[OT] Plato's Pub and Philosophical Society

[Baron Munchausen]

The whole discussion about 'determinism' vs. 'free will' assumes that cause and effect it true. There is a traditional logical error called 'Post Hoc' (Latin 'After here') which is essentially about assuming cause and effect. Just because event B always follows event A does not 'prove' that event B is caused by event A. They could both come from a single common cause that you are not able to see. David Hume observed that even in the physical world of the senses you cannot see the cause of one object moving another by physical contact. You can observe the event but there is nothing in sensory data that tells you how and why it happens.

As you are finding with the discussion of time, it's a bit difficult to get a handle on a universe that doesn't rely on linear time. But regardless of what the universe 'really is', if what we perceive as 'time' is not real the whole issue of 'determinism' vs. 'free will' is moot. Our 'will' could very well be included in whatever force(s) create the universe as a whole (from whatever 'external' perspective these forces act from) and so we have pre-determined ourselves by our own freewill.

[ March 22, 2003, 20:35: Message edited by: Baron Munchausen ]

[Suicide Junkie]

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.

I completely agree there.

[tbontob]

Baron, I couldn't agree with you more about time.

Because A follows B, we make the assumption B causes A.

And that may not be true.

And to take this discussion into a completely different direction, some proponents suggest time is an illusion.

They claim the past, present and the future already exist in a kind of omni-present. It is just that our perspective is riveted on the present and gives us the experience of discovering the future.

Can't say I really understand it, but it is a interesting concept.

[ March 22, 2003, 22:45: Message edited by: tbontob ]

[Suicide Junkie]

Because A follows B, we make the assumption B causes A.

Aside from errors, such as where there is a third-event cause, isn't that part of the definition?

If not, how is cause defined?

[Phoenix-D]

"They claim the past, present and the future already exist in a kind of omni-present. It is just that our perspective is riveted on the present and gives us the experience of discovering the future."

There was a story written about this a while back..it's called "The story of your life"

Phoenix-D

[Andr�s]

I don’t like your two options, either there is a supernatural universe that dominates ours or everything can be predicted....
A myriad of chemical and electrical reactions inside my skull insist that they generate my free will.

[Kamog]

If consciousness is produced by chemicals in the brain, then I wouldn't want to step into a Star Trek transporter. The moment my body is transformed into energy, I'll be dead. Then a duplicate clone of me with my exact memories and personality will be created at the destination. If you ask the new 'transported' me what happened, he will answer, "I stepped into the transported and now I find myself here." But the original me will be gone. What the real me would experience is stepping into the transporter, and into oblivion.

[Chronon]

Originally posted by Dogscoff:
Physics (ignoring quantum stuff) only allows one possible course of action. There is only one thing it can do, so you WILL go to bed or you WILL stay up.

I think it's the quantum stuff that is actually more important here. I don't think it's really possible to model the human brain using Newtonian physics or strict chemical processes (as Kamog has pointed out). There is randomness at the particle level (Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) that cannot be predicted, and individual behavior is more like the sub-atomic particle (undetermined until it happens) than the motion of a large planet (very predictable). Also, I think the human mind is more a pattern of energy than strictly a chemical process. And this pattern is extremely complex and ever-changing. Add to it all the experiences I've had, and the learning I've done over the course of my life, and I don't think any predermined pattern could possibly account for everything that I've done.

I guess when it comes down to it, I believe we are more than just atom-bags. Perhaps just atom-bags plus energy, but that energy changes everything.

[Andr�s]

Originally posted by Kamog:
If consciousness is produced by chemicals in the brain, then I wouldn't want to step into a Star Trek transporter. The moment my body is transformed into energy, I'll be dead. Then a duplicate clone of me with my exact memories and personality will be created at the destination. If you ask the new 'transported' me what happened, he will answer, "I stepped into the transported and now I find myself here." But the original me will be gone. What the real me would experience is stepping into the transporter, and into oblivion.

Yep trasporters anihiliate matter and create a duplicate somewhere else.
All trekkie characters are just copies of someone that died the first time he/she stepped into a transporter.

[Phoenix-D]

"Yep trasporters anihiliate matter and create a duplicate somewhere else.
All trekkie characters are just copies of someone that died the first time he/she stepped into a transporter."

Which means that the transporters are cloning devices. Simply leave out the "anihiliate" step.

Phoenix-D