Free-Will

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

I meant to mention as well Dan, that science has lead society to better understanding. Most of how we live today is cause of science. We do not banish the parapolegic or decapitate the schizophrenic anymore. We do not view people as witches, warlocks and demons. This is because of what science has taught us about ourselves.

That is totally beside the point. I am not arguing against science, I am arguing it's limitations in certain matters. I am merely saying that there are some things we can know scientifically, and there are things we can't.

And the witches and so on is not necessarily because of science. It may be that we have just improved on our ways and thinking at the same time.

There isn't the two options of superstituos hick with no understanding of the world, and the scientific view. If you wanna attribute science with human development, be my guest. But again a causality problem. Maybe science just breaks through as we start to "evolve our minds" as angelica would say. And that science is also a mere side-effect of the greater mind-change.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

And I do follow some of the way on it, like Angelica. I just dont accept it in its entirety. Firstly because for us to verify it, we must have complete knowledge of it. And we dont have complete knowledge of anything. We are now on about the parts of psychology I never got a liking for, for various reasons. Put simply, it is about what neurotransmitters cause which moods and behaviour and so on. However, I always felt the causality of it was pretty unclear. OK, serotonin is associated with this and that. But what prompts the release of serotonin? Do you feel what you feel because of serotonin, or is serotonin released when you feel that way? And even if you can reproduce some of the effect with a pill, that does not mean 100% certainty that the chemical always comes first, and the mind is ever re-acting. Same way the experiment at the outset shows that one can fool people's will into believing they willed it. Does not mean that they never will something, or that the stimulus always comes first. Although it does raise questions.

Besides, does your argument here read then as we have free will as little toddlers, but once our brains are "stiffened" we are deterministic?

And also, deterministic states that it is completely certain that something will happen. Not reasonably sure or pretty sure. One thing is that habits, learned mind sets and so on has a huge influence on what a person thinks or does. But knowing the mindset and habits should then enable you to be completely sure how this person will act in every situation. Meaning everyone will always act predictably. I dont accept that for so many reasons, and angelica is onto many of them. (She also says it better than I could have)

And as I read it now, what you say about "from birth we determine causality" etc. Well, we are born into a system. A man-made system and a man-made way of seeing things. We are not born into objectivity. We all are subjectivities. 2+2=4 is true in a certain system of mathematics and logic constructed by men. In reality or other systems 2+2 may hold no meaning at all. That our brain is trained to determine cause and effect a certain way, does not mean it is true, objectively, outside our heads. Maybe our way of thinking automatically excludes much of reality.

I'm just saying you put too much into science and its results. And there's no reason to blow off philosophy or any transcendent view as "hippy talk". There are a lot of things we dont know. And just because you can put together a perspective from bits and pieces of science (who in its nature is biased towards determinism by its quest for laws) to make a certain picture, does not mean you have the full picture. The smaller circle is not the bigger circle...

Peace
Dan

Yea, philosophy is great, but taken with a grain of salt, and also being logical.

Seratonin as far as I know is responsible for sexuality and mood. A person who has chronic depression is sometimes perscribed a Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor which inhibits the reuptake of seratonin molecules to the axon from the synaptic cleft. Kind of the same way cocain works. This is also effective treatment for premature ejaculation.

Stuff like, clinical trials, controls and repeated and peer reviewed experiments typically tell us what the truth is. Being that we are creatures of reality and behave and think in realistic ways. I don't see how our deterministic view is any different than reality. One can not argue that when you flick your light-switch your light does not either turn on or off, unless something else causes it to stop functioning. We don't have to believe in causality for that to be true.

The big picture Angelica describes is incomprehensible to me. It follows no laws and no system. It's like saying something that I don't know, exists simply because I don't know it and from that perspective nothing exists as I know it. Then, we are basically all just stupid and regardless of what we have learned scientifically we should just forget it. Cars don't work, elevators don't work, we don't need to eat or sleep.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

That is totally beside the point. I am not arguing against science, I am arguing it's limitations in certain matters. I am merely saying that there are some things we can know scientifically, and there are things we can't.

And the witches and so on is not necessarily because of science. It may be that we have just improved on our ways and thinking at the same time.

There isn't the two options of superstituos hick with no understanding of the world, and the scientific view. If you wanna attribute science with human development, be my guest. But again a causality problem. Maybe science just breaks through as we start to "evolve our minds" as angelica would say. And that science is also a mere side-effect of the greater mind-change.

