Trick of the Language?

@medium-density,

"There seems to be something paradoxical in it, but this may only apply to our perception of it."

As I see it, the whole of it is a thing of perception. Let me see if I can explain.

I think of time as a dimension of the universe, a direction of movement. We move along this dimension, just like we move in the three spatial dimension.
Determinism seems like a sensible philosophy because we see only a cross section of the fourth dimension while moving through it. Our perception cannot transcend this limitation, but our awareness can.
If we could broaden our perception of the moment (in the way we can broaden our perception of a field by stepping closer to the window) we would see things differently. We would see things existing in several states simultaneously, and we would also be aware of new dimensions of space for this existence to take place.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

As I see it, the whole of it is a thing of perception.

Could be, Cyr, or semantics

Quote:

I think of time as a dimension of the universe, a direction of movement. We move along this dimension, just like we move in the three spatial dimension.

True though at different apparent raters

Quote:

Determinism seems like a sensible philosophy because we see only a cross section of the fourth dimension while moving through it.

Yes, it's hard to counter. Intuition says, however, that if we could set time back 24 hours that this instant would be identical to the last one

Quote:

Our perception cannot transcend this limitation, but our awareness can.

Or our intuition

Quote:

If we could broaden our perception…... see things existing in several states simultaneously, and we would also be aware of new dimensions…….

Maybe so Cyr but I'm not sure it would help with this "determinism" thing

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

MattDavis wrote:

Med wrote:
Free will posits an uncaused cause, and decisions made in the absence of reasons or motivations or desires. This is why I say it is a non-starter.
So lets look at what the understanding has "traditionally" been regarding determinism and indeterminism. Determinism was taken to mean hard determinism (like the clockwork universe).

The argument against free will being:
Take (hard) determinism as true, then all things are inevitable, therefore free will must not exist.
Take (hard) determinism as false, then randomness exists, an agent can't be responsible for random events, therefore free will must not exist.

This is a relatively cogent argument when the only two options on the table are simple inevitability and simple chance.

The reality libertarians (free will thinkers) require is adequate determinism. Now let me try to explain why...
Let's look at the notions of control, agency, and responsibility. These terms naturally have some personification biases, so what do they actually mean in less personal terms.

Control is a bit of an oversimplification in the world we seem to exist in. There are very few outcomes which can be traced to a single cause, this multifactor causation is presumably even more complex in a human brain with 200,000,000,000 neurons each of which is connected (directly or indirectly) to between 5,000 and 200,000 other neurons. This is just looking at neurons, still no accounting yet of glial cells, or other physiologic processes, or outside sensations, or environmental factors. We couldn't hope to point to some physical location in that system and say "Ah yes that is the place that does the controlling." The influences are too overlapping, too complex, and most importantly non-heirarchical for that (some physical place) to be a locus of control.

An agent is not simply something that does something. This would be just a tautology. An agent must do something and be said to be responsible for the action. Let's look at an dust particles in solution under a microscope (Brownian motion). The particles seems to follow a random walk.
[See image below, it is distracting so that's why I put it at the bottom, in a separate post. The post can be thumbed up or thumbed down to hide or display it.]
What is responsible for the random walk? Are the dust particles agents? It seems quite obvious that they are not. Looking at the interactions all the "atoms" bounce randomly and the heavier dust is just jostled around by the other random movements. No one responsible, everyone random. (Also no control).

So finally, what do we want to be able to assign responsibility? Well this gets back to the un-caused causes. We want to be able to point to something and say "In there decisions are made." We mean of course there is some nebulous place in the nebulous there that causes things without first being caused (at least this is what we mean when we take the homunculus view, the God of the gaps as I think you've described it). So what do we actually mean by decisions made? We don't want to just accept any old "decision" that would just be random output. We already have that "God" in quantum mechanical uncertainty. We seem to expect something else (getting to George's point on volition).

Not to cop out or build up suspense (I just need a little break from writing).
I will return to this, but in the meantime what would satisfy you as to the definition of "making a decision"?

