This came up in another thread, and it is still bugging me.
Someone mentioned that belief in Free Will,Ñ¢ seems necessary for a Discordian.
But I just don't buy it ... that is the whole Free Will,Ñ¢ thing ...
To me, it seems terribly difficult to define this mysterious Free Will,Ñ¢, let alone to talk about how it fits into daily life or into anything else for that matter.
I don't know what I'm really getting at here.  I guess I just want to hear other (naidrocsiD) people's thoughts on the subject.
So what do you guys think about the whole concept of Free Will,Ñ¢?
Will do.
Later.
Right now, going out and getting drunk.
You should worry about defining happiness first.
Hunter- almost feels bad for you
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 10, 2007, 09:33:46 PM
You should worry about defining happiness first.
Hunter- almost feels bad for you
I feel like that too.
I like the Buddhist idea that unless it's necessary to know something to reach enlightenment, then you shouldn't worry about it.
Like god, fate, the universe etc.
It's all irrelevant...
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 10, 2007, 09:33:46 PM
You should worry about defining happiness first.
Hunter- almost feels bad for you
Is happiness the summum bonum?
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 10, 2007, 10:08:46 PM
Is happiness the summum bonum?
Bipolar terms like that make me cry...
Quote from: davedim on March 10, 2007, 10:23:02 PM
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 10, 2007, 10:08:46 PM
Is happiness the summum bonum?
Bipolar terms like that make me cry...
Really?
They usually give me a hard-on...
i said it in the other thread
people dont like not having Free Will because at first glance it isnt sexy
but like that nerdy chick with glasses at the beginning of the movie looks better the more you get to know her - i have come to see the sexiness of the pre-determined perspective
like i said before - free will suggests that we have all chosen to come here and build on this site- pre-determined means that we have been gathered together for a reason
i am down with either-or
ill even take both
personally -
im willing to play a role in the back or take the lead
whatever fits
I don't speak Latin.
I'll assume summum bonum means "Hunter is great!"
And I am.
I just feel happiness is the end-all.
If I am happy, I don't give a shit whether I chose it or it chose me.
That becomes irrelevant.
The lulz take precedent.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 11, 2007, 02:33:04 AM
I don't speak Latin.
I'll assume summum bonum means "Hunter is great!"
And I am.
I just feel happiness is the end-all.
If I am happy, I don't give a shit whether I chose it or it chose me.
That becomes irrelevant.
The lulz take precedent.
Spoken like a true messia
Did you mean messiah, or is messia Scottish for "gaywad".
I'll accept messiah.
Or gaywad.
Whatever I can get.
thats a good fuckin barometer
the correct co-ordinates
I believe that free will exists for those who believe it exists, and is taken away by those who believe in destiny.
Whether it's a curse or a boon is all on your perspective...
i think it's a lollercaust how we don't have free will but then we can't prove causation either
free will leads to too much bullshit. the concept of it, i mean, not free will itself. i usually make even less sense than that.
free will is something that, if you believe you have it, then you have to keep reminding yourself of it all the time. especially in "today's modern world," where 99% of your time is taken up by trivial bullshit that just 'has to get done.' Free Will was a fine philosophical diversion for a bunch of old bearded Greeks 3000 years ago. But for the modern Thinking Ape, it's gets to be a distraction. You've got to keep wondering "am i doing this because i choose to, or because the house will start stinking eventually if i don't?" Who has time to worry about it?
That's pretty much the problem right there. But, in the interest of being long-winded and boring, I'll go on.
It seems to me that Free Will is a superficial excuse for being a damned jackass, most of the time. Real Free Will isn't what happens when you choose from among all the options some unimaginative fuck in the Marketing Department decides to present you with. It's when you're aware of a) What The Fuck Is Going On, and b) What The Fuck That Means To You. In other words, Free Will isn't measured by your choices or your actions, but by your awareness of and your resolve to do that which a situation prompts you to do.
That is,
pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. for chrissakes.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 11, 2007, 03:05:18 AM
Did you mean messiah, or is messia Scottish for "gaywad".
I'll accept messiah.
Or gaywad.
Whatever I can get.
Scottish for gaywad is 'cunt'
In fact most scottish abuses come down to either 'cunt' 'fucker' or 'prick' or combinations thereof.
We're not very imaginative and we like to keep it short so we're not wasting good fighting time expounding litanies of verbal abuse.
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 11, 2007, 05:14:06 AM
i think it's a lollercaust how we don't have free will but then we can't prove causation either
So you think it's a fact we have no free will?
