I mean, I think you're an alright guy and all, but ...well...you have a way of coming across as authoritative that I find humorous. Yeah.
I appreciate your dedication to education, but you are not an educator so much as you are a preacher. And that doesn't make for good education.
Now I am laughing. You claimed that intelligence is quantifiable, but we previously had a huge board discussion on quantifying intelligence and there were degrees of disagreeance. Intelligence is by no means quantifiable with our current knowledge of the human brain. We can speak of it in rough terms like g General Intelligence or Gardner's structured model of intelligence, but by no means are any of those theories verifiable. They are mere speculation at this point.
So, you've claimed to have knowledge that cognitive scientists themselves would only profess a belief in. Then you turn it around to suggest I am making an attempt to profess an absolute knowledge. Perhaps I simply have a greater depth of understanding of the topic. When you get past indeterminism as a door to freedom and complexity as a window of causelessness and you truly understand the concepts being discussed, then it will seem as though I'm not dictating.
Two plus Two equals Four. Is not a belief which needs to be argued. It's only challenged for comedy or out of completely absurd ignorance. I can guarantee you that what I've said is as solid as Two plus Two equals Four. But you can believe it equals 9 or 85, or whatever you want, it'll just be absurd and I can't take that seriously.
I challenge you to explain how free-will works without saying "it just happens" or a similar statement to that effect. Because if you say "God gave it to us" then God alone is the cause, and the decider of the attributes of the so-called free-will, and thus it is not free. If you toss a coin, each side of the coin has no volition over the outcome of the toss, and that's what indeterminist theory tries to suggest. Each side may have a weight modifier that causes heads to come up 51% over tails 49% of the time, but the actual deliberation is a mathematical certainty determined by a fixed law in nature, not the coin, not the head-side nor the tail-side.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I agree, Dan, about definitions of free-will. It's been obvious for awhile that Ahnimus' free-will and my own are like apples and oranges in comparison. I'm also willing to say that, imo, Ahnimus' version and the religious version are apples and oranges, as well.
They aren't at all. Either A) you are using the term incorrectly or you don't understand the term.
I'm on my fifth book on the subject now and they all talk about exactly the same thing. If it was a simple misunderstanding of the term, this wouldn't be a 5,000 year old debate.
The question of free will is whether, and in what sense, rational agents exercise control over their actions and decisions. Addressing this question requires understanding the relationship between freedom and cause, and determining whether or not the laws of nature are causally deterministic. The various philosophical positions taken differ on whether all events are determined or not—determinism versus indeterminism—and also on whether freedom can coexist with determinism or not—compatibilism versus incompatibilism. So, for instance, hard determinists argue that the universe is deterministic, and that this makes free will impossible.
The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.
As per your own source, the quoted wikipedia link you provide, there are varying views of free will:
"The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought."
Different groups look at the subject differently depending on the context they view it in.
As I ascertained the other day, you are misconstruing my view on free-will and what I understand to be any religious/spiritual person's view on it. Therefore I conclude that comparisons derived from this misconstrued point of view don't/can't/won't work.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
As per your own source, the quoted wikipedia link you provide, there are varying views of free will:
"The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought."
Different groups look at the subject differently depending on the context they view it in.
As I ascertained the other day, you are misconstruing my view on free-will and what I understand to be any religious/spiritual person's view on it. Therefore I conclude that comparisons derived from this misconstrued point of view don't/can't/won't work.
That paragraph is about the implications of whether or not free-will is true. Not the definition of free-will. The definition is not in dispute. I frequently see philosopher's describe the abusrdity of some non-philosopher's interpretations of the concept, but those are largely brushed aside as being unsophisticated.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
That paragraph is about the implications of whether or not free-will is true. Not the definition of free-will. The definition is not in dispute. I frequently see philosopher's describe the abusrdity of some non-philosopher's interpretations of the concept, but those are largely brushed aside as being unsophisticated.
The paragraph is about how different contexts have a different understanding of free will.
What I'm saying to you is that if we are seeing a totally different subject matter--and I see that we are--then we are comparing apples and oranges, which is why I stated that we are comparing apples and oranges.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Even if you add a random element as Kane suggests. You are not the randomizer, the randomizer is an external factor to your deliberation. Your deliberation as a contained system, with or without truly random variables behaves the same. By your definition of Free-will, a computer chess program has freedom of the will.
Maybe I should be more clear. I am not advocating free will as much as I am arguing against complete, hard determinism, which I think is an untenable position. You don't prove your determinism by undermining what you see as free will, which is what you mostly try to do. Your determinism demands total knowledge to be ascertained. And that is a big claim. And one that I can't see how you can at all claim, and still be open towards science and new discoveries.
And while we're at it, how are you so certain that the randomizer cannot be connected to something like free will? It is an unknown, an X in the equation whose nature we dont know, but can speculate upon. In whatever direction we might like.
My definition of free will requires nothing more than that we are not set in stone, and that we can, however perhaps in very small ways, change our surroundings and ourselves through our own actions and/or thoughts. An off-switch for impulses controlled by conscious thought could be it.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Now I am laughing. You claimed that intelligence is quantifiable, but we previously had a huge board discussion on quantifying intelligence and there were degrees of disagreeance. Intelligence is by no means quantifiable with our current knowledge of the human brain. We can speak of it in rough terms like g General Intelligence or Gardner's structured model of intelligence, but by no means are any of those theories verifiable. They are mere speculation at this point.
So, you've claimed to have knowledge that cognitive scientists themselves would only profess a belief in. Then you turn it around to suggest I am making an attempt to profess an absolute knowledge. Perhaps I simply have a greater depth of understanding of the topic. When you get past indeterminism as a door to freedom and complexity as a window of causelessness and you truly understand the concepts being discussed, then it will seem as though I'm not dictating.
Two plus Two equals Four. Is not a belief which needs to be argued. It's only challenged for comedy or out of completely absurd ignorance. I can guarantee you that what I've said is as solid as Two plus Two equals Four. But you can believe it equals 9 or 85, or whatever you want, it'll just be absurd and I can't take that seriously.
I challenge you to explain how free-will works without saying "it just happens" or a similar statement to that effect. Because if you say "God gave it to us" then God alone is the cause, and the decider of the attributes of the so-called free-will, and thus it is not free. If you toss a coin, each side of the coin has no volition over the outcome of the toss, and that's what indeterminist theory tries to suggest. Each side may have a weight modifier that causes heads to come up 51% over tails 49% of the time, but the actual deliberation is a mathematical certainty determined by a fixed law in nature, not the coin, not the head-side nor the tail-side.
I can guarantee you that what I've said is as solid as Two plus Two equals Five. But you can believe it equals Four, or whatever you want, it'll just be absurd and I can't take that seriously.
.
ha ha, I just couldn't help myself. Let me remind you that Hard determinism is as much a philosophical axiom as free will. To suggest otherwise, shows how little one knows about the scientific method. You make good arguments. Don't 'dumb them down' with absurd statements as you will lose respect in such debates.
I think that there is no question that cause and effect is a very large part of our universe. However, so is randomness and chaos. Therefore, the Universe is neither deterministic nor chaotic but both. There are also random events that may or not be caused that happen to have random effects or occur at random times. Even in principle there are things and parameters that are unknown and unknowable. They are not opposites. They are different types of events and I see no conflict or contradiction. A random event can cause an effect. A cause can have a random effect.
Students of chaos have clung to the notion that chaotic systems retain some shreds of order. The shreds manifest themselves in the form of an attractor, a pattern of behavior toward which the system periodically settles. identifying the attractor enables one to predict the final behavior of a chaotic system, at least in a qualitative, statistical sense. That comforting notion has been damaged by Edward Ott of the University of Maryland and John C. Sommerer of Johns Hopkins University and their colleagues. They have shown that for certain systems that have more than one attractor, even qualitative predictions are impossible. "The repeatability of an experiment gets thrown into question," Ott says. The problem is rooted in the way a chaotic system determines which attractor to follow. The initial conditions that control the choice are said to be located in a basin of attraction. Ott and Sommerer have spoiled the party by showing that a basin may be rather leaky: it may have "holes" that make it impossible to predict which attractor the system will follow. Building on earlier mathematical work, the physicists used a computer to conduct numerical experiments in which a particle moving on a frictional surface is occasionally pushed. Consequently, the particle could begin moving either periodically or sporadically. The researchers found that even for this fairly simple system they could not determine which of the two attractors the particle would chase, because one basin is riddled with pieces of the other basin. in fact, every area in one basin, no matter how small, contained pieces of the other basin within it. "Hence, arbitrarily small changes can cause the system to go to a completely different attractor," Ott remarks. The only way to guarantee an outcome is not to have any error or noise whatsoever-a practical impossibility for real systems. And, anyway, what kind of chaos would that be? Ott points out that the results differ from other forms of chaos in which the starting point straddles the boundary between two basins of attraction. In such borderline situations, one might be able to move the starting point away from the boundary so that the attractor can be predicted. The same cannot be done for systems that have riddled basins, because no region is free of holes. "You're always on the borderline," Ott explains.
