Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on November 11, 2010 at 9:55am

"With absolute determinism, we don’t have the slightest chance of exerting any influence on our own lives. We are at the mercy of destiny. Not as appealing as creating your own destiny . . . but better than no destiny at all." (From "Free Will: (Literally) An Intelligent Choice")

You accuse "Determinists" that they are religious in their opinion, yet you include the appeal of a hypothesis over another as a factor in concluding which one is true. It doesn't matter if you want to have free will or not; the truth doesn't care.

"The advent of life introduced motility to the universe. Motility is simply the ability to move without the influence of an external force. Even single-celled organisms can move to avoid harsh or noxious conditions. The significant difference is that the movement is NOT 100% predictable. Unlike inanimate matter, there is more than just one direction the organism can take. Nor will identical organisms move identically under identical conditions. This is an undeniable departure from the precisely predictable reactions of inanimate matter." (From "Free Will: (Literally) An Intelligent Choice")

Maybe you want to expand on the different outcomes of identical situations. Who knows, maybe a Nobel Prize awaits. In fact, this is the key factor to free will. In the exact same circumstances everything happens the same. What evidence, reason or mathematical model do you have to suspect it doesn't. I think that I've just spotted the problem here - mathematics. I apologize if I'm mistaken, but, from what I observe, I don't think you have a good knowledge and understanding of math, although it is crucial when stating universal truths such as the different outcomes of identical situations.

Also, an understanding of how computers work (on the most basic level of computation) would definitely clear some things up about the possibility of something happening differently in the same situation. Our brains are computers and can't ever give different outputs to identical inputs. And that's simple, elementary math.

"But we KNOW we act with purpose. We don't stumble through life continually shocked to find ourselves doing things we don't want to do. That would make planning impossible! We KNOW we've planned our own dinners, careers, families, retirements and funerals. Our experiences represent continuous empirical evidence for free will."

Oh, the old "I know it, so it's true" phrase that is as religious as "Hallelujah, Jesus F. Christ!". The fact that we do what we want is as much to the point as saying that cars go where their wheels lead them. In fact, our will (what we want) is the effect of a number of causes and, in turn, causes our behavior.

"I hope to show that determinism (causality) actually creates free will."

I don't think you have. Nice post, but you have neither proven your statement, nor provided a mechanism that created said free will in concordance with causality.

Finally I want to say again that the whole issue lies in the phrase in which you stated that we could somehow act differently in identical situations. Mathematically, it's impossible, which makes its proof ever so valuable. If you could provide such a proof, you'd be extremely famous, at least in the scientific world. If you can't provide the proof, the statement itself is highly religious and/or based on an extremely poor understanding of the world.

Definition of free will taken into consideration - That which is not the sole result of cause and effect, and which can provide a mechanism in which different outcomes can happen in identical situations, taking into consideration the principle of causality.

P.S. Please, don't even think about accusing me of having a religious feeling or dogma about determinism! I merely conclude it is the only viable model for the world as understood by me from natural science and mathematics. Also, the fact that it seems I am making decision, based on will that isn't determined by preceding causes, is part of my understanding of causality, computing, neurology and mathematics. Admittedly, my understanding of these fields is both incomplete and inferior to that of many other people. As such, I may be wrong and I am ready to accept and admit it, if confronted with real evidence on the issue in hand.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 27, 2010 at 1:21am

Aaarrgghh . . . you posted this 16 days ago! I didn't know it was here.

Anyway, Radu, here's my reply . . .

. . . You quoted me:

"With absolute determinism, we don’t have the slightest chance of exerting any influence on our own lives. We are at the mercy of destiny. Not as appealing as creating your own destiny . . . but better than no destiny at all."

and replied by saying that:

"You accuse 'Determinists' that they are religious in their opinion, yet you include the appeal of a hypothesis over another as a factor in concluding which one is true. It doesn't matter if you want to have free will or not; the truth doesn't care."

Actually, I said what I said . . . NOT what YOU say I said. Read it again. I wasn’t addressing truth; I was addressing appeal (desirability). NOWHERE did I link appeal to truth. It was merely an additional point of a psychological nature. And it's ABSOLUTE DETERMINISTS, not merely DETERMINISTS, that I accused of being religious about their opinion. If you're going to quote me, do it right.