I'm in the determinist camp. I believe free will is an illusion, but a necessary illusion.
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/Oz_Curtainwizard-1.jpg)
ultimately it's a moot point though because my behavior isn't going to change based on whether or not I perceive I have free will
Have you read Shrodinger's Cat trilogy, Perineal? Free will vs determinism is one of the themes, sort of. As I recall, in classic Wilson style, the character concludes that they both sort of exist simultaneously.
"If it is your destiny to be great, then it will happen no matter what you do.
If it is your destiny to be a nobody, then it will happen no watter what you do.
So do all the things you think your destiny will lead you, and will find out.
Along the path, always keep in mind, this is your destiny, and endure it with a smile as much as possible, and it will not matter whether you are great or a no one.
It doesn't matter as long as you had fun."
-PFFN
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 11, 2007, 10:41:57 AM
In fact most scottish abuses come down to either 'cunt' 'fucker' or 'prick' or combinations thereof.
We're not very imaginative and we like to keep it short so we're not wasting good fighting time expounding litanies of verbal abuse.
This is why the US has more gun violence than other industrialized nations. We have a language suited for cussing people out. Thus instead of small brawls, we have two people that get so angry after the torrents of verbal abuse they shoot each other.
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on March 11, 2007, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 11, 2007, 10:41:57 AM
In fact most scottish abuses come down to either 'cunt' 'fucker' or 'prick' or combinations thereof.
We're not very imaginative and we like to keep it short so we're not wasting good fighting time expounding litanies of verbal abuse.
This is why the US has more gun violence than other industrialized nations. We have a language suited for cussing people out. Thus instead of small brawls, we have two people that get so angry after the torrents of verbal abuse they shoot each other.
I suppose the fact that everybody in the us is carrying a gun has absolutely no bearing on the issue?
Outside of the US it's glaringly obvious - You have this dumbass 'constitution' religion thing that states all men, most women and about half the children and animals are allowed to own a gun so that, in the event of a police state, they're allowed to shoot the president.
For some reason no one in america seems to get this. If no one has a gun then there is no gun crime. If you don't believe me look at the statistics for high power armour piercing laser crime. Now walk into your local fishmonger or grade school stationery store or wherever else you people go when you need to protect your constitutional right in a hurry and see how many of these laser devices are on offer.
QED - People don't shoot people. People + guns do.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 11, 2007, 06:12:51 PM
Quote from: The Littlest Ubermensch on March 11, 2007, 05:55:21 PM
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 11, 2007, 10:41:57 AM
In fact most scottish abuses come down to either 'cunt' 'fucker' or 'prick' or combinations thereof.
We're not very imaginative and we like to keep it short so we're not wasting good fighting time expounding litanies of verbal abuse.
This is why the US has more gun violence than other industrialized nations. We have a language suited for cussing people out. Thus instead of small brawls, we have two people that get so angry after the torrents of verbal abuse they shoot each other.
I suppose the fact that everybody in the us is carrying a gun has absolutely no bearing on the issue?
Outside of the US it's glaringly obvious - You have this dumbass 'constitution' religion thing that states all men, most women and about half the children and animals are allowed to own a gun so that, in the event of a police state, they're allowed to shoot the president.
For some reason no one in america seems to get this. If no one has a gun then there is no gun crime. If you don't believe me look at the statistics for high power armour piercing laser crime. Now walk into your local fishmonger or grade school stationery store or wherever else you people go when you need to protect your constitutional right in a hurry and see how many of these laser devices are on offer.
QED - People don't shoot people. People + guns do.
That too. :oops:
actually... concerning profanity...
it is our overuse of profanity that leads to violence. because we use the most vulgar words in our language when we're not even the slightest bit perturbed, to refer to mundane things, profanity is no longer able to convey extreme emotions, which is what it's supposed to be there for.
hence, when we really do get pissed off, we have to resort to violence to illustrate how emo we feel.
this is all bullshit.
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 11, 2007, 01:48:47 PM
Quote from: Sir Perineal on March 11, 2007, 05:14:06 AM
i think it's a lollercaust how we don't have free will but then we can't prove causation either
So you think it's a fact we have no free will?
If facts are based on experience, then I guess it is, considering what modern scientific study has told us about the human being.
Either way, it doesn't seem to effect everyday life, because as Prof. Cram said, it appears to be a necessary illusion.