I just cannot see how or why Hard Determinism can be such an attractive philosophy when it has so many weaknesses and obvious flaws. Randomness and chance are such a large part of our lives that it cannot be ruled out, done away with or ignored so easily.
Determinism may be theoretically possible in Classical physics; but, in the light of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics it just does not hold.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
ha ha, I just couldn't help myself. Let me remind you that Hard determinism is as much a philosophical axiom as free will. To suggest otherwise, shows how little one knows about the scientific method. You make good arguments. Don't 'dumb them down' with absurd statements as you will lose respect in such debates.
I think that there is no question that cause and effect is a very large part of our universe. However, so is randomness and chaos. Therefore, the Universe is neither deterministic nor chaotic but both. There are also random events that may or not be caused that happen to have random effects or occur at random times. Even in principle there are things and parameters that are unknown and unknowable. They are not opposites. They are different types of events and I see no conflict or contradiction. A random event can cause an effect. A cause can have a random effect.
Students of chaos have clung to the notion that chaotic systems retain some shreds of order. The shreds manifest themselves in the form of an attractor, a pattern of behavior toward which the system periodically settles. identifying the attractor enables one to predict the final behavior of a chaotic system, at least in a qualitative, statistical sense. That comforting notion has been damaged by Edward Ott of the University of Maryland and John C. Sommerer of Johns Hopkins University and their colleagues. They have shown that for certain systems that have more than one attractor, even qualitative predictions are impossible. "The repeatability of an experiment gets thrown into question," Ott says. The problem is rooted in the way a chaotic system determines which attractor to follow. The initial conditions that control the choice are said to be located in a basin of attraction. Ott and Sommerer have spoiled the party by showing that a basin may be rather leaky: it may have "holes" that make it impossible to predict which attractor the system will follow. Building on earlier mathematical work, the physicists used a computer to conduct numerical experiments in which a particle moving on a frictional surface is occasionally pushed. Consequently, the particle could begin moving either periodically or sporadically. The researchers found that even for this fairly simple system they could not determine which of the two attractors the particle would chase, because one basin is riddled with pieces of the other basin. in fact, every area in one basin, no matter how small, contained pieces of the other basin within it. "Hence, arbitrarily small changes can cause the system to go to a completely different attractor," Ott remarks. The only way to guarantee an outcome is not to have any error or noise whatsoever-a practical impossibility for real systems. And, anyway, what kind of chaos would that be? Ott points out that the results differ from other forms of chaos in which the starting point straddles the boundary between two basins of attraction. In such borderline situations, one might be able to move the starting point away from the boundary so that the attractor can be predicted. The same cannot be done for systems that have riddled basins, because no region is free of holes. "You're always on the borderline," Ott explains.
I just cannot see how or why Hard Determinism can be such an attractive philosophy when it has so many weaknesses and obvious flaws. Randomness and chance are such a large part of our lives that it cannot be ruled out, done away with or ignored so easily.
Determinism may be theoretically possible in Classical physics; but, in the light of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics it just does not hold.
If I were Ahnimus, I would love you for your brain.
ha ha, I just couldn't help myself. Let me remind you that Hard determinism is as much a philosophical axiom as free will. To suggest otherwise, shows how little one knows about the scientific method. You make good arguments. Don't 'dumb them down' with absurd statements as you will lose respect in such debates.
I think that there is no question that cause and effect is a very large part of our universe. However, so is randomness and chaos. Therefore, the Universe is neither deterministic nor chaotic but both. There are also random events that may or not be caused that happen to have random effects or occur at random times. Even in principle there are things and parameters that are unknown and unknowable. They are not opposites. They are different types of events and I see no conflict or contradiction. A random event can cause an effect. A cause can have a random effect.
Students of chaos have clung to the notion that chaotic systems retain some shreds of order. The shreds manifest themselves in the form of an attractor, a pattern of behavior toward which the system periodically settles. identifying the attractor enables one to predict the final behavior of a chaotic system, at least in a qualitative, statistical sense. That comforting notion has been damaged by Edward Ott of the University of Maryland and John C. Sommerer of Johns Hopkins University and their colleagues. They have shown that for certain systems that have more than one attractor, even qualitative predictions are impossible. "The repeatability of an experiment gets thrown into question," Ott says. The problem is rooted in the way a chaotic system determines which attractor to follow. The initial conditions that control the choice are said to be located in a basin of attraction. Ott and Sommerer have spoiled the party by showing that a basin may be rather leaky: it may have "holes" that make it impossible to predict which attractor the system will follow. Building on earlier mathematical work, the physicists used a computer to conduct numerical experiments in which a particle moving on a frictional surface is occasionally pushed. Consequently, the particle could begin moving either periodically or sporadically. The researchers found that even for this fairly simple system they could not determine which of the two attractors the particle would chase, because one basin is riddled with pieces of the other basin. in fact, every area in one basin, no matter how small, contained pieces of the other basin within it. "Hence, arbitrarily small changes can cause the system to go to a completely different attractor," Ott remarks. The only way to guarantee an outcome is not to have any error or noise whatsoever-a practical impossibility for real systems. And, anyway, what kind of chaos would that be? Ott points out that the results differ from other forms of chaos in which the starting point straddles the boundary between two basins of attraction. In such borderline situations, one might be able to move the starting point away from the boundary so that the attractor can be predicted. The same cannot be done for systems that have riddled basins, because no region is free of holes. "You're always on the borderline," Ott explains.
I just cannot see how or why Hard Determinism can be such an attractive philosophy when it has so many weaknesses and obvious flaws. Randomness and chance are such a large part of our lives that it cannot be ruled out, done away with or ignored so easily.
Determinism may be theoretically possible in Classical physics; but, in the light of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics it just does not hold.
Shit, well I just lost what I typed. I'll try to say it quickly. You have chaos theory wrong. It's a perfectly determined system. And the term indeterminacy in that context is being used synonymously with predictability which is a result of the human scope.
Read Pat and Paul Churchland, they own this topic and being that they are not only philosopher's but Neuroscientists, I think we owe to them our respect on the topic.
A rigid philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused; that is, unless the
"will" is exercised independently of all causal influences - in a causal vacuum. In some unexplained
fashion, the will - a thing that allegedly stands aloof from brain-based causality - makes an
unconstrained choice. The problem is that choices are made by brains, and brains operate causally;
that is, they go from one state to the next as a function of antecedent conditions. Moreover, though
brains make decisions, there is no discrete brain structure or neural network which qualifies as "the
will" let alone a neural structure operating in a causal vacuum. The unavoidable conclusion is that a
philosophy dedicated to uncaused choice is as unrealistic as a philosophy dedicated to a flat Earth.
Seriously, this is the way reality is. Eventually you'll have to get used to it.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Maybe I should be more clear. I am not advocating free will as much as I am arguing against complete, hard determinism, which I think is an untenable position. You don't prove your determinism by undermining what you see as free will, which is what you mostly try to do. Your determinism demands total knowledge to be ascertained. And that is a big claim. And one that I can't see how you can at all claim, and still be open towards science and new discoveries.
And while we're at it, how are you so certain that the randomizer cannot be connected to something like free will? It is an unknown, an X in the equation whose nature we dont know, but can speculate upon. In whatever direction we might like.
My definition of free will requires nothing more than that we are not set in stone, and that we can, however perhaps in very small ways, change our surroundings and ourselves through our own actions and/or thoughts. An off-switch for impulses controlled by conscious thought could be it.
Peace
Dan
You definition of free-will has nothing to do with the topic.
Minesweeper uses a pseudo-random number generator to 'decide' where to put the mines in the grid. That does not mean that Minesweeper has free-will. It means that Minesweeper's decision to put the mines at specific vertices on the grid is determined by a random number. The exact same thing applies to any possibility of randomness in the brain. I highly doubt there is any randomness in the human brain. How often do you order a banana at your local pub due to quantum randomness? Never. You order something depending on your tastes and what's on the menu. A process of deliberation occurs which is undoubtedly deterministic.
