it is just something that is due to our complex intelligence. Your brain and the rest of your body is what makes you human. Your mind is what makes you a person. What makes you you. Probably doesn't make a lot of sense, especially if you're like a hardcore philosophy buff or a science geek, but it's just what seems most correct to me.
|
On July 04 2013 23:41 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 22:51 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 22:27 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 22:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 21:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that? If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will. why can't we choose a possibility in a probabilistic universe? probabilistic in physics means randomness, not choice among possibilities. If the brain worked with the laws of quantum mechanics that would mean that it is throwing dice to make decisions instead of being the direct result of all past events(determinism). For example a potential killer would be a dice roller when he catches his wife on the act of sex with the neighbor , depending on the outcome he kills her or not, whereas the deterministic view would say that it is unavoidable that he kills her or not by everything that has happened in the universe until now. There really is no model in physics to support the concept of free will (or of the soul for that matter) i get what you're saying but that doesn't really answer anything because i could just say that i disagree with your definition of dice, dice rolling ... i could say that i roll it and you can't, your physics can't prove otherwise. edit: argnaergaerg, i should start to refresh more often this... makes no sense. I really don't understand what you are saying here, maybe if you rephrased it? You have a different definition of dice? Is your brain different than mine in nature? it's not easy for me to argue against a half deterministic half probabilistic universe since it's what i believe in (99,9%) but fuck if i can let go of my free will. . (i'm determined to keep it!). this: Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 23:02 figq wrote:
Yes, for sure.
1. Humans tend to overestimate their own significance. (the same dice, the universal dice, i' m rolling it). semantics!. if you wan't a dice definition then provide a 'probability' definition (as a universal concept). are probabilities infinite?, if they aren't, then why?, what limits them?. if they are infinite, then there has to exist a possibility in which i roll the dice else it's cheating. if i doesn't exist, then the universe is doing everything, rolling the dice and talking to you on these forums so it wouldn't matter anyway. + Show Spoiler +(i said somewhere in the middle of this topic that i consider free will as taking an action not making a decision. then someone else jumped in and said then the only debate is to be had is around the decision making. i disagree with that but went along anyway since as far as i was concerned the decision making was determined anyway. i still don't know why decision making > action taking)
The deterministic vs probabilistic reasoning is such a false dichotomy lol. Personally, I don't really like paradigms that work using induction because the reasoning often feels quite flimsy, so while I guess it makes sense to an extent, I still don't believe in the whole "no free will" thing.  I feel that we just know far too little about the nature of reality to make sweeping conclusions like that.
|
On July 04 2013 15:25 zbedlam wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 14:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 04 2013 14:25 Djzapz wrote:
A popular suggestion seems to be that since we don't know, we can invent an answer and that one does not require evidence. Quite peculiar. Seems like an even cooler suggestion is that we can build on the evidence we have to predict and pursue the answers that currently elude us based on whatever makes most sense given the available information. I believe he is implying spiritualism is quite a peculiar phenomenon that makes no sense. I could be wrong though.
No, I was just saying that people don't like to be ignorant, so they make stuff up to feel like they know.
|
On July 05 2013 00:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 15:25 zbedlam wrote:On July 04 2013 14:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 04 2013 14:25 Djzapz wrote:
A popular suggestion seems to be that since we don't know, we can invent an answer and that one does not require evidence. Quite peculiar. Seems like an even cooler suggestion is that we can build on the evidence we have to predict and pursue the answers that currently elude us based on whatever makes most sense given the available information. I believe he is implying spiritualism is quite a peculiar phenomenon that makes no sense. I could be wrong though. No, I was just saying that people don't like to be ignorant, so they make stuff up to feel like they know.
Oh the irony
It hurts
|
On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that? If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will.