You then cited another quote of mine:

"The advent of life introduced motility to the universe. Motility is simply the ability to move without the influence of an external force. Even single-celled organisms can move to avoid harsh or noxious conditions. The significant difference is that the movement is NOT 100% predictable. Unlike inanimate matter, there is more than just one direction the organism can take. Nor will identical organisms move identically under identical conditions. This is an undeniable departure from the precisely predictable reactions of inanimate matter."

and then replied by stating:

"Maybe you want to expand on the different outcomes of identical situations. Who knows, maybe a Nobel Prize awaits".

Your sarcasm is duly noted -- wait until I return the favor, below :-). Anyway, here are some examples of how identical organisms, under identical conditions, will NOT move identically.

1.) 2 identical worms (same age, size, health, etc.), a foot apart, on a table, are each identically doused with a gram of salt. There is no foretelling what EXACT movements they will make, even after observing hundreds of them being identically doused. Generally, they might curl into a ball, or wriggle violently, or try to escape to the left or to the right or forward. But their exact succession of movements would be completely random.
2.) 2 identical twin boys are seated on identical wooden stools on either side of a partition (they can’t see each other). Both boys are zapped in identical spots on the back of their necks by identical lasers that are turned on simultaneously. The identical laser beams take a few seconds to be felt, a few more seconds to become uncomfortable and up to a minute before causing 3rd degree burns. The boys may move away from their stools (and, thus, the lasers) any time they choose. Not only is it unlikely both boys will react (touch the back of their necks or turn their heads around) at the same time, it’s also unlikely they’ll move away at the same time, or in the same direction (left, right, forward, back).
3.) Clive Wearing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing), who suffers from anterograde amnesia, can’t form new memories. He can only maintain conceptual continuity for about 30-seconds – at which point his cognition and memory resets. If he were repeatedly subjected to the same experiment as the twins (#2, above), it would be highly unlikely that he would respond exactly the same every time. He could turn his head left or right; he could touch the spot with his left or right hand; he could turn around in his stool; he could stand up, etc.

Your assertion that “In the exact same circumstances everything happens the same”, might be true of inanimate objects but is not necessarily true of animate beings. In the case of inanimate objects, controlled conditions can be reliably replicated to demonstrate identical outcomes. But with animate beings, the same is not true. Because of memory and experience, it’s impossible to replicate the experiment on a normal person (who now benefits from prior experience). Which is why I used Clive Wearing for example #3, above.

The distinction between inanimate matter and animate beings is self-evident. It’s the difference between a rock and a person. Whether or not the animate mode of response is random or fixed (like the inanimate mode) isn’t even experimentally verifiable and, thus, isn’t scientifically falsifiable. Thus, your assertion is meaningless.

Okay, here comes my sarcasm . . . Considering that we’re talking about animate beings and their responses, it’s outright laughable that you pedantically proclaim that math “is crucial when stating universal truths such as the different outcomes of identical situations”. I mean really! What math would that be? Calculus of human response? Statistical analysis of potential motion? LoL . . . and you don’t think I “have a good knowledge and understanding of math”? You really put your foot in it.

Actually, I’ve been trying to find better ways to explain what I mean by self-determinism: there are some nuances that are not easy for me to get into words. Instead of continuing my response to you, I think it would be better to post my most recent treatment of the subject (which addresses some of your concerns). I’ll be doing so within a day or two.

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on November 27, 2010 at 9:37am

Are you fucking kidding me? I'm sorry, but it is frustrating to realize just how little you've actually thought about this, before, not only responding to my post, but also proclaiming your "theory" as the truth.

I won't even bother to address your initial analysis of my earlier response and I'll skip right to the crucial point, where it is so clear that you haven't thought about this properly. It's the part about the worms, twins and the anterograde amnesia case, as examples of how things happen differently in the exact same situation. It is not a coincidence that I used the expression "exact same", instead of just "same". It is kind of pleonastic, but this is exactly the situation I was trying to avoid.

