[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society - Page 24

Jack Simth · #**231** March 21st, 2003, 06:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamog:
There seems to be at least two points of view in regards to how our thoughts originate. (1) There is the biochemistry view that says thoughts are a result of chemical reactions in the brain; i.e. the different chemical and electrical processes are what thought is. If this is so, free will would be an illusion. (2) Another view is that we have a soul or spirit which is separate from physical matter. Thoughts originate from this non-physical spirit, and the chemical processes in the brain are a secondary phenomenon caused by the thought. Then free will is possible because thoughts can originate independently of the arrangement of chemicals and atoms in the physical brain.

Interesting take, but it does point out one important fact: Competing base unproveable assumptions. 1) Measureable reality is all that exists. 2) Soul exists and has influence.

Niether of these can be objectively tested (barring some controversial expieriments where dying people lost 3/4 of an ounce on death, disreputable claims on psionics, near-death experiences, et cetera) which would put the debate up to an endurance challenge on which side can keep shouting the longest, as both sides assume different things and niether assumption is either proveable or disproveable, and everything follows from those base assumptions.

Suicide Junkie · #**232** March 22nd, 2003, 01:03 AM

An interesting experiment had people reacting to things while in a real time scanner (CAT or MRI or something).

When for example, they touched something hot, they would, naturally, jerk their hand back.
A noticable amount of time later, the brain activity would kick up in response.

The people would report that they actively moved their hand, when it was a subconsious reflex, and the brain simply hadn't had a chance to notice and respond by that time. They just didn't remember it that way.

Fyron · #**233** March 22nd, 2003, 03:16 AM

Nerve cells do have some degree of functionality independant of the brain, after all.

Suicide Junkie · #**234** March 22nd, 2003, 03:47 AM

IIRC, most (if not all) reflexes just go to the spinal cord and back, rather than all the way up.

The thing is, those people remembered deciding to do something, when really, they had no choice.

Ah!
I just remembered what I was thinking about on the way to school this morning:

Consider a (3D) movie, and the characters in that movie.
From a vantage point independent of time (such as a god's) how are is our universe different from that movie reel?

Krsqk · #**235** March 22nd, 2003, 04:58 AM

I guess that would depend on the point of view one takes (deterministic or free will). A determinist would say that the film makes up life--every event was pre-recorded, and it only is a matter of happening. A free-will-ist

would say the reverse, that life--each individual's thread of events--makes up the film.

The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.

To draw an analogy from chess--I am an aggressive player. I can push you this way and that, and leave you only one option. I have enough skill to beat you, but that's about it. That's the first view. The second would be if I were, say, a Grandmaster (ha, yeah, right) playing a novice. I wouldn't have to force you into submission. I could sit back and let you do what you want, and still subtly direct the play how I wanted it to go (control of the center and all that). Or maybe it's like a chess engine at 100-ply thought playing one at 1-ply thought--there's a difference in perspective there.

Chronon · #**236** March 22nd, 2003, 07:24 AM

Dogscoff, that is a very interesting argument for determinism. I am going to have to think about it for a while (it's too late at the moment, and the tired atom

is telling me to go to bed) and see if I can come up with a good counter-argument. Intuitively I believe that one can be a collection of atoms AND have free will, but I will have to think about how to properly construct an argument that works within natural law.

So, I'll be back...

Kamog · #**237** March 22nd, 2003, 07:55 AM

Some people say that only humans are self-aware and animals are not. According to them, a dog is not capable of introspection - it is able to learn and react to situations, but it does not know that it is doing so. I think that there is no way to confirm if this is true or not. Intuitively, it does not seem right that humans are special and fundamentally different from other life forms.

If humans have free will, then do dogs have free will? How about fish? Insects? Bacteria? Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, if we say that humans have free will, then all life forms must have it also.

If it is possible to arrange a collection of atoms in such a way as to have free will (as in a human brain), then in theory it must also be possible to construct a machine that has free will.

tbontob · #**238** March 22nd, 2003, 11:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kamog:
Some people say that only humans are self-aware and animals are not. According to them, a dog is not capable of introspection - it is able to learn and react to situations, but it does not know that it is doing so. I think that there is no way to confirm if this is true or not. Intuitively, it does not seem right that humans are special and fundamentally different from other life forms.

If humans have free will, then do dogs have free will? How about fish? Insects? Bacteria? Where do we draw the line? In my opinion, if we say that humans have free will, then all life forms must have it also.

If it is possible to arrange a collection of atoms in such a way as to have free will (as in a human brain), then in theory it must also be possible to construct a machine that has free will.

I agree with you Kamog.

We humans often make the mistake of defining attributes in human terms.

It is obvious that animals do not have our self-awareness.

Now, it could be a matter of degree or they may have a self-awareness which is fundamentally different from ours.

So, just because they do not share our "type" of self-awareness, does not mean they lack self-awareness.

The above comments also apply to the concept of free will.

Suicide Junkie · #**239** March 22nd, 2003, 06:25 PM

Quote:

The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.

That seems to imply that God is embedded in time, and is dragged along with the "present" like the rest of us.

If you can view multiple points in time simultaneously, in fact, all time simultaneously, then the universe should look like some sort of lumpy/stringy 4-or-more dimensional construct.

tbontob · #**240** March 22nd, 2003, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Suicide Junkie:

quote:
The question gets more interesting when you throw in the two views of supernatural sovreignty, which are almost parallel to determinism and free will. One holds that God is in active control of each event, and that our free will is only an illusion; the other says that He usually only controls the general direction of things and allows us to make our own individual choices. The latter view would say that while God could control every event, He is powerful enough to work around (and in spite of) individual choices and still accomplish His will.

That seems to imply that God is embedded in time, and is dragged along with the "present" like the rest of us.

If you can view multiple points in time simultaneously, in fact, all time simultaneously, then the universe should look like some sort of lumpy/stringy 4-or-more dimensional construct.

I thought about free-will and determinism a lot. There are pros and cons on each side.

Basically, I have resolved it for myself on a practical basis.

If determinism is in effect, then it doesn't matter what I do. It is all foreordained.

So, I might as well conduct my life as if free will was the opererative principle.

If I am right (free will), then I have tried to exercise free will. If not, it doesn't matter since my attempt to exercise free will was foreordained.