But I probably consider myself a "compatibilist" when it comes to free will, i.e. "free will," if redefined as more of a hypothetical freedom, might fit into the scheme of determinism.
.. and i would personally consider the non-existance of free will, as hypothetical. because to me it seems that, however much determinism (meaning, physics for non-complex/small scale systems) as we currently know it seems to deny its existance, our knowledge about how all these complicated physical and chemical systems work is still limited. please note that the science of physics is already some hundreds of years old, where the science of artificial intelligence has existed for only a few decennia.
there is one crucial tool that is needed for research into the working of complex systems and that is the computer. this tool has existed only for half a century.
i think the last hasn't been said on this subject ;-)
on the one hand we can say there seems to be an illusion of free will. on the other hand we can say there seems to be an illusion of the impossibility of free will.
if i'm gonna be completely honest with myself, my guess is that the answer is in fact a combination of these two. similar (but definitely not analogous ;-) ) to how light can act as a particle and a wave depending on how you look at it, i think you can treat free will as an illusory non-existant thing if you look at the low-level deterministic physics and chemistry, but as a very real (yet intangible) concept when you look at the higher-level symbols, signs and meanings.
and both ways of looking at it are in fact equally valid, however our technological level is not yet high enough that we can make a continous description from the one to the other (because the science of complex systems is still a lot of interesting, unchartered territory)
It doesn't really matter to me if Free Will exists.
To me, it's more important to act as if you have free will, because it seems better than the submissive alternative.
I used to be for guns, but since the state pretty much thinks I am insane and won't let me have one, i'm against them.
Fuck guns.
better yet, pretend you have MORE free will than you ACTUALLY have
Good one, TZ.
If destiny really does exist, and free will doesn't, then isn't it a bit of a mind fuck that destiny is making us debate about free wills existance?
no, you're just high.
Quote from: Lysergic on March 13, 2007, 03:45:14 PM
If destiny really does exist, and free will doesn't, then isn't it a bit of a mind fuck that destiny is making us debate about free wills existance?
Discordia is probably laughing Her ass off at the irony :wink:
i say yes to free will, but im not saying we arnt influenced , society , conformity, all the social values and norms, the sterotypes are all in place to limit that freedom, why doesnt everyone dye their hair bright orange tomorrow, because its not seen the proper thing to do in a soceity ( then again i get shit for having long golden hair )
Quote from: LMNO on March 12, 2007, 01:20:43 PM
It doesn't really matter to me if Free Will exists.
To me, it's more important to act as if you have free will, because it seems better than the submissive alternative.
Isn't this the essence of free will? Of course it exists.
But what if your head was bitten off by a grue just as you are being born? Then free will doesn't exist for you. But just because u dont see it or have it doesnt mean its not there.
I always find it strange that free will is always opposed to determinism. More important: free will requires determinism. Since free will is like the ability to consiously choose something, but if there is no determinism, there is no choice. Simply since without determinism, each choice in principle could lead to any outcome.
So imo the concept of free will/choice is meaningless without determinism.
With determinism, there is only an illusion
Unless something strange happens
which is usually what happens
:tinfoilhat:
Quote from: Lysergic on March 13, 2007, 03:45:14 PM
If destiny really does exist, and free will doesn't, then isn't it a bit of a mind fuck that destiny is making us debate about free wills existance?
No.
TGRR,
Fated to say that.
Quote from: Bo on March 20, 2007, 08:50:33 PM
I always find it strange that free will is always opposed to determinism. More important: free will requires determinism. Since free will is like the ability to consiously choose something, but if there is no determinism, there is no choice. Simply since without determinism, each choice in principle could lead to any outcome.
So imo the concept of free will/choice is meaningless without determinism.
With determinism, there is only an illusion
Unless something strange happens
which is usually what happens
Remind me to come back to this in 47 posts. Never mind, I just realized you're not retarded, you're Dutch.
Anyway, are you talking about Determinism, or Consequences? I mean, if I throw a ball, it will be pulled to the earth by gravity. That is a consequence of throwing the ball. It's pretty much determined that the ball will fall to the ground if I throw it. But the choice to throw the ball is undetermined, until I actually throw it (or not).
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 12:31:34 PMNever mind, I just realized you're not retarded, you're Dutch.
:lulz:
Thinking about being a retard?
Why not try being Dutch first?
That way if you don't like it you can emigrate.
Much less hassle than irreversible brain damage.
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 12:31:34 PM
Never mind, I just realized you're not retarded, you're Dutch.
