Physics, free-will and individuality.

reply to post by Astyanax

The word 'unnatural' is meaningless. We are a part of nature, and nothing we do can ever be unnatural.

yeah - OK - bad word choice - or was it?

this has been on my mind (or somewhere) for a very long time - and I'm still unable to figure out a way - using words - to explain my thinking

natural - with extra baggage

I understand why that won't work

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

natural - with extra baggage

I understand why that won't work

Just 'natural' will do.

Nature doesn't have an objective that anyone can see. It doesn't have morals or a plan. It doesn't even have taste, or decency, or a sense of proportion; it came up with quasars and viruses, it invented sex.

No, nature is just a grotesque, bring-it-on opportunist. If it can be done, Nature will do it and damn the consequences.

And in this, we humans are as natural as Paul Newman's blue eyes.

reply to post by Astyanax

...It doesn't have morals or a plan... If it can be done, Nature will do it and damn the consequences.

absolutely

...Nature doesn't have an objective that anyone can see.

thought I'd emphasize this because I'm self indulgent - and it's not like you to open a door - or even a window

I almost consider it a gift

And in this, we humans are as natural as Paul Newman's blue eyes.

interesting example - but, they are remarkable

so - free will...

I'm almost tired enough to give up on the concept altogether

almost

The conclusion is unavoidable. The OP is correct. Free will does not exist. Yet we must (because we can only) behave as if it does.

now, I don't know if this statement got to anyone else - but it hooked me and I can't stop thinking about it

not sure where to go with it, but...same difference?

Even if our sciences suggest everything is determinable (which OF COURSE it would, because science is not about the unpredictable), it is demonstrable that no one can predict what I am going to do next.

No one can predict what I am going to do next.

This is scientifically demonstrable and can be verified by experiment.


It is one thing to say we do not yet have the theoretical capacity to determine what I may do next, and quite another to say that what I am going to do is determinable anyway. How can any of you pretend to know that? Quite frankly none of you know that this is true, or at least none of you could scientifically (empirically) defend that statement. That much I can tell you all right now.


Edit to add:

Here is a donkey:



[edit on 17-10-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11


I'm not pretending to know anything - I just like thinking about it

I especially like thinking about stuff I know for sure I can't know

which is why - as I mentioned earlier - the statement:

The conclusion is unavoidable. The OP is correct. Free will does not exist. Yet we must (because we can only) behave as if it does.

is interesting to think about - granted, maybe only interesting to me

even if you don't agree that free will doesn't exist -

it's not hard to understand how and why we could take that for granted - even if it was just for the sake of this argument

it does make a certain amount of sense - even if it's not provable

if free will doesn't exist, but we have to live as if it did - so? what possible difference could there be between the 2 possibilities?

that's my brilliant take on the whole thing - so far

personally - I would really rather believe - and probably do believe - that it does exist

but, I can't prove that either

philosophy depends on reason

we would have to understand and agree - first - that a concept we're discussing is using pseudoscience, if we've determined that pseudoscience is not to be used to make our argument

that's a discussion in and of itself

I mean, I can understand discussion about a philosophy. It's fun to do, but it's irritating when people think their philosophy is fact and they think that they can prove it with science.

dismissing something before we understand it - what it actually is or isn't - because it's not convenient to our argument - isn't rational

not only is that not useful to philosophy - it's not good science - pseudo or otherwise

When someone makes a claim, the burden of proof lies on them. Theories are not acknowledged until the proposer provides evidence for the claim. If people are discussing how things would happen if the theory was true, then it's fine; but, the problem arises when people pass on their philosophy as fact. To do otherwise is a logical fallacy. I pointed this out earlier, and here's an example:

Person A: Purple flying monkeys control the planet from Pluto.

Person B: Prove that they do.

