Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2014 - 11:37pm PT
|
EdH, regarding "free will", Hawkins (physicist) and Mlodinow (physicist) and Carroll (physicist) and Weinberg (physicist) and Krauss (physicist) and last here but not least, Atkins (physical chemist) all reject it in simple terms and in the context of physics (as opposed to, and setting aside, the fantasy world of ghostly or demonic influence or possession claimed by various religious types) on the simple basis of "scientific determinism." In other words, on a basis of physics and chemistry and on the grounds that this is a world of cause n effect we all (all living things) are immersed in. So why the need to reference such complicated material as above? that certainly goes above almost everyone's head here. Why not speak plainly on the subject like your cohorts above? Just curious is all.
To be clear, all of biology is a buildup of chemistry and physics, all chemistry a buildup of physics. Straightforward as that. Scientific determinism. There is no room, no part or piece, in any biological component of a living thing, that is "free" of causal leverage, that is "free" of physics. Keep it simple, stud. (KiSS) Where you can. Anyways, that's a strategy I like to keep to when I can and when I'm out running around.
A bit more,
There is no special dispensation for H. sapiens. As much as many would like to think. We are no less a part of the Animal Kingdom than slime molds or naked mole rats. We are all evolutionary products of a long evolutionary past every bit in both matter and time obedient to natural law, in other words physics. Also from the planetary perspective, there is no "special dispensation" for Planet Earth either. Pretty much everyone experienced (educated) in physics, chemistry and on up would agree that Venus, Mars, Jupiter and all other objects of the solar system are completely deterministic in their evolving system states. That being so and there being no special dispensation for earth, I hope you would agree, then that same determinism that rules the other planets rules earth too. Meaning no "freedom" of a contracausal (aka supercausal) sort that is "above the law" of causality or physics in any way.
More than anything it is inexperience in the subject matter, the sciences, and confusion over the language and terminology that make a mess of it, complicating the subject for many esp the public at large. Something we just have to live with, I guess, just like our frustrations we have with climate change and evolution and other things too.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 06:58am PT
|
why does he do anything at all.
I like a quandary described in a John Barth story. The character cannot see why any course of action is better than another and so he just sits there until his bladder suggests one.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 19, 2014 - 07:41am PT
|
Note that when John G. "discovered" something about will (thirst, decisions to get up and take a drink, etc) he did so from the inside. Here is an example of something learned by direct observation that is closed off from the outside. But I have a few things to add.
MH2 said: Your conscious awareness is just the front man, reading a script he gets handed.
Had MH2 spent his life in a creative job he would realize that the fatal mistake in this statement is "script." In fact when we hold the intention of working on a problem or action like getting a drink or divining a line in a short story, a gazillion "scripts" come up into awareness over which we have no choice in their emersion. Sam Harris has hammered that point but without explaining the entire process.
As mentioned, the modicum of freedom we have concerns our ability to observe all conscious options and choose between the many. For instance, if I'm working on a story and am searching for the right phrase, many options will geyser up unbidden. Then I move even closer, to words, and tone, and so forth, all the while observing and choosing the options or "scripts" as MH2 mentions.
A determinist would say that not only are all the scripts given to us unconsciously, but that the choices I make on that story are also unconscious. This becomes problematic for several reasons. First, there is no need or purpose for the process to rise to consciousness if the end is determined from the start. If that was so I would just receive the story ready made and would basically just write out what my brain said to do, as directed by some unknown agent or an intelligent mechanism, which amounts to much the same thing. Second, there are decisions made all along, including the decisions to junk one draft (provided entirely by my brainpan) and go for revisions. THis is basically giving my brain another chance to realize a "more better" story. But "who" or what decides? A ghost? An unknown agent. Or a purely mechanical process just amusing it's non-self lol. Or doing it all blindly. Lastly is the practice of just observing all of this and not acting on anything. Just staying present and watching all the impulses. People can insist that here, the brain has simply decided to watch itself and required no "ail" to arrive at the decision, but the further along this path we get, the wonkier the options become.
Sufism is largely the practice of moving from mechanical to conscious (free) behavior, for anyone interested in looking into this very issue from an inside track.
Gotta go to the airport now and fly back to LA.
JL
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 08:20am PT
|
As mentioned, the modicum of freedom we have concerns our ability to observe all conscious options and choose between the many. (JL)
Where does the choice come from? How is it made? You may feel that it is a 'conscious' choice but it may still be provided to your awareness from levels of your mind you are not consciously aware of. You still seem to think there is a little man in your head being presented with options and then choosing among them.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 10:02am PT
|
Why not speak plainly on the subject like your cohorts above? Just curious is all.
while we probably all agree on the physics, we probably do not on the philosophy, and there are subtle things that they all leave out of their discussions which would be confusing, the major part being that we don't know everything. Not knowing everything doesn't mean that we can't know everything (though even our "knowledge" runs up against physical limits). Physicists interested in talking to the "public" (non-physicists) tend to try to make their discussions sound like "plain speaking" but have to avoid many interesting issues.