That went fast :)
Quote
Anyway, are you talking about Determinism, or Consequences? I mean, if I throw a ball, it will be pulled to the earth by gravity. That is a consequence of throwing the ball. It's pretty much determined that the ball will fall to the ground if I throw it. But the choice to throw the ball is undetermined, until I actually throw it (or not).
Deterministic consequences.
So on large scales the world is clearly deterministic and your free will uses this property in order to make decissions. It is not clear to me how something which is nondeterministic in nature could lead to deterministic conclusions. Or in other words how can a nondeterministic system 'know' determinism? Just in technical terms this seems impossible to me (but perhaps i'm just retarded :))
The opposite however seems very natural. A deterministic system can easily look nondeterministic (all kinds of chaotic systems, popcorn, humans)
Interesting theory.
However, i have to say that while there might be rules that govern motion, that is very different from choosing to set an object in motion.
You seem to be conflating the two.
Is it different?
It's possible that that butterfly wing flap 10000 years ago made you choose the fish over the chicken.
Then again, maybe it didn't.
Weak argument, IMO.
I'm saying could.
Not an argument.
I'm not doing the fucking math here, I was just putting it out.
I don't believe it either,but it's a thought.
You mind going over how a butterfly's wing flap will affect my choice in the here and now?
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 21, 2007, 02:08:21 PM
I don't believe it either,but it's a thought.
You seem to have adopted my mantra 8)
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 02:12:54 PM
You mind going over how a butterfly's wing flap will affect my choice in the here and now?
Easy - BIG fkin butterfly with razor sharp wings and an agenda
Sort of.
I walk out my door and see a butterfly flap its wings. I decide to stop and look. This makes me get in my car and begin to drive 30 seconds later than I would have, had said butterfly not been there. Now I drive and while merging I cut you off in traffic. You miss your exit and have to circle half the city to get back on your way to work. You get there 20 minutes late, and you hate being late. You decide you are too upset to eat breakfast.
You "chose" not to eat.
It's possible.
You didn't have to choose to look at the butterfly.
Some previous action could have made me compulsivly look at butterfly.
And on back to the big bang.
Particle A bounced weird at .0000001 miliseconds, and it makes me coose a Hot Pocket.
forget it yall
its also possible that the wing-flap changed everything except your decision
the repercussions of me posting this
the possibility you might read it
what if you had decided against joining this forum?
would it have developed the way it did?
what if you worded the sentence different? would the point still come across? would it have come across later?
and perhaps it isnt the overall decisions that have any significance anyway - maybe the real issue of importance is the overall tendencies
(you can take a person out the machine, but the machine keeps steam-rolling)
Quote from: hunter s.durden on March 21, 2007, 02:25:51 PM
Some previous action could have made me compulsivly look at butterfly.
And on back to the big bang.
Particle A bounced weird at .0000001 miliseconds, and it makes me coose a Hot Pocket.
Evidence?
I used the qualifier "could have."
These are not my beliefs. I am not a scientist. I do not like math. I do not own a neutron microscope.
I was just saying it's possible, as far as I know.
Evidence against?(I'm sure you have it.)
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 01:51:37 PM
You seem to be conflating the two.
yes, and I guess that you must if you want that your free will tells you something about the real world. The link is inevitable.
The point is how to make this link. In my argument I did this extremely naively. (and therefore probably wrong).
Hunter, you seem to be saying that the butterfly wing set up circumstances for choice, which, while presenting any number of possible (and mutable) options, still doesn't relate to the act of choosing.
I wanna cite Wilson's idea here of quantum causality. In Shrodinger's Cat he talks about how we confuse ourselves if we try to make statements like X caused Y. 'cause it's not like I was late to work today for specifically one reason. It's a million reasons. It was last night's drinking, it was my cell phone running out of batteries (thus no alarm), it was the guy who called me to talk for 40 minutes the day prior, and he did that 'cause he was in a traffic jam and that was because some dude spilled coffee on his crotch and hit the guard rail, etc etc etc
Douglas Hofstadter had a good essay about this too. Human reasoning tells us where to stop connecting the dots. In our litigious society we wonder how far we can displace blame. When designing a robot to reason, one needs to teach it how far to measure causality - Otherwise it starts drawing conclusions like I Like Childpr0n Because There Is Peanut Butter Somewhere In The World.
so in short, what Wilson is saying is that instead of thinking A caused B, think A B C D and E are all have a complex somewhat causal relationship.
bad attempt at interpreting the Dutchman:
he isn't saying that actions are determined but that freewill relies on the general assumption of determined outcomes. we make our decisions based on what we think the outcome of our actions will be (usually). in order to calculate what those outcomes will be, we largely rely on predicting the future based on what how we expect objects and other people to react. in practice, this tends to be reliable enough not to bother figuring out some other method of choosing our actions.
so what Bo is saying is that while each of us possesses the ability to act according to free will, eventually (and especially in groups) we behave according to a predetermined, predictable pattern. often, that's because we choose our actions based on assumptions that that pattern will, as a general rule, be adhered to.
or something.