Person A: You can't prove that they can't, so it's still a valid theory!

if you looked into it a little more - you would see that science and philosophy have a lot in common - and can work very well together

I agree that philosophy can help to motivate people, depending on the philosophy, but many philosophies are not testable and therefore do not fall into the realm of science. Philosophy also allows for a lot of critical thinking which is very good.

philosophy is also a search for the truth - and it doesn't rely on what's comfortable any more than science does

Science uses the rigorous scientfiic method to find answers while philosophy does not. Maybe there are some philosophies that can be tested with the scientific method, but I don't know of any.

in fact - philosophy can be downright uncomfortable

You know it!

you should do some research on philosophy - I think it's something that might genuinely interest you

Yeah, I've been reading up on existentialism. Got any other interesitng ones?

[edit on 18-10-2008 by Syntax123]

reply to post by Syntax123


we agree more than we disagree

I mean, I can understand discussion about a philosophy. It's fun to do, but it's irritating when people think their philosophy is fact and they think that they can prove it with science.

I'm no philosopher - I'm not even a student of philosophy - I have no background or education in it whatsoever - I'm sure that's obvious to most

and I am definitely not a scientist - but I love science

the reason any of it interests me at all is - I like thinking about things that either aren't understood - or possibly can't even be understood

I like trying to unravel things that can't be unraveled

I like hearing other people's ideas and opinions about all of the above

exploring all of these mysteries can at times involve both science and philosophy - and while philosophy doesn't use the same procedures, or go by the same standards as science - it does have a rational and logical approach - even when discussing subjects that don't appear to be rational or logical

philosophy isn't science - it never will be - so it's possible to actually contemplate and discuss things in a way that science can't - and shouldn't

to me, it's at it's best when exploring us - what it means to be human

it can create new areas for science to explore - just by wondering - and trying to understand

it can wonder and science can explain

neither one of them should expect the other to be something it's not

and all ideas - as far as ideas go - are valid

it's completely fair to tear those ideas to pieces - kind of the whole point

but tossing them out before they get torn apart - seems like we might miss something - some pretty crazy ideas have been proven out by science

Yeah, I've been reading up on existentialism. Got any other interesitng ones?

I've got some existential issues myself :-)

and - you don't want to ask me - I'm interested in all of it

edit to add: I hope by now you've figured out why I was razzing you about Astyanax

if not - read through some of his posts - you'll see why I thought it was funny



[edit on 10/18/2008 by Spiramirabilis]

reply to post by bsbray11

Even if our sciences suggest everything is determinable (which OF COURSE it would, because science is not about the unpredictable)

I give you

probability theory

statistical physics

chaos theory

Monte Carlo algorithms

random walkers

and, of course, good ole

quantum mechanics

No one can predict what I am going to do next.

That doesn't mean you have free will. The weather is notoriously unpredictable, yet utterly without volition.

The donkey was... interesting.

Originally posted by Astyanax
I give you [...]

Even all of those things just help us to predict outcomes, right? That was my point, that all of science is just in the business of elucidating things by creating formalisms that will predict behaviors autonomously. The whole implicit lie (or at least unsupported theory) here is that everything must be ultimately autonomous and can be summed up by formula and predicted. But even if this idea is untrue, science will continue to behave as though it is anyway, to advance as far as it can as what it is.

No one can predict what I am going to do next.

That doesn't mean you have free will.

Maybe not, but it shows the other argument also lacks empiricism.

The weather is notoriously unpredictable

Maybe it's alive!

[edit on 20-10-2008 by bsbray11]

reply to post by bsbray11

The weather is notoriously unpredictable...

Maybe it's alive!

I can't even begin to explain how much I love that idea

does it go any further?

reply to post by bsbray11

Even all of those things just help us to predict outcomes, right? That was my point, that all of science is just in the business of elucidating things by creating formalisms that will predict behaviors autonomously.

No, that is incorrect. Science is in the business of finding out the laws and principles underlying natural processes. This is far more than mere formalism; it is about reality*.

The term 'formalism that will predict behaviour' makes no distinction between science and mythology or magic. A myth concerning the strictly varying diurnal habits of Phoebus and his six-horse chariot could be made up based on historical data and used to predict sunrise and sunset. Or we could make up a fairytale about a divine promise to humankind in order to explain rainbows...

Besides (to be strictly formal ), chaos theory models processes; it doesn't predict outcomes. Quantum mechanics describes processes, but does not predict outcomes either. If you want a dead cat, you don't use a Schrödinger box; you use a cyanide-laced catnip mouse.