Peace
Dan

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't hold any water. Again it's like saying that everything is unexplainable except that which I accept an explanation for.

To say that science can not explain will or consciousness is incorrect. Science has explained it more than anything else.

By the way, human beings are very predictable, scientists from many disciplines can predict a person's actions better than they can themselves.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Besides, does your argument here read then as we have free will as little toddlers, but once our brains are "stiffened" we are deterministic?

Sorry, what I was implying is that the brain does not actually know how it is to function innately. For example, if you put a chimp in a dark room during it's first year or so it will never be able to see. The region of the brain never develops because their is never any sensory input. So our brains develop based on our senses. It seems like all the neurons interconnect or attempt to establish connections during early brain development. But connections that go unused, die.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

That's all fine and dandy, but it doesn't hold any water. Again it's like saying that everything is unexplainable except that which I accept an explanation for.

To say that science can not explain will or consciousness is incorrect. Science has explained it more than anything else.

By the way, human beings are very predictable, scientists from many disciplines can predict a person's actions better than they can themselves.

No, it's knowing what we know and what we are only fairly certain of. Science is a lot of the latter. What we know we know. But we dont know if there's more to know. I dont share your positivistic stance on the matter. I am not saying science does not offer an explanation, I'm saying that the explanation is not necessarily the full and whole truth.

And, no, we aren't that predictable. In numbers and masses, yes we are somewhat. And generally we can be pretty predictable. But we aren't always in every matter, which determinism would require.

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

No, it's knowing what we know and what we are only fairly certain of. Science is a lot of the latter. What we know we know. But we dont know if there's more to know. I dont share your positivistic stance on the matter. I am not saying science does not offer an explanation, I'm saying that the explanation is not necessarily the full and whole truth.

And, no, we aren't that predictable. In numbers and masses, yes we are somewhat. And generally we can be pretty predictable. But we aren't always in every matter, which determinism would require.

Peace
Dan

Predictability centers around information. Given that the mind is chaotic (in the deterministic sense), a brief experience in one's life can drastically alter their behavior. Though certain things weigh most heavily on a person's behavior, such as social acceptance, belief system and cost/benefit analysis.

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Yea, philosophy is great, but taken with a grain of salt, and also being logical.

I apply that also to science. And philosophy IS logical. That's what it is mostly. Philosophy is logic base on given premises. Very close to science actually.

Seratonin as far as I know is responsible for sexuality and mood. A person who has chronic depression is sometimes perscribed a Selective Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitor which inhibits the reuptake of seratonin molecules to the axon from the synaptic cleft. Kind of the same way cocain works. This is also effective treatment for premature ejaculation.

OK, I just took random that I remembered the name of. But that is about treating clinically.

Stuff like, clinical trials, controls and repeated and peer reviewed experiments typically tell us what the truth is. Being that we are creatures of reality and behave and think in realistic ways. I don't see how our deterministic view is any different than reality. One can not argue that when you flick your light-switch your light does not either turn on or off, unless something else causes it to stop functioning. We don't have to believe in causality for that to be true.

Clinical trials is nothing more than putting things into the black box and seeing if it works, and doing so over and over. And there are substantial problems proving effects of various treatments. Not to mention that people have the knack of getting better by merely being given something they deem as treatment. A light switch, is well and good as it is a very simple system. But as you also say, it may not function. We may be able to fix it by switching out some parts, but we dont knwo what didn't work most often. Trial and error is not science in itself.

The big picture Angelica describes is incomprehensible to me. It follows no laws and no system. It's like saying something that I don't know, exists simply because I don't know it and from that perspective nothing exists as I know it. Then, we are basically all just stupid and regardless of what we have learned scientifically we should just forget it. Cars don't work, elevators don't work, we don't need to eat or sleep.

And that may be the point. Maybe there ultimately is no system other than what we make it to be. And you keep misconstruing this as an attack on science in general. Which it isn't. Science serves us well in its own context, and often lead to better ways of doing things through a huge trial and error process. However, I, like Angelica, won't apply science outside of it's narrow domain of certainty. Just because we can make a car work with science, doesn't mean that science is the right tool to explore consciousness and free will. Even if it may attempt to do so.

Peace
Dan

OutOfBreath

Ahnimus wrote:

Predictability centers around information. Given that the mind is chaotic (in the deterministic sense), a brief experience in one's life can drastically alter their behavior. Though certain things weigh most heavily on a person's behavior, such as social acceptance, belief system and cost/benefit analysis.

