EPTIs the mind all chemical and electricity? - Page 79
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 15 2013 10:53 oneofthem wrote: the biology is simple. if it's not simple, ie the brain is chemical and electricity plus gravity and particle X, then the thread would probably be changed to "is the mind all chemical and electricity plus gravity and particle X." Speaking of simplicity, I had a thought: As pi is an irrational number which is non-repeating and doesn't have any (as proved by mathematics up to this point) non-random distribution of digits, one could map every piece of information in the universe to distinct sequences contained in pi (one could actually encode all information in the universe in pi by this kind of method, totally hypothetically, but that doesn't matter). By this metric, pi is more complex (i.e. less simple) than anything in the universe, and is more complex than the entire physical universe in the sense of all the facts about energy/matter that exist pertaining to the universe (discovered or undiscovered) because there will always be an infinite number of unused sequences (given that energy is always conserved and the universe is finite implies that we can get a pretty meaningful representation of the information in the universe using finitely many elements). But think of it this way: find any circle, anywhere, be it in your mind or on a piece of paper. Pi is the circumference of that circle divided by the diameter of that circle. Every damn time. So from that point of view, it's simple and complex ^.^. I know it's not a bulletproof analogy since this idea would require a super-complex system to assign things to different sequences and identify them etc. etc., but it's cool to think about... >< | ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
On July 15 2013 10:53 oneofthem wrote: the biology is simple. if it's not simple, ie the brain is chemical and electricity plus gravity and particle X, then the thread would probably be changed to "is the mind all chemical and electricity plus gravity and particle X." Yes, so simple the president is dedicating $100 million while the EU is dedicating 1.2 billion euros and a decade to mapping it. Not understanding it, not confirming what we already know, just mapping. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On July 15 2013 10:50 coverpunch wrote: I'm not sure why this thread had to devolve into a purely philosophical argument between free will and determinism. Almost nobody in this thread is even referring to biological facts any more. That's because most people here are in agreement over the fact that it is entirely part of the physical world. This led people to discuss the details of the workings of the physical world (in particular causality vs causality and randomness) and the consequences of the brain being entirely part of the physical world with regards to human decision-making (free will vs no free will, and discussions over the meaning of free will). | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
On July 15 2013 12:12 coverpunch wrote: Yes, so simple the president is dedicating $100 million while the EU is dedicating 1.2 billion euros and a decade to mapping it. Not understanding it, not confirming what we already know, just mapping. Simple on a fundamental level, incredibly complex on a systems-wide level. It's not the brain's biology that is really complex, it is the information processing. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On July 14 2013 22:22 Reason wrote: Yeah, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore. your definition Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused. every time you use a notion that doesn't follow the deterministic logic of cause and effect, that notion comes from nondeterminism. shit like "greater good" , "common sense" , "value" , "subjectivity" , "objectivity" , "justice" , "singularity" and so on and so forth, do not follow the cause and effect narrative. and, if you'd want to include those notions inside your determinism you'd have to: -at micro level you'd have to prove how did atoms came to have those notions (else you'll have to argue about form being more then the sum of its parts, as i said earlier) -at marco level you'd have to know the cause of the singularity. any concept that allows for either the cause or the effect to be unknown, comes from nondeterminism. On July 15 2013 10:41 oneofthem wrote: it's just that assigning moral responsibility, representing some scenario as action, engages a peculiar cognitive system. the defenders of "the mind is all chemistry and electricity" statement, would prove how that cognitive system you use to assign moral responsibility is driven by determined subconscious neuronal patterns. as in, determinism doesn't have agents or, it's its own agent. this "de-agentizing" does not happen just with determinism. culture, intoxication, mental disease, upbringing, etc etc "outside factors" all have this effect. as soon as you describe the same situation with a causal system that dose not involve actors and agents, the responsibility disappears. but since we're talking about determinism, those outside factors = nondeterminism. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On July 15 2013 00:51 DoubleReed wrote: What? Whaaaaaat??? Could someone please explain this to me? Preferably not xM(Z who will only confuse me more. I don't even know what this could possibly mean. I like to think I'm an imaginative guy, but I am completely at a loss of possible meanings here. He said evolution requires deterministic and non-deterministic inputs. When people said "Huh?" he explained by saying it is akin to software in binary notation: a string of all 0s or all 1s won't produce anything of interest; you need both. The problem is, he's explaining the wrong thing. He's elaborating on the concept of binary notation rather than why evolution would require deterministic and non-deterministic input. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On July 15 2013 17:45 xM(Z wrote: every time you use a notion that doesn't follow the deterministic logic of cause and effect, that notion comes from nondeterminism. shit like "greater good" , "common sense" , "value" , "subjectivity" , "objectivity" , "justice" , "singularity" and so on and so forth, do not follow the cause and effect narrative. Restating your opinion is not helping. Let's pick a simple one: "value". Explain why the value of A as measured by B cannot be deterministic. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 15 2013 17:45 xM(Z wrote: your definition every time you use a notion that doesn't follow the deterministic logic of cause and effect, that notion comes from nondeterminism. shit like "greater good" , "common sense" , "value" , "subjectivity" , "objectivity" , "justice" , "singularity" and so on and so forth, do not follow the cause and effect narrative. Incorrect, all of them follow the logic of cause and effect. Your upbringing, past experiences, mood etc => your current opinions => what you consider greater good subjectively, what you consider valuable, justice. Remove the personal opinions, that's objectivity. Singularity? Depends on what singularity. In the case of a black hole, it's most certainly caused. You're not bringing anything to the argument by taking random aspects of life and claiming they aren't deterministic without any basis, you're just wasting everyones time. I look forward to your nonsensical answer. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 15 2013 11:52 Shiori wrote: Speaking of simplicity, I had a thought: As pi is an irrational number which is non-repeating and doesn't have any (as proved by mathematics up to this point) non-random distribution of digits, one could map every piece of information in the universe to distinct sequences contained in pi (one could actually encode all information in the universe in pi by this kind of method, totally hypothetically, but that doesn't matter). By this metric, pi is more complex (i.e. less simple) than anything in the universe, and is more complex than the entire physical universe in the sense of all the facts about energy/matter that exist pertaining to the universe (discovered or undiscovered) because there will always be an infinite number of unused sequences (given that energy is always conserved and the universe is finite implies that we can get a pretty meaningful representation of the information in the universe using finitely many elements). But think of it this way: find any circle, anywhere, be it in your mind or on a piece of paper. Pi is the circumference of that circle divided by the diameter of that circle. Every damn time. So from that point of view, it's simple and complex ^.^. I know it's not a bulletproof analogy since this idea would require a super-complex system to assign things to different sequences and identify them etc. etc., but it's cool to think about... >< That is indeed cool! Can you suggest a way to "decrypt" Pi? How would you write Pythagoras' theorem using numbers 1-9? Theoretically you could use any key or language and you would still find all the information in the universe within Pi so you every one you create would eventually work. Okay maybe this will be quite difficult... On July 15 2013 17:45 xM(Z wrote: your definition every time you use a notion that doesn't follow the deterministic logic of cause and effect, that notion comes from nondeterminism. shit like "greater good" , "common sense" , "value" , "subjectivity" , "objectivity" , "justice" , "singularity" and so on and so forth, do not follow the cause and effect narrative. and, if you'd want to include those notions inside your determinism you'd have to: -at micro level you'd have to prove how did atoms came to have those notions (else you'll have to argue about form being more then the sum of its parts, as i said earlier) -at marco level you'd have to know the cause of the singularity. any concept that allows for either the cause or the effect to be unknown, comes from nondeterminism. the defenders of "the mind is all chemistry and electricity" statement, would prove how that cognitive system you use to assign moral responsibility is driven by determined subconscious neuronal patterns. as in, determinism doesn't have agents or, it's its own agent. but since we're talking about determinism, those outside factors = nondeterminism. I don't see why you think these things "don't follow the cause and effect narrative". There are no "outside factors" or "nondeterminism" within determinism, so what you're saying literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. It seems like you're trying to use determinism to disprove itself and that's just never going to work. It's not self contradictory and doesn't even begin to affect half the stuff you're talking about. Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible – merely predictable in theory. Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. I don't see how this has any bearing on justice, objectivity, value etc and I don't think you need to prove anything to have a discussion about determinism or look at thing from a deterministic point of view since it's a metaphysical philosophical position and not scientific fact. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On July 15 2013 17:46 Umpteen wrote: He said evolution requires deterministic and non-deterministic inputs. When people said "Huh?" he explained by saying it is akin to software in binary notation: a string of all 0s or all 1s won't produce anything of interest; you need both. The problem is, he's explaining the wrong thing. He's elaborating on the concept of binary notation rather than why evolution would require deterministic and non-deterministic input. yes, it's because (and using very broad terminology here), i assign groups of people to each of those believes: determinism and nondeterminism (looking back in history those categories have always existed) and then see them perform tasks in an environment.  determinists are limited by their inability to have vision and nondeterminists by their inability to actually do something. it's roughly something like one telling the other what to do and the other doing it and then some (perfecting, efficinentize are also attributes of determinists). (i didn't want to bring that here because it's way to speculative even for me  . as in, what qualities/attributes would have to be assigned to each category, but i can speculate on demand. np) | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On July 15 2013 17:56 Reason wrote: That is indeed cool! Can you suggest a way to "decrypt" Pi? How would you write Pythagoras' theorem using numbers 1-9? Theoretically you could use any key or language and you would still find all the information in the universe within Pi so you every one you create would eventually work. Okay maybe this will be quite difficult... I don't see why you think these things "don't follow the cause and effect narrative". There are no "outside factors" or "nondeterminism" within determinism, so what you're saying literally DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. It seems like you're trying to use determinism to disprove itself and that's just never going to work. It's not self contradictory and doesn't even begin to affect half the stuff you're talking about. Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible – merely predictable in theory. Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. I don't see how this has any bearing on justice, objectivity, value etc and I don't think you need to prove anything to have a discussion about determinism or look at thing from a deterministic point of view since it's a metaphysical philosophical position and not scientific fact. honestly now, you fit perfectly in my evolutionary example. instead of accepting what i'm saying you're changing your deffinition of determinism by adding prediction and such. it's funny to say the least. (if i were to ask you for an example of that, you'd give me a prediction from within a known cause and effect system )but, no one is 100% into determinism or nondeterminism (if they were, they'd be considered bugs) so lets say that you using the word prediction is some form of common language between both sides. | ||
|
Tobberoth
Sweden6375 Posts
On July 15 2013 18:23 xM(Z wrote: but, no one is 100% into determinism or nondeterminism (if they were, they'd be considered bugs) so lets say that you using the word prediction is some form of common language between both sides. And once again your random ramblings show that you have no idea what the concepts even mean. No one is 100% into determinism or nondeterminism? That's weird, since they are 100% mutually exclusive. You're either a determinist, or you are not. Either you believe everything since the origin of the universe is predetermined, or you do not. You can't possibly mix the perspectives. | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 15 2013 18:23 xM(Z wrote: honestly now, you fit perfectly in my evolutionary example. instead of accepting what i'm saying you're changing your deffinition of determinism by adding prediction and such. it's funny to say the least. (if i were to ask you for an example of that, you'd give me a prediction from within a known cause and effect system )but, no one is 100% into determinism or nondeterminism (if they were, they'd be considered bugs) so lets say that you using the word prediction is some form of common language between both sides. I don't accept what you're saying because it makes zero sense to me and I've explained why. I'm not changing my definition of determinism, it makes me really sad to hear you say that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism + Show Spoiler + choice excerpts: Determinism should not be confused with self-determination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires. Determinism rarely requires that perfect prediction be practically possible – merely predictable in theory. Causal determinism is "the idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature".[3] However, causal determinism is a broad enough term to consider that "one's deliberations, choices, and actions will often be necessary links in the causal chain that brings something about. In other words, even though our deliberations, choices, and actions are themselves determined like everything else, it is still the case, according to causal determinism, that the occurrence or existence of yet other things depends upon our deliberating, choosing and acting in a certain way".