Arguments like this one make exactly as much sense to me as "the slaves were never really freed since they are still fully subject to the law of gravity". Sure libertarian free will is bogus, but compatibilist free will is all you "need" for moral responsibility. Damn you, Sam Harris!
|
|
|
for something to be in the physical world it has to be observable, quantifiable. Our experiences are not observable by anyone other than the person experiencing. Either mind is separate from our physical reality, or this is a simulated reality occurring because of the mind.
|
On July 05 2013 00:46 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that? If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will. Arguments like this one make exactly as much sense to me as "the slaves were never really freed since they are still fully subject to the law of gravity". Sure libertarian free will is bogus, but compatibilist free will is all you "need" for moral responsibility. Damn you, Sam Harris!
His argument is perfectly right. He's just stating things and showing how they are dumb.
But imo even if there are always circumstances we humans can decide.
Sartre even if I think his theories are a bit simple said "Man is condemned to be free, he always has a choice and make choices. Putting the responsibility on circumstances is being dishonest".
I personally think it's true. OK in some cases with diseases of the brain etc... the level of responsibility of someone can be tricky to find but I still think everyone should think like that and stop being passive and fatalist regarding their actions an their life :
"Oh, it can't be helped." "I was not thinking at that time." etc...
Not thinking and ignoring things is also a choice, people always forget that so okay there are always determined things but we humans have the chance to think and decide.
|
On July 05 2013 01:03 biology]major wrote:
for something to be in the physical world it has to be observable, quantifiable. Our experiences are not observable by anyone other than the person experiencing. Either mind is separate from our physical reality, or this is a simulated reality occurring because of the mind.
Black matter is not immediately observable and yet it seems to be part of the physical world. It's also possible that some physical realities will remain outside of our ability to observe and study things for various reasons.
Would you say that an animal's perspective is also outside of the physical world because only the animal has its own perspective? Just wondering.
But yeah essentially it's not true that something has to be observable and quantifiable to be a physical reality because we don't have perfect tools.
|
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with.
|
On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with.
It's not necessarily religious no. For some people, it is.
|
On July 05 2013 01:00 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 00:31 D10 wrote:On July 05 2013 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On July 04 2013 15:25 zbedlam wrote:On July 04 2013 14:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 04 2013 14:25 Djzapz wrote:
A popular suggestion seems to be that since we don't know, we can invent an answer and that one does not require evidence. Quite peculiar. Seems like an even cooler suggestion is that we can build on the evidence we have to predict and pursue the answers that currently elude us based on whatever makes most sense given the available information. I believe he is implying spiritualism is quite a peculiar phenomenon that makes no sense. I could be wrong though. No, I was just saying that people don't like to be ignorant, so they make stuff up to feel like they know. Oh the irony It hurts lol what, I didn't make any statement of belief here and whenever I stated my position earlier in the thread, I admitted that there's no way to know for sure... It couldn't possibly be less ironic. Yet ironically, you seem to assume that you know things about me. But please do explain yourself. It's always sad when people make a nonsensical statement and then leave the thread.
Dispite the fact that I quoted you, it wasant aimed at you.
|
On July 05 2013 01:13 i zig zag around you wrote:
now that people are referring to the "physical world" and the "mind", i have to ask, is this a religious debate? i'm quite confused. i would like to participate in the argument over the existence of the "brain", if that is what you are referring to when you write "mind", but if this is a religious debate i have very little to contribute with.
Dualism is not always religious.
You have religious dualism with the body / corpse mortal inferior to the soul which is the mix of the conscience, mind, reasoning, feelings all coming from God / heaven and also eternal (since monotheist religions).
Popular dualism with the body, sensible things and the matter in general inferior to the soul which is the reasoning, mind etc... coming this time from the world of ideas and truth, the soul capable of finding this truth lost at birth (since antiquity and before).
Cartesian dualism with the body / matter in general and the soul which is a non-spatial substance that thinks.