Determinism is proven. It holds as a solid theory in everyone's lives. We recognize causality at infancy. We operate by determining/predicting outcomes. We learn because of causality. Free-will on the other-hand is not a proven theory.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
The paragraph is about how different contexts have a different understanding of free will.
What I'm saying to you is that if we are seeing a totally different subject matter--and I see that we are--then we are comparing apples and oranges, which is why I stated that we are comparing apples and oranges.
I think your wrong about the paragraph.
Regardless. Take your own advice and stop trying to compare your orange to my apple. You know what I'm talking about when I reference Free-Will. Yet, you come into the discussion with a completely different definition. A definition that is used only by a handful of ignorant people. And by ignorant I mean ill-informed.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Self-esteem and self-worth are wholly compatible with realising that brains make us what we
are. As for self-esteem, we do know that it is highly dependent on successful social interactions: on
respect, love, accomplishment, but also on temperament, hormones and serotonin. Moreover, the
beauty, intricacy and sophistication of the neurobiological machine that makes me "me" is vastly
more fascinating and infinitely more awesome than the philosophical conception of the brain-free
soul that somehow, despite the laws of physics, exercises its free will in a causal vacuum. Each of
us is a work of art, sculpted first by evolution, and second by experience in the world. With
experience and reflection one's social perception matures, and so also does the level of autonomy.
Aristotle called it wisdom.
Pat Churchland “The Big Questions: Do we have free will?”. New Scientist, 2578, 18-Nov, pp. 42 —45
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Regardless. Take your own advice and stop trying to compare your orange to my apple. You know what I'm talking about when I reference Free-Will. Yet, you come into the discussion with a completely different definition. A definition that is used only by a handful of ignorant people. And by ignorant I mean ill-informed.
Of course you think I'm wrong. I understand you are going to shut out/minimize perceptions in order to be "right".
It's your entitlement.
You said last week that in free will the cause is the brain. And you disregard that I see it's cause as different than that--it precedes and works through the brain. It's the all-encompassing power of the universe--our Source that flows through each one of us. If you don't admit that myself and many spiritual/religious people see this differently than you do, I can accept that.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Of course you think I'm wrong. I understand you are going to shut out/minimize perceptions in order to be "right".
It's your entitlement.
You said last week that in free will the cause is the brain. And you disregard that I see it's cause as different than that--it precedes and works through the brain. It's the all-encompassing power of the universe--our Source that flows through each one of us. If you don't admit that myself and many spiritual/religious people see this differently than you do, I can accept that.
I actually know you are wrong Angelica.
I also know for absolute fact that your interpretation of reality and this notion of free-will are wrong. Of course you will believe in mysticism if you study life through the texts of mystics and ignore the more credible sources of information. While we share many values, I regard your philosophy as ignorant. There are billions of naive individuals with philosophies similar to yours. They structure religious cults and base their beliefs on ancient texts. Your's is no different and hardly worth considering. Your philosophy is indistinguishable from Kabbalah, a 2,500 year old Jewish philosophy based on the text of the Torah. We can get back into the arguement of credulity and credibility, but I doubt you will come to terms. Your philosophy is a result solely of your misfortune and a coping mechanism for living life.
I am at peace with or without vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence. I am completely satisfied with accepting that things probably don't exist until scientifically proven. Especially when the claims have drastically harmful consequences that spoil life, such as Free-will. Is it pride, envy, greed or hatred that keeps you clung to the concept? Do you need to be the absolute cause of your own doing to maintain your sanity?
I can name a dozen neurological conditions and experimental techniques that yield the same kind of experiences you describe. None of them transcend the brain. None of them show any sign of interaction with anything outside of the brain. All of them are a result of a badly wired brain. They are illusions, much like those in optics. If you need your philosophy to maintain your sanity, then don't get into the debate. A debate that revolves around mere speculation, as your theories are, is completely frivolous. We can go back and forth all day talking about personal experiences and speculating on things we are ignorant of, it will get us nowhere. When you come to this debate to represent your view, have some evidence, have an understanding of the concept being discussed.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
You definition of free-will has nothing to do with the topic.
I would think in a discussion of a concept, that my interpretation of the concept held some relevance...
Minesweeper uses a pseudo-random number generator to 'decide' where to put the mines in the grid. That does not mean that Minesweeper has free-will. It means that Minesweeper's decision to put the mines at specific vertices on the grid is determined by a random number. The exact same thing applies to any possibility of randomness in the brain. I highly doubt there is any randomness in the human brain. How often do you order a banana at your local pub due to quantum randomness? Never. You order something depending on your tastes and what's on the menu. A process of deliberation occurs which is undoubtedly deterministic.
My argumentation has been twofold. First, by invoking randomness' undeniable existence and the consequences that has on hard determinism. Determinism has no room for randomness, and is infact very rigid position to have, as I tried to point out. Secondly, I proposed as a theory at my own expense, and apparently in line with the scientist in question here, that the random element (and then random in the sense of unpredictable causally by an observer) may be under the control of consciousness, giving us some control over ourselves, however small.
Determinism is proven. It holds as a solid theory in everyone's lives. We recognize causality at infancy. We operate by determining/predicting outcomes. We learn because of causality. Free-will on the other-hand is not a proven theory.
How can determinism be proven, unless you have complete knowledge? It cannot. Causality is a big part of the universe to be sure, and certainly of the parts that we usually perceive. Thus it is not too outlandish to base oneself on the observed causality. However, there's a big leap to claiming hard determinism, which is at least as outlandish as the complete free will position. Both are essentially impossible to prove, and neither have ever been conclusively. Scientists through the centuries, have disagreed on the emphasis on will and determinism, and they still do, and there are no complete evidence for either, even though the individual scientists have their own positions, and it is clear that the ones you read, and in your field tend towards determinism. That is not a universal position in science, to say the very least.
What you say about determinism is more an opinion and perhaps ideology than the undeniable proven fact by science. An opinion which you of course are entitled to, and argue for. But don't pretend that determinism as a science philosophy position (which is what it is) is a proven fact. Causality is not equal to determinism either, or rather some observed causality is not equal to total determinism. Also factor in that by its nature, science can only observe that which behaves regularly according to laws and in predictable ways. That's what led to the mechanistic image of the universe, and really peaked at the early 1900s with behaviourism. Both the mechanistic universe and behaviourism has its merits, and led to more knowledge, however, neither can claim total proof, as many things dont fit into these frames. and that's also the reason science in general moved on.
The fun thing is, that if put between the theoretical extremes of free will and determinism, I tend heavily towards determinism. I believe a lot is determined, and when it comes to human actions, a lot is determined through influences, learning, experiences. The hard determinism, though a pure and simple theoretical position, is an impossible practical position, unless you can claim total knowledge. And science don't do that, as that would exclude further discoveries, and new possibilities.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I would think in a discussion of a concept, that my interpretation of the concept held some relevance...
My argumentation has been twofold. First, by invoking randomness' undeniable existence and the consequences that has on hard determinism. Determinism has no room for randomness, and is infact very rigid position to have, as I tried to point out. Secondly, I proposed as a theory at my own expense, and apparently in line with the scientist in question here, that the random element (and then random in the sense of unpredictable causally by an observer) may be under the control of consciousness, giving us some control over ourselves, however small.
How can determinism be proven, unless you have complete knowledge? It cannot. Causality is a big part of the universe to be sure, and certainly of the parts that we usually perceive. Thus it is not too outlandish to base oneself on the observed causality. However, there's a big leap to claiming hard determinism, which is at least as outlandish as the complete free will position. Both are essentially impossible to prove, and neither have ever been conclusively. Scientists through the centuries, have disagreed on the emphasis on will and determinism, and they still do, and there are no complete evidence for either, even though the individual scientists have their own positions, and it is clear that the ones you read, and in your field tend towards determinism. That is not a universal position in science, to say the very least.
What you say about determinism is more an opinion and perhaps ideology than the undeniable proven fact by science. An opinion which you of course are entitled to, and argue for. But don't pretend that determinism as a science philosophy position (which is what it is) is a proven fact. Causality is not equal to determinism either, or rather some observed causality is not equal to total determinism. Also factor in that by its nature, science can only observe that which behaves regularly according to laws and in predictable ways. That's what led to the mechanistic image of the universe, and really peaked at the early 1900s with behaviourism. Both the mechanistic universe and behaviourism has its merits, and led to more knowledge, however, neither can claim total proof, as many things dont fit into these frames. and that's also the reason science in general moved on.