Bell's Theorem.
Also, there is evidence of the brain being able to veto body responses, stopping certain actions. They did an experiment where they used neurosimulation to move someones hands. They found that while the tendency to move the hand will build for the set amount of time, the actual decision is only made a split second before the action, suggesting the brain can stop physical influences from affecting actions. They did note some mental prepardness was needed, but since when have we ever denied that on this board?
Quote from: Bo on March 21, 2007, 02:33:26 PM
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 01:51:37 PM
You seem to be conflating the two.
yes, and I guess that you must if you want that your free will tells you something about the real world. The link is inevitable.
The point is how to make this link. In my argument I did this extremely naively. (and therefore probably wrong).
While the two should obviously
relate, so that you choices have some meaningful effect in the experiential universe, they should not be mistaken as the same thing (to
conflate).
Quote from: Cain on March 21, 2007, 02:38:11 PM
Bell's Theorem.
Also, there is evidence of the brain being able to veto body responses, stopping certain actions. They did an experiment where they used neurosimulation to move someones hands. They found that while the tendency to move the hand will build for the set amount of time, the actual decision is only made a split second before the action, suggesting the brain can stop physical influences from affecting actions. They did note some mental prepardness was needed, but since when have we ever denied that on this board?
This was good enough for me to stop playing devil's advocate. I'm tired.
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 02:44:09 PM
Quote from: Cain on March 21, 2007, 02:38:11 PM
Bell's Theorem.
Wow, good call.
One of the first pieces of quantum physics I ever picked up.
Damn it was hard trying to understand it.
ok, so we can at least say that, if free will exists, it only works on the moment ?
because otherwise all kinds of stuff may get in between
to hunter: first, being upset is your own decision, it's a reaction to the stuff that happens around you, of course you can't control that, but you still decide how you react. deciding not to eat because you're upset is totally your own free will, because you based the decision on something you decided to do.
the fact that there's things out of your control influencing your decision, doesn't mean there aren't any things within your control that influence it as well.
free will would be the thing that remains if you remove all outside influences. except that's completely academic because you can't do that, not even theoretically.
sort of what prof.cramulus said in fact.
also, Bell's theorem takes place on the quantum level. free will takes place on some macro-level where terms like "free" and "will" have meaning, the level where "meaning" exists, in fact. i'm really not certain whether you can conflate these two levels, see for an illustration that ouroubouros pic of Mang, it's a very big scale difference.
i would be very surprised if even a theoretical link can be shown between quantumlevel events on subatomic particles like these and meaninglevel events in the mind, and then whether these quantumlevel events contribute anything more to the outcome of a decision than any other (incontrollable) environmental influences
Actually, Bell's Theorem is very relevant, as Einstein claimed that there were hidden variables below quantum physics which make them determined and Einstein's argument is the basis for determinism in physics.
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 02:50:48 PM
to hunter: first, being upset is your own decision, it's a reaction to the stuff that happens around you, of course you can't control that, but you still decide how you react. deciding not to eat because you're upset is totally your own free will, because you based the decision on something you decided to do.
DEAR ENTIRE BOARD:
THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TOO. I WAS PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE. I BELIEVE IN POSSIBLILITY, EVEN IN THE FACE OF IMPORABILITY. NOW I'M FINISHED.
Thanks.
Hunter- still thinks it's possible, but will not put effort into explaining why.
I like this idea of a hierarchy of scales. Going from deterministic actions, to a nondeterministic free will to a deterministic system of neurons, to a nondeterministic quantum envirement. (to a deterministic, global hidden variable theory?)
Trying to link Quantum physics to the larger gravitational-level world (whether it's through matter, energy, whatever) is THE current goal in the sciences. Einstein refered to this as the "Theory of Everything".
The fact that quantum determinism seems to be going on all the time in a sub-atomic level yet is stubbornly refusing to tie into the larger realm of electromagnetics, gravity and nuclear (atom-level) forces is one of the biggest issues with the sciences ATM.
