?s about Xtianity but were afraid to ask

04/07/2011 05:14:46 PM · #1526

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
TRUE irrationality should not exist in a natural system.

As opposed to a created one? Think before you post. ;-)

But that's not my problem. You are the one saying irrationality signifies something. You have to show me the word irrationality is meaningful in this context.

Plus if your implication is that true irrationality should not exist in neither a natural nor a created system, then what are we talking about if for? It should not exist period.

Message edited by author 2011-04-07 17:26:57.

04/07/2011 05:25:09 PM · #1527

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If we could watch the neurons firing and the brain working for both a rational thought and an irrational one, how would they look different?

Different parts of the brain would be active. Damage to the prefrontal cortex is strongly correlated with diminished rationality in the realm of personal decision-making.

04/07/2011 05:28:04 PM · #1528

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If we could watch the neurons firing and the brain working for both a rational thought and an irrational one, how would they look different?

Different parts of the brain would be active. Damage to the prefrontal cortex is strongly correlated with diminished rationality in the realm of personal decision-making.

But yet one neuron would still be telling the next neuron what to do, etc. If we understood the damage well enough we could easily duplicate it in a program. How then is it impossible to preprogram?

04/07/2011 05:29:12 PM · #1529

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But the motivation is part of the the dualist mind, which becomes the cause of the decision, BUT originates within itself and is not externally influenced. That is a logical possibility.

No, it's circular reasoning. What would cause motivation to originate in a dualist mind? If there's no reason, no external influence, then all decisions are random. If there is a reason, then your argument goes down the toilet.

04/07/2011 05:30:38 PM · #1530

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are the one saying irrationality signifies something...

Plus if your implication is that true irrationality should not exist in neither a natural nor a created system.

No, to both.

Message edited by author 2011-04-07 17:30:49.

04/07/2011 05:31:38 PM · #1531

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

But yet one neuron would still be telling the next neuron what to do, etc. If we understood the damage well enough we could easily duplicate it in a program.

See snowflake problem.

04/07/2011 05:33:39 PM · #1532

You are once again leading me down a stupid rabbithole. Step back and tell me again why you think "irrationality" is important to your argument?

04/07/2011 07:52:24 PM · #1533

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are once again leading me down a stupid rabbithole.

Hey, YOU chose to pick on that straw man rather than address the point that decisions cannot occur without cause. Rational or not, you don't consciously move a pinky without motivation. "Contra-causal" free will cannot account for that, and as soon as you introduce a cause as the basis for a decision, you're right back to natural processes regardless of whether it's rational. In a nutshell, one can either make a decision for a reason (causal) or for no reason at all (contra-causal, but also completely random). Contra-causal free will therefore eliminates itself as a possibility, and you're left with reasoning... which we know is a function of the brain.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Step back and tell me again why you think "irrationality" is important to your argument?

It's not important to the argument (see above), but it's one characteristic of human thought processes that would defy programming as you describe it. Emotion is another one. The very notion of a separate self operating within the container of our physical bodies is an irrational homunculus fallacy that leads to the illusion of free will as something other than the capacity to make independent decisions based on reason, experience, emotion and other perfectly natural factors.

Let's say for the sake of argument that you could build a computer with a lifetime of experiences, capable of irrational logic and error, sensory perceptions including pleasure and pain, the ability to communicate and ask questions, indecisiveness, a propensity for finding patterns in random systems, time pressure, and the sort of personal affinities and emotional attachments you would expect from evolution in higher social animals (caring for family, pair bonding, etc.). Let's further speculate that you could "raise" that computer for at least a decade with moral and social guidance analogous to family and friends. None of these characteristics are outside the realm of natural development. As your implied automaton, do you really think you could predict a decision or tell the difference in a Turing test, especially when the same obvious inputs could yield a completely different decision influenced by something as subtle as mood or rushed calculation? Unlikely.