The fun thing is, that if put between the theoretical extremes of free will and determinism, I tend heavily towards determinism. I believe a lot is determined, and when it comes to human actions, a lot is determined through influences, learning, experiences. The hard determinism, though a pure and simple theoretical position, is an impossible practical position, unless you can claim total knowledge. And science don't do that, as that would exclude further discoveries, and new possibilities.
Peace
Dan
I don't recall the scientist in question suggesting that randomness has anything to do with the brain.
Keep in mind that I said determinism is proven, not hard determinism. But since free-will hasn't a leg to stand on, that makes hard determinism all the more believable.
You can't provide evidence of a truly random event in nature. Try.
‘t Hooft, of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, shared a Nobel prize in 1999 for laying the mathematical foundations for the standard model of particle physics. Like Einstein, he was troubled by the indeterminism at the heart of quantum mechanics, according to which particles do not have clearly defined properties before you measure them, and you can never predict with certainty what the outcome of your measurements will be. So ‘t Hooft constructed a deterministic alternative which showed that fundamental states which exist on the smallest scales do start out with clearly defined properties. Information about these states gets blurred over time, until we are no longer able to tell how they initially arose - leading to their apparently probabilistic quantum nature, he says.
However, mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen at Princeton University showed that if ‘t Hooft’s theory is true, then people’s ability to make instantaneous, unpredictable choices on a whim is similarly constrained - we don’t have free will (New Scientist, 4 May 2006, p 8 ).
The revelation has been a stumbling block for his theory, ‘t Hooft admits. “It’s not the mathematics that loses other physicists,” he says. “It’s this metaphysical worry about free will. Why worry at all about a notion so flimsy as ‘free will’ in a theory of physics?”
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I don't recall the scientist in question suggesting that randomness has anything to do with the brain.
Then I might have been imprecise. I meant in line in that the element of free will may be very small. The randomness is arguments against hard determinism. I may have mixed them a bit more up than I should.
Keep in mind that I said determinism is proven, not hard determinism. But since free-will hasn't a leg to stand on, that makes hard determinism all the more believable.
By using the term determinism in the way you usually do around here, it is pretty clear that you mean hard determinism most of the time when you say determinism. If you didn't just there, then I dont have that much of an issue with it. Although I feel that saying that causality is proven would be a lot more precise and less prone to be misunderstood. You seem to be oblivious to the connotations connected to the term determinism throughout the history of science and science philosophy, and this furthers misunderstanding.
And an extreme position is not proven or corroborated by the unlikelyhood of it's other extreme. (especially since we construct the extremes in question most of the time) That's how creationists argue. If only the current scientific theory can be doubted, then the bible is right... So the unlikeliness of the total free will, does not support the hard determinism. Water not being cold, does not make it warm. (not to mention them being qualitative judgements, such as most of our concepts)
Evidence for some determinism would be the right way to say it, and I wouldn't disagree.
You can't provide evidence of a truly random event in nature. Try.
Which was my point. Science can only prove things that aren't. Doesn't mean randomness does not or cannot exist. There is a clear difference between "can't see or find" and "doesn't exist". Science would be about the former. You can as little assume that randomness doesn't exist, as you can that it does. That also goes for free will and determinism. It is science philosophy because frankly, it is beyond science today to determine it. A posititon can be assumed, certainly. There are theories to exclude randomness, sure. Proven beyond doubt and generally accepted? No.
Science is also about reduction. But in reducing, you simplify and thus excludes. Science assumes that nothing important is lost on the way, and for many uses this might be so. However, if the big picture is to be considered, one must have in mind all the reduction that has taken place, and the easiest way out is adding "random" which essentially means "factors we dont know anything about" or "things we cut out, that now must be put back in somehow".
My argument with you is largely that I think you are going a bit further than the evidence really warrants when it comes to determinism. Often, if you quote scientific work, the scientists in question usually treat it more conservatively, and less conclusive than your claims, even if they do give some support for your position. Also, you sometimes seem unaware that what you consider a purely scientific position, is often an ideological and philosophical position as well.
But if you are not claiming hard determinism, then you are actually leaving room for free will, and you dont seem to accept that at all.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I'm not leaving room for Free-Will, Dan. I can't see it being possible and as I said, it doesn't have a leg to stand on. So I can't take it seriously.
My only problem with the concept is it's influence on social policy and the thought processes of the members of society.
Ultimate moral responsibility placed on the individual human, is a staple in our society and the most prevelant religions, the Abrahamic faiths.
I agree with 't Hooft, it's flimsy. But worse than that, it's transparent, it can not and never will be seen by it's own definition. It's on par with God.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
I'm not leaving room for Free-Will, Dan. I can't see it being possible and as I said, it doesn't have a leg to stand on. So I can't take it seriously.
My only problem with the concept is it's influence on social policy and the thought processes of the members of society.
Ultimate moral responsibility placed on the individual human, is a staple in our society and the most prevelant religions, the Abrahamic faiths.
I agree with 't Hooft, it's flimsy. But worse than that, it's transparent, it can not and never will be seen by it's own definition. It's on par with God.
Well, then you are on about hard determinism. Simple as that. And then all my reservations against it applies.
As for your motive here, I sympathize with it, and I too think too much emphasis is put on the individual at times. I am a socialist through and through and seek bigger solutions apart from punishing individuals.
But a modicum of free will is not on par with God. Free Will as the opposite to Hard Determinism is. And it is kindof paradoxical that you refuse any will at all, but use it in a sort of activism against what you see as unfair treatment. Do you not see the paradox in your own position there? Action as an illusion, while advocating action? According to hard determinism, everything happens as it must, so you advocating, and who will listen, who will not, and how they will interpret it is all determined 6 billion years ago. Such a position will not blame people needlessly, but rather push forward the "so what's the point" mentality which can be equally destructive as the "you're totally responsible" attitude. I support your cause here, but not your way of arguing.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As Voltaire implies... I'm destined to these actions. Some are destined to disagree with me, and others destined to become aware. I'm simply doing my part, as are you.
I don't mean to come across as blaming or hostile. I appreciate your awareness of determinism Dan. Others, I feel, need help. Perhaps they don't want help, and perhaps they will persecute me, as others before me. But, it won't keep me from my destiny.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
As Voltaire implies... I'm destined to these actions. Some are destined to disagree with me, and others destined to become aware. I'm simply doing my part, as are you.
I don't mean to come across as blaming or hostile. I appreciate your awareness of determinism Dan. Others, I feel, need help. Perhaps they don't want help, and perhaps they will persecute me, as others before me. But, it won't keep me from my destiny.
Well, good luck with that. You are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.
But I must point out that that is most thoroughly a belief, and infact, bordering on religious ways of reasoning. You're just doing God's will, without the God, and will weather the persecution come what may... Destiny is a very biblical and spiritual word.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Well, good luck with that. You are entitled to your beliefs, as I am to mine.
But I must point out that that is most thoroughly a belief, and infact, bordering on religious ways of reasoning. You're just doing God's will, without the God, and will weather the persecution come what may... Destiny is a very biblical and spiritual word.
Peace
Dan
Spinoza's God maybe, but it's in conflict with Allah, or Yehweh.. Spinoza's God is nothing to worry about.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Spinoza's God maybe, but it's in conflict with Allah, or Yehweh.. Spinoza's God is nothing to worry about.
Any kind of God or belief backed by a certain fervour is something to worry about. Which is why I am just as uncomfortable with militant/fundamentalist atheism, as I am with militant/fundamentalist anything. I'm not accusing you of being a militant, just pointing out that one can be militant about pretty much anything, particularly when one have enduring, powerful dogmas. Which is why I am no supporter of building atheist dogmatism to replace the religious one. I dunno why I go on about this, other than I thought I detected a sense of crusader/martyr mentality in your former post.
I dont know enough about Spinoza's god, but if that is the same as a creator, not intervening, then I am somewhat in line with that.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Any kind of God or belief backed by a certain fervour is something to worry about. Which is why I am just as uncomfortable with militant/fundamentalist atheism, as I am with militant/fundamentalist anything. I'm not accusing you of being a militant, just pointing out that one can be militant about pretty much anything, particularly when one have enduring, powerful dogmas. Which is why I am no supporter of building atheist dogmatism to replace the religious one. I dunno why I go on about this, other than I thought I detected a sense of crusader/martyr mentality in your former post.
I dont know enough about Spinoza's god, but if that is the same as a creator, not intervening, then I am somewhat in line with that.