There are more dualisms but these are the main ones (or at least in France / Europe).
|
On July 05 2013 01:31 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2013 01:00 Djzapz wrote:On July 05 2013 00:31 D10 wrote:On July 05 2013 00:26 Djzapz wrote:On July 04 2013 15:25 zbedlam wrote:On July 04 2013 14:41 FallDownMarigold wrote:On July 04 2013 14:25 Djzapz wrote:
A popular suggestion seems to be that since we don't know, we can invent an answer and that one does not require evidence. Quite peculiar. Seems like an even cooler suggestion is that we can build on the evidence we have to predict and pursue the answers that currently elude us based on whatever makes most sense given the available information. I believe he is implying spiritualism is quite a peculiar phenomenon that makes no sense. I could be wrong though. No, I was just saying that people don't like to be ignorant, so they make stuff up to feel like they know. Oh the irony It hurts lol what, I didn't make any statement of belief here and whenever I stated my position earlier in the thread, I admitted that there's no way to know for sure... It couldn't possibly be less ironic. Yet ironically, you seem to assume that you know things about me. But please do explain yourself. It's always sad when people make a nonsensical statement and then leave the thread. Dispite the fact that I quoted you, it wasant aimed at you.
Oh I see what you were doing. Sorry my bad.
|
On July 05 2013 00:25 matsushi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 23:41 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 22:51 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 22:27 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 22:14 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 21:59 xM(Z wrote:On July 04 2013 21:50 lebowskiguy wrote:On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that? If the universe is deterministic then our actions are unavoidable; if it is probabilistic then what we do is based in randomness. If the universe is a combination of the two then again there's no conceivable way in which we could be held responsible for our actions, there is no free will. why can't we choose a possibility in a probabilistic universe? probabilistic in physics means randomness, not choice among possibilities. If the brain worked with the laws of quantum mechanics that would mean that it is throwing dice to make decisions instead of being the direct result of all past events(determinism). For example a potential killer would be a dice roller when he catches his wife on the act of sex with the neighbor , depending on the outcome he kills her or not, whereas the deterministic view would say that it is unavoidable that he kills her or not by everything that has happened in the universe until now. There really is no model in physics to support the concept of free will (or of the soul for that matter) i get what you're saying but that doesn't really answer anything because i could just say that i disagree with your definition of dice, dice rolling ... i could say that i roll it and you can't, your physics can't prove otherwise. edit: argnaergaerg, i should start to refresh more often this... makes no sense. I really don't understand what you are saying here, maybe if you rephrased it? You have a different definition of dice? Is your brain different than mine in nature? it's not easy for me to argue against a half deterministic half probabilistic universe since it's what i believe in (99,9%) but fuck if i can let go of my free will. . (i'm determined to keep it!). this: On July 04 2013 23:02 figq wrote:
Yes, for sure.
1. Humans tend to overestimate their own significance. (the same dice, the universal dice, i' m rolling it). semantics!. if you wan't a dice definition then provide a 'probability' definition (as a universal concept). are probabilities infinite?, if they aren't, then why?, what limits them?. if they are infinite, then there has to exist a possibility in which i roll the dice else it's cheating. if i doesn't exist, then the universe is doing everything, rolling the dice and talking to you on these forums so it wouldn't matter anyway. + Show Spoiler +(i said somewhere in the middle of this topic that i consider free will as taking an action not making a decision. then someone else jumped in and said that the only debate to be had is around the decision making. i disagree with that but went along with it since as far as i was concerned the decision making was determined anyway. i still don't know why decision making > action taking) The deterministic vs probabilistic reasoning is such a false dichotomy lol. Personally, I don't really like paradigms that work using induction because the reasoning often feels quite flimsy, so while I guess it makes sense to an extent, I still don't believe in the whole "no free will" thing. I feel that we just know far too little about the nature of reality to make sweeping conclusions like that.
nope!, don't quit while you're ahead. it's both deterministic and probabilistic.
once a probability is rolled its outcome becomes determined, it's as simple as that.
|
On July 04 2013 20:38 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2013 19:56 lebowskiguy wrote:
There is no conceivable way for free will to exist; whether the universe is fully partly or not at all deterministic or probabilistic is completely irrelevant. Why is that?
It just doesn't make sense. Everything has an ultimate cause, whether determined or random, that we don't have control over. Our genes and environment make up our brain, our brain makes up our self, electrical firings cause thoughts and actions that were themselves caused by other firings going back your whole life and beyond.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