I'd actually argue that "Free Will" exists ONLY at the quantum level, and interacts with the macro-level where strict determinism seems to be mathematically provable - set up the proper initial conditions and the results on a macro scale are given, fixed and provable in advance. I think (with ZERO official background in this stuff so take it for what it's worth) that the quantum state determines the initial condition that is then set in motion on the macro scale, and the only vestige of "free will" we have is in determining the quantum value that triggers the subsequent conditions.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle at work, essentially, in that our act of observing determines the specific space/time variable that can be observed. In essence, by making the choice to <insert action here> we then set in motion specific events/reactions based inevitably on that initial choice, which then has a ripple effect on other choices, both for us and for others.
Sometimes I wish I went with the Math/Physics instead of the Music, but I've always prefered my numbers to sing rather than dance. At times like this, though, it highlights my lack of hard math to back up the weird concepts I have :lulz:
You're a bit off on the Uncertainty principle, if you really want to know.
the important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)
to cain: then how does this make Bell's theorem relevant in a discussion about free will?
000, once again it seems to me that you're conflating the Rules of Motion with the decision to move something.
Yeah - just realized that. I always get that one mixed up with some other quantum physics. I guess I'm thinking of collapsing the wave-particle duality into one state via observation - more along the Schroedinger's Cat deal but not specifically that.
That's what I get for going to a Music school and reading all this in my spare time :D
Easy, it shows that physical determination is impossible because the universe is based on Stochastic theories. In and of itself, it is not proof, but when combined with the previous evidence of indecision in physical movements, it delivers both a metaphysical and scientific base to personal responsibility and free will. Bell Theorem allows it to be possible, from there on in all you need is evidence.
I hereby refuse to subscribe to any theorem that dictates freewill to not exist.
OP solved!
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 03:21:41 PM
the important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)
Can the inverse ever be true? seemingly deterministic behaviour arising from a nondeterministic system? Can't think of any way...
Yup.
The staggering predictability of human behavior as they behave en mass.
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 21, 2007, 03:31:32 PM
I hereby refuse to subscribe to any theorem that dictates freewill to not exist.
OP solved!
:lulz:
Jailbreak! go!
Quote from: Cain on March 21, 2007, 03:27:52 PM
Easy, it shows that physical determination is impossible because the universe is based on Stochastic theories. In and of itself, it is not proof, but when combined with the previous evidence of indecision in physical movements, it delivers both a metaphysical and scientific base to personal responsibility and free will. Bell Theorem allows it to be possible, from there on in all you need is evidence.
but quantum fuzzyness only tells you that there is a probabilistic distribution in possible things to happen. It explicitly does not allow for a 'choice' (whatever that means at this level) in what to happen. So how does quantum relate to will?
On the other hand (just love to kill my own arguments...), going from the quantum probability of something, to the actual event is a completely ununderstood problem (measurement problem, look it up)
btw you can circumvent Bell's theorem.
Quote from: Cain on March 21, 2007, 03:27:52 PMEasy, it shows that physical determination is impossible because the universe is based on Stochastic theories. In and of itself, it is not proof, but when combined with the previous evidence of indecision in physical movements, it delivers both a metaphysical and scientific base to personal responsibility and free will. Bell Theorem allows it to be possible, from there on in all you need is evidence.
ok, let's assume that the universe being based on stochastic theories indeed implies that large-scale physical determination is impossible.
then still this only leads the way to the conclusion that free could be possible, not that the thing happening in Bell's theorem is causing it.
then comes the problem with the assumption. at quantum scale, the universe is nondeterministic. while this might imply that on a macro-scale the universe is also nondeterministic, it ends up as a probability of 1x10
-zillion that a macro-system actually does something nondeterministic. this is not the sort of nondeterminism we're looking for in free will here.
because free will doing something (seemingly) nondeterministic happens way more often than that.
the answer is that large scale (seeming) nondeterminism [meaning] can follow out of a smaller scale (seemingly) deterministic system [chemical physics] by ways of chaos theory: the equations to step up in scale from small to larger get very complicated very quickly, and if the number of different components becomes larger than 10 (exact number depends on actual system, but usually very small) there will be no analytical solution for the system, this can be proven. which is when we step to computers, to solve the problem numerically. but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.
LMNO: sorry but i don't understand how you say i'm conflating these issues? at which point was i talking about what?
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 03:21:41 PM
the important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)
To be more precise, it seems you're
implying conflation.