Peace
Dan
Spinoza's God might simply be synonymous with the laws of the universe. Spinoza's God does not concern it's self with human affairs.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Spinoza's God might simply be synonymous with the laws of the universe. Spinoza's God does not concern it's self with human affairs.
That would be somewhat in line with my view. That is, when I actually posit a divinity, and don't go for the animist approach.
Peace
Dan
"YOU [humans] NEED TO BELIEVE IN THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE. HOW ELSE CAN THEY BECOME?" - Death
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I also know for absolute fact that your interpretation of reality and this notion of free-will are wrong. Of course you will believe in mysticism if you study life through the texts of mystics and ignore the more credible sources of information. While we share many values, I regard your philosophy as ignorant. There are billions of naive individuals with philosophies similar to yours. They structure religious cults and base their beliefs on ancient texts. Your's is no different and hardly worth considering. Your philosophy is indistinguishable from Kabbalah, a 2,500 year old Jewish philosophy based on the text of the Torah. We can get back into the arguement of credulity and credibility, but I doubt you will come to terms. Your philosophy is a result solely of your misfortune and a coping mechanism for living life.
I am at peace with or without vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence. I am completely satisfied with accepting that things probably don't exist until scientifically proven. Especially when the claims have drastically harmful consequences that spoil life, such as Free-will. Is it pride, envy, greed or hatred that keeps you clung to the concept? Do you need to be the absolute cause of your own doing to maintain your sanity?
I can name a dozen neurological conditions and experimental techniques that yield the same kind of experiences you describe. None of them transcend the brain. None of them show any sign of interaction with anything outside of the brain. All of them are a result of a badly wired brain. They are illusions, much like those in optics. If you need your philosophy to maintain your sanity, then don't get into the debate. A debate that revolves around mere speculation, as your theories are, is completely frivolous. We can go back and forth all day talking about personal experiences and speculating on things we are ignorant of, it will get us nowhere. When you come to this debate to represent your view, have some evidence, have an understanding of the concept being discussed.
The fact remains, Ahnimus, that millions of people worldwide have this view of free will. You not believing in it does not diminish it's validity, anymore than my doing so establishes it.
As for the brain science, I'm sure we both rememember brain-dude Dr. Andrew Newberg's work that tells us spiritual experiences are as real if not more real than any other experience, as uncovered by his brain science work (as he says in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433) I understand that you will not be so quick to quote this body of brain science discovery.
Allow me to refresh your memory further. You might recall that certain people seem to be quite disposed to spiritual experience, like one might be a whiz with math, all the while others might not have much inclination towards these experiences, at all--like Richard Dawkins, or maybe even yourself.
You might also recall the quote from one of your own sources, Dr. Ramachandran, where he says this in the "God on the Brain" video series:
"Just because there are circuits in your brain that predispose you to religious belief does not in any way negate the value of a religious belief. It may be God's way of putting an antennae in your brain to make you more receptive to the, to God. Nothing us scientists are saying about the brain or about neuropsychiatry in any way negates the existence of God nor negates the value of religious experience for the person experiencing it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA)
When one meets the scientific method and standards, one is trained to be very responsible in what conclusions they come to. This is a standard that the average lay person seems to not quite hold themselves to. When one meets scientific standard, one cannot claim knowing what is unproveable or has not been proven, and still consider one's self as quoting science.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
Keep in mind that I said determinism is proven, not hard determinism. But since free-will hasn't a leg to stand on, that makes hard determinism all the more believable.
ok, Ahnimus, now you've gained back some credibility, at least in my eyes. Do note that those of us engaging you in this thread have NOT, at any time, said that determinism is false. We just take issue with hard determinism, which is as much as a philosophical stance as free will. You know, there is a movement in the US that would like intelligent design taught as 'fact' in science class. Like the theory of hard determinism, it can not abide by the 'rules' of the scientific method, therefor is not science, but philosophy. I absolutely see where your intellectual endeavors have led you to hard determinism, and that is fine. Just don't 'dumb down' your argument by resorting to the same tactics of the religious conservatives.
You can't provide evidence of a truly random event in nature. Try.
Let's clarify what 'randomness' is. Randomness is 'several alternatives' or 'one out of many' and no way to know which one. But this can be seen on different levels, and the main distinction is the difference between ontic and epistic randomness.
Mostly known/understood/used is epistic randomness. That means, there are several potential alternatives, because of lack of information on our side. Because we have incomplete information, we are not able to say which, of several alternatives, will happen, is happening, or has happened. This is well described using probabilities indicating our degree of ignorance. It is the Bayesian view on probabilities. So it is sufficient to increase our knowledge, to decrease randomness. So randomness is not a concept inherent in nature, but just inherent in an observer that doesn't possess complete information about the situation and hence cannot discriminate between different alternatives.
However, it is conceivable (though of course not provable) that there is some ontic randomness - it is what I called irreducible randomness. What does that mean? It means that nothing in nature determines the event to happen. That several alternatives are open to the laws of nature, and that there is nothing at all in the fundamental state of nature that can determine which, of the several alternatives, will actually happen.
It is of course irreducible randomness, because if 'nature itself' doesn't 'know' what will happen, then of course there's no hope for any observer to know.
We can have an intermediate case, where there are 'hidden variables'; there are hidden quantities in nature, which will determine what will happen, but for one or other reason, they are not available to observation. This means that there is some kind of irreducible epistic randomness, but it is not ontic randomness. Nature, 'knowing' of these hidden variables, can determine precisely what will happen, but we can't, no matter how we try.
A theory that does not contain any ontic, irreducible randomness is called a deterministic theory. The laws of nature determine exactly what will happen, if the current (or past) state of nature is known. In such a universe, since the big bang, everything that happens and will happen is determined, and there are no alternatives possible.
If a theory has ontic randomness, that means that the past doesn't completely determine the future: certain alternatives are possible and there's nothing in nature that tells us which one of the alternatives is going to happen. Not simply because there's something that we ignore, but simply because the laws of nature do not determine it.
There's no discussion that classical physics is deterministic. The discussion is with quantum theory of course, which seems to be irreducibly random. However, it depends on how you interpret it to say whether the randomness is truly ontic, or whether the randomness is epistic, or whether, after all, there is no randomness.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
The fact remains, Ahnimus, that millions of people worldwide have this view of free will. You not believing in it does not diminish it's validity, anymore than my doing so establishes it.
As for the brain science, I'm sure we both rememember brain-dude Dr. Andrew Newberg's work that tells us spiritual experiences are as real if not more real than any other experience, as uncovered by his brain science work (as he says in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433) I understand that you will not be so quick to quote this body of brain science discovery.
Allow me to refresh your memory further. You might recall that certain people seem to be quite disposed to spiritual experience, like one might be a whiz with math, all the while others might not have much inclination towards these experiences, at all--like Richard Dawkins, or maybe even yourself.
You might also recall the quote from one of your own sources, Dr. Ramachandran, where he says this in the "God on the Brain" video series:
"Just because there are circuits in your brain that predispose you to religious belief does not in any way negate the value of a religious belief. It may be God's way of putting an antennae in your brain to make you more receptive to the, to God. Nothing us scientists are saying about the brain or about neuropsychiatry in any way negates the existence of God nor negates the value of religious experience for the person experiencing it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA)
When one meets the scientific method and standards, one is trained to be very responsible in what conclusions they come to. This is a standard that the average lay person seems to not quite hold themselves to. When one meets scientific standard, one cannot claim knowing what is unproveable or has not been proven, and still consider one's self as quoting science.
One hundred million people believe they've been abducted by aliens.
I cite Andrew Newberg's research all the time. But to me it implies exactly the opposite of what Newberg thinks. My opinion seems to be what Ramachandran thinks it implies, but he's made a public statement to avoid becoming the next Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Steven Weinberg.
In the absence of unrpovable theories, like Gods and Free-Wills you have provable theories like Determinism.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
ok, Ahnimus, now you've gained back some credibility, at least in my eyes. Do note that those of us engaging you in this thread have NOT, at any time, said that determinism is false. We just take issue with hard determinism, which is as much as a philosophical stance as free will. You know, there is a movement in the US that would like intelligent design taught as 'fact' in science class. Like the theory of hard determinism, it can not abide by the 'rules' of the scientific method, therefor is not science, but philosophy. I absolutely see where your intellectual endeavors have led you to hard determinism, and that is fine. Just don't 'dumb down' your argument by resorting to the same tactics of the religious conservatives.
Let's clarify what 'randomness' is. Randomness is 'several alternatives' or 'one out of many' and no way to know which one. But this can be seen on different levels, and the main distinction is the difference between ontic and epistic randomness.