04/07/2011 08:01:10 PM · #1534

Originally posted by scalvert:

As your implied automaton, do you really think you could predict a decision or tell the difference in a Turing test, especially when the same obvious inputs could yield a completely different decision influenced by something as subtle as mood or rushed calculation? Unlikely.

You may be right, but what does it matter? I cannot predict the weather. It doesn't mean such behavior couldn't be programmed in. If the programming is complex enough, you may lose track of which sub-routines take precedence over other, etc etc etc and then you can't predict how it is going to react. The bottom line that we both agree on is that it must be naturalistic because we've a priori said naturalism is all there is.

I have to ponder your contra-causal bit. I understand what you are saying, but I sense an issue. I just can't verbalize it yet.

Message edited by author 2011-04-07 20:02:09.

04/07/2011 08:22:17 PM · #1535

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

The bottom line that we both agree on is that it must be naturalistic because we've a priori said naturalism is all there is.

Naturalism doesn't have to be an a priori assumption. The perception of free will cannot be contra-causal because that option is self-eliminating, and reasoning can be explained with natural principles, so we needn't turn to supernatural explanations that create their own logical inconsistencies. Per your weather example, that's also why we now understand lightning as a phenomenon involving static electricity rather than gods venting their wrath. Our contemporary grasp of weather wasn't an a priori assumption that naturalism is all there is.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I have to ponder your contra-causal bit. I understand what you are saying, but I sense an issue. I just can't verbalize it yet.

I suspect you already did:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If I grasp what you are saying it still leaves me very unsatisfied.

04/07/2011 11:40:47 PM · #1536

I think part of what I'm balking against is your use of the term "random". What do you mean by this? For example, is it applicable to quantum fluctuations? If so, how are they both random, yet produce predictable results? And if one phenomenon can be random and predictable, why cannot another?

Further, are you leading us to the hard dichotomy that the universe is either determined or random? Is there an intermediate option and, if so, what is it?

Message edited by author 2011-04-07 23:41:19.

04/08/2011 12:53:23 AM · #1537

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

From the link I posted earlier today:
"The next popular argument for a truly free will invokes quantum mechanics (the last refuge of those who prefer to keep things as mysterious as possible). Quantum events, it is argued, may have some effects that �bubble up� to the semi-macroscopic level of chemical interactions and electrical pulses in the brain. Since quantum mechanics is the only realm within which it does appear to make sense to talk about truly uncaused events, voilà!, we have (quantistic) free will. But even assuming that quantum events do �bubble up� in that way (it is far from a certain thing), what we gain under that scenario is random will, which seems to be an oxymoron (after all, �willing� something means to wish or direct events in a particular � most certainly not random � way). So that�s out as well."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Further, are you leading us to the hard dichotomy that the universe is either determined or random? Is there an intermediate option and, if so, what is it?

Random precludes will (see above). I suppose determinism technically fits, but it wouldn't be perceptible as such. Say, for example, that evolution leads to an emotional bond between mother and child in higher social animals. On Mother's Day you may perceive that you chose to give your mother flowers rather than shoot her in the butt, but the latter choice was never *really* an option due to that bond. Other decisions may be far more subtle, but no less causal. You might choose the salmon entree or the chicken and all sorts of perfectly natural considerations come into play as you decide: personal taste, mood, appeal of the menu wording, past experience and so on. You could of course make the opposite choice on another occasion, so there is no perception of determinism even if the alternate decision is also based on the same considerations. Maybe you weren't quite as hungry that day and think grilled salmon might be lighter than chicken in heavy cream. Regardless of the outcome, if someone asked why you made that particular decision, you'll either have a reason based on natural considerations and influences or no reason... "just bring me whatever"... in which case you didn't really decide (or to be more precise, any consideration didn't lead to a preference).

04/08/2011 02:35:41 PM · #1538

Those answers don't really get at what I was asking. I was going to come back to free will, but at first I wanted to know more about these questions.