As expected all the way a concise yet structured brilliant argument...I am just hoping it comes to some brilliant conclusion, because from now on is were the true mess comes up...some folks think pragmatic meaning is enough of a justification for assigning true value for some sort of "agency"...I don't.

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

Thanks Fil Very Happy

For the compliment and for the prodding. I have neglected this, got a little side tracked. You are right the continuation is tricky. I'll give it a go...

0 Replies

@medium-density,

I believe the essential issues here are these;
1. Science is not able to prove either the existence or the non-existence of either an intelligent creator of the universe or of the existence or non-existence of anything we might call free will. (The fact that we are having this long discussion itself attests to the truth of these observations.)
2. It is conceivable that science may one day achive a physical understanding of the human brain sufficient to explain human volition, though that does not even now appear to be a proximate likelihood. However the scientific fact of sensitive dependence on initial conditions will likely preclude any scientific verification of that understanding in individual cases. Thus human choices will likely remain unpredictable in the scientific sense, and the issue of free will unverifiable by science..
3. The origin of the universe is not a repeatable, observable event. Any scientific theory about it will remain a theory, also beyond human or scientific verification.
4. Human beings have a sense or awareness of a degree of freedom of choice. This is confirmed by our own experience and ancient literature as well. That awareness could, conceivably be an illusion, however, it should count for something in this discussion. What is it about the operation of our minds that provides us all with the strong impression that we are indeed making independent choices?

medium density has noted the "tautilogical" quality of this discussion with respect to free will. That is appropriate because he employs such taotological descriptions of how our minds work. To wit ; 'our choices, even in thoughtful decisions, are themselves determinened by our motives, which in turn are determined by our genes and experience'. Notwithstanding the many apparent counterexamples in history, he holds this to be axiomatically true, counting on a causal principle as a basis, even though he apparently rejects precisely the same logic when applied in cosmology.

I don't believe this discussion can ever yield convincing proofs to any party in it. The advocates for "no free will" rest their case on a degree of determinism that approaches that of the "clockwork universe" so universally rejected on the last pages. Their proof is ultimately based on arbitrarily and axiomatically disallowing the alternative, not proof. The advocates of free will can't prove their case to those who reject anything not provable to a science based on theory and observation.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

The origin of the universe is not a repeatable, observable event. Any scientific theory about it will remain a theory, also beyond human or scientific verification.

A fact is also only a theory until more information or technology presents an exception to the rule. Many repetitions contribute to the possibility that a given fact is in fact a fact, but without doubt, we have only dogma and we can't have any of that! Without doubt, we have no science and nothing new to learn. When repetition is not possible, as it is not in many areas of scientific observation, we have to settle for observation and reason alone. A theory that seems to be right based on all available observation and logical reasoning is better than no theory at all. At least it's so for me.

Regarding free will. I like to believe I have free will. And since I like it, and I see no evidence that it is not so, I choose to live as if it were true. Whether it is a fact or not.

2 Replies

@medium-density,

Sorry for the delay Sad

Just to briefly follow up on your fatalism question.
Yes. Hard determinism = fatalism, unless you invoke material/spiritual dualism. This was deus ex machina.

Medium Density wrote:

Bringing deliberations as to the correct course of action to a close might not be a terrible definition of "making a decision". Weighing up the pros and cons and ultimately vouchsafing your trust in the option which seems most favourable at that particular instant, is a more convoluted but equally not-terrible definition. What are you getting at?

Let's first look at what randomness can do for us:
Following very simple rules randomness can cause self-organization.
I had previously referenced cellular automata, which assume hard determinism (this new topic is different, ie not assuming a clockwork universe).
Let's look at some of the finding in systems which do have randomness (as in the current quantum mechanical models).