Where does that leave us? Even if a cause can be identified or constructed, doesn't mean it's predictable. After-the-fact is the most precise of sciences after all. And 100% predictability (determinism) depends on 100% information then (in my view, impossible).

Peace
Dan

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

I apply that also to science. And philosophy IS logical. That's what it is mostly. Philosophy is logic base on given premises. Very close to science actually.


OK, I just took random that I remembered the name of. But that is about treating clinically.


Clinical trials is nothing more than putting things into the black box and seeing if it works, and doing so over and over. And there are substantial problems proving effects of various treatments. Not to mention that people have the knack of getting better by merely being given something they deem as treatment. A light switch, is well and good as it is a very simple system. But as you also say, it may not function. We may be able to fix it by switching out some parts, but we dont knwo what didn't work most often. Trial and error is not science in itself.


And that may be the point. Maybe there ultimately is no system other than what we make it to be. And you keep misconstruing this as an attack on science in general. Which it isn't. Science serves us well in its own context, and often lead to better ways of doing things through a huge trial and error process. However, I, like Angelica, won't apply science outside of it's narrow domain of certainty. Just because we can make a car work with science, doesn't mean that science is the right tool to explore consciousness and free will. Even if it may attempt to do so.

Peace
Dan

Well, you have provable science and you have grandiose dreams. I put my money on science. People have dreamed up all kinds of realities, so it's not very good basis for belief. It's like saying your going to have 99 women in Heaven if you fly a plane into a skyscraper. Totally misguided. Or should we just accept that, that subjective reality is entirely possible and the act of flying into skyscrapers is therefor acceptable. Because if an individual believes that to be true, we should not try to disprove them.

Ahnimus

OutOfBreath wrote:

Where does that leave us? Even if a cause can be identified or constructed, doesn't mean it's predictable. After-the-fact is the most precise of sciences after all. And 100% predictability (determinism) depends on 100% information then (in my view, impossible).

Peace
Dan

We don't need to know all the information for their to still be cause and effect. We need to simply realize that there is cause and effect and we may not be aware of all the variables.

Ahnimus

Ahnimus wrote:

We don't need to know all the information for their to still be cause and effect. We need to simply realize that there is cause and effect and we may not be aware of all the variables.

The whole uncertainty principle is based on assuming their are no other variables which we can not see.

Ahnimus

See, I think the terms objective, subjective, certain and uncertain are getting kind of skewed.

Using objectivity we assume cause and effect, if cause and effect does not work, we find the cause we are missing. An example is recently discovered dark matter. For decades cosmologists have known that their model of the universe would simply fall apart without the theoretical dark matter. When it was finally observed, it was literally no surprise it was expected. It was certainly important.

Using subjectivity we assume that there are either too many variables to take into consideration or some variables will never be known. Or perhaps simply that something occurs for no reason.

Certainty and Uncertainty can be the same way. Gambling for example is very certain, but the gambler is uncertain of the very certain results that will befall them. This is because the gambler can only accept probability, but certainty still exists.

OutOfBreath

Actually, the gambling analogy is pretty apt. Even if the end results are perfectly predictable on the big scale (House always wins), that doesn't say anything about the result for the individual gambler. The individual gambler may win, lose or strike even. And we can't know which who will do what.

Peace
Dan

NMyTree

Ahnimus wrote:

Ok, well here is a place to start. I can help explain any of these things further, or let you know how it pertains to the issue.

Here are some links to many of the scientific theories and philosophical views.
Basic behavior of organisms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemotaxis

Hebbian Theory: Synaptic Plasticity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory

Cellular Automata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_Automaton

Cellular Automata: Rule 30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_30

Benjamin Libet: Implications
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjami...7s_experiments

Synapse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synapse

Love: Chemical Basis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love#Chemical_basis

Physics: Destiny Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destiny_theory

Free-Wll: Science and Free-Will
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-wi..._and_free_will

More are available upon request.

These are, in your own words, theories and philosophies. Not undisputed facts or truths. Scientists through out the existence of our species have had a plethora of theories and philosophies which turned out to be completely wrong, inaccurate and grossly flawed.

Ahnimus wrote:

If everything is determined by the past, then the future is set in stone.

No, that's a huge leap of assumption. Not a proven fact or truth.

None of the material you have provided and none of your statements are proven in absolute terms or to any degree as fact. None of it. It's your perogative, in your own personal opinion, to believe it's all true. But it's simply your opinion, not fact.

