| Am I guilty? |  | ||
| Archive | |||
|
Posted by: The Vines ® 04/04/2002, 22:04:28 Author Profile Mail author |
Consider the reality of determinism: every event in the Universe has a causal relationship to a preceding reality all the way back to the Big Bang. Everything that exists, or happens, flows from a preceeding reality. As conscious beings we do not perceive the complexity of the calculations that occur in our brain, and that actually lead to the final subjective perception of consciousness: sense of self, experience, and all other cognitive phenomena. These calculations never make it to the conscious level except as what we percieve as a unitary conscious experience. In reality consciousness is far from unitary in its underlying components. This is a significant fact. We subjectively view ourselves as beings governed by a certain degree of randomness because of the impossibility to perceive these underlying workings of the brain in their entirety. Nonetheless these workings are real and they govern the outcome of all the mind yields. When we consider that our very brain and consciousness is governed by the laws of determinism (and all experimentation points toward this conclusion) we immediately realize that every decision, thought, action, perception, experience, etc.. , is the consequence of a preceeding reality. All scientific observation and experimentation tells us that the synaptic structure of our brain makes us what we are, think what we think, and experience what we experience. We are the product of inherited cognitive modules (hardwired instincts), and of conditioning through learning. Considering these facts it is obvious that our idea of agency is an illusion created by our inability to see the underlying workings of our brain beneath the horizon delineated by what we call consciousness. We think we are controlling our actions because we cannot see the calculations occuring that either approve or veto a certain course of action. My questions are: 1) Why is the concept of responsibility relevant if we know that all our action is determined? We are in fact a product of our genetic makeup and of our environment. If agency is an illusion, so is responsibility, and yet the latter seems to be an important cognitive tool. I have my ideas, but I would like to gather your's as well as I struggle to form a more complete idea in regards. TV (See Pinker, Cosmides, Tooby, Dawkins, Blackmore, Dennett to gather more about these concepts) |
| | Recommend | Alert | Previous | Next | Current page |
Replies to this message
Determinism: some off-the-cuff musings Re: Am I guilty? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
04/04/2002, 22:42:10
Author Profile Mail author
I don't share your confidence that the universe is deterministic. I used to, when I believed that there was an omniscient God. It logically followed that if God knows everything, then everything is knowable, including the future, so the universe is deterministic. But absent that assumption, I am prepared to entertain the idea that the universe proceeds probabilistically. I guess that can still be considered a soft form of determinism, where each state proceeds from the previous state, but not entirely predictably. That is, from a given state S, there is a small range of states from which the next state S-prime must be selected, although the selection itself is a roll of the quantum dice.
This differs from hard determinism, which holds that nature's laws are immutable and unambiguous, however poorly we may understand them so far. The apparent indeterminacy of quantum mechanics is masking a deeper order which we have so far failed to describe. The old man really doesn't play dice.
So I can't go down that road with you. I am not persuaded that the universe is necessarily deterministic.
On the plus side: I have my free will back.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A comment on nomenclature Re: Determinism: some off-the-cuff musings -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
04/05/2002, 05:13:50
Author Profile Mail author
Hi, Alf! Thanks for your post, which was clear and concise. I just have one comment I'd like to make...
I'm sure you didn't mean to, but you have inadvertently appropriated a formal philosophical term, "soft determinism", for your view. The position known as "soft determinism" isn't consistent with your outlook, so it might be a good idea to choose different nomenclature for your view in order to avoid confusion. Maybe "quasi-determinism"? Or "probabilistic determinism"?
I'm going to respond to Vines' O.P. to defend the formal philosophical view known as soft determinism next, so I wanted to give you a heads up that the view I'll be espousing is different from your own.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Apr 05, 2002, 05:14:10
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Come come now Alfie Re: Determinism: some off-the-cuff musings -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/05/2002, 08:45:34
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Alfie:
First of all the fact that the Universe's laws are built on probablilities has nothing to do with its being less deterministic. The principle of indetermination (Heisenberg) is basically telling us that we, as observers, cannot KNOW everything that happens in the Universe because in the very moment that we try to observe its state we change the state. Not knowing the original state, there is no way to make exact predictions, hence we must work with probablilities and wave functions.
All this however doesn't mean that the underlying laws are random. They are as determinisitic as ever, its just that we cannot observe them in action. The fact that various possibilities coexist as eigenstates, as demonstrated by interference patterns on 2 slit experiments with photons for example, doesn't make the world based on randomness, just unknowability. The determinism is still there.
As to the brain, the biological processes involved in the computations yielding our cognitive functions have not been proven to be influenced in any great measure by Quantum Phenomena. The only instance I am aware of is the disruption of Wan Der Waals chemical bonds during the use of anesthetics... As to the actual role QM may have on consciousness that is more a belief than a scientific theory. I think you alread read Penrose's book on the subject if I recall.
It seems that there is way too much interference in brain activity for their to be any kind of quantum coherence. In any case, even if there were QM effects in consciousness, that would not make consciousness random, it would simply make it unknowable, while still being determined. There is no role of dice, it only seems that way as far as we are concerned because we cannot predict. In any case, it is probable that the brain's machinery is so complex as to render it unknowable anyway even without the contribution of QM.
In any case, even if our cognition were random it would still be beyond our control. We cannot control randomness. So there would be no free will.