From the work of Gerald J. Sussman
http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/amorphous/white-paper/amorph-new/node7.html#SECTION00034000000000000000
Here is a random arrangement of colored particles. [on left]
Assume some very simple rules for behavior with nearest neighbors, and run time/iteration.
Resulting system [on right]

http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/projects/amorphous/white-paper/amorph-new/img33.gif

The "cause" of the change is multifactorial, yet the patterns which emerge are always very similar (depending on the initial rules, not depending on initial states of the particles. We could re-randomize the initial state, and yet the pattern which emerges will remain very similar to the last result. This is not chaos, this is emergence. These are systems insensitive to some extent to initial conditions. In a very real sense, they take initial conditions and cause whatever they "want" to cause regardless.
Now imagine that the initial conditions were the result of any and all of the causes you propose for behavior (genetics, mood, beliefs, impulse, etc.) This type of system can buffer against those inputs.
This is the "will" which we would like to establish for "conscious" systems.

Consciousness is not this simple though, we also need to establish an emergent system that is insulated (partially) from outside influence and yet remains internally complex. We want not just "will" we want "freedom". We want the system to make decisions.

Let's look at neurons:
There is much evidence that neurons (as well as all cells) follow some "rules" when developing. Here is one explanation of the simple rules they follow from the work of Orit Shefi, Sharon Golebowicz, Eshel Ben-Jacob, & Amir Ayali: http://www.amorph.group.shef.ac.uk/files/Ayali2005jnb.pdf There is at least biological "evidence" that neuronal networks can develop with simple axioms. Lets assume consciousness is in large part due to neurons and continue the exploration of what neural nets can do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_neural_network
I don't really think that I can go into all of the functions that such systems are capable in anything approaching brevity, but...
These systems outperform standard computation in pattern recognition (often also beating humans), and making "decisions" based on a minimal amount of information (finding the pertinent data).

So, randomness can self-organize with simple rules, neurons can self-organize with simple rules, neurons are capable of amazing decision making feats.
Self-organized systems seem to be semi-insulated from outside influence, and the apparently self-organized system that is the neural network in our skull, is at least theoretically capable of making the "optimal" decision very often (but not always).

This is no "proof", but I think a description of such a system is much more accurately described as having a "will" and of being capable of making "decision", than as being "strictly determined" or "inevitable".
If anything other than God has free-will, it is emergent systems which behave like neural networks.

I would be happy to answer any follow-ups or fill any gaps (as I am able).

There is much also to be said for tangled heirarchy and self-referencing and constructive/destructive logic loops involved in consciousness modelling, I hoped that the above could remain a little simpler, while retaining that which pertained to freedom and will.

1 Reply

@Lola,

I agree, Lola, more or less on two points: (1) facts are little theories in that they rest on an indefinite number of (pre)suppositions, and (2) since we cannot prove the truth of so much of what we presuppose to be the case we might as well treat them as if they were true. Until, of course, they cease to work for us or we find "facts" that work better for us. Pragmatism.

1 Reply

@Lola,

Both of the issues you addressed Lola, are a matter of choice, and neither can be proved - one way or the other - by science.

The ultimate cause of the existence of the universe is beyond the reach of conmology or science generally. Our theories start with a so called singularity. The mathematical definition of such a singularity is "something unexplained, about which we can say nothing".

2 Replies

@JLNobody,

Yes, our ability and right to doubt is to be cherished and nurtured while still searching for more understanding. It's all we have and it's enough for me.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Well, I agree, georgeob. This is the reason I have to assume the infinite nature of existence. We are not the center of the universe, indeed there is no center. Sorry for the jolt to personal narcissism as this may be. But oh well, I may as well go on as I have been and get as much pleasure out of my life as I can while I have the chance. We are all winners of a giant lottery. We better make the best of it.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

It depends on what you mean by prove. Science doesn't prove anything for good. But some things are better understood and more certain than others. All in all, I'll settle for what science can "prove" for now and keep my eyes open for the exception because that's what science is really all about.

1 Reply

@Lola,

There are some things science establishes very well, providing predictions which can be tested and verified by experiment, predictions with known domains of accuracy and limitations. Newtonian mechanics and Maxwell's equations relating electric and magnetic fields are the chief and most far reaching examples. Their limits are defined by physical constants, the values of which are known, and. which, along with about six other such constants, are the defining parameters of the universe.