For example, with the "random" line of questioning, once again, does your understanding of the word fit quantum fluctuations? Are they truly "random" and does that mean uncaused? Leave free will aside for the moment. It becomes quite important because, strictly speaking, this is against Materialism which says that all phenomenon are a product of material interactions. If we are leaving the backdoor open for such events, then it opens up many avenues I can pursue in discussion.

I was also asking because it appears that some "randoms" may be more random than others. If quantum fluctuations are truly random, why do they produce predictable results when you look at many iterations? Wouldn't truly random events cause truly random results even if you looked at many, many iterations? And if the randomness of quantum fluctuations can logically cause predictable results, why can't a will cause directed results even though it is, at root, random? In other words, if you insist that an uncaused event (such as contra-causal free will) is "random", maybe the word doesn't have quite the bite you intend it to.

Message edited by author 2011-04-08 14:36:51.

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/08/2011 03:20:13 PM · #1539

I know this is "Rant" but maybe you to should take this conversation offline. The messages are long and too many for me to read and follow.

04/08/2011 03:32:26 PM · #1540

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

If quantum fluctuations are truly random, why do they produce predictable results when you look at many iterations? Wouldn't truly random events cause truly random results even if you looked at many, many iterations? And if the randomness of quantum fluctuations can logically cause predictable results, why can't a will cause directed results even though it is, at root, random? In other words, if you insist that an uncaused event (such as contra-causal free will) is "random", maybe the word doesn't have quite the bite you intend it to.

Your attempt to find a straw man in randomness is a non-starter. The heart of your argument is that willful decisions aren't made by the physical brain, but by a non-corporeal spirit. As such, you fall into a homunculus fallacy since that only pushes the decision making process to a separate little person inside your head without explaining how he/it makes a choice (another brain? another little person inside his head?). It also necessitates the idea of a spirit pulling the puppet strings of your body... the very same automaton notion you reject! Those problems concern WHAT makes a decision, and the bit about randomness comes into play when you consider HOW a decision is made. Quite simply, anything you do is motivated by reason(s) because if you had no reason to will that finger up, you literally wouldn't lift a finger. The nature of quantum fluctuations is irrelevant since randomness can only produce a result, not the intent that a willful decision requires (it cannot be directed). Also, "quantum indeterminacy can be ignored for most macroscopic events, since random quantum events "average out" in the limit of large numbers of particles, where the laws of quantum mechanics asymptotically approach the laws of classical mechanics."

"Indeterminism does not confer freedom on us: I would feel that my freedom was impaired if I thought that a quantum mechanical trigger in my brain might cause me to leap into the garden and eat a slug."- J. J. C. Smart

04/08/2011 03:49:05 PM · #1541

But you keep not answering the question. I'm not looking to use Quantum fluctuations as the control for free will, but I am looking to use it as a possible analogy. If you believe truly random quantum fluctuations are uncaused and occur in a materialist universe, then you have allowed a large exception to the otherwise steadfast rule of cause-and-effect materialism.

The immaterial will could be a conglomeration of many self-contained desires and motivations. The immaterial will need not be deterministic so that instead of A--->B we can have A--->B or C and that changes the game rather than just "pushing the problem back". The answer to "why" becomes self-contained, but that does not mean the "why" is always the same (there may be many "whys" contained within the congomeration).

At the root it may be beyond my explanation and I know that will be highly unsatisfying to you (and you are welcome to consider it so), but a deterministic mind (or universe) is just as unsatisfying once we understand the glaring hole quantum fluctuations rent in the fabric of the worldview. If you can contentedly live with that, then I can contentedly live with my own view. Ironically, if I'm wrong and you are right, my acceptance of the illogical view "is as it is". At this moment that is what is to happen. Perhaps it changes down the road. Perhaps it doesn't, but certainly you cannot "blame" me for believing so as the term loses all meaning except to blame water for being wet.