You raised one in your response, "cause and effect" which is not a physical principle. Though causality has formal, rigorous definitions, what people generally think about as "cause and effect" are not necessarily what physicists think... or rather, what they do... as they have the same misunderstanding at the general public when speaking about "cause and effect."
If they examined their thinking on this, by making a rigorous definition, they would find it not what they thought (at least that is my experience, having looked into it). Maybe you should too?
Talking imprecisely has many pitfalls, and while it might sound like "plain speaking" there is much left unsaid that is important. It might give you a warm fuzzy that they are saying things you agree with, but to a large extent, much of that plain speaking is just there opinions, unsupported by any rigor. That isn't the way science is conducted... I don't give them a pass. It is a lot harder to provide "plain speak" on these subtleties, but that's the challenge.
If I fail at sounding off in "plain speak" it is because I think those subtleties are important, especially to maintain integrity. I don't try to avoid those issues, it isn't because I don't believe that science is a very powerful way to understand the universe, and reality.
Sorry if this doesn't meet with your point-of-view.
Ohm's law is the proportionality of current to potential, in the simplest of statements... "in plain speak"
there are many devices for which this relationship is not "obeyed" why are you making it complicated?
to say Ohm's law is a "truth" requires you to then explain why it is not universally obeyed...
that intellectual contortion can be avoided by not associating an empirically determined relationship with "a truth," everyone understands that empirical relationships are valid in a limited domain.
If you understand the domain, then you can say "Ohm's law is true in this physical domain" and you might even have a theory that tells you what the domain is...
there is a great difference using "is true" vs. "is a truth"
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 10:29am PT
|
You raised one in your response, "cause and effect" which is not a physical principle. Though causality has formal, rigorous definitions, what people generally think about as "cause and effect" are not necessarily what physicists think...
In Hawking's "Into the Universe" Hawkings (a physicist) plainly states that the observation / rule that causes precedes effects is the most basic of all physical principles or laws or regularities underlying our science. I could find it word for word if you like.
re: "free will" and determinism issues...
From The Grand Design, by Hawking and Mlodinow...
"Since people live in the universe and interact with the other objects in it, scientific determinism must hold for people as well. Many, however, while accepting that scientific determinism governs physical processes, would make an exception for human behavior because they believe we have free will."
"While conceding that human behavior is indeed determined by the laws of nature, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the outcome is determined in such a complicated way and with so many variables as to make it impossible in practice to predict. For that one would need a knowledge of the initial state of each of the thousand trillion trillion molecules in the human body and to solve something like that number of equations. That would take a few billion years, which would be a bit late to duck when the person opposite aimed a blow."
"This book is rooted in the concept of scientific determinism, which implies that the answer ... is that there are no miracles or exceptions to the laws of nature."
That's three examples of "speaking plainly" from Hawkings/Mlodinow, there are many more even from just their second chapter.
You've heard it before, Don't let pursuit of the perfect get in the way of the good. I just think a lot of the high-level, super precise languaging of academic philos sometimes shoots itself in its own feet - is all.
there is a great difference using "is true" vs. "is a truth"
With all due respect, I don't see that so cannot agree. Great difference? Not when the goal is good effective communication of science-based concepts to the public.
.....
This gets MUCH better, I'll have to get back to it...
I'll be back later but ruminate on this...
re: "Ohm's Law" vs I=V/R as a scientific truth...
A simple example: A simple common everyday incandescent light bulb, because of its filament's varying resistance as a function of temperature according to the above lit does not obey "Ohm's Law" as the filament "goes" nonohmic under operation (agree?) - and yet its behavior IS governed precisely, say over whether it's 1 sec or 10 sec or 100 sec or 100 days by the I=V/R relation (agree?).
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 11:42am PT
|
"While conceding that human behavior is indeed determined by the laws of nature, it also seems reasonable to conclude that the outcome is determined in such a complicated way and with so many variables as to make it impossible in practice to predict. For that one would need a knowledge of the initial state of each of the thousand trillion trillion molecules in the human body and to solve something like that number of equations. That would take a few billion years, which would be a bit late to duck when the person opposite aimed a blow."
If human behavior is determined by the laws of nature why can't science reliably predict human behavior like it can the behavior of gravity under most circumstances?
The answer appears to be that the causal antecedents of human behavior are too complex, containing too many variables, and therefore cannot be rigorously tested to arrive at a predictable result; except in simple ways excluding the consideration of most antecedent variables--- like ducking a thrown punch.
The quote above therefore reflects two standards in science at present for accurately defining the behavior of systems as being determined strictly by the laws of nature?
