Determinism

[TheBigDog]

While the argument of infinite variability is true, I don't think it is necessary to prove that determinism does not rule the human mind.

 

Put a person into the most controlled environment. Give them two choices with ANY motivation you choose to get them to pick A over B. There will always be a portion of the population that will not choose the way you would intend. This is regardless of how you act to motivate them. Compounding the most basic yes or no decision with more variables simply brings us further from being able to predict the outcome.

 

Bill

[pgrmdave]

But our choices are merely electrical firings and chemical interactions. They are not an indicator of a non-deterministic universe.

[TheBigDog]

But our choices are merely electrical firings and chemical interactions. They are not an indicator of a non-deterministic universe.

Then you should be able to eliminate all variation in the above experiment. If you cannot then there is more at play in the human mind than can be predicted with a formula.

 

Bill

[Buffy]

But our choices are merely electrical firings and chemical interactions.

...both of which are subect to quantum effects, so:

They are not an indicator of a non-deterministic universe.

...therefore I don't agree that this conclusion follows at all...

 

Here and there,

Buffy

[pgrmdave]

Just because you cannot eliminate variation doesn't mean that it's not deterministic. I am not God. I cannot affect electrons at their level, I can't stop radiation, I can't change the tiny fluctuations in gravity. These things all have an effect, however small, on the experiment. Besides which, people are not all the same. Our brains are set up differently. Even if you raised identical twins in nearly identical environments, they would still be different becaues their environments would be different - the air molecules would move in a different pattern, the temperature might be different. Any number of tiny differences can add up to a big difference over time. Just because we cannot predict a system does not mean that the system is unpredictable.

[pgrmdave]

Buffy, whether or not you agree with the premise of determinism, I think that my logic still stands - the 'choices' made by humans are not an indicator of a non-deterministic universe anymore than the 'choices' made by any neural network.

[Buffy]

the 'choices' made by humans are not an indicator of a non-deterministic universe anymore than the 'choices' made by any neural network.

True, I'd absolutely agree that that single observation on its own does not constitute strong evidence that the universe is non-deterministic, but we can't resolve the question by insisting that only certain evidence be considered. I think that dismissing my point does not help show that the universe is deterministic either! But if we consider the underlying mechanisms that you list in your post, and consider that the evidence *strongly* indicates that those processes are non-deterministic, then you have a strong argument that this is evidence for non-deterministic behavior of individuals, which we would self-servingly but justifiably interpret as "Free Will"...

 

A person's a person no matter how small, :shrug:

Buffy

[TheBigDog]

If the universe is deterministic, what is the point of making people agree with that? Should that knowledge change the way we think or act?

 

It tells me that all actions are predestined, and that my thought are an illusion. ANY aciton I take no matter how praiseworthy or henious is not my own, but is the grand game of physics being played out.

 

If the world is not deterministic then my decisions matter, and they do have an effect on the outcome of the future.

 

If the universe is deterministic then I should rob the bank on way home tonight. After all, it is my destiny to rob the bank. My thought process and my values have no say in the matter. So I should just go ahead and do it. Do I land in prison? If I end up inn prison then I was going to end up there anyway. My thoughts have no bearing on the outcome of the future. After all, they are not even thoughts. They are an illusion.

 

But if the world is not deterministic then I drive straight home. I hug my kids and kiss my wife. I teach them to see right from wrong and to choose well to protect theri own futures. And everything I do has a purpose. Every decision I make has a responsibility, and a price or reward attached to it.

 

What world do you want for yourself? One in which you your meaningless, or one in which you have meaning? No matter which one may prove in the end to be true, I choose to have meaning. I choose free will.

 

Bill

[pgrmdave]

That's not determinism, that's fatalism. I don't think that it is anything more than a truth - it has no moral meaning behind it. And determinism doesn't make my life meaningless, nor would not being deterministic give me meaning. Regardless of determinism, I still feel like I make decisions, I still try to do the right thing, inasmuch as a determinist can try. I don't see how determinism creates a meaningless life, unless you take it from the scientific and make it philosophical (fatalism).

[Jehu]

Jehu:

There are people working in astronomical observatories, these people interact with events from millions of light years away, they also function socially, the internal mental component by which individuals perceive and model the universe is changed by this. Reality, in order to be deterministic, necessarilly extends beyond awareness and knowledge.