EDIT:BTW, adequate determininsm is pretty well blown away (pun intended) by a nuclear bomb with a geiger counter trigger. The classical cause-effect chains are definitely going to be altered by 10 megatons of randomly triggered explosion.

Message edited by author 2011-04-08 16:31:20.

Canon FD 70-210mm �4.0 MF

04/08/2011 08:04:37 PM · #1542

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I'm not looking to use Quantum fluctuations as the control for free will, but I am looking to use it as a possible analogy. If you believe truly random quantum fluctuations are uncaused and occur in a materialist universe, then you have allowed a large exception to the otherwise steadfast rule of cause-and-effect materialism.

Ah, quantum fluctuations... "the last refuge of those who prefer to keep things as mysterious as possible." You may as well use quantum physics to allow a large exception to the otherwise steadfast rules of Newtonian physics: "Hey, the uncertainty principle allows for subatomic particles to briefly pop in and out of existence, so we're free to posit Siamese cats popping in and out of existence, too!" Materialism needn't be cause-and-effect at every level for the same reason Newtonian physics doesn't apply at every level. Does a subatomic particle need cause to move in a particular direction? No, it would be moving at the speed of light when converted from energy, and motion has to go in SOME direction or it wouldn't be motion. However, you can't just wave your arm and declare that this 'glaring hole rent in the fabric of classical mechanics' means we can imagine a tennis ball moving in some direction without being forced that way.

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

adequate determininsm is pretty well blown away (pun intended) by a nuclear bomb with a geiger counter trigger...

You'd better hope not. Adequate determinism is what puts the "will" in "free will." Without it all events are random and you cannot be responsible for making a choice.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

04/08/2011 09:18:06 PM · #1543

Originally posted by Nullix:

I know this is "Rant" but maybe you to should take this conversation offline. The messages are long and too many for me to read and follow.

Just sit back and enjoy the Doc and Scalvert show - it's best if you let the Itchy and Scratchy theme play through your head as you read the posts.

;)

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM

04/08/2011 10:52:36 PM · #1544

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by Nullix:
I know this is "Rant" but maybe you to should take this conversation offline. The messages are long and too many for me to read and follow.

Just sit back and enjoy the Doc and Scalvert show - it's best if you let the Itchy and Scratchy theme play through your head as you read the posts.

;)

Yes, but I'll have to read everything to know who said what.

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/08/2011 11:16:13 PM · #1545

Originally posted by Nullix:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by Nullix:
I know this is "Rant" but maybe you to should take this conversation offline. The messages are long and too many for me to read and follow.

Just sit back and enjoy the Doc and Scalvert show - it's best if you let the Itchy and Scratchy theme play through your head as you read the posts.

;)

Yes, but I'll have to read everything to know who said what.

Oh, trust me, even if you read it all, you'll never know that.

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

04/09/2011 01:55:46 AM · #1546

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
adequate determininsm is pretty well blown away (pun intended) by a nuclear bomb with a geiger counter trigger...

You'd better hope not. Adequate determinism is what puts the "will" in "free will." Without it all events are random and you cannot be responsible for making a choice.

Ah, but here's the rub...without it the entire universe is random and yet we both know the atom bomb example destroys adequate determinism but we still find ourselves in a very non-random world. It must mean there is another method for non-randomness that isn't deterministic. As Sherlock liked to say, when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Our logic rules out adequate determinism.
Our experience rules out a random world.

Message edited by author 2011-04-09 01:56:19.

Apple iPhone 5

04/09/2011 07:30:17 AM · #1547

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

My favourite part is when one of them tells the other that they're not going to play with them any more. Of course, a few hours later all is forgiven.

They just can't resist. A match made in (non-biblical, lowercase-h) heaven.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/09/2011 07:52:23 AM · #1548

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

we both know the atom bomb example destroys adequate determinism

Why?

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

04/09/2011 07:53:26 AM · #1549

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
we both know the atom bomb example destroys adequate determinism

Why?

Have you ever seen what's left after they explode? ;P