One , like the behavior of gravity , for instance, can be fundamentally demonstrated and predicted and therefore fully qualifies as a law of nature.
The other, like the behavior of humans, which cannot be reliably predicted in the same way, like gravity--- but which nonetheless also fully qualifies as reflecting the laws of nature?
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:10pm PT
|
An interesting discussion. As an aside, and not pertaining to anyone here, sixty years ago at Georgia Tech I was trying to explain a mathematical idea to a fellow student who was majoring in physics, and he told me, "If you can't explain it you don't understand it."
There is a limit I suppose in attempts to explain scientific ideas to the reasonably intelligent general public, but Feynman did a pretty good job. Simple examples and analogies of abstract ideas really helps.
;>)
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:26pm PT
|
Re Mike L: Perfection, as commonly employed by us angry hairless monkeys, is a religious construct without examples in the physical universe. Ie, it's an Us v Them bludgeon. There is, however, near perfection in nature - the roundness of an electron being a classic (or quantum?) example - if you've got the advanced instrumentation to measure it.
Most people don't. Stepping back from such esoteric, largely inaccessible examples of what is 'perfect' and into the macro scale universe we actually experience, however - perfection in nature is hooey. Nature is one big junk pile 'designed' by brute force, random hacking. It's a mess - which is why, the moment we started to get smart, we began to insulate ourselves from it so we could have a little fun on the side.
An acorn that grows into a tree is as perfect as one that rots, I reckon. After all, perfection, as commonly used, is whatever you want it to be.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
|
There is a limit I suppose in attempts to explain scientific ideas to the reasonably intelligent general public,
Yes, but we also live in a time when there exists numerous excellent popular explanations of scientific discoveries, on TV and the internet , which are unprecedented in their clarity and presentation, and their consequent widespread effect.
CGIs , as a mundane example, go way beyond the old textbook renderings as an aid to the fundamental exposition of hitherto prohibitively arcane subjects.
Science is currently more 'mainstream' than it has ever been, despite perceptions to the contrary.
It is this smooth and often seamless popularization and accessibility of science for today's layman public which continues to be underestimated by students of popular culture.
This sea change in the general public perception and garden-variety access to science has helped to fuel some rather interestingly controversial developments: socially , philosophically , and politically, and perhaps even within science itself.
More on that later.LOL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 12:41pm PT
|
Re Largo's comment on "Who decides?":
Largo still can't get his dickskinners wrapped around the concept that one's micro machinery, one's subconscious neural decision engines, 'decide' where one focuses one's awareness - and that one's consciousness gets the memo after the fact.
It's a tough one to swallow, despite copious, obvious evidence that it's certainly possible to be utterly fooled by one's neural/body system. From love to phantom limb pain, such illusions are all around us, all the time.
The mystery, therefore, is not how this can be true, but rather, what purpose does consciousness serve if, in fact, it's not really necessary to do what we do?
After all, evolution demands that consciousness, as highly developed as it is, must do something for our survival.
Or does it? Perhaps consciousness is just a freebie of a stimulus/response system sophisticated enough to produce it?
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 01:02pm PT
|
one's subconscious neural decision engines, 'decide' where one focuses one's awareness - and that one's consciousness gets the memo after the fact.
Could explain this a little further? What is a " subconscious neural decision engine" ?
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 01:31pm PT
|
If they examined their thinking on this, by making a rigorous definition, they would find it not what they thought (at least that is my experience, having looked into it). (Ed H)
Talking and thinking both are imprecise. When we listen to one of those popularizers we may understand what they say, and enjoy insights they provide, but as Ed says there are details which are smoothed over in all such easy explanations.
One idea is that if you understand a thing you should be able to explain it to someone else. Another idea is that you should be able to build or model a working example. However, if you really understand some area of science you should be able to produce significant new results in that field.
A smart guy I knew at Chicago said that although Feynman was great to read, his Lectures on Physics were not a good way to learn physics.
http://www.uic.edu/depts/mcan/jart.htm
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 01:48pm PT
|
If you look at any biological feedback loop - something gets measured, then something happens to adjust that thing. This happens at all levels of the biological hierarchy, from molecular to this conversation.
At the meta level, there is no difference between the feedback loop that causes, say, an ant taking a sip from a water droplet and my choosing to type this other than complexity of the two instances.
With complex behaviors, such as my wasting time on this forum pontificating about things I know practically nothing about, the question is what is the organism that is me trying to optimize? The answer seems to be 'feelings', which are cut from the very same cloth as an ant's sense of thirst (a feeling). With complex behaviors, that cloth is woven into a somewhat more involved tapestry is all.
To continue this example - I might be pursuing a number of evolved needs in typing this - needs which express themselves in either feeling better or worse. In the example of the ant, this system is one dimensional - thirst explicitly hurts. Drinking water stops that.