Mostly known/understood/used is epistic randomness. That means, there are several potential alternatives, because of lack of information on our side. Because we have incomplete information, we are not able to say which, of several alternatives, will happen, is happening, or has happened. This is well described using probabilities indicating our degree of ignorance. It is the Bayesian view on probabilities. So it is sufficient to increase our knowledge, to decrease randomness. So randomness is not a concept inherent in nature, but just inherent in an observer that doesn't possess complete information about the situation and hence cannot discriminate between different alternatives.
However, it is conceivable (though of course not provable) that there is some ontic randomness - it is what I called irreducible randomness. What does that mean? It means that nothing in nature determines the event to happen. That several alternatives are open to the laws of nature, and that there is nothing at all in the fundamental state of nature that can determine which, of the several alternatives, will actually happen.
It is of course irreducible randomness, because if 'nature itself' doesn't 'know' what will happen, then of course there's no hope for any observer to know.
We can have an intermediate case, where there are 'hidden variables'; there are hidden quantities in nature, which will determine what will happen, but for one or other reason, they are not available to observation. This means that there is some kind of irreducible epistic randomness, but it is not ontic randomness. Nature, 'knowing' of these hidden variables, can determine precisely what will happen, but we can't, no matter how we try.
A theory that does not contain any ontic, irreducible randomness is called a deterministic theory. The laws of nature determine exactly what will happen, if the current (or past) state of nature is known. In such a universe, since the big bang, everything that happens and will happen is determined, and there are no alternatives possible.
If a theory has ontic randomness, that means that the past doesn't completely determine the future: certain alternatives are possible and there's nothing in nature that tells us which one of the alternatives is going to happen. Not simply because there's something that we ignore, but simply because the laws of nature do not determine it.
There's no discussion that classical physics is deterministic. The discussion is with quantum theory of course, which seems to be irreducibly random. However, it depends on how you interpret it to say whether the randomness is truly ontic, or whether the randomness is epistic, or whether, after all, there is no randomness.
That's all I'm saying Baraka. Quantum Theory is more true to the common definition of theory than is Evolution Theory. Quantum Theory, IMO, is speculation, it's a mathetmatical model that seems to work, but like Newtonian Physics, it may need to be revised as we learn more about it. As 't Hooft points out, there may be particles smaller than quantum particles that determines the behavior of the quantum particles and we won't know, because we can't see them.
Quantum Randomness is not a problem with the free-will debate anyway, as pointed out by Nobeal Laureate in Particle Physics Murray Gell-Mann and in Michael Shermer's article Quantum Quackery "If mvd is larger than h, then the system can be treated classically.". Neurons are not quantum computers, and although the chemists might need to know some Quantum theory to determine the behavior of neurotransmitters, they will probably behave the way they normally do. The whole concept of probabilities seems incompatible with ontic randomness. If it was truly random all outcomes would share an equal probability.
I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
Comments
Now I am laughing. You claimed that intelligence is quantifiable, but we previously had a huge board discussion on quantifying intelligence and there were degrees of disagreeance. Intelligence is by no means quantifiable with our current knowledge of the human brain. We can speak of it in rough terms like g General Intelligence or Gardner's structured model of intelligence, but by no means are any of those theories verifiable. They are mere speculation at this point.
So, you've claimed to have knowledge that cognitive scientists themselves would only profess a belief in. Then you turn it around to suggest I am making an attempt to profess an absolute knowledge. Perhaps I simply have a greater depth of understanding of the topic. When you get past indeterminism as a door to freedom and complexity as a window of causelessness and you truly understand the concepts being discussed, then it will seem as though I'm not dictating.
Two plus Two equals Four. Is not a belief which needs to be argued. It's only challenged for comedy or out of completely absurd ignorance. I can guarantee you that what I've said is as solid as Two plus Two equals Four. But you can believe it equals 9 or 85, or whatever you want, it'll just be absurd and I can't take that seriously.
I challenge you to explain how free-will works without saying "it just happens" or a similar statement to that effect. Because if you say "God gave it to us" then God alone is the cause, and the decider of the attributes of the so-called free-will, and thus it is not free. If you toss a coin, each side of the coin has no volition over the outcome of the toss, and that's what indeterminist theory tries to suggest. Each side may have a weight modifier that causes heads to come up 51% over tails 49% of the time, but the actual deliberation is a mathematical certainty determined by a fixed law in nature, not the coin, not the head-side nor the tail-side.
"The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought."
Different groups look at the subject differently depending on the context they view it in.
As I ascertained the other day, you are misconstruing my view on free-will and what I understand to be any religious/spiritual person's view on it. Therefore I conclude that comparisons derived from this misconstrued point of view don't/can't/won't work.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
That paragraph is about the implications of whether or not free-will is true. Not the definition of free-will. The definition is not in dispute. I frequently see philosopher's describe the abusrdity of some non-philosopher's interpretations of the concept, but those are largely brushed aside as being unsophisticated.
What I'm saying to you is that if we are seeing a totally different subject matter--and I see that we are--then we are comparing apples and oranges, which is why I stated that we are comparing apples and oranges.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
And while we're at it, how are you so certain that the randomizer cannot be connected to something like free will? It is an unknown, an X in the equation whose nature we dont know, but can speculate upon. In whatever direction we might like.
My definition of free will requires nothing more than that we are not set in stone, and that we can, however perhaps in very small ways, change our surroundings and ourselves through our own actions and/or thoughts. An off-switch for impulses controlled by conscious thought could be it.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
You're in your own little world, Ahnimus.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
ha ha, I just couldn't help myself.
I think that there is no question that cause and effect is a very large part of our universe. However, so is randomness and chaos. Therefore, the Universe is neither deterministic nor chaotic but both. There are also random events that may or not be caused that happen to have random effects or occur at random times. Even in principle there are things and parameters that are unknown and unknowable. They are not opposites. They are different types of events and I see no conflict or contradiction. A random event can cause an effect. A cause can have a random effect.
Students of chaos have clung to the notion that chaotic systems retain some shreds of order. The shreds manifest themselves in the form of an attractor, a pattern of behavior toward which the system periodically settles. identifying the attractor enables one to predict the final behavior of a chaotic system, at least in a qualitative, statistical sense. That comforting notion has been damaged by Edward Ott of the University of Maryland and John C. Sommerer of Johns Hopkins University and their colleagues. They have shown that for certain systems that have more than one attractor, even qualitative predictions are impossible. "The repeatability of an experiment gets thrown into question," Ott says. The problem is rooted in the way a chaotic system determines which attractor to follow. The initial conditions that control the choice are said to be located in a basin of attraction. Ott and Sommerer have spoiled the party by showing that a basin may be rather leaky: it may have "holes" that make it impossible to predict which attractor the system will follow. Building on earlier mathematical work, the physicists used a computer to conduct numerical experiments in which a particle moving on a frictional surface is occasionally pushed. Consequently, the particle could begin moving either periodically or sporadically. The researchers found that even for this fairly simple system they could not determine which of the two attractors the particle would chase, because one basin is riddled with pieces of the other basin. in fact, every area in one basin, no matter how small, contained pieces of the other basin within it. "Hence, arbitrarily small changes can cause the system to go to a completely different attractor," Ott remarks. The only way to guarantee an outcome is not to have any error or noise whatsoever-a practical impossibility for real systems. And, anyway, what kind of chaos would that be? Ott points out that the results differ from other forms of chaos in which the starting point straddles the boundary between two basins of attraction. In such borderline situations, one might be able to move the starting point away from the boundary so that the attractor can be predicted. The same cannot be done for systems that have riddled basins, because no region is free of holes. "You're always on the borderline," Ott explains.
I just cannot see how or why Hard Determinism can be such an attractive philosophy when it has so many weaknesses and obvious flaws. Randomness and chance are such a large part of our lives that it cannot be ruled out, done away with or ignored so easily.
Determinism may be theoretically possible in Classical physics; but, in the light of Relativity and Quantum Dynamics it just does not hold.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
If I were Ahnimus, I would love you for your brain.
Hehee.
all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
Shit, well I just lost what I typed. I'll try to say it quickly. You have chaos theory wrong. It's a perfectly determined system. And the term indeterminacy in that context is being used synonymously with predictability which is a result of the human scope.