However, none of this is strictly relevant, because the conclusion that there is no free will is not drawn from science, but from philosophy. Thus: all logical courses of action undertaken by an organism must be engendered by a combination of three factors: the organism's inherent capabilities (as encoded in its genes), its individual history (with attendant conditioning) and the circumstances of the moment (the net stimulus to which it is responding). Any action that is not derived from these factors is by definition random.

Science only comes into the picture because a number of scientifically established facts** tend to bear out the thesis that the self does not exist and that there is, therefore, no free will. Some of them are cited in one of my earlier posts.

Still, none of this is likely to convince someone who is not only a theist but also, apparently, a Gnostic. If there was a God, then yes, God might have free will. And of course, a miracle would occur every time He exercised it. Sadly, scientifically and forensically verifiable miracles never seem to occur, which suggests to me that God probably doesn't exist. But then, that's just my opinion.

*If you wish to know what I mean by using this contentious term, go here.

**I trust Popperites will pardon the use of this term for simplicity's sake.

reply to post by Spiramirabilis

does it go any further?

Yes, it does.

By the way, could you explain what door (or window) I opened for you by saying that natural processes are not teleological?

reply to post by Astyanax

By the way, could you explain what door (or window) I opened for you by saying that natural processes are not teleological?

funny

Nature doesn't have an objective that anyone can see.

Nature doesn't have an objective.

now, that would be classic Astyanax

not stumping for religion - I'm just not good with absolutes - I always go for the open window

I would never even imply that you were suggesting anything even remotely teleological - I know better

and thank you for the link - very indulgent of you

:-)

Gaia hypothesis - where have I been?

interesting

Originally posted by Astyanax
Science is in the business of finding out the laws and principles underlying natural processes.

Ok, so now let's separate "science" from those "natural processes." They are ultimately two separate things.

This is far more than mere formalism; it is about reality*.

It is about reality, yes, but the "laws and principles" we discover, we express scientifically through various formalisms, ie "systems" called "calculus," "geometry," "trigonometry," "vectors," "chemistry," etc. Even then, obviously, we can still be wrong.

Or we could make up a fairytale about a divine promise to humankind in order to explain rainbows...

I don't know who is making fairy tales, but if you propose that you can disprove the idea of "free will" using actual science, then you are the one chasing fairy tales. Science is not something that simply conforms to your opinion. I admit there is neither evidence for nor against, but that is something entirely different than saying therefore it does not exist. If you don't understand this logic then you don't understand the concept of empiricism at its ultimate.

Besides (to be strictly formal

), chaos theory models processes; it doesn't predict outcomes.

I know of several fields where models taken from chaos theory have been used to make sense of data that would otherwise be completely meaningless. Maths and sciences all interrelate; people know this. We also have our modern obstacles to overcome in each field; this is something else people know.

However, none of this is strictly relevant, because the conclusion that there is no free will is not drawn from science, but from philosophy.

Which philosophy?

Thus: all logical courses of action undertaken by an organism must be engendered by a combination of three factors: the organism's inherent capabilities (as encoded in its genes), its individual history (with attendant conditioning) and the circumstances of the moment (the net stimulus to which it is responding). Any action that is not derived from these factors is by definition random.

I think your model is overly simplistic and needs fleshing out into some formal system where we can play with its validity.

Quantum physics ties into our brains. All those bizarre and unpredictable things happening "down there" are also happening "in here" and there are many books out that explain this in ways I am unable to myself. I am someone who sees the merit in admitting ignorance, and this is something where there is enough information missing, and yet enough suggested at the same time, that I think forming any conclusion now is premature.

Still, none of this is likely to convince someone who is not only a theist but also, apparently, a Gnostic.

Before you start walking around on the crutch that is ad hominem, I am neither a "theist" nor a gnostic. I do not believe in god, I simply humor the word. I have studied the Bhagavad Gita, but I am not Hindu, either. I have studied Zen Buddhism but I don't consider myself Buddhist. I have also studied Taoism, and if anything I would consider myself Taoist but I even dislike that simply because of the label it creates. I have studied mythologies, etc.