That is, it looks as if you're suggesting applying chaos theory, which is about rules of motion, to human behavior.
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 03:44:34 PM
...but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.
Clarify: are you suggesting freedom / free will is a function of complexity?
--ie simple systems, like a marble bouncing down a stair case, have little / no free will
whereas complex systems, like brains, weather patterns, do?
(not agreeing or disagreeing, just making sure I'm reading you correctly)
Quote from: Bo on March 21, 2007, 03:31:38 PMQuote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 03:21:41 PMthe important bit to realize is that (seemingly) nondeterministic behaviour can arise out of deterministic systems, because of chaos theory (popcorn, humans)
Can the inverse ever be true? seemingly deterministic behaviour arising from a nondeterministic system? Can't think of any way...
yes, certain stochastic systems. like quantum systems.
also, what LMNO said, large groups of people.
the thing is, depending on whether the system is chaotic or not, the variation in initial values will get amplified or not.
for other systems, even random initial values can converge to a deterministic outcome. think about the system called "average of dice rolls", which is nondeterministic at base, but in the limit converges to the expectation value of the die.
LMNO: no i think you misunderstand. the chaostheory is applied to the (seemingly deterministic) chemical system that is our brain/body, which because of chaostheory is able to produce nondeterministic phenomena (and emergent properties, even), and our brain/body produces human behaviour as well.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on March 21, 2007, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 03:44:34 PM
...but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.
Clarify: are you suggesting freedom / free will is a function of complexity?
--ie simple systems, like a marble bouncing down a stair case, have little / no free will
whereas complex systems, like brains, weather patterns, do?
yes.
at least, this is my current way of looking at things.
i of course reserve the right to 180 degrees change my opinion in the view of contradicting evidence, or an even better theory (still a scientist, afterall)
One hundred EIGHTY degrees, 000?
Beware of that...leads to people thinking you have no real conviction in an argument.
so?
sucks to be those people then.
if i, in the light of new evidence, have to turn around my previously stated opinion a 180 degrees, then i'll be damned if i let the opinion of other people make me change less or more
fuck i don't think i could live with myself if i did
maybe, if i really cared about the other people, and i didn't want to shock them, i would only tell them a few degrees at a time, but in my own mind i'll turn and swoop as i damn well please
Conviction in your argument wins many over even when your argument is shite or weak. And knowledge that you sway the opposite direction will lead your oponent to think you aren't really behind what you are saying. It's just strategy, is all.
But if you don't care, you don't care. That's that.
convictions cause convicts. :p
I don't think 000 is trying to "win" here, we're all just passing this idea back and forth to see it through. Hopefully the outcome of these discussions is determined (hah) by the merit of the arguments, not the rhetorical dressing.
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 03:55:42 PM
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on March 21, 2007, 03:53:09 PM
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 03:44:34 PM
...but as the system grows larger we need more and more precision make accurate simulations, this needed precision grows exponentially and at a certain point you need more RAM memory to store your variables than there are particles in the universe. at this point, your system is for all practical intents and purposes nondeterministic. i'm pretty sure the human brain is at this level of complexity, if not way past it.
Clarify: are you suggesting freedom / free will is a function of complexity?
--ie simple systems, like a marble bouncing down a stair case, have little / no free will
whereas complex systems, like brains, weather patterns, do?
yes.
at least, this is my current way of looking at things.
i of course reserve the right to 180 degrees change my opinion in the view of contradicting evidence, or an even better theory (still a scientist, afterall)
I think the problem here is that if intelligence is a measure of complexity (which seems to make sense), complexity is a subjective, human distinction. A robust, parsimonious system may not be complex at all except to the observer.
I guess the follow up question is about the definition of intelligence. But that sounds like a semantic rabbit hole. The free will you're talking about - is it a property of intelligence, or is intelligence a property of free will? Or is that another semantic rabbit hole?
Quote from: Jenne on March 21, 2007, 04:08:10 PM
Conviction in your argument wins many over even when your argument is shite or weak. And knowledge that you sway the opposite direction will lead your oponent to think you aren't really behind what you are saying. It's just strategy, is all.
But if you don't care, you don't care. That's that.
Lack of conviction in an argument actually lends it strength.
"I don't believe this but I can't argue against" is the nearest I will come to a statement of fact.