Those who invoke quantum mechanics to restore free will to man fail to realize that WE CANNOT POSTULATE OUR HAVING ANY KIND OF POWER TO CONTROL THE WAY A WAVE FUNCTION WILL COLLAPSE YIELDING A SPECIFIC CLASSICAL REALITY (observable and measurable by using classical physics and instruments). Free will would imply our being able to control the way a synaptic pathway will function to yield a specific result. If QM were involved, this would have to mean that we are able to determine which eigenstate would become classical reality in collapsing. QM does not take away the problem of free will it aggravates it because it introduces probability which means that the outcome is even further out of our control, while yet still being deterministic.
Free will means that we are able to control the synaptic pathways so as to bring about a specific result. It would take an outside agent to control the strength of synapses to yield a specific result without the involvement of QM. With QM in the picture there is, by definition, no outside agent that can determine the outcome in a predictable way because of the indetermination principle of Heisenberg.
So my questions about responsibility are still there.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Staking new territory Re: Come come now Alfie -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
04/10/2002, 13:23:16
Author Profile Mail author
Since Farmer Martin chased me off his land with a brandished pitchfork, I'll stake a claim to the terms "certain" and "uncertain determinism" (until I find out that I'm trespassing on somebody else's spread here). Your faith that Heisenberg's uncertainty is simply an issue of knowability is and must remain just that: faith. As I say, the universe may well follow "certain determinism," but currently there is no way that we can know it. I am a little weirded out by the idea that strict causality may not hold at the quantum level, but the idea cannot be confidently refuted (as you appear to believe).
Whether or not quantum mechanics directly influences consciousness (and you correctly cite my skepticism on that point vis-a-vis Penrose), I have to believe that the large-scale randomness of non-linear systems like the universe does reflect and amplify the stochastic nature of quantum phenomena. (Otherwise, why be concerned that we don't yet have a theory of gravity that reconciles QM and relativity?) I am willing to amend this basically intuitive impression, but I haven't really played with it much so far.
I am also willing to concede that my free will is still illusory, even in a universe of "uncertain determinism." Philosophically, I'll cast my lot with Martin and the soft determinists.
Modified by Alf Omega at Wed, Apr 10, 2002, 13:24:05
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A quick question. Re: Staking new territory -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
04/10/2002, 20:33:22
Author Profile Mail author
Alf,
Out of curiosity, which interpretation of the 'Quantum Theory of Measurement' do you prefer?
Thanks -- and congrats (since I hadn't contributed to your thread),
Aaron
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
A quick answer Re: A quick question. -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Alf Omega ®
04/12/2002, 00:14:36
Author Profile Mail author
Thanks. While I am broadly familiar with the landscape of modern physics, I am nowhere near as passionate about it as you obviously are. I suspect that I haven't really engaged the question to the point where I am entitled to an opinion about the merits of the various interpretations. That said, I must confess to a palpable aversion to the Many Worlds view (sorry, Vines). It all just seems a little silly to me.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Staking new territory Re: Staking new territory -- Alf Omega Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/10/2002, 23:18:08
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Alfa-Daddy:
I think you make strong points in your post. One thing that is not clear to me is if you are stating that due to stochastic processes determinism is invalidated.
It is true that the quantum uncertainity in our Universe is amplified yielding the chaos ever present, but that simply tells us that we are unable to pinpoint the initial conditions of the system. A deterministic view of physics would tells us that if we could measure to an infinite degree of exactness we would also be able to predict with an infinite degree of exactness because of the deterministic nature of the laws of the Universe. We know that infinite precision is impossible in measurement, hence the impossibility to apply the determinisitc laws of physics to get exact predicitons. We must use probabilities... Fine, but does that say anything about determinism per se? I think not. It just tells us that the use of determinism is meaningless as far as our ability to predict goes for our finite ability to measure initial conditions, nothing more.
When you say: " As I say, the universe may well follow "certain determinism," but currently there is no way that we can know it" I think you are not stating the facts correctly. If we do a double slit experiment with photons or electrons, and we measure, the wave funtion collapses and the resulting particle will either pass through slit 1 or 2. There is a 50% - 50% chance one way or the other. We are talking probabilities. We may not be able to predict, but we know the result will be one or the other, not random... There is always an order behind the uncertainty of initial conditions or there would be no order in the outcome of results. Quantum phenomena are not predictable, but we apply probability within the structure of deterministic wave function equations and it works.... if there were no order behind the indetermination why would there be order in the outcome. True this cannot be proven and is thus a metaphysical assumption, and your characterization of my comments as faith based are essentially correct. There is no way for me to know for sure. It just seems to follow that if there is an order in quantum phenomena, there should be a link to determinism.
You seem to indicate that indetermination has strong repercussions on your philosophical views. Is that correct? If so why?
TV
(P.S. if you consider yourself a soft determinist, how do you justify the arbitrary placement of blame on the individual actually breaking the moral code? See my reply to Martin)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Another opinion Re: Re: Staking new territory -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
04/11/2002, 00:20:32
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Vines,
In your post you suggest there could be no apparent order to the outcome of quantum events were there no underlying order to indeterminism, as per double slit interference experiments. I would suggest that this need not be, that this "order" (what I would describe as a 'cleanliness') is simply the result of weighted probability densities within the wavefunction itself. The lay of eigenvalues within a wavefunction is dependent on past states, and adheres to meaningful curves (Gaussian and otherwise), and so produces "order" using said as a basis.