Please, I am not claiming that the things that we perceive about us do not exist, but only that they do not possess an absolute, and therefore real existence, by this I mean that the have no inherent substance, and so can have no inherent properties. Imagine that you were watching a movie, and in that film there were numerous entities moving about and interacting, you would not claim that those entities were real, would you? But if you were not aware that it was a movie you were witnessing, your mind would be compelled, by inductive reasoning, to posit the existence of such entities, along with their properties, in order to explain the appearance of interaction.

A system consisting of only awareness and knowledge, contains no object, other than itself, to know or be aware of, it can not change, it is purely definitional. There exist definitions of "zero", zero contains nothing, it can do nothing, if isolated it will never be able to do anything, it is fully determined, nevertheless it does not exist except as a conceptual convenience, it is the epitome of non-existence. A deterministic system is not a static entity.

Good, now you are hitting upon the heart of this doctrine. You are entirely right when you say that a deterministic system cannot be static. However, a cognitive reality, may be shown to be necessarily static at the absolute level, while necessarily dynamic at the contingent level. Such a state is permissible, because that which comprises the dynamic content of the absolute entity is merely contingent, illusory, not real. Consequently, this contingent content (things) may undergo indefinite and continuous alteration, without compromising the immutable status of reality as a whole.

 

The cognizant elements of awareness and knowledge, being both interdependent and complementary, must take one another as their objects. The process whereby this takes place is evolutionary, and quite remarkable in its effect. Let me give you concrete example of such a system at work. Common ink, in its liquid form, has a perceptible content and an indeterminate structure. That same ink may then been committed to paper and become the perceptible content of a letter (a, b, c, …z). Now, this letter comprises nothing but ink, but because of it structure, it now signifies a sound made in human speech. These same letters may now be combined to form the perceptible content of words, and still there is nothing there but the original ink, but the words now signify a meaning or association. These words may now be incorporated into sentences, which signify complete thoughts, but still there is nothing there but ink. In this example, the content (ink) is formed in to structures (letters), these structures then become the content of more complex structure, and so on, all the way to the paragraph. Now surely you can see the parallel between the evolutionary process at work in this textual example, and the evolutionary process at work within the physical world.

In your final two paragraphs, you appear to be saying that you can demonstrate a contradiction in Descartes' metaphysics, while interesting, that isn't the topic of this thread. It would certainly be worth pursuing on new thread.

I am sorry if I gave you this impression. I assure you I have no interest in refuting Descartes’ Dualism, I would only say that when he posited the existence of his own body, he went beyond would could be known by sensibility alone, an so entered into the realm of inductive inference (supposition).

[Jehu]

You are QUITE well aware that is NOT my point. Don't toy with me. That is not a FACT, but an expression of religious faith. There is no evidence for any universal law of causation. Afraid not. Though I admit that your logic appears plausible. But you are lacking any understanding of the math behind all this. it is not so. For example, what is the position of a dust mote? Its X-coordinate position may be relative to anything, say the center of the Earth. Doesn't matter. Now, what is X "exactly"? X = 4,007.38326572028302880271110845723048... How far do you go? If you want X "exactly" it must be forever. How do you store a number with an infinite number of digits? Assume every neutron in the universe can be used to store a 0 or 1. There are only 10^80 neutrons in the visible universe. What if the universe were hard-packed with neutrons? You could store a number with 10^110 digits -- BUT YOU STILL HAVE NOT STATED THE VALUE OF X EXACTLY. AN INFINITE NUMBER OF DIGITS IS REQUIRED! Therefore your assumption is FALSE. You cannot even in principle state exactly the position of that dust mote in even one dimension. I just gave you one.That would be false as well. C'mon, borrow a copy of Gleick's book "Chaos". It is NOT that difficult to read. There's a junior in high school in my church who has read it and understood it.

First let me say that I am not aware of your point, in fact, I have difficulty make sense of nearly everything you say. Your manner is aggressive and confrontational, and you seem so bent upon peddling your own beliefs, that you are unable to see anything else. You do not seem to understand even the most basic logical operators, such as the conditional “if” in my pervious statements. You have somehow inferred that because I have a deep understanding of eastern metaphysics, that I must be expounding “religious beliefs”, which merely illustrates you lack of proficiency in inductive reasoning. You state that my logic “seems plausible”, but you reject it without providing so much as a hint as to why, let alone a refutation. Now I would ask you to either engage me in a meaningful way, or be so kind as to simply ignore me, for it is clear that you think me a fool.

 

Jehu

[TheBigDog]

That's not determinism, that's fatalism. I don't think that it is anything more than a truth - it has no moral meaning behind it. And determinism doesn't make my life meaningless, nor would not being deterministic give me meaning. Regardless of determinism, I still feel like I make decisions, I still try to do the right thing, inasmuch as a determinist can try. I don't see how determinism creates a meaningless life, unless you take it from the scientific and make it philosophical (fatalism).