So, in what kind of twisted universe would the cases described by you be the EXACT SAME situation? You've mentioned 2 identical worms, having as references to their EXACT similarities their age, size and health? How about DNA? Hey, I'm okay with the same DNA too. How about the temperature surrounding their surface? How about the asperities of the table? Even if these are all the same, how about the electromagnetic fields? How about, how about, how about? In all these cases, the nervous systems of the worms receive DIFFERENT inputs, resulting in different outputs. The same thing applies for the other two examples.

Now, please demonstrate that something different will happen in the same situation! That means that EVERYTHING has to be the same. You need to demonstrate that every single subatomic particle has the same state. If they don’t, then of course there will be different results, the percentage of similarities between the results varying according to the percentage of the initial states similarities.

Now math! WTF do you mean you’ve been trying to find better ways to explain your “theory”? Do you even understand the role of math in science (which is what you’re trying to do here)? But why am I asking, when you clearly can’t even engage in the simple thought process of imagining what the exact same situation means? As I’ve said in the initial post, you need, with the same inputs, to receive different outputs in order to demonstrate your assertions.

I’m sorry for lashing out like that, but I’ve had it with ignorant, but extremely arrogant people, who think they revolutionized science with their simplistic thought processes. I stand by my assertion that you don’t know the first thing about math and its importance. After science deniers, now I have to deal with math deniers too? I’m too tired for this shit.

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on November 27, 2010 at 10:42am

Radu is my first name.

Now, what I get from AE's text: "I understand and therefore I will explain you how free will actually exists in the sense that we are not subject to absolute determinism". That's what I view as arrogant, the fact that he's trying to contradict science. That's OK, but only if you know what you're talking about. Continuing with what I understand he's basically saying: "I will demonstrate what I've just said. We are animate objects, therefore we are not subject to absolute determinism, like those inanimate objects. The proof: we can plan ahead, we don't act randomly, blah, blah, blah". I say that he has to prove that, in the same situations, something different could happen, because that's the real issue, not some rambling that has nothing to do with demonstrating his initial hypothesis. He says "Take two worms, two twins and so on!". Now this is the ignorant part, because no two worms or twins in the history of the world have ever been in the same situation, because there are so many varying things.

Now, about math. Do you understand how math is used to represent the world? I don't care for cute little phrases, because that's not how science works. But I will accept these cute little phrases if they stick to the point and make sense.

Again, there is only one thing you need to do if you want to make people accept your idea - demonstrate it. All AE has to do is to demonstrate that, given the same inputs in the brain of an "animate" being, different outputs can occur (actually, that's not all, but I'm confident he won't be able to do it, because, so far, no one can). Not only that he failed to do this, but he also showed me how little he thinks before making such extraordinary claims. That I find arrogant (which has nothing to do with how friendly he is). I know a very friendly guy who is a creationist. That is also arrogant, because he thinks he knows science better than scientists.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 27, 2010 at 10:01pm

I wish the Philippines had a decent bookstore. I'm spoiled by Barnes and Noble . . . the bookstores here are a joke compared to the ones in the U.S.

I'd like to read Dennett's coverage of this topic.

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on November 27, 2010 at 12:34pm

I don't have the time right now for a long response, but I just want to say that everything which deals with a fundamental truth about the world is the concern of science. As such, determinism is too. So far, there is absolutely no example of different things happening in the same situation. In quantum mechanics there are examples of seemingly random events, but they too can never produce a free will as proposed around here.

Permalink Reply by Bill on November 27, 2010 at 8:34pm

I don't believe we can ever replicate any situation exactly. And in any situation, there are elements of chaos which will affect the outcome in some way, no matter how small.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 27, 2010 at 8:29pm

I suppose that if we could play God and rewind time, we could replay any past event to see if it would replay exactly the same. But I don't see any other scenario in which we could replicate human events with absolute fidelity . . . which is what you're insisting on. What that means is that it's impossible to verify. And that means it's scientifically unfalsifiable . . . which makes your assertion meaningless in any logical or scientific sense.

And I've obviously hit a nerve with you. :-) You call me arrogant and claim to know what I think, as if you're some sort of mind reader. Projecting your insecurities onto me has no affect whatsoever on what I've written. Your personal attacks are typical of what people resort to when they don't have a valid counter-argument.

Kind of sad, really.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 27, 2010 at 9:57pm

Radu,

If you can write, "Now, what I get from AE's text: "I understand and therefore I will explain you how free will actually exists in the sense that we are not subject to absolute determinism"." . . . then you're not getting my point.