I would suggest this view is necessitated, as the interference patterns of double slit experiments could not be produced were there no physical indeterminism. An electron must interfere with something, no matter what the initial conditions, for an interference patter to be produced with electrons passing one at a time. Clearly, I prefer a strict probability interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (my previous statements bearing this out), and have no wish to argue this point, it is simply something I favor.
But if I remember correctly, you prefer Many Worlds to the problem of the 'Quantum Theory of Measurement.' If this is true, I am curious as to how you rectify your considerations on determinism with the formalism of Everett's premise of physical indeterminism (or physicality to the various eigenvalues of a DeWitt equation)?
Best regards,
Aaron
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Everett Re: Another opinion -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/11/2002, 00:42:03
Author Profile Mail author
You are correct in mentioning my preference for MWI. It is exactly this theory which eliminates the need for special rules as applicable to an observer as per Copenhagen.
"Yes, many-worlds is a deterministic theory, since the wavefunction obeys a deterministic wave equation at all times. All possible outcomes of a measurement or interaction are embedded within the universal wavefunction although each observer, split by each observation, is only aware of single outcomes due to the linearity of the wave equation. The world appears indeterministic, with the usual probabilistic collapse of the wavefunction, but at the objective level, which includes all outcomes, determinism is restored." (Pierce)
I think that is a simple summary of the point. Our separation from other branches of the Universal Wavefunction eliminates our ability to objectively observe the various outcomes of thermodynamcially non-reversible events as they determine various histories, but according to the math, those branches objectively exist though separate from our physical reality.
Interference exists only because there have been no non-reversible events causing a separation and hence the Universal Wavefunction objectively co-exists in its superpositions, demostrated by the interference. This is no way eliminates determinism because all these wave functions are based on deterministic law.
Is there a conflict you notice that I haven't caught onto?
When you say: The lay of eigenvalues within a wavefunction is dependent on past states, and adheres to meaningful curves (Gaussian and otherwise), and so produces "order" using said as a basis... is this not because the wavefunctions themselves are based on determinism? The dependence on past states is nothing more than the possibilities given by the existence of various initial conditions, correct? and hence of deterministic outcomes to each scenario. I see no conflict with determinism except for the fact that we can only propose possible initial conditions not being able to know them exactly.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Everett Re: Everett -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
04/11/2002, 01:02:39
Author Profile Mail author
The Vines,
Yes, as I know (or understand it) as well, Quantum Mechanics is a deterministic theory of wavefunctions -- and thus my justification for the apparent order. Where our ideas diverge, I gather, is in the determination of quantum objects in their temporal evolution as dictated by these wavefunctions. If I understand your view correctly, you suggest there is underlying order (and determinism) to the pathways of the objects as described by wavefunctions. I have just the opposite thought, that these pathways are entirely probabilistic -- their behavior guided by the value of eigenfunctions, but otherwise physically indeterministic. This is a rather short explanation, yet I think it adequately implies how what I have reported is consistent with Pierce.
Non-reversible thermodynamics implies the improbability of universal coalescence (with the exception of anamolous [quantum-type] events), but is it the physical reality of eigenfunctions which produces the various universes. In fact, your explanation of interference necessitates such a physical reality (which we are both in agreement on); I only find that such temporal evolution as Quantum Mechanics describes is strictly probability based, rather than ordered as in some hidden variables scheme. Am I making sense to you?
Aaron
Modified by Aaron V. at Thu, Apr 11, 2002, 01:07:24
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Absolutely Re: Re: Everett -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/11/2002, 08:07:51
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Aaron:
I love conversing with you because of your love and understanding for science, especially physics!
As to your assessment of my quote from Pierce: ...there is underlying order (and determinism) to the pathways of the objects as described by wavefunctions. I have just the opposite thought, that these pathways are entirely probabilistic -- their behavior guided by the value of eigenfunctions, but otherwise physically indeterministic,
I would ammend the statement as follows: there is underlying order (or determinism) to the pathways of the objects within the framework of their existence in the Universal Wavefunction and the latter's ramification into various isolated "worlds." The coexistence of these pathways as described by the Multiverse Wave Function is viewed by humans as probabilistic because of our mind being conditioned by classical reality in our sensorial experience. It is my opinion that the various eigenstates actually physically coexist, and as described by Everett, as demonstrated by interference, and that what we view as a collapse of the wavefunction is simply a non reversible separation of eigenstates into separate "worlds." Our impossibility to view cognitively through experience the entirety of the Multiversal Wavefunction's aspects as pertaining to its superpositions and ramifications leaves us with the impression of randomness in the determination of eigestate values that actually become classical reality during measurement.
I suggest you read a paper of Pierce's on the topic... its actually quite thorough in its explaining MWI. You can find it here http://www.hedweb.com/everett/everett.htm. and I'm sure you'll like it.
Good talking to you. Lets continue this tangent, and see if we can somehow pull it back to man's responsibility in view of determinism.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Guilty as Charged Re: Am I guilty? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
04/04/2002, 23:00:05
Author Profile Mail author
The Vines,
Without involving myself in another discussion on the nature of determinism and indeterminism (as applies to Quantum Mechanics, since I see it as inapplicable to free-will anyway), I'll instead base my answer on the relativity of perspective by the observer. As you say, the conscious mind does not calculate the future, rather relying on heuristics -- a decidedly probability based methodology. I would suggest this allows for a 'relative' free-will; relative for the consciousness in question. And on this basis the individual can be held responsible for his/her actions.