Things get a lot tougher with the very large and the very small, where even our concepts of space and time are strained by observed and deduced contradictions. These include various quantum phenomena (the exclusion principle being one) and, at the cosmological level, the singularity (big bang) and the ensuing super rapid expansion (inflation is the term used). Here we run into inherent limitations in science. In the eyes of some, asking what caused (or preceded) the Big Bang is not allowed - as in asking what's north of the North Pole. That's not an explanation of our origin at all. Instead it is merely the limiting boundary for inquiry for science, based on theory, prediction and observation or measurement.

2 Replies

@dalehileman,

Dale

As I see it, determinism is a method of understanding. It is not a universal process, but a reference to a mechanism we perceive in everything. This warrants the question of whether it is in the things we perceive, or in the perceiving itself.
My point in the earlier post is that if we can imagine different premises for how we understand time, everything changes, and the concept of determinism may no longer be useful or relevant.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Here we run into inherent limitations in science.

I do not wish to contradict this as much as specify it's meaning, the way I see it.

The limitations are not in science. They are limitations of language, and contradictions arise because of language. Language dictates that if there was a beginning, there had to have been a "before". Science does not dictate that, and when some say it is not allowed to ask what preceded the big bang, what they actually mean is that our language, and the linear model of understanding the universe with a beginning and an end, lead us to make connections that strictly speaking aren't reflected in nature.

3 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

This warrants the question of whether it is in the things we perceive, or in the perceiving itself.

Exactly; science insisting on determinism, intuition on freewill, perhaps inadequate semantics to blame for the impasse

Quote:

The limitations are not in science. They are limitations of language,….

Precisely; semantics

Quote:

Language dictates that if there was a beginning, there had to have been a "before"

Cyr that's ever-so-slightly contradictory

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

The limitations are not in science. They are limitations of language, and contradictions arise because of language. Language dictates that if there was a beginning, there had to have been a "before". Science does not dictate that, and when some say it is not allowed to ask what preceded the big bang, what they actually mean is that our language, and the linear model of understanding the universe with a beginning and an end, lead us to make connections that strictly speaking aren't reflected in nature.

Our language is quite adequate to get around whatwvew dilemma may exist in this area. It appears to me that you are merely ruling out an alternative idea. What you say "is not reflected in nature" is (or may be) merely something not observable by human science. Non-repeating events never are.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics confirms the directionality of time, Our models for understanding the universe are hardly linear: they are complex and often highly non linear. Consider the three body problem in Newtonian mechanics; the equations of motion for viscous fluids; and even Maxwells equations. All are highly non linear and in many applications sufficiently complex to admit unpredictable chaos. The standard model for cosmology (hardly a linear thing) starts with a mathematical singularity, the definition of which is something undefined and about which nothing can be said. It seems clear to me to me that this is not a structure sufficient to extablish the certain non existence of anything outside its domain.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

there had to have been a "before". Science does not dictate that,

Yes, no, Cyr, you're quite right

Quote:

the linear model of understanding the universe with a beginning and an end, lead us to make connections that strictly speaking aren't reflected in nature.

Well put. However I'm not sure language is at fault. I can suggest for instance that the Universe (She) has existed forever: Big Bang, Big Show (now), Big Expansion, Big Halt, Big Crunch;….then next Big bank, Big show, etc anon

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob, cyrucuz, dale and others,

I agree with cyrucuz and dale re: the limitations of language, but also in the concept that we are not allowed, in the eyes of some, to ask what came before the big bang. The limitations are in those some's eyes. We must ask what happened before the big bang. Why? Because I don't believe there is an instance in nature in which something came from nothing. I could be wrong. If you know of one, please point it out to me. For this reason, science is compelled to ask beyond the big bang. If we have limited data or technology at this time, then we do. That is not the same thing, however as not asking or speculating about the possibilities. If we stop asking and reasoning, it is the end of science.

1 Reply

@Lola,

This idea we have of "something coming from nothing" is just a mental construct. We arbitrarily define "nothing" and "something". It is probably reasonable to think that there was something before the big bang, but then we cannot think of big bang as the absolute beginning. In fact, why do we have to insist that the universe needs a beginning at all? Give me one good reason that the universe requires a beginning, anyone who feels inclined to accept the challenge.

3 Replies

Trick of the Language?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know