Question of the Day - Do You Ultimately Belive in Fate or Free-Will? (August 1, 2010) - Off-Topic

Meowshi

Follow

2917

Forum Posts

25

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

#101 Edited By Meowshi

@roofy said:

. i dont think anyone takes religion seriously anymore. "

Well, I can see how you can come to this conclusion if you never leave the house and are completely ignorant to what is happening in the world.

Oh wait, this is a video game forum. That's exactly the issue here isn't it?

13 years ago

Geno

Follow

6767

Forum Posts

5538

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 15

User Lists: 3

#102 Edited By Geno

@mazik765 said:

I don't see how my points about altruism and evolution are misguided though. As far as I'm concerned my points still stand, and you not addressing them doesn't make it less valid. I would have appreciated some civility instead of having you just launching attacks against my intelligence when I bring up completely valid points.

Your points about evolution, altruism, survival etc. are all irrelevant. You propose that the existence of art goes against pure survival and thus a deterministic system isn't likely, and you provide several examples as an attempt to argue such; this is illogical. If an artificial intelligence ever develops art, we are to assume that its mathematical algorithms have been replaced by magic? A deterministic system is what it is, it never seeks to be "perfect" since perfect is a subjective human term. Therefore the existence of art, altruism, suicide etc. have nothing to do with this discussion. I should have been more concise with this point earlier so that we wouldn't have wasted so much time on it.

@mazik765

said:

Our conscious is separate from the physical world. Our conscious mind only knows the physical world as electrical impulses being interpreted by our 5 senses. For all I know I am actually a brain sitting in a jar having areas of my brain stimulated to perceived what I am perceiving around me. My body, my house, my friends, and the lovely internet people I get into discussions with might not be real. So this would make me separate from the physical domain.

You're saying that electrical impulses are separate from the physical domain? Last time I checked electromagnetism was a fundamental part of physics. As for the brain in the jar example - you will note that if we actually are brains in jars on Pluto or something, we would still be within the physical domain.

Let me introduce you to a term that you are probably unfamiliar with, and are possibly confusing with free-will: emergence. This is when the net result is different from the sum of its parts. Bike parts for instance are totally useless; even a nearly fully completed bike lacking a few screws is also useless. But a complete bike serves as a useful method of transportation. This method of transportation is the "emergent property" of the bike parts, e.g. it would not have existed without a specific configuration of subunits. The human analogy is the consciousness (or sentience, or intelligence). However, this does not give us access to flip quantum switches outside of the physical domain, this merely gives a function that would not have been available in another configuration (the ability to interrelate large volumes of data as opposed to the more linear function of individual chemical receptors), but that is still controlled by the laws of nature, just as a bike going down a hill. Consciousness =/= free will.

@mazik765

said:

Even neuroscience points to a degree of free will, or at least a 'free won't'. Although evidence points to the subconscious mind creating action impulses several milliseconds before the conscious mind is aware of it, the concious mind still has direct control on whether to complete this impulse, modify it or veto it.

You're referring to Benjamin Libet's experiment, yes? Perhaps you should read about it again as it actually serves to counter your point. Patient's motor impulses were activated before they were even aware of planning the action milliseconds before they did it; the conscious mind cannot respond over the course of a few milliseconds. This was later confirmed in an experiment by Kuhn and Brass. Also, irrelevant as usual since it does not counter the chemistry argument; where do neural impulses arise if not from the action potentials of your neurons induced by neurotransmitters that act deterministically under given conditions?

@mazik765

said:

Also why is 'we' in quotes? Is 'we' now a term that means something other than what the word normally designates? "

In your earlier points you constantly stated that "we choose" or "we use" the chemicals in our body to execute actions and thoughts. It would take a god-like being to bend reactions away from their deterministic outcomes, thus since "we" is used as an ambiguous god-like being that can control quantum behavior, I decided to put it in quotations to signify that it was not the colloquial usage.

I will state this for you again so that you can attack it directly rather than providing examples on areas that you are unfamiliar with:

---
(Fact) A chemical reaction is deterministic. (1+1=2)
(Fact) We are nothing but a large chemical system. (1+1+1+1+1)
(Logical Conclusion) Our outcomes are deterministic.  (=5)
---

If a response directly attacking the logic of my main point doesn't follow, I can pretty much assume that you have no further points.

13 years ago

mazik765

Follow

2372

Forum Posts

2258

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

#103 Edited By mazik765

@Geno said:

You're saying that electrical impulses are separate from the physical domain? Last time I checked electromagnetism was a fundamental part of physics. As for the brain in the jar example - you will note that if we actually are brains in jars on Pluto or something, we would still be within the physical domain.

The brain is a part of the physical realm yes, but what we are perceiving is not. We manipulate things with our perceived bodies that do not exist.

Also assuming that I am not familiar with your vast, and superior vocabulary and simply saying my points are irrelevant does not make it so. Has artificial intelligence developed art? No. And until they do it is not a valid point. I would appreciate a certain amount of civility in this discussion.

However this discussion has already taken up way more of my time then it should have, so you win. I remain unconvinced as throwing a random set of numbers at me and saying 'this is the human structure' doesn't really fly. But congratulations!

I have enjoyed our discussion :)

13 years ago

homewrecker

Follow

210

Forum Posts

729

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 5

#104 Edited By homewrecker

If absolutely everything is operating under natural law (i.e. everything obeys the laws of physics), then absolutely everything can be predicted with enough information.

13 years ago