Regards,
Aaron
(I apologize for bugging out on an earlier exchange. If you'd like, I can dig up the thread and supply a response.)
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Explain further Re: Guilty as Charged -- Aaron V. Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/05/2002, 09:12:07
Author Profile Mail author
Hi Aaron V:
Please explain further. From what I see, even if the brain were able to infer possible consequences to action and reprogram itself, which in fact it does, its reprogramming is always based on antecedent programs. As Steven Pinker puts it, we have kind of like computer program eecutive demons (not in the religious sense, but in the programming sense) that execute and organize data, etc... We may be able to infer possibile outcomes to actions and reprogram our course, but the inferrence and the reprogramming is based on desired outcome as dictated by these demons.
Let me know what you think.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Exactly Re: Explain further -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
04/06/2002, 00:24:57
Author Profile Mail author
The Vines,
I agree with your sentiments wholeheartedly. The point I was attempting to impress is that due to our heuristic (and limited) thought processes, from the perspective of our consciousness, the future is undetermined. From this basis, I think we can infer a 'local indeterminacy' or 'relative free-will.' Since from our perspective we (meaning our consciousness, or more broadly our mind) determines our actions, we can thus hold ourselves responsible for our actions.
There is also an entirely different approach I failed to mention before -- this being the pragmatic. If we can ascertain* that an individual who commits a crime (on whatever basis, determined or not) is likely to do so again, we can take preventive measures which would retroactively hold said individual responsible. Guilty due to circumstances out of one's control, perhaps. What do you think?
Aaron
* I felt it wise not to confuse the sense of determine.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Soft Determinism and Ethical Culpability Re: Am I guilty? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
04/05/2002, 07:11:38
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Vines, Alf, and Aaron, During the lengthy philosophical history of the issue of free will, determinism, and ethical responsibility, two of the several positions that have received the most attention are commonly referred to as "Hard Determinism" and "Soft Determinism". This nomenclature is less than optimal, but if we were to arbitrarily redefine them or create neologisms for those well established views, we will be stepping on history and sowing unnecessary confusion. I really HATE overloading philosophical terms with new meanings! (Richard Rorty's arbitrary redefinition of the term "pragmatism" is one of the worst intellectual crimes in modern philosophical history and I will not be a party to such things.) Anyway...
Both hard and soft determinists are "strict determinists". That is, they both hold that there are no uncaused events and that each event is a product of antecedent causes and nothing else. As such, since human brain activity and consciousness are an inseparable part of a vast chain of antecedent causes, humans are completely incapable of creating novel event chains that are somehow free -- no matter how minimally -- of antecedent causes.
The frequent objection of scientifically minded people -- like Alf and Aaron so far -- that quantum mechanics tells us that some events are probabilistic is entirely irrelevant in my view, since humans are just as incapable of freely altering the probabilities of microscopic quantum events as they are of freely altering the flow of macroscopic events. Quantum indeterminacy is thus utterly irrelevant to the questions we are discussing, which centers instead on ethical culpability and the question of whether human beings can act non-causally.
Hard Determinism is the view that because human decisions and choices are a direct result of antecedent causes that are completely beyond our power to control (which at most only falsely appear to be under our control), assigning ethical responsibility to an individual is meaningless and arbitrary. This view entails three fundamental claims:
(1) "Free will" is defined as the human ability to create new event chains at least partially ex nihilo, free and independent to some extent from pre-existing event chains.In other words, the impossibility of genuinely free choice of the kind defined in (1) precludes ethical culpability.(2) Moral and ethical culpability requires that humans be capable of this kind of ultimate free will, since such culpability can only be assigned to the actual originator of an event chain that leads to morally or ethically objectionable consequences.
(3) That because this kind of free will is impossible, there ARE no such "originators" and thus no human being is morally or ethically culpable for their actions.
Soft Determinism is the view I hold and it differs from Hard Determinism in one absolutely pivotal way. Like hard determinists, soft determinists strongly hold that every event in the Universe is a direct consequence of antecedent causes and therefore humans are incapable of creating novel causes or event chains independently by any act of will or choice. Free will thus remains an illusion, albeit a natural and very comforting one.
However, soft determinists do NOT hold that ultimate free will in the sense defined above is required for moral culpability! I and my soft determinist peers instead hold that all that is required for ethical responsibility is circumstantial freedom of action. In other words, a person need only be:
(a) Free of restraintsfor that person to be held morally responsible for their actions or failures to act. A person need not be the true "originator" of an event chain to be ethically culpable for an event chain that includes his or her actions or deliberate inaction.(b) Cognizant of the implications, i.e., able to recognize an event chain that could reasonably be expected to produce a morally objectionable consequence as a result of acting OR failing to act,
(c) Circumstantially "capable" of sufficiently interfering with the event chain so as to avoid or mitigate an ethically objectionable outcome,
That should be enough to understand at least the basics of my position. I am willing to elaborate more fully, provide examples and answer question if requested, but for now it's late and I'm signing off.