Either you have free will or you don't. The name you call the opposite of free will is unimportant. They have the same effect. If you believe that you have no free will, but believe you are in fact making decisions then you are living with a paradox that I cannot rationalize for myself.

 

Good luck with it! :cocktail:

 

Bill

[ughaibu]

Jehu: You dont know where your parents were on this date and at this time 30 years ago, do you? You dont know what they were doing. You dont know what the weather was like on any particular day, for any location, on Earth before any form of life existed, do you? There is no possibility of ever becoming aware of those things, is there? Certainly, one can claim those things have no reality, not even the illusory reality associated with knowledge or awareness, yet those things are an essential element of reality/the universe, even for indeterminists such as myself, because reality exists in time. The question of determinism/indeterminism primarilly concerns the nature of change with time, determinism requires absolute compliance by all entities and effects in all locations of space and time, awareness and knowledge have nothing to do with it.

You describe yourself as a philosopher and appear to have great respect for logic, so you will be aware that logic proceeds by very short, simple and uncontrovertable stages, please try to construct your posts similarly, to the point and without vague terminology, because I still cant see how your posts relate to determinism, reality or infinity.

[ughaibu]

Jehu: About your analogy: once you take the ink out of it's pot, you introduce paper, pen, writer, the writer's parents, etc, etc, they all become part of the system. The ink in the pot can do nothing as a system in itself.

[Jehu]

Jehu: You dont know where your parents were on this date and at this time 30 years ago, do you? You dont know what they were doing. You dont know what the weather was like on any particular day, for any location, on Earth before any form of life existed, do you? There is no possibility of ever becoming aware of those things, is there? Certainly, one can claim those things have no reality, not even the illusory reality associated with knowledge or awareness, yet those things are an essential element of reality/the universe, even for indeterminists such as myself, because reality exists in time. The question of determinism/indeterminism primarilly concerns the nature of change with time, determinism requires absolute compliance by all entities and effects in all locations of space and time, awareness and knowledge have nothing to do with it.

You describe yourself as a philosopher and appear to have great respect for logic, so you will be aware that logic proceeds by very short, simple and uncontrovertable stages, please try to construct your posts similarly, to the point and without vague terminology, because I still cant see how your posts relate to determinism, reality or infinity.

 

I agree with you completely, logic does proceed by short, simple and uncontrovertibly stages, but as you are aware, if one set out from a faulty premise, no matter how skilful one’s reasoning, one will fall into a logical pit. Now, for all the claims made by realists, such as yourself, that they are entirely certain as to where the stand, they have in truth all set out from a mere supposition. Every science is founded upon principles or axioms that are taken to be true, not because they have been logically demonstrated, but because that is how things appear to be (the appeal to self-evidence).

 

You hold a certain worldview, this worldview has been accepted by generation upon generation, and has become so entrenched as to be beyond abolition. Now, someone comes along and says maybe this is not true, and you immediately become deaf. You say, “how can such a thing be?” You ask for an explanation, but you cannot hear it, but your worldview will not allow it. In any event, I thank you for you’re having at least made the attempt, for it is more than most realists are willing to do, and I shall leave to your enquiry. Perhaps, one day, we may be able to go into it again.

 

Regards, Jehu

[IDMclean]

A question: What of thought?

 

If you believe that your neurons make up your thoughts then, determinism becomes fatalism and if you allow (surrender your control) your responsiblities to be pushed off of you, then your moral fiber degenerates spontaniously, because you are no longer in control, you have rationalized your control away. You have chosen not to chose, that is action and should be met with reaction.

 

Now an alternative.

Do androids dream of electric sheep? What if you thoughts were not determined by neuronal impulses? what if your thoughts were the sum of you, in essence. What if you have choice in this deterministic system? What then?

[Buffy]

If you believe that your neurons make up your thoughts then, determinism becomes fatalism and if you allow (surrender your control) your responsiblities to be pushed off of you, then your moral fiber degenerates spontaniously, because you are no longer in control, you have rationalized your control away.

This is an important point, and brings up the issue that "fatalism" can come from *either* a deterministic or non-deterministic world-view!

 

If its all predestined, then there's no choice therefore any choice of action doesn't matter.

 

If its all random, then any choice is equivalent to any other, therefore the choice doesn't matter.

 

Fatalism is its own disease, and even if everything is predetermined, you're better of not succumbing to it.

 

Positively random street,

Buffy