Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
PSP also PP
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 08:46am PT
|
Tvash your back ; I thought you went on that needed Long Silent Retreat.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 28, 2014 - 08:50am PT
|
Tvash said: ". . . "so yes, we can consciously decide within our very narrow awareness - but most of what goes into those decisions happens in the vast regions elsewhere."
It is true, I AM backing you guys into a corner on this but we need to push it all the way to see where staunch determinism breaks down.
By virtue of Tvash's statement above, he differes from Fruitcake in that the former believes that NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER ever exists and that all actions are determined and imposed on us by our brains. The action implulse, be it a sensation, feeling, thought (sub-conscious or conscious), etc. is always conferred or imposed on us directly from our programming, both genetic and conditioned (inputs).
Put differently, all human free choice is an illusion and is directly sourced by and ONLY by our biology - NOT and never by "us."
My question to Tvash is - if you believe "we can decide within our very narrow awareness" (given a gigantic, real-time unconscious workup by our brains), from where, exactly, does that free choice arise? If this free and "conscious decision" is not mechanically determined by our bio chemestry and circuitry, from what and how does such a choice arise? What sources a "conscious decision," and is this not at direct odds with staunch, mechanical determinism?
JL
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 09:01am PT
|
It is true, I AM backing you guys into a corner on this...
LOL!
the former believes that NO CHOICE WHATSOEVER ever exists
How ridiculous. Of course we have choice. I chose what to have for breakfast this morning. It's just not the kind of "free" choice (free and above the law) you and ghost-in-the-machine supernaturalists pine for is all.
It's fully caused, fully-mechanistic choice.
Now where should I go on my run today? It's really hard to choose, they're all so good as options! I know, I'll mull it over, I'll take my time, and decide after lunch.
.....
One wonders just how much you have to go around and around on this before it finally dawns on you.
.....
What's very clear through all this is how very little physics (esp engineering tabletop like physics) and chemistry undergird your thinking and believing in and about your lives (yours and Lapdog's in particular). I was one of the lucky ones, I imprinted on them early in life (through lots of hands-on lab work and sheer interest, I suppose) and have been able to bring that experience /education along with me every year of my life and incorporate it into my beliefs and thinking.
It boils down to simple physics and chemistry and their basic mechanisms of action. Put it this way (once again), anyone who is NOT a "scientific" determinist has to show where in the physicochemical causal chains that make us up they are broken (by ghostly interface or whatever). Show me the evidence. Show me where the chemical reaction breaks down or where the physical laws governing an element of microstructure break down, then I'll believe. Till you do I'll stick with the evidence-based science and all you've got on your side is wishful thinking and millenia of superstition about demons, etc..
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 09:22am PT
|
Put differently, all human free choice is an illusion and is directly sourced by and ONLY by our biology - NOT and never by "us."
I understand you are trying to make a point, but you're trying too hard and missing.
Let me try... the "us" is a collection of experiences we remember. This memory is not precise, however, and is subject to our perception of the event that happened. None the less, that collection defines an individual.
In addition, what we have learned from those experiences also a part of the definition of "us