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Apr 05, 2002, 07:12:30
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Beautiful ! Thanks Martin. One observation. Re: Soft Determinism and Ethical Culpability -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/05/2002, 09:06:20
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Martin:
That was truly a beautiful post. I love the clarity and the depth of your knowledge! Thanks for sharing.
It seems to me that Soft Determinists are basically saying that even though there is no free will, it is still useful to use the concept of responsibility in our every day life, and I agree with that.
I find the "philosophy" somewhat questionable however, and I'll tell you why.
You said:
However, soft determinists do NOT hold that ultimate free will in the sense defined above is required for moral culpability! I and my soft determinist peers instead hold that all that is required for ethical responsibility is circumstantial freedom of action. In other words, a person need only be:
(a) Free of restraints(b) Cognizant of the implications, i.e., able to recognize an event chain that could reasonably be expected to produce a morally objectionable consequence as a result of acting OR failing to act,
(c) Circumstantially "capable" of sufficiently interfering with the event chain so as to avoid or mitigate an ethically objectionable outcome,
for that person to be held morally responsible for their actions or failures to act. A person need not be the true "originator" of an event chain to be ethically culpable for an event chain that includes his or her actions or deliberate inaction.
Basically, recognition of implications, and capability do not lead to culpability of the individual. I say this because determinism tells us that these factors are dictated by genes, and memes, which are passed on by parents and environment.
An individual is not free if restrained in his action, we agree on that. But in reality we are all restrained by our cognitive modules which confer instinctual behavior, and by the conditioning of our brain through sensorial experience with the environment. By definition the culpable parties would be parents and environment, leading quickly to regress into the past and annihilating any concept of responsibility. It seems that soft determinists arbitrarily choose to place the blame on the direct involved, and arbitrarily absolve the rest, leaving the blamed party to pay the price on its own. This is arbitrary, and that's how it works in our animal world, but are there any alternatives to this inferior way of reconning?
Let me know what you think.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Please reread my original post. Re: Soft Determinism and Ethical Culpability -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Aaron V. ®
04/06/2002, 00:07:00
Author Profile Mail author
Martin,
You had said: "The frequent objection of scientifically minded..." If you will reread my original post, you willl see that I never claimed this argument -- in fact, just the opposite. I agree with you that the physical uncertainty of Quantum Mechanics is entirely irrelevant, as the affects are undirected. Actually, I have oft used this argument to refute the 'Quantum Theory of Consciousness.'
Aaron
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Am I guilty? Re: Am I guilty? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
04/05/2002, 09:59:07
Author Profile Mail author
TV wrote: "My questions are: 1) Why is the concept of responsibility relevant if we know that all our action is determined? We are in fact a product of our genetic makeup and of our environment. If agency is an illusion, so is responsibility, and yet the latter seems to be an important cognitive tool.
2) Do you think the tool "repsonsibility" could ever be done away with?"
My responses:
1) Responsibility is relevant because if there were no agent to bring about a certain result, then the result would not happen. Example: I drink too much, I get in a car and I run someone over. If I did not drink, or drive while intoxicated, then that person would not have been run over. We can say that all of the events of the universe led to the inevitable event that I would not only have reason to drink, but that I would finish drinking, find the keys to my car, and press on the accelerator in such precise timing that I would hit that person. As a cognizant agent, however, I knowingly participated in the determined event that caused the injury. The automobile is not "responsible" because it is not capable of independent, directed movement. The alcohol is not "responsible" because it is not capable of entering a person's body independently. The street is not "responsible", etc. Only a cognizant agent which acts as a manipulator can be held "responsible". If this doesn't make sense, let me know and I will try to elaborate further.
2) Possibly, but then it becomes survival of the fittest, don't you think? Furthermore, if no one is "responsible" for their acts, then our culture and society comes from inevitable, determined results as much as any single act by an indiviual agent. This would include the activity that we call punishment for a crime - if you're not responsible for committing a crime, then I'm not responsible for the punishment I inflict on you for that crime.
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Useful vision but does not address the problem Re: Re: Am I guilty? -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/05/2002, 22:35:33
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Zip:
your vision is useful to us as humans and I agree with you, but the fact that we are, as you put it, cognizant of our actions doesn't make our actions any less determined by genes and learning. We are still a highly complex computer system that is unaware of the underlying calculations that make it do what it does. What we are today is fruit of yesterday though we may think we are totally in control, that is an illusion.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Guilt and punishment associations Re: Useful vision but does not address the problem -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: zip ®
04/09/2002, 13:17:59
Author Profile Mail author
Vines,
Even if we accept that humans are "highly complex computer systems", I don't think that we are always "unaware of the underlying calculations that make (us) do what (we do)". In fact, as computer systems, we rely very much on continuous input that redirects our actions. For instance, if we step on a nail we don't continue in our forward progress - we react to the pain that is a new modifier in our activities. The same is true for "guilt" and "punishment".
If we are cognizant of the likely results caused by our interactions with objects around us, then we will process the available information to determine our activity. If there is going to be a net negative result, then we will avoid that activity if quantifiers allow us to do so, i.e. we won't step on the next nail if we see it poking out.
As a network of associated humans, we will assign negative qualifiers to a variety of activities that typically have net negative results for humans as a whole. In order to ensure agreement with those negative qualifiers, we enact a whole host of reciprocal activities that only occur when the negative activity is taken by any member of the network. This, of course, is "punishment". Punishment is determined by "guilt", but "guilt" does not always lead to "punishment".