Read Pat and Paul Churchland, they own this topic and being that they are not only philosopher's but Neuroscientists, I think we owe to them our respect on the topic.
http://philosophy.ucsd.edu/faculty/pschurchland/papers/newscientist06dowehavefreewill.pdf
A rigid philosophical tradition claims that no choice is free unless it is uncaused; that is, unless the
"will" is exercised independently of all causal influences - in a causal vacuum. In some unexplained
fashion, the will - a thing that allegedly stands aloof from brain-based causality - makes an
unconstrained choice. The problem is that choices are made by brains, and brains operate causally;
that is, they go from one state to the next as a function of antecedent conditions. Moreover, though
brains make decisions, there is no discrete brain structure or neural network which qualifies as "the
will" let alone a neural structure operating in a causal vacuum. The unavoidable conclusion is that a
philosophy dedicated to uncaused choice is as unrealistic as a philosophy dedicated to a flat Earth.
Seriously, this is the way reality is. Eventually you'll have to get used to it.
You definition of free-will has nothing to do with the topic.
Minesweeper uses a pseudo-random number generator to 'decide' where to put the mines in the grid. That does not mean that Minesweeper has free-will. It means that Minesweeper's decision to put the mines at specific vertices on the grid is determined by a random number. The exact same thing applies to any possibility of randomness in the brain. I highly doubt there is any randomness in the human brain. How often do you order a banana at your local pub due to quantum randomness? Never. You order something depending on your tastes and what's on the menu. A process of deliberation occurs which is undoubtedly deterministic.
Determinism is proven. It holds as a solid theory in everyone's lives. We recognize causality at infancy. We operate by determining/predicting outcomes. We learn because of causality. Free-will on the other-hand is not a proven theory.
I think your wrong about the paragraph.
Regardless. Take your own advice and stop trying to compare your orange to my apple. You know what I'm talking about when I reference Free-Will. Yet, you come into the discussion with a completely different definition. A definition that is used only by a handful of ignorant people. And by ignorant I mean ill-informed.
are. As for self-esteem, we do know that it is highly dependent on successful social interactions: on
respect, love, accomplishment, but also on temperament, hormones and serotonin. Moreover, the
beauty, intricacy and sophistication of the neurobiological machine that makes me "me" is vastly
more fascinating and infinitely more awesome than the philosophical conception of the brain-free
soul that somehow, despite the laws of physics, exercises its free will in a causal vacuum. Each of
us is a work of art, sculpted first by evolution, and second by experience in the world. With
experience and reflection one's social perception matures, and so also does the level of autonomy.
Aristotle called it wisdom.
Pat Churchland “The Big Questions: Do we have free will?”. New Scientist, 2578, 18-Nov, pp. 42 —45
Of course you think I'm wrong. I understand you are going to shut out/minimize perceptions in order to be "right".
It's your entitlement.
You said last week that in free will the cause is the brain. And you disregard that I see it's cause as different than that--it precedes and works through the brain. It's the all-encompassing power of the universe--our Source that flows through each one of us. If you don't admit that myself and many spiritual/religious people see this differently than you do, I can accept that.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
I actually know you are wrong Angelica.
I also know for absolute fact that your interpretation of reality and this notion of free-will are wrong. Of course you will believe in mysticism if you study life through the texts of mystics and ignore the more credible sources of information. While we share many values, I regard your philosophy as ignorant. There are billions of naive individuals with philosophies similar to yours. They structure religious cults and base their beliefs on ancient texts. Your's is no different and hardly worth considering. Your philosophy is indistinguishable from Kabbalah, a 2,500 year old Jewish philosophy based on the text of the Torah. We can get back into the arguement of credulity and credibility, but I doubt you will come to terms. Your philosophy is a result solely of your misfortune and a coping mechanism for living life.
I am at peace with or without vortices, aliens, ghosts, loch ness monsters, bigfoot, succubi, demons, angels, Gods, fairies, leprechauns, cosmic consciousness or anything else people claim to know without providing evidence. I am completely satisfied with accepting that things probably don't exist until scientifically proven. Especially when the claims have drastically harmful consequences that spoil life, such as Free-will. Is it pride, envy, greed or hatred that keeps you clung to the concept? Do you need to be the absolute cause of your own doing to maintain your sanity?
I can name a dozen neurological conditions and experimental techniques that yield the same kind of experiences you describe. None of them transcend the brain. None of them show any sign of interaction with anything outside of the brain. All of them are a result of a badly wired brain. They are illusions, much like those in optics. If you need your philosophy to maintain your sanity, then don't get into the debate. A debate that revolves around mere speculation, as your theories are, is completely frivolous. We can go back and forth all day talking about personal experiences and speculating on things we are ignorant of, it will get us nowhere. When you come to this debate to represent your view, have some evidence, have an understanding of the concept being discussed.
My argumentation has been twofold. First, by invoking randomness' undeniable existence and the consequences that has on hard determinism. Determinism has no room for randomness, and is infact very rigid position to have, as I tried to point out. Secondly, I proposed as a theory at my own expense, and apparently in line with the scientist in question here, that the random element (and then random in the sense of unpredictable causally by an observer) may be under the control of consciousness, giving us some control over ourselves, however small.
How can determinism be proven, unless you have complete knowledge? It cannot. Causality is a big part of the universe to be sure, and certainly of the parts that we usually perceive. Thus it is not too outlandish to base oneself on the observed causality. However, there's a big leap to claiming hard determinism, which is at least as outlandish as the complete free will position. Both are essentially impossible to prove, and neither have ever been conclusively. Scientists through the centuries, have disagreed on the emphasis on will and determinism, and they still do, and there are no complete evidence for either, even though the individual scientists have their own positions, and it is clear that the ones you read, and in your field tend towards determinism. That is not a universal position in science, to say the very least.
What you say about determinism is more an opinion and perhaps ideology than the undeniable proven fact by science. An opinion which you of course are entitled to, and argue for. But don't pretend that determinism as a science philosophy position (which is what it is) is a proven fact. Causality is not equal to determinism either, or rather some observed causality is not equal to total determinism. Also factor in that by its nature, science can only observe that which behaves regularly according to laws and in predictable ways. That's what led to the mechanistic image of the universe, and really peaked at the early 1900s with behaviourism. Both the mechanistic universe and behaviourism has its merits, and led to more knowledge, however, neither can claim total proof, as many things dont fit into these frames. and that's also the reason science in general moved on.
The fun thing is, that if put between the theoretical extremes of free will and determinism, I tend heavily towards determinism. I believe a lot is determined, and when it comes to human actions, a lot is determined through influences, learning, experiences. The hard determinism, though a pure and simple theoretical position, is an impossible practical position, unless you can claim total knowledge. And science don't do that, as that would exclude further discoveries, and new possibilities.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I don't recall the scientist in question suggesting that randomness has anything to do with the brain.
Keep in mind that I said determinism is proven, not hard determinism. But since free-will hasn't a leg to stand on, that makes hard determinism all the more believable.
You can't provide evidence of a truly random event in nature. Try.
‘t Hooft, of the University of Utrecht in the Netherlands, shared a Nobel prize in 1999 for laying the mathematical foundations for the standard model of particle physics. Like Einstein, he was troubled by the indeterminism at the heart of quantum mechanics, according to which particles do not have clearly defined properties before you measure them, and you can never predict with certainty what the outcome of your measurements will be. So ‘t Hooft constructed a deterministic alternative which showed that fundamental states which exist on the smallest scales do start out with clearly defined properties. Information about these states gets blurred over time, until we are no longer able to tell how they initially arose - leading to their apparently probabilistic quantum nature, he says.
However, mathematicians John Conway and Simon Kochen at Princeton University showed that if ‘t Hooft’s theory is true, then people’s ability to make instantaneous, unpredictable choices on a whim is similarly constrained - we don’t have free will (New Scientist, 4 May 2006, p 8 ).
The revelation has been a stumbling block for his theory, ‘t Hooft admits. “It’s not the mathematics that loses other physicists,” he says. “It’s this metaphysical worry about free will. Why worry at all about a notion so flimsy as ‘free will’ in a theory of physics?”
http://leisureguy.wordpress.com/2007/08/04/free-will-may-it-needs-redefining/
http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/
By using the term determinism in the way you usually do around here, it is pretty clear that you mean hard determinism most of the time when you say determinism. If you didn't just there, then I dont have that much of an issue with it. Although I feel that saying that causality is proven would be a lot more precise and less prone to be misunderstood. You seem to be oblivious to the connotations connected to the term determinism throughout the history of science and science philosophy, and this furthers misunderstanding.