I do not have a label, and so I do not have a "handle" by which you can grasp me and get a feel for what is going through my head. I know you can't, and you really shouldn't even be trying, because it's a presumptuous and distasteful form of discrimination anyway.

Sadly, scientifically and forensically verifiable miracles never seem to occur

On the contrary, they happen every instant. Which I guess might as well be to say they never happen, because what is nothing except by comparison to everything? Either concept is meaningless without the other as a reference, just as you can't have "short" without a "long" to compare it to, or a "bright" without a "dark" for comparison. If everything is bright, then you could equally say everything is dark.

Originally posted by bsbray11

Originally posted by Astyanax
This is far more than mere formalism; it is about reality*.
It is about reality, yes...

Good; we can forget about Pheobus's chariot and Jehovah's promises then.

...but the "laws and principles" we discover, we express scientifically through various formalisms, ie "systems" called "calculus," "geometry," "trigonometry," "vectors," "chemistry," etc. Even then, obviously, we can still be wrong.

Yes, we do and yes, we can. I notice you have switched from outcomes to laws and principles. So you admit that science is in the business of explaining, after all, rather than merely explaining away, as you earlier suggested. Good stuff. Onward and upward!

If you propose that you can disprove the idea of "free will" using actual science, then you are the one chasing fairy tales.

The evidence is thin, I admit, but to my mind it clearly supports the idea that there is no free will. I refer you to the links in my earlier posts, which you really ought to have read before rushing into pixel to put me in my place. When you say...

I admit there is neither evidence for nor against, but that is something entirely different than saying therefore it does not exist.

...you're wrong.

If you don't understand this logic then you don't understand the concept of empiricism at its ultimate.

Again, you will read in an earlier post on this thread that I take no position in the debate between rationalism and empiricism. It is a mistake to assume that scientifically-minded folk are automatically empiricists.

Besides (to be strictly formal

), chaos theory models processes; it doesn't predict outcomes.

I know of several fields where models taken from chaos theory have been used to make sense of data that would otherwise be completely meaningless.

That is, as I am sure you are aware, a very different thing to accurately predicting an outcome.

However, none of this is strictly relevant, because the conclusion that there is no free will is not drawn from science, but from philosophy.

Which philosophy?

How about Spinoza's famous refutation of teleology, which applies as much to humans as to, say, meteorites?

Or call it scientific naturalism [2]; some do.

It can further be seen to arise from a strict physicalist interpretation of experience.

You will also find the argument in the writings of the 'Utopian Socialist' Robert Owen.

I think your model is overly simplistic and needs fleshing out into some formal system where we can play with its validity.

Well, this is ATS, you know. If you want the meat of it, try some of the links above; also various publications by Daniel C. Dennett, who has written extensively on the subject.

Quantum physics ties into our brains.

What, Hameroff and his quantum brain tubules? I bet Roger Penrose rues the day...

Max Tegmark, in a paper in Physical Review E, calculated that the time scale of neuron firing and excitations in microtubules is slower than the decoherence time by a factor of at least 10,000,000,000. The reception of the paper is summed up by this statement in his support: "Physicists outside the fray, such as IBM's John Smolin, say the calculations confirm what they had suspected all along. 'We're not working with a brain that's near absolute zero. It's reasonably unlikely that the brain evolved quantum behavior', he says."

source

I am someone who sees the merit in admitting ignorance...

...while I, on the other hand, am just a guy who knows he's often wrong...

...and this is something where there is enough information missing, and yet enough suggested at the same time, that I think forming any conclusion now is premature.

Forming a conclusion, perhaps; but not an opinion.

Still, none of this is likely to convince someone who is not only a theist but also, apparently, a Gnostic.

Before you start walking around on the crutch that is ad hominem, I am neither... it's a presumptuous and distasteful form of discrimination anyway.

My present emphasis. No need to be so sensitive; some of my best friends are theists. As for Gnosticism, it is the only form of monotheism that disposes satisfactorily of my primary objection to the God concept, namely the problem of evil. And the primary source of statements such as 'you cannot approach the ultimate consciousness in this body and yet your body is descended from the same ultimate light' are pretty easily identified. But that's all right; I apologize if my attempt to decohere your quantum consciousness caused you pain...