"Guilt" that is self-determined - When we do something that has a net negative (meaning harmful) result, we understand the result because we are cognizant of the variables that led to that result, including our actions. The very awareness of the potential for a negative result is a factor in determining our actions. However, sometimes that awareness is not enough. Thus, the discordance in our thought patterns between what could have generated positive results and the actual activity that had negative results is termed "guilt". If there is only mild discordance, then there is hardly any guilt. If we are able to acknowledge a major discrepancy between the possible results, and our activity precipitated a particularly negative result, then the guilt is stronger. In these cases, it may be said that we punish ourselves even if there is no external punishment because our brain releases mildly harmful bodies that have a net negative result on the body. This can happen even if the activity had a net positive result for the body, i.e. sex in an adulterous relationship.
"Guilt" that is assigned - When the network of associated humans feels a net negative result, then the individual cause of such a result is determined to be "guilty" of being a net negative motivator that may continue to yield net negative results. Therefore, with the consensus of the network, that causal human is "punished" so as to redirect the activities of that individual and all other members of the network to the extent that the same net negative result may be avoided. The only problem here is that "guilt" is not always determined, and sometimes the wrong individual is determined to be the cause of the net negative result. But even in these cases, punishment is doled out in relation to assigned guilt for the sake of avoiding such actions in the future.
I know I've rambled here, but I hope I've made some sense.
zipperhead
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Thanks for your reply. Re: Guilt and punishment associations -- zip Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/09/2002, 19:04:11
Author Profile Mail author
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Am I guilty? Re: Am I guilty? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
04/05/2002, 12:21:42
Author Profile Mail author
Your question is even more elusive because of the use of the term "I". Yes, "you" are guilty. However, the 'bag of mostly water' is not.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Go further Re: Re: Am I guilty? -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/05/2002, 22:36:54
Author Profile Mail author
Are you postulating that the "I" and the "bag of water" are not the same?
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Go further Re: Go further -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
04/08/2002, 12:09:14
Author Profile Mail author
I'm saying that whether the referent is an "I" or a "bag of water" remains to be 'seen'. The idea of free-will (with varying degree) is bound up in the term "I".
--
You might be intellectually convinced that you have no free-will. But even if your right, I'll bet every day you operate as if you are actually making meaningful choices.
I wonder if any system capable of self-contemplation can 'know' whether or not it's determined? But there I go again using terms like "self" which seem to load the question.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Exactly the point Re: Re: Go further -- someone Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/08/2002, 20:10:29
Author Profile Mail author
Someone:
I think you bring up the point exactly. You are right in stating that a day will not go by in which I will not act is completely in control of my actions. We are built that way after all... And the very point is that we do not see ourselves as deterministic type creatures because we are unable to see what goes on underneath the horizon of our consciousness.
Some argue that the more complex the brain the more difficult it would be for us to percieve consciously what is happening at the root of all action... What if we were theoretically able to consciously perceive that determinism? Would we then be like robots? Would we actually have a sense of self the way we do now? Would a sense of responsibility exist?
What if our technology were to evolve to the point that we could see what was going on in our brains? How would that affect us?
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Finally, someone who understands! Re: Am I guilty? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ryan ®
04/05/2002, 17:32:51
Author Profile Mail author
A long time ago I posted the argument that, if one accepts naturalism, they must conclude that there is no such thing as design. I didn't get much appreciation for the argument, except from Boje. Here it is:
...there are die-harders who would counter with the old quip, "biological systems can change and
adapt--they are not like designed objects which can not be created through natural causes."
Rpcman once used this kind of reasoning with me, but it only reveals the ignorance of the naturalist as to
the weakness of his own position. The naturalist maintains that the universe started out with, and is
governed exclusively by, undirected natural causes.
Therefore, naturalists DO believe that watches and computer programs, tennis shoes,
and even backyard gardens, were brought about through strictly natural, undirected causes. Let me further
qualfy that.
Do they not believe that man arose through natural, unguided processes? Do they not believe that
everything that man does has an underlying mechanical/chemical/ reason, that despite man's
consciousness he would be delusional to suppose that "he"
has control over his actions? Well, then, it logically follows that man, acting under strictly natural processes
beyond intelligent/conscious control, built the watch, the computer program and the pair of tennis shoes.
These items, therefore, to be consistant with naturalist thought, were created through strictly natural
causes.
If a naturalist were to counter by saying that man is more than a strictly natural pile of molecules and that
man's intelligence is the product of something other than unguided causation, that naturalist would be, by
very definition, opposing his own premise.
The naturalist corners himself by denying the complexity of man. (ie--"it's only biological")
The naturalist shoots himself in the foot by arguing that thinking is itself a randomly mutated, mechanical
trait.
The logic is inescapable for the naturalist: watches, computer programs and tennis shoes are the result of
strictly natural, unguided processes.
For the naturalist, intelligence can not be the guiding force behind creation, as intelligence itself is the
delusional slave of mechanical, neurological interactions and processes and has no real agency.
Naturalists truly are ignorant as to the implications of their own position, but it is absolutely
inescapable---escalators, television sets, magazines, computers, light bulbs, lawnmowers and telephones
did not exist at the time of the Big Bang, but they exist now. Since the entire point of naturalism is that
natural processes based on laws, randomness an dumb luck have controlled everything, the naturalist
must, to be consistant, maintain that everything which presently exists was created exclusively by
undirected natural processes. To the consistant naturalist, "intelligent design" is an oxymoron.