In my case, I might be attempting to learn something, socialize, attain status - all of which can make me feel better - light up certain neural pleasure centers so that they produce the right chemicals and cascading neural responses which eventually translate at the macro level as 'better'.
But typing this is not drinking water. I might also feel like I'm wasting time - and not doing something more productive, and that can feel 'bad'. I might feel trepidation because some poster was a big fat meany to me that one time.
Now I'm juggling competing feedback loops that are in opposition as to how they make me feel when considering typing this on ST.
Add tens or a hundreds of such competing feedback loops - informed by thousands of memories (all with their own 'that made me feel like...' components - and you've got the mess that is a human being.
We, as humans, spend enormous amounts of effort attempting to harmonize this cacophony into a clear, peaceful guide as to how we should live our lives - which can provide one definition of that illusive concept called happiness, well-being, contentment, inner peace...whatever moniker 'feels right' to you.
In the end, it's not that different from drinking water. If I post on ST 18 hours a day - it doesn't feel very good, just as drinking a gallon of water in one sitting wouldn't, either.
The sticky part is - I consciously experience the thought of typing this, which produces the various 'feeling' responses - the feedback, but do I need to be conscious of any of it for this process to happen?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 02:07pm PT
|
Thinking appears to be imprecise for several reasons.
1) It's precision is hidden, just as the precise interactions of each water molecule in an avalanche is hidden. We can't observe that precision at our scale of existence.
2) Most of what we think gets immediately forgotten - efficiency and economy requires that. Thus - details are quickly summarized and 'smoothed over'.
3) Thoughts produce feelings - so we inextricably associate the two, and feelings are relatively primitive, broad brush processes in comparison.
4) Most of what we 'think' happens subconsciously - again, probably to preserve the very limited economy and efficiency of our conscious attention. What we experience consciously is the skimmed cream on top of a much larger latte. "Hey look, a fish just jumped". Meanwhile, an entire 4 billion year old ecosystem is busy doing its thing just beneath the surface.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 02:16pm PT
|
aaaannnd I'm making most of this sh#t up as I type it.
Consider it the poetry department's scientific findings on the topic.
The 'how did I just choose (or not) to think that' problem is, indeed, pretty unsettling, so why go there?
Fear of brain atrophy due to under-use, perhaps.
Why would I care about brain atrophy, though?
Fear of being less loved because brain atrophied folks are, invariably, a pain in the ass to be around, perhaps.
Why fear such solitude?
It's complicated.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
|
However, if you really understand some area of science you should be able to produce significant new results in that field (MH2)
Well, one would think you should be able to, but there are numerous instances from graduate schools where that does not happen with students who are faced with the task of creative research. Sad. And even those who do succeed often don't produce "significant" new results. I include myself in this category!
;>)
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 03:00pm PT
|
Creativity is very hard because it often doesn't feel good. There is popular, trite notion that creativity is a harmonious, joyous experience that happens when everything is 'flowing'. Ask any writer who has faced a story that has become a Gordian Knot of Klusterf*#k, sculpture that is staring at 100 man-hours worth of Hideous (or simply broken), or movie maker who just got panned how creativity feels.
I make a little art sometimes. More often than not, what initially looks good to me looks good because I've seen it before and I liked it. Ie - it's not original.
To produce something truly novel can require a process of countermanding those initial encouraging feelings - breaking my own rules, so to speak, and that can feel like I'm trying to be someone else - or, at times, like I'm trying to make myself go crazy to see what's in there.
I've developed a number of tricks to help myself move closer to producing truly novel work - my best work, in other words. One is to rapid prototype - and choose the stupidest looking of the lot.
As you might imagine, such contrarian practices can produce a lot of garbage - which doesn't feel good, but it can also produce things that are, in fact, truly new. Then, once I've tapped into something truly novel, it can be a whole lot more work to develop it because, hey, nobody's done it before, right? Frustration, long hours, frayed relationships, negative health effects - creativity can be very costly.
The above may help to explain why a large and wise segment of the population simply chooses to avoid creative pursuits entirely - they opt to enjoy the fruits of those idiots willing to endure such suffering instead.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 03:03pm PT
|
re: "free will" and determinism issues...
Maybe not communicatively, but idealsly this is what separates us.
Was the Big Bang a "Cause" or an "Effect"" ? If your going to spout Nature as being "Determined"; That Life came about through an accumulation of "causes" and "effects". You would HAVE to be able to pinpoint the start inorder to definitively be able to point which is "the cause" and which is "the effect".
I think this is a valid question that the "Determined Evolutionist" need to answer!
What "Caused" the "BANG"? Was it the inclusion of matter TO energies and laws, or visa-versa? Couldn't the Bang have been the cause?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 19, 2014 - 03:12pm PT
|
In short, creativity is like acorns.
Most of the work winds up rotting.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!