[edit on 22-10-2008 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
The evidence is thin, I admit

What exactly is the evidence?

I refer you to the links in my earlier posts, which you really ought to have read before rushing into pixel to put me in my place.

I have read many things like what you posted, and many others. They have also found parts of your brain that, when activated, trigger out-of-body experiences. Your brain and your entire body is a sophisticated tool/avatar that consciousness acts through. You also have a "subconscious," which regulates many different body functions, but is also ultimately subject to your conscious will and there are people who have mastered many typically subconscious behaviors like raising and lowering body temperature, etc., just with a little practice using things like biofeedback technology or even just simple meditation. The potential we have for change within us is enormous.

It is a mistake to assume that scientifically-minded folk are automatically empiricists.

To actually believe

That is, as I am sure you are aware, a very different thing to accurately predicting an outcome.

How much do you want to bet that whatever data is ever analyzed, the knowledge gained is going to be put to future use? At least that's what you would hope, right? Even for businesses analyzing their sales.

How about Spinoza's famous refutation of teleology

That's fine, but where are their responses to the philosophies of Robert A. Wilson or Alan Watts, for example? Or even Douglas Hofstadter.

I know these modes of thought you're posting, and I appreciate them for what they are, but they ultimately come down to nothing more than Plato suggesting with no evidence that all physical matter is all made of tiny particles that ultimately take on the form of a "Platonic" solid. It may have made sense to him "rationally" and inspired a lot of people to do a lot of good work, but it is also pretty backwards from current understanding derived empirically. Wilson and Watts are different in that they realize something that Hofstadter also realized, that not everything is linear, black/white, yes/no, and similarly not every shape, form, or idea yet has an equivalent counterpart in language. There are things to the universe, especially in quantum physics, that we don't understand. These people hundreds of years ago, also did not understand them.

Quantum physics ties into our brains.

What, Hameroff and his quantum brain tubules? I bet Roger Penrose rues the day...

I was actually thinking more along the lines of William Tiller, but I know there are others.

And the primary source of statements such as 'you cannot approach the ultimate consciousness in this body and yet your body is descended from the same ultimate light' are pretty easily identified.

Really? Because your body IS made of light, ultimately, you know, in the sense that it IS physically made up entirely in the EM spectrum (mostly the very "low" end), and from EM interactions at velocities below the speed of light. Not a religious concept, but a scientific one, if you can see past the words "light" and "matter" and realize they and electromagnetism are all on the same "spectrum".

I bet that's exactly what you had in mind, wasn't it?

[edit on 22-10-2008 by bsbray11]

What I believe to be true;

Everything(/god) is natural, there is no "random" event, free will exists to the extent to which we can comprehend the future.

I think perhaps the greater the awareness a being has, the less free will it has, as it understands what is "wrong and right" better it is limited in its own actions.

I also think perhaps awareness and free-will would then be two seperate things.

I think then that a being with near infinite awareness would have near zero free will.

edit: example of near infinite free will with near zero awareness = empty space, it goes everywhere.

[edit on 22-10-2008 by stringue]

Originally posted by Astyanax
If it can be done, Nature will do it and damn the consequences.

So what is it that determines what nature can do, and what it can't do?

Why can't you change the past, or clearly foresee the future?

Why can we perceive each other? Why do we feel pain and pleasure? Why can't we live here forever?

You see -- there is some mysterious governing principle.

It certainly appears (as was said earlier) that some master plan is in motion that is leading to a final and very important result.

This should be OBVIOUS -- otherwise things wouldn't hold together so tightly, and this conversation (along with everything else in our universe) wouldn't even be possible.

Take away gravity for example, and what are you left with? Nothing too substantial, I guess. So you could say that gravity is part of the master plan, required to achieve some final and all-important conclusion.

en.wikipedia.org...

The definition of Teleology is linked above.


[edit on 23-10-2008 by Buck Division]

Originally posted by bsbray11
What exactly is the evidence?