It is far more logical to me to suppose that intelligence lives and thrives in and of itself, apart from this empirical
reality; that the intelligent agent of the intelligence realm
can control matter and it obeys His omniscient, omnipotent voice.
Ryan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Finally, someone who understands! Re: Finally, someone who understands! -- Ryan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: someone ®
04/05/2002, 18:10:03
Author Profile Mail author
"It is far more logical to me to suppose that intelligence lives and thrives in and of itself, apart from this empirical
reality; that the intelligent agent of the intelligence realm
can control matter and it obeys His omniscient, omnipotent voice."are you a skousanite?
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
That's a misleading argument Re: Finally, someone who understands! -- Ryan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
04/05/2002, 19:11:14
Author Profile Mail author
Ryan, I can see why your argument wasn't appreciated, for it is full of false assertions and claims that are entirely contrary to fact!
Your fatal error comes early on, when you incorrectly claim: "The naturalist maintains that the universe started out with, and is governed exclusively by, undirected natural causes."
That is a misleading assertion (and must have been a knowing one) based on ambiguous and misleading phraseology. I believe that this poor choice of language was deliberate because we see that, in the VERY NEXT SENTENCE, you knowingly EXPLOIT the ambiguity and confusion in expression that you yourself created in the first place! Here's what you say: "Therefore, naturalists DO believe that watches and computer programs, tennis shoes,
and even backyard gardens, were brought about through strictly natural, undirected causes."Have you no shame, Ryan? No shred of intellectual integrity?
Your unfair and ambiguous use of the word "undirected" is immediately put to the shockingly dishonest use of a synonym for "random", which you then use to destroy the false position you yourself created. You have deliberately erected a straw man that you then proceeded to knock down as if you had actually accomplished something!!
- - - -
There are also different types of naturalists, so that word is also ambiguous. The view to which you are referring is more accurately named "physicalism".
Physicalism -- to provide a more accurate and less ambiguous definition -- is the view that the entire Universe both results FROM and results IN nothing but materialistic states and state transitions. All state transitions are strictly determined from previous state "data" by the "application" of one or more "procedures" or "algorithms". In this view, physical law yields the complete set of "algorithms" for controlling state transitions.
Here are some examples of such algorithms:
- A photon which impinges on an atom results in an output of an atom with a higher energy state.
- A spreadsheet program in a personal computer takes the contents of two memory locations, adds them together, and stores the result in another memory location as output.
- A sudden motion in the field of vision of a human being results in a brain state transition into another set of evolved stimulus->response algorithms and a state transition to a re-focused consciousness to a possible threat.
- A human being who has undergone the requisite and appropriate state transitions that occur during learning and experience follows a watch-creating algorithm and produces a watch as output.
- Ryan is exposed to a compelling datum which is not consistent with the state of his religious beliefs, so his alarm algorithms engage his denial algorithms.
So the question is: Does a human being have the mystical power to create a novel state or algorithm ex nihilo that is completely independent of all previous states and existing algorithms?
No. No more than a computer could do so. All new states (effects) result directly from previous states according to previous algorithms (causes). New algorithms are merely the output of one or more previous algorithms given certain input states.
(An important note: Although I have tried to defend this particular view and nomenclature, I neither hold it myself nor do I reject it. I am not sufficiently versed in its arguments and assumptions to either endorse it or oppose it at this time.)
- - - -
But this post is not intended to support a particular alternative to Ryan's many errors but merely to point how staggeringly false and specious his pathetic straw man "arguments" actually are!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Apr 05, 2002, 19:33:39
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Wow, that went over your head! Re: That's a misleading argument -- Martin Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ryan ®
04/05/2002, 19:35:44
Author Profile Mail author
Instead of asking me what I meant by the word "undirected," you
assumed that I meant it to mean "random." In reality, I did not. You then proceed to label the implication of randomness (which was all in your head anyways) as a "straw man." To make matters worse, you argue against the randomness point-- a straw man of yours which I never made nor intended to imply.Highly ironic, to say the least, considering the fact that your argument against your straw man consisted of accusing me of arguing against a straw man.
I'm not even gonna even try to explain it to you any further. Why do I even bother?
Your friend,
Ryan
Modified by Ryan at Fri, Apr 05, 2002, 19:45:23
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Evasionary baloney Re: Wow, that went over your head! -- Ryan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Martin ®
04/05/2002, 20:14:31
Author Profile Mail author
Ryan, Squirm and wiggle and rage into dishonest denial all you like, your argument is nothing but a pathetically dishonest straw man, WHATEVER you claim to believe the word "undirected" meant!
It is all there is BLACK AND WHITE!! Here are your EXACT WORDS:
The naturalist maintains that the universe started out with, and is governed exclusively by, undirected natural causes. Therefore, naturalists DO believe that watches and computer programs, tennis shoes, and even backyard gardens, were brought about through strictly natural, undirected causes.Your first sentence is either a LIE or a false statement. Your second sentence is clearly a LIE: a DELIBERATELY false statement which you deliberately chose because it made the naturalist position look idiotic!!
