Free-will: The brain's veto rights (ScienceNow)

1356

Comments

  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    In reality, the gap between subatomic quantum effects and large-scale macro systems is too large to bridge. In his book The Unconscious Quantum (Prometheus Books, 1995), University of Colorado physicist Victor Stenger demonstrates that for a system to be described quantum-mechanically, its typical mass (m), speed (v) and distance (d) must be on the order of Planck's constant (h). "If mvd is much greater than h, then the system probably can be treated classically." Stenger computes that the mass of neural transmitter molecules and their speed across the distance of the synapse are about two orders of magnitude too large for quantum effects to be influential. There is no micro-macro connection. Then what the #$*! is going on here?

    Physics envy. The lure of reducing complex problems to basic physical principles has dominated the philosophy of science since Descartes's failed attempt some four centuries ago to explain cognition by the actions of swirling vortices of atoms dancing their way to consciousness. Such Cartesian dreams provide a sense of certainty, but they quickly fade in the face of the complexities of biology. We should be exploring consciousness at the neural level and higher, where the arrow of causal analysis points up toward such principles as emergence and self-organization. Biology envy.

    By Michael Shermer
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=0006F4CB-F090-11BE-AD0683414B7F0000

    You have this thing that some people can see what others cannot. The illusion. The trickery. As someone who advocates science education, do you not see the shortcoming of your thinking?

    There are three kinds of people in the world.
    Those that can count. And those that can't count.
    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.
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Yea, I thought it was pretty funny. It's not the first time I've heard it though.

    I don't think you get it.
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    You have this thing that some people can see what others cannot. The illusion. The trickery. As someone who advocates science education, do you not see the shortcoming of your thinking?

    There are three kinds of people in the world.
    Those that can count. And those that can't count.

    No, I see the shallowness of compatibalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is absolutely absurd and people like Kane who claim to be libertarian, repeatedly display compatibalism. Compatibalists tend to make the case against free-will then try to slip it in with complexity, along the lines of the unpredictable. A coin-toss is unpredictable, but it's as much determined by antecedent variables as is the whether. The problem of seeing this lies in the sophistication of the observer. 1,000 years ago a coin-toss may have been considered a truly random event alongside quantum indeterminacy. If you could travel back in time with a 52" plasma screen people would shit their pants and persecute you as a warlock. The current case of quantum understanding is no different.
    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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    Quantum Events are doubtfully random. Because macro objects could not exist in a world constructed of truly random particles. A table could exist for no longer than a nano-second without being randomly changed into something else. It seems rather unlikely that a billion billion atoms would randomly form a table in every second of their existence. The key to understanding quantum indeterminacy is in probabilities. Probabilities necessarily follow from a deterministic system.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    No, I see the shallowness of compatibalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism is absolutely absurd and people like Kane who claim to be libertarian, repeatedly display compatibalism. Compatibalists tend to make the case against free-will then try to slip it in with complexity, along the lines of the unpredictable. A coin-toss is unpredictable, but it's as much determined by antecedent variables as is the whether. The problem of seeing this lies in the sophistication of the observer. 1,000 years ago a coin-toss may have been considered a truly random event alongside quantum indeterminacy. If you could travel back in time with a 52" plasma screen people would shit their pants and persecute you as a warlock. The current case of quantum understanding is no different.

    So, if I could somehow magically transport Ben Franklin out of the 18th century into my home, and sit him in front of this computer, Ben Franklin would consider me warlock?

    I don't think so.
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    So, if I could somehow magically transport Ben Franklin out of the 18th century into my home, and sit him in front of this computer, Ben Franklin would consider me warlock?

    I don't think so.

    Ben Franklin. Probably not. But you must consider sophistication. I said 1,000 years ago. But yet, you could grab Democritus from 550 B.C.E. and he wouldn't call you a warlock either. Because these are fairly sophisticated people with decent understandings of the universe and the possibilities of it. Unsophisticated people from any era, including our own, might had they no understanding of it. When David Blaine turns on a lightbulb with his hands, they believe it's magic. When in reality, it's a prop lightbulb. There never has been any magic, but people of all ages have imagined there is. Free-will is just one of those magics.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Ben Franklin. Probably not. But you must consider sophistication. I said 1,000 years ago. But yet, you could grab Democritus from 550 B.C.E. and he wouldn't call you a warlock either. Because these are fairly sophisticated people with decent understandings of the universe and the possibilities of it. Unsophisticated people from any era, including our own, might had they no understanding of it. When David Blaine turns on a lightbulb with his hands, they believe it's magic. When in reality, it's a prop lightbulb. There never has been any magic, but people of all ages have imagined there is. Free-will is just one of those magics.

    You're giving too much credence to human evolution. It is really an imperceptible phenomenon. I know you watched zeitgeist. How do you consider our ancestors to be intellectually inferior when they were able record and communicate the movement of the stars over thousands of years? Long before the bible was written.
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    You're giving too much credence to human evolution. It is really an imperceptible phenomenon. I know you watched zeitgeist. How do you consider our ancestors to be intellectually inferior when they were able record and communicate the movement of the stars over thousands of years? Long before the bible was written.