I have already answered this question. See my post immediately preceding, and links in earlier posts.

I have read many things like what you posted, and many others. They have also found parts of your brain that, when activated, trigger out-of-body experiences.

Nothing but a glorified phantom limb effect. It reinforces the conclusion - were it not already obvious - that out-of-body-experiences are hallucinations.

Your brain and your entire body is a sophisticated tool/avatar that consciousness acts through.

I don't believe in machine-dwelling ghosts, sorry. In my view, consciousness is a by-product of brain activity. We have evolved to put the cart before the horse, but experiment verifies the true arrangement. Before you ask 'what experiment', please see above.

You also have a "subconscious," which regulates many different body functions, but is also ultimately subject to your conscious will and there are people who have mastered many typically subconscious behaviors like raising and lowering body temperature, etc., just with a little practice using things like biofeedback technology or even just simple meditation.

I would say the operative word in that sentence was 'feedback'.

That is, as I am sure you are aware, a very different thing to accurately predicting an outcome.

How much do you want to bet that whatever data is ever analyzed, the knowledge gained is going to be put to future use? At least that's what you would hope, right? Even for businesses analyzing their sales.

That is not the same thing as accurately predicting an outcome. You know, I don't really enjoy repeating myself.

Where are their responses to the philosophies of Robert A. Wilson or Alan Watts, for example?

Robert Anton Wilson? The Illuminatus! guy? And Alan Watts, Mister Zen America*?

For fear of having you shake the ad hominem stick at me again, I'll restrict my comments to a simple 'oh dear'.

I know these modes of thought you're posting, and I appreciate them for what they are, but they ultimately come down to nothing more than Plato suggesting with no evidence that all physical matter is all made of tiny particles that ultimately take on the form of a "Platonic" solid.

I think you have misread Plato. He's mostly on your side, not mine. And Hofstadter, from what little I know of his work (he's a friend and collaborator of Daniel Dennett) is more on my side than yours. See Hofstadter w/ Dennet, The Mind's I: Fantasies and Reflections on Self and Soul, 1981, New York, Basic Books.

I was actually thinking more along the lines of William Tiller, but I know there are others.

Ah, the parapsychologist. Oh dear again.

Your body IS made of light, ultimately, you know, in the sense that it IS physically made up entirely in the EM spectrum (mostly the very "low" end), and from EM interactions at velocities below the speed of light.

My dear fellow... I'm made of photons? That interact at velocities slower than that of light?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear...

You know, c in Einstein's famous equation is just a constant. Just a number.

Or were you under the impression that all energy is electromagnetic?

All 'vibrations', eh?

*And yes, I know he was English. Nevertheless...

Originally posted by Buck Division

Originally posted by Astyanax
If it can be done, Nature will do it and damn the consequences.

So what is it that determines what nature can do, and what it can't do?

The laws of physics and the values of the fundamental constants.

Why can't you change the past, or clearly foresee the future?

Because we live in a deterministic universe. Because we don't have free will. Because time does not exist in quite the way we perceive it to.

Why can we perceive each other? Why do we feel pain and pleasure? Why can't we live here forever?

These are all, I believe, questions in evolutionary biology. The short, if somewhat uninformative answer to them all is 'because we evolved that way'.

You see -- there is some mysterious governing principle.

Causality.

It certainly appears (as was said earlier) that some master plan is in motion that is leading to a final and very important result.

I'm afraid I don't see any evidence for any such plan. As far as I can see, things just turn out the way they turn out.

This should be OBVIOUS -- otherwise things wouldn't hold together so tightly, and this conversation (along with everything else in our universe) wouldn't even be possible.

I tend to treat the Anthropic Principle as an interesting idea, but not one to be taken very seriously. So you change one fundamental constant, or alter a law of physics, and the universe could no longer exist, or we could no longer exist in it. So what? Why does that have to mean that it's all part of some Great Plan? Why shouldn't it all be an accident? I don't see one compelling reason for choosing the Plan over the accident, frankly.

Take away gravity for example, and what are you left with? Nothing too substantial, I guess.

Nice. Take away substance and what are you left with? Nothing too gravitational.