Absolute (hard) determinism is a brand of determinism that denies, unequivocally, that free will exists. Period. So, THERE IS NO WAY TO RECONCILE FREE WILL WITH ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM. Determinism (without the "absolute" qualifier), on the other hand, is a whole different matter. If you remove the "absolute" from your interpretation, then we've got something close to my actual belief. However, I would remove all the pejorative language and simply state my pronouncement as:

"I have an explanation for free will that embraces determinism without violating causality."

I know that drives you crazy but that was not my intent.

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 27, 2010 at 8:00pm

@Radu,

You simply won't recognize anything on this matter that disagrees with you. For instance, I've already addressed your "'exact same', instead of just 'same'" complaint. Here it is again . . .

"Your assertion that “In the exact same circumstances everything happens the same”, might be true of inanimate objects but is not necessarily true of animate beings. In the case of inanimate objects, controlled conditions can be reliably replicated to demonstrate identical outcomes. But with animate beings, the same is not true. Because of memory and experience, it’s impossible to replicate the experiment on a normal person (who now benefits from prior experience). Which is why I used Clive Wearing for example #3, above.

The distinction between inanimate matter and animate beings is self-evident. It’s the difference between a rock and a person. Whether or not the animate mode of response is random or fixed (like the inanimate mode) isn’t even experimentally verifiable and, thus, isn’t scientifically falsifiable. Thus, your assertion is meaningless."

Your lack of civility is wearing thin. Your inflated opinion of yourself makes you blithely condescending to others. And your pretense to certainty is reminiscent of Bible thumpers.

By the way, I think everybody else knows that the only math that claims to reliably predict specific human actions is found on TV's "NUMB3RS" show. You should watch less TV and work on your rhetorical style.

Permalink Reply by Radu Andreiu on November 28, 2010 at 4:17am

Oh, how I missed the good old feeling I got when I was debating creationists...

Do you even know what you're saying? Do you understand that you have to prove what you're saying? If you can't provide an example of free will, then why the heck are you spewing all this crap? I'm so sick and tired of people not thinking.

Can you understand that, MATHEMATICALLY, there can be no free will. If, on the smallest scales, things work according to some laws (mathematical function), which result in either a constant, or a random variable, then any function of these functions will result in a constant or a random variable, not in free will.

Without random variables:

f_k (x_i)=y_k
k∈(0,n)∩N
n∈N
g[f_k (x_i)]=g(y_k)=C

y_k,C are constants


With random variables (found in quantum mechanics):

f_k (x_i)=ξ_k
k∈(0,n)∩N
n∈N
g[f_k (x_i)]=g(ξ_k)=η

ξ_k,η are random variables


How come you can't understand that everything you desire, think, imagine, plan ahead, feel... all that is the result of your brain processing the inputs it gets according to its transfer function, which in turn is a function of all the transfer functions that are involved?

Please, for goodness sake, provide an explanation of your assertions that doesn't involve crap like "we can imagine things, plan ahead, or do all kinds of things". Yeah we can, but that's because all these actions are determined by everything that goes on around us and all that influences us from the past. You are only making claims, but never providing at least a logical proof, let alone a physical one - one that we can put to the test. We have a Deepok Chopra already, we don't need another ignorant of science messing with the heads of other ignorants. Everything that you said is meaningless to the issue. Where did you demonstrate that a brain, a consciousness, creates free will?

This is exactly why I stopped debating creationists and other science deniers. They always skip the important stuff and derail the discussion. WHERE IS THE PROOF? Just paste what you think should be considered an explanation of your claims, which doesn't result from absolute determinism (like imagination and all that stuff)!

Permalink Reply by Atheist Exile on November 28, 2010 at 9:55am

@Radu,

I've pretty much decided to let our words stand for themselves. You're just not interested in an honest discussion.

However, I have replies to others that pertain to your comments. By the way, I guess you believe that anybody who agrees with me must me a delusional moron too, right? Anyway, here's some links to replies that relate to some of your comments:

http://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/1982180:Comment:433971
http://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/1982180:Comment:434743
http://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/1982180:Comment:434766
http://www.thinkatheist.com/xn/detail/1982180:Comment:434769

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page