The scientists you quote were incredible minds, but in no way are they without flaws and beyond being wrong. Just because these great minds say something, doesn't mean they are absoultely correct in everything they theorize or claim.

Thing is, we are all a product of our DNA, life's experiences and environmental influence. But you can have two people, who go through similar or exactly the same experience and they both react and continue their lives in completely different ways. Human beings have always and will always break the behavioral patterns and expected results. Human beings have always shown the ability to add unexpected variables, options and aternatives to the equation.

Determinismm by it's very essence dictates one exact, distinct and singular response or path will be taken. There are no variables in Determinism. It's either one exact way, or it is not determinism.

While our brains are supposed to function in one specific manner, on a physiological level; it is a fact that each individual's brain does not work exactly inthe same way. There are variables and differences in the way each individual's neurotransmitters and synapses operates. There are physical differences in the creative/artistic brain, compared to the brains of those not creative/artistic.

You can't disregard or ignore the creative dreamers and artists, because despite your refusal to acknowledge the contribution and inspiration of the creative works of the dreamers of fantasy; it is their works that have captured the imaginations of a many scientist and resulted in great inventions and discoveries. You can't dismiss them insignificant soley for the purpose of defending and supporting your argument.

You are wrong, there certainly are many scientists who are creative dreamers. While they maybe analytical and rooted in whatever current scientifically proven facts/laws that may exist during their lifetime; many certainly do have a creative dreamer element to themselves.

The only absolutes in science, are at the mercy of only what is currently known (in their time). History has shown and proven many of these absolutes to be completely incorrect, once our technology or ability to view things from a different perspective improves or changes.

NMyTree

Ahnimus wrote:

See the thing is, you are saying it is causally bound. The only argument against determinism is that it isn't causally bound.

I argue that Determinism is not the all encompassing of every variable or alternative mechanism, you so desperately claim it to be. In your mind and in your world, Determinism works in multiple absolutes and in every variable and alternative. In my opinion, that is completely absurd and unfounded.

angelica

Ahnimus wrote:

The whole uncertainty principle is based on assuming their are no other variables which we can not see.

Godel's theorem is based on that within a system there will always be propositions that cannot be proven using the rules and axioms of that system. Yet you might be able to prove every conceivable statement about the system by going without the system. And yet by doing so, you'll create a larger system with it's own unproveable statements. And so on, outward.

"Gödel's Theorem... has been taken to imply that you'll never entirely understand yourself, since your mind, like any other closed system, can only be sure of what it knows about itself by relying on what it knows about itself."

trappedinmyradio

Ahnimus wrote:

"Related experiments showed that neurostimulation could affect which hands people move, even though the experience of free will was intact. Ammon and Gandevia found that it was possible to influence which hand people move by stimulating frontal regions that are involved in movement planning using transcranial magnetic stimulation in either the left or right hemisphere of the brain"

no kidding! the only thing happening there is the replacement of the antecedent which occurs when engaging in an "activity"

i think you're taking this and splitting it up...but, free will is absolute.

NMyTree

If I pay my bills this month, then according to you (Ahnimus); it was already predetermined that I would pay my bills this month.

But if decide to NOT pay my bills this month, then, according your theory; it was predetermined that I would NOT pay my bills.

Is that not so very convenient? Such a win-win situation for Determinism. No chance of ever losing or being wrong.

The truth is, anything that is predetermined can only have one result or future. There can't be two seperate predetermined futures or results.

The truth is, Determinism awaits on my choice to either pay my bills or not pay my bills. If I can change Determinism's claims of what was expected, then, determinism is a farce.

angelica

NMyTree wrote:

The truth is, Determinism awaits on my choice to either pay my bills or not pay my bills. If I can change Determinism's claims of what was expected, then, determinism is a farce.

Excellent! This is the crucial brilliance of key individual choice, and it's sacred role of prominance!

angelica

And, NMyTree, what I see is that when one realizes their crucial role in how they bend, alter and manipulate cause and effect, one has TRANSCENDED it, by moving beyond the "control" of determinism. This is why I am not a determinist. First I thought free will was real. Then I thought we were all controlled by fate and predetermination. Then I resolved the paradoxical illusion and realized that since I am affected by AND yet beyond the "control" of determinism, that I not only have a potent will that co-creates all of my life experiences, but that I had it all along, even when I believed I did not. And life and actual empirics backs me up on this, because life has continually given me feedback reflecting the choices of my will, and my use of natural laws like cause and effect. My choices were shown to directly have either worked for me, or to have not.