[4] Causal determinism proposes that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. The relation between events may not be specified, nor the origin of that universe. Causal determinists believe that there is nothing uncaused or self-caused. Historical determinism (a sort of path dependence) can also be synonymous with causal determinism. ... Predeterminism is the idea that all events are determined in advance.[8][9] The concept of predeterminism is often argued by invoking causal determinism, implying that there is an unbroken chain of prior occurrences stretching back to the origin of the universe. In the case of predeterminism, this chain of events has been pre-established, and human actions cannot interfere with the outcomes of this pre-established chain. Predeterminism can be used to mean such pre-established causal determinism, in which case it is categorised as a specific type of determinism.[8][10] It can also be used interchangeably with causal determinism - in the context of its capacity to determine future events I told you way back when that I was referring to causal determinism and look... everything I've said comes from this article. Why oh why are you accusing me of changing my definition of determinism? You're the one that quoted this article to me in the first place! You just make no sense xM(Z and it doesn't seem like you're even trying to make sense. Really sad man  | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On July 15 2013 17:56 Reason wrote: That is indeed cool! Can you suggest a way to "decrypt" Pi? How would you write Pythagoras' theorem using numbers 1-9? Theoretically you could use any key or language and you would still find all the information in the universe within Pi so you every one you create would eventually work. Okay maybe this will be quite difficult... Wildly off-topic, but fun Pretty sure what you're saying is wrong though. Lazy proof: 1. For it to be guaranteed that Pi could map any key/language to the state of the universe, Pi would need to contain all possible integer sequences. Let K be a key which maps the integer n to something that does not exist in the universe. From 1) Pi contains n infinitely many times in all possible contexts, therefore K will not map Pi to the current state of the universe. Basically Pi contains too much. Culling it correctly would be entirely down to the key/language, therefore it would be the key/language that would actually represent the state of the universe, not Pi. | ||
|
Umpteen
United Kingdom1570 Posts
On July 15 2013 18:13 xM(Z wrote: yes, it's because (and using very broad terminology here), i assign groups of people to each of those believes: determinism and nondeterminism (looking back in history those categories have always existed) and then see them perform tasks in an environment. determinists are limited by their inability to have vision and nondeterminists by their inability to actually do something. Ok, we're definitely getting somewhere EG: Apple on floor. I see the apple, I imagine eating it, I pick it up and eat it. You're thinking that in a purely deterministic universe the apple would remain on the floor. This is incorrect. In a deterministic universe the 'vision' and ensuing cascade of impulses are also deterministic; there is no alternative deterministic future that I 'dodged' by eating the apple. You're free to say you believe the vision wasn't deterministic, but you cannot say it certainly was not, which is what you need to support your opinion. | ||
|
Vandrad
Germany951 Posts
On July 01 2013 10:13 SergioCQH wrote: Why? Why does one need anything more when what we have is already so wonderful? Because when you die you will just rot away like everything else? | ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
On July 15 2013 18:37 Umpteen wrote: Wildly off-topic, but fun Pretty sure what you're saying is wrong though. Lazy proof: 1. For it to be guaranteed that Pi could map any key/language to the state of the universe, Pi would need to contain all possible integer sequences. Let K be a key which maps the integer n to something that does not exist in the universe. From 1) Pi contains n infinitely many times in all possible contexts, therefore K will not map Pi to the current state of the universe. Basically Pi contains too much. Culling it correctly would be entirely down to the key/language, therefore it would be the key/language that would actually represent the state of the universe, not Pi. I don't get it .... =( | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On July 15 2013 18:48 Umpteen wrote: Ok, we're definitely getting somewhere EG: Apple on floor. I see the apple, I imagine eating it, I pick it up and eat it. You're thinking that in a purely deterministic universe the apple would remain on the floor. This is incorrect. In a deterministic universe the 'vision' and ensuing cascade of impulses are also deterministic; there is no alternative deterministic future that I 'dodged' by eating the apple. You're free to say you believe the vision wasn't deterministic, but you cannot say it certainly was not, which is what you need to support your opinion. very broad terminology!, by vision i didn't mean: the prophets came to me in a vision .still, In a deterministic universe the 'vision' and ensuing cascade of impulses are also deterministic that is up to debate. it is debatable and always was debatable; i say it'll always will be. your example involves a 'human vs environment' scenario. it's not really what i'm talking about but to give you and answer using your example, i'd say im fine with uncertainty. | ||
| ||