    Within the context of my post "sophisticated" means learned or wise, not intelligent. I've no doubt that humans of 5,000 years ago were equally as capable as we are today, but through the natural evolution of our understanding of the universe - many thanks to them for their contribution - we are more capable of understanding things which they have no foundation for. In Democritus' time, few people could even fathom the theory of atoms. As it was a-tom literally means unsplittable which is incorrect by our modern understanding of particle physics. But only a handful of people really grasped what the concept was. Today, it's common understanding.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Within the context of my post "sophisticated" means learned or wise, not intelligent. I've no doubt that humans of 5,000 years ago were equally as capable as we are today, but through the natural evolution of our understanding of the universe - many thanks to them for their contribution - we are more capable of understanding things which they have no foundation for. In Democritus' time, few people could even fathom the theory of atoms. As it was a-tom literally means unsplittable which is incorrect by our modern understanding of particle physics. But only a handful of people really grasped what the concept was. Today, it's common understanding.

    But, who is "few people"?

    Goddamn, Ahnimus. You're coming across as extrememly elitist. You are coming across as a "privileged, secret information" type, and it doesn't fool me. It's like, to you, there are ape-humans, then there are the thinkers. I know you are a thinker, but so is everyone else whether you like it or not.
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    angelica wrote:
    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 B) 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.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-will
    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
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    But, who is "few people"?

    Goddamn, Ahnimus. You're coming across as extrememly elitist. You are coming across as a "privileged, secret information" type, and it doesn't fool me. It's like, to you, there are ape-humans, then there are the thinkers. I know you are a thinker, but so is everyone else whether you like it or not.

    Democritus and Leucippus to name a couple of the top of my head.

    I'm not an elitist, but you appear to be coming into the debate cold, without any sophisticated understanding of the central thesis of free-will and the implications of having it or not. I've spent on average about 4 hours a day (probably more) over the last year, studying this subject. You can't expect to spend 5 minutes on it and prove me wrong. I can tell, there is a major void in understanding this subject. No one here really seems to grasp the ideas. They are too quick to pass it off as incorrect than to actually give it some serious open-minded thought. My guess is, because it's an unsettling idea that free-will is not true.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    They aren't at all. Either A) you are using the term incorrectly or B) 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.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-will

    The Book says it all, huh?

    Where have I heard that before?
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    The Book says it all, huh?

    Where have I heard that before?

    Which book?

    To be honest, I'm very fond of the book I'm reading, even though it's in opposition (in-part) with my views. I disagree with the pivotal idea of the book, but I agree with many of the details. I'm not reciting a holy book to you, I'm primarily giving my thoughts unless I find them hard to articulate.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Democritus and Leucippus to name a couple of the top of my head.

    I'm not an elitist, but you appear to be coming into the debate cold, without any sophisticated understanding of the central thesis of free-will and the implications of having it or not. I've spent on average about 4 hours a day (probably more) over the last year, studying this subject. You can't expect to spend 5 minutes on it and prove me wrong. I can tell, there is a major void in understanding this subject. No one here really seems to grasp the ideas. They are too quick to pass it off as incorrect than to actually give it some serious open-minded thought. My guess is, because it's an unsettling idea that free-will is not true.

    You don't know your own ignorance. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Right or wrong.
    I KNOW WHO I AM.

    I don't have to study 4 hours a day on two simple words for weeks on end. Why do you?

    Do you see the difference?
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    You don't know your own ignorance. I'm not trying to prove anything to you. Right or wrong.
    I KNOW WHO I AM.

    I don't have to study 4 hours a day on two simple words for weeks on end. Why do you?

    Do you see the difference?

    Yes, you are taking for granted your introspection.

    For many many years the earth was believed to be flat, because it appeared that way, but when it was finally disproven, the earth appeared to be round. When I look at the horizon, I see a curve and wonder how anyone could imagine it was flat, but it's because I know what to look for.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Yes, you are taking for granted your introspection.

    For many many years the earth was believed to be flat, because it appeared that way, but when it was finally disproven, the earth appeared to be round. When I look at the horizon, I see a curve and wonder how anyone could imagine it was flat, but it's because I know what to look for.

    The earth was not believed to be flat. That's a fucking myth.

    I don't even know where to begin with you.
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    The earth was not believed to be flat. That's a fucking myth.

    I don't even know where to begin with you.

    How about, grade 6, in high-school. I think you can learn that part of history there.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    How about, grade 6, in high-school. I think you can learn that part of history there.

    You believe that?

    Too bad.

    Unfuckingbelievable.

    Dude, you're a thinker, but you can't out think a thinker.
    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.
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    gue_barium wrote:
    You believe that?

    Too bad.

    Unfuckingbelievable.

    Dude, you're a thinker, but you can't out think a thinker.

    Personally. You seem like an antagonist comedian. Like those people who pick on minor errors in speech or deliberately take things the wrong way for their own amusement. I don't intend to out-think you, because I doubt your taking this discussion seriously.
    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
  • gue_barium
    gue_barium Posts: 5,515
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Personally. You seem like an antagonist comedian. Like those people who pick on minor errors in speech or deliberately take things the wrong way for their own amusement. I don't intend to out-think you, because I doubt your taking this discussion seriously.

    What's to take seriously?

    You?

    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.
    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.

Categories