It's more honest than "I believe this and will not back down even if you prove me wrong." -- implies you have not considered alternatives which may only have become apparent
after you adopted the belief. Which, in turn, implies you have not completely thought your argument through.
arguing against obvious disproof of your argument might not get you anywhere logically.
but it won't get you impeached either, apparently.
Quote from: Professor Cramulus on March 21, 2007, 04:12:17 PMI think the problem here is that if intelligence is a measure of complexity (which seems to make sense), complexity is a subjective, human distinction. A robust, parsimonious system may not be complex at all except to the observer.
I guess the follow up question is about the definition of intelligence. But that sounds like a semantic rabbit hole. The free will you're talking about - is it a property of intelligence, or is intelligence a property of free will? Or is that another semantic rabbit hole?
i don't really think complexity is that subjective. at least not the specific sort of complexity required for intelligence, consciousness, self-consciousness and free will (probably in that order--my guess).
i don't know this for sure but i think there are a few mathematic variables that describe the complexity of a system in various ways (interconnectedness, several measures of how it reacts to changes in initial conditions etc), the problem is of course, if you can't measure these values in a practical way, yes, then there's not much you can say about how a system works from the inside. too bad.
to the other question, my first guess would be that free will is a property of intelligence and not the other way around. for the notion of "free will" you need high level symbols, not even just language (signs), but you need self-consciousness, because the sign "free will" has no meaning if you cannot say "I have free will".
hm and yes, this seems to imply that "free will" is a purely semantic notion. not some irrefutable property of a system, but only something the system can say about
itself, and, to a degree, about other systems like it.
once again, coming back to the conclusion that "free will" is a sort of illusion, but not necessarily a bad one (i got to this conclusion a few pages back, as well)
but i see nothing wrong with that.
also i see not much of a way how it can be otherwise.
what is "free will", except for something a system can say about itself?
Quote from: vexati0n on March 21, 2007, 04:24:06 PM
arguing against obvious disproof of your argument might not get you anywhere logically.
but it won't get you impeached either, apparently.
It will if you're arguing with me. I call these soft targets and it's all for the benefit of the audience :lulz:
your new avatar sucks less than the holocaust, btw.
(thats a compliment)
Quote from: SillyCybin on March 21, 2007, 04:22:55 PM
Quote from: Jenne on March 21, 2007, 04:08:10 PM
Conviction in your argument wins many over even when your argument is shite or weak. And knowledge that you sway the opposite direction will lead your oponent to think you aren't really behind what you are saying. It's just strategy, is all.
But if you don't care, you don't care. That's that.
Lack of conviction in an argument actually lends it strength.
"I don't believe this but I can't argue against" is the nearest I will come to a statement of fact.
It's more honest than "I believe this and will not back down even if you prove me wrong." -- implies you have not considered alternatives which may only have become apparent after you adopted the belief. Which, in turn, implies you have not completely thought your argument through.
Hm, I disagree. I think a firm statement coupled by belief in what you are saying, confirmed belief, is palpable and can sway others.
vex's point is a valid one. Our "fearless leader" has been fully convicted and wins people over time and again based on weak arguments. At least, I THINK that was vex's point...read it too fast.
JENNE: you made a mistake when you assumed i have a point. i don't have a point, and even if i did, it would just be a predetermined one :(
also, i take back everything i just said
please to flush my credibility down your favourite cradle of creativity thx
writing under erasure FTW
was it LHX that had something like "i take back everything i just said" in his sig for a while?
Quote from: triple zero on March 21, 2007, 04:45:33 PM
also, i take back everything i just said
If you don't flush yourself with
conviction, why would we ever believe you? :p
Plllbbbttt!
And, *reverses argument*, nothing is ever worth arguing over unless you can see the other person's side.
Jenne, and example:
"I firmly believe that 2+2=5"
"Bullshit, here's proof that 2+2=4"
"Really? Whoops. Shit. My bad. I reverse my conviction 180 degrees."
I mean, rly. If you are given evidence that your convictions are in error, to not change your convictions is moronic.
But to state it at the outset?
That's actually what I meant. You do that enough, and people will STILL think you're moronic.
But yes, of course, if you don't capitulate after being shown the error of your ways, then you ARE George W. Bush.
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 06:02:27 PM
I mean, rly. If you are given evidence that your convictions are in error, to not change your convictions is American.
Fixed.
:lulz:
Yeah. But it's funnier that way, right?
Quote from: LMNO on March 21, 2007, 06:33:32 PM
:lulz:
Yeah. But it's funnier that way, right?
"Everything is funny, when it happens to someone else."
- Larry's Axiom