Naturalism is NOT the ridiculous caricature you fabricated! But more important, your conclusion is knowingly stupid and false precisely because it served your grotesquely dishonest straw man!
You've stooped lower than I would have thought you capable.
If you want to challenge me on this issue, DOCUMENT YOUR CLAIMS WITH CITATIONS FROM A PRO-NATURALISM WORK OR SITE!!
- Martin
Modified by Martin at Fri, Apr 05, 2002, 20:14:46
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Re: Finally, someone who understands! Re: Finally, someone who understands! -- Ryan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/05/2002, 23:11:59
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Ryan:
It seems you misunderstand naturalism because of your idea of intelligence.
Material systems are intelligent because they follow an executive program conferred by an internal chemical lab. All "living" material systems, or organisms are able to change the course of the events in their future based on decisions made in this internal chemical lab.
A bacteria uses its flagella to get to light and food. A cat hides from a dog. Man builds tools. All these are adaptations that occured thanks to selection in our evolutionary past. These adaptations allowed us to survive as species.
1) For the naturalist, intelligence can not be the guiding force behind creation, as intelligence itself is the
delusional slave of mechanical, neurological interactions and processes and has no real agency.
2)Naturalists truly are ignorant as to the implications of their own position, but it is absolutely
inescapable---escalators, television sets, magazines, computers, light bulbs, lawnmowers and telephones
did not exist at the time of the Big Bang, but they exist now. Since the entire point of naturalism is that
natural processes based on laws, randomness an dumb luck have controlled everything, the naturalist
must, to be consistant, maintain that everything which presently exists was created exclusively by
undirected natural processes.3) To the consistant naturalist, "intelligent design" is an oxymoron
1) Intelligence IS the neurological interaction and process you mention, and is run by the internal chemical lab in our cells with all the directive orders conferred by our DNA, and ultimately also by the chemical behavior of the cells in their interaction with the environment. Essentially the need of agency is irrelevant as far intelligence goes.
2) No they are not. These tools you mention are the fruit of the creativity our cognition confers to us. This ability is an adaptation that allows us to better survive. But you must see that the very cognition behind creativity is based on executive programs deep within the brain and is essentially guided by inherited cognitive modules that allow us to learn within our environment and understand how to creatively manipulate the latter so as to organize matter according to intelligent design, to our advantage. Dumb luck of circumstance is no longer once an intelligent life form has an executive program whereby it is able to use matter in its surrounding environment in ways that foster its survival. Compex intelligence such as that in man is a possible outcome in terms of evolutionary probability.
3) Why? Intelligence by defintion changes its environment according to an executive program dictated by the chemical lab that it is. The complexity of the intelligent design depends on the complexity of the life form.
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
You are missing my point... Re: Re: Finally, someone who understands! -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Ryan ®
04/07/2002, 13:49:41
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Vines,
With all due respect, my argument was made in full knowledge of the points you throw in my direction. What you don't understand is that it is precisely because intelligence is (to humor the naturalist) strictly mechanical that "design" is absolutely no different than something being brought about through strictly natural processes.
TV:
1) Intelligence IS the neurological interaction and process you mention, and is run by the internal chemical lab in our cells with all the directive orders conferred by our DNA, and ultimately also by the chemical behavior of the cells in their interaction with the environment. Essentially the need of agency is irrelevant as far intelligence goes
Ryan:
Yes, this is the point. If we are not really able to make any choices (since choice is an illusion at best, according to naturalism) then watches are the result of STRICTLY natural processes, and design is not at all a separate concept from this. Saying that watches are designed and are therefore incomparable to biological systems is nonsense because nature is responsible in both instances, the only difference is that in the case of watches, the human has the perception of being responsible for "designing" the watch when in reality he is not responsible. Design, therefore, is irrelevant. Again, nature is entirely responsible for the creation of the watch, so it can indeed be said that watches are created by nature.
And that is the point!
Regards,
Ryan
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
OK Re: You are missing my point... -- Ryan Top of thread Archive
Posted by: The Vines ®
04/08/2002, 19:50:44
Author Profile Mail author
Dear Ryan:
In the context in which you state your point I would say that, absolutely, because man is entirely a natural system, his creations can be viewed as a natural creation. Indeed they are natural in this sense, for they are the creation of a natural system.
Was this your objection to rpcman?
TV
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
Rule Utilitarianism? Re: Am I guilty? -- The Vines Top of thread Archive
Posted by: kerry, again ®
04/05/2002, 19:42:20
Author Profile Mail author
I believe the concept of "responsibility" arose, and will persist, because it is extremely useful at placing bounds on our actions in such a way that social stability is maintained. One could argue that there were once humans who did not recognize the concept of responsibility. But they never developed sustainable societies (understandably!), and Survival of the Fittest ensured that their genes (or at least their values) died out.
| Recommend | Alert Where am I? Original Top of thread Previous | Next | Current page
That's pretty much the way I look at it, Kerry Re: Rule Utilitarianism? -- kerry, again Top of thread Archive
Posted by: Gunnar ®
04/05/2002, 21:12:55
Author Profile Mail author
Whether free will is an illusion or reality, it appears to me that we, as a society, really have no choice but to act as if there really were such a thing as free choice, and to assign responsibility to most people's actions who are not clearly mentally or physically impaired or otherwise "circumstancially" unable to act otherwise.
Gunnar
| Recommend |