And an extreme position is not proven or corroborated by the unlikelyhood of it's other extreme. (especially since we construct the extremes in question most of the time) That's how creationists argue. If only the current scientific theory can be doubted, then the bible is right... So the unlikeliness of the total free will, does not support the hard determinism. Water not being cold, does not make it warm. (not to mention them being qualitative judgements, such as most of our concepts)
Evidence for some determinism would be the right way to say it, and I wouldn't disagree.
Which was my point. Science can only prove things that aren't. Doesn't mean randomness does not or cannot exist. There is a clear difference between "can't see or find" and "doesn't exist". Science would be about the former. You can as little assume that randomness doesn't exist, as you can that it does. That also goes for free will and determinism. It is science philosophy because frankly, it is beyond science today to determine it. A posititon can be assumed, certainly. There are theories to exclude randomness, sure. Proven beyond doubt and generally accepted? No.
Science is also about reduction. But in reducing, you simplify and thus excludes. Science assumes that nothing important is lost on the way, and for many uses this might be so. However, if the big picture is to be considered, one must have in mind all the reduction that has taken place, and the easiest way out is adding "random" which essentially means "factors we dont know anything about" or "things we cut out, that now must be put back in somehow".
My argument with you is largely that I think you are going a bit further than the evidence really warrants when it comes to determinism. Often, if you quote scientific work, the scientists in question usually treat it more conservatively, and less conclusive than your claims, even if they do give some support for your position. Also, you sometimes seem unaware that what you consider a purely scientific position, is often an ideological and philosophical position as well.
But if you are not claiming hard determinism, then you are actually leaving room for free will, and you dont seem to accept that at all.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
My only problem with the concept is it's influence on social policy and the thought processes of the members of society.
Ultimate moral responsibility placed on the individual human, is a staple in our society and the most prevelant religions, the Abrahamic faiths.
I agree with 't Hooft, it's flimsy. But worse than that, it's transparent, it can not and never will be seen by it's own definition. It's on par with God.
As for your motive here, I sympathize with it, and I too think too much emphasis is put on the individual at times. I am a socialist through and through and seek bigger solutions apart from punishing individuals.
But a modicum of free will is not on par with God. Free Will as the opposite to Hard Determinism is. And it is kindof paradoxical that you refuse any will at all, but use it in a sort of activism against what you see as unfair treatment. Do you not see the paradox in your own position there? Action as an illusion, while advocating action? According to hard determinism, everything happens as it must, so you advocating, and who will listen, who will not, and how they will interpret it is all determined 6 billion years ago. Such a position will not blame people needlessly, but rather push forward the "so what's the point" mentality which can be equally destructive as the "you're totally responsible" attitude. I support your cause here, but not your way of arguing.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
I don't mean to come across as blaming or hostile. I appreciate your awareness of determinism Dan. Others, I feel, need help. Perhaps they don't want help, and perhaps they will persecute me, as others before me. But, it won't keep me from my destiny.
But I must point out that that is most thoroughly a belief, and infact, bordering on religious ways of reasoning. You're just doing God's will, without the God, and will weather the persecution come what may... Destiny is a very biblical and spiritual word.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Spinoza's God maybe, but it's in conflict with Allah, or Yehweh.. Spinoza's God is nothing to worry about.
I dont know enough about Spinoza's god, but if that is the same as a creator, not intervening, then I am somewhat in line with that.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
Spinoza's God might simply be synonymous with the laws of the universe. Spinoza's God does not concern it's self with human affairs.
Peace
Dan
"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert, Dune, 1965
As for the brain science, I'm sure we both rememember brain-dude Dr. Andrew Newberg's work that tells us spiritual experiences are as real if not more real than any other experience, as uncovered by his brain science work (as he says in this video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9122930135704146433) I understand that you will not be so quick to quote this body of brain science discovery.
Allow me to refresh your memory further. You might recall that certain people seem to be quite disposed to spiritual experience, like one might be a whiz with math, all the while others might not have much inclination towards these experiences, at all--like Richard Dawkins, or maybe even yourself.
You might also recall the quote from one of your own sources, Dr. Ramachandran, where he says this in the "God on the Brain" video series:
"Just because there are circuits in your brain that predispose you to religious belief does not in any way negate the value of a religious belief. It may be God's way of putting an antennae in your brain to make you more receptive to the, to God. Nothing us scientists are saying about the brain or about neuropsychiatry in any way negates the existence of God nor negates the value of religious experience for the person experiencing it." (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZWJJA6RKpA)
When one meets the scientific method and standards, one is trained to be very responsible in what conclusions they come to. This is a standard that the average lay person seems to not quite hold themselves to. When one meets scientific standard, one cannot claim knowing what is unproveable or has not been proven, and still consider one's self as quoting science.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
ok, Ahnimus, now you've gained back some credibility, at least in my eyes. Do note that those of us engaging you in this thread have NOT, at any time, said that determinism is false. We just take issue with hard determinism, which is as much as a philosophical stance as free will. You know, there is a movement in the US that would like intelligent design taught as 'fact' in science class. Like the theory of hard determinism, it can not abide by the 'rules' of the scientific method, therefor is not science, but philosophy. I absolutely see where your intellectual endeavors have led you to hard determinism, and that is fine. Just don't 'dumb down' your argument by resorting to the same tactics of the religious conservatives.
Let's clarify what 'randomness' is. Randomness is 'several alternatives' or 'one out of many' and no way to know which one. But this can be seen on different levels, and the main distinction is the difference between ontic and epistic randomness.
Mostly known/understood/used is epistic randomness. That means, there are several potential alternatives, because of lack of information on our side. Because we have incomplete information, we are not able to say which, of several alternatives, will happen, is happening, or has happened. This is well described using probabilities indicating our degree of ignorance. It is the Bayesian view on probabilities. So it is sufficient to increase our knowledge, to decrease randomness. So randomness is not a concept inherent in nature, but just inherent in an observer that doesn't possess complete information about the situation and hence cannot discriminate between different alternatives.
However, it is conceivable (though of course not provable) that there is some ontic randomness - it is what I called irreducible randomness. What does that mean? It means that nothing in nature determines the event to happen. That several alternatives are open to the laws of nature, and that there is nothing at all in the fundamental state of nature that can determine which, of the several alternatives, will actually happen.
It is of course irreducible randomness, because if 'nature itself' doesn't 'know' what will happen, then of course there's no hope for any observer to know.
We can have an intermediate case, where there are 'hidden variables'; there are hidden quantities in nature, which will determine what will happen, but for one or other reason, they are not available to observation. This means that there is some kind of irreducible epistic randomness, but it is not ontic randomness. Nature, 'knowing' of these hidden variables, can determine precisely what will happen, but we can't, no matter how we try.
A theory that does not contain any ontic, irreducible randomness is called a deterministic theory. The laws of nature determine exactly what will happen, if the current (or past) state of nature is known. In such a universe, since the big bang, everything that happens and will happen is determined, and there are no alternatives possible.
If a theory has ontic randomness, that means that the past doesn't completely determine the future: certain alternatives are possible and there's nothing in nature that tells us which one of the alternatives is going to happen. Not simply because there's something that we ignore, but simply because the laws of nature do not determine it.
There's no discussion that classical physics is deterministic. The discussion is with quantum theory of course, which seems to be irreducibly random. However, it depends on how you interpret it to say whether the randomness is truly ontic, or whether the randomness is epistic, or whether, after all, there is no randomness.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
One hundred million people believe they've been abducted by aliens.
I cite Andrew Newberg's research all the time. But to me it implies exactly the opposite of what Newberg thinks. My opinion seems to be what Ramachandran thinks it implies, but he's made a public statement to avoid becoming the next Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris or Steven Weinberg.
In the absence of unrpovable theories, like Gods and Free-Wills you have provable theories like Determinism.
That's all I'm saying Baraka. Quantum Theory is more true to the common definition of theory than is Evolution Theory. Quantum Theory, IMO, is speculation, it's a mathetmatical model that seems to work, but like Newtonian Physics, it may need to be revised as we learn more about it. As 't Hooft points out, there may be particles smaller than quantum particles that determines the behavior of the quantum particles and we won't know, because we can't see them.
Quantum Randomness is not a problem with the free-will debate anyway, as pointed out by Nobeal Laureate in Particle Physics Murray Gell-Mann and in Michael Shermer's article Quantum Quackery "If mvd is larger than h, then the system can be treated classically.". Neurons are not quantum computers, and although the chemists might need to know some Quantum theory to determine the behavior of neurotransmitters, they will probably behave the way they normally do. The whole concept of probabilities seems incompatible with ontic randomness. If it was truly random all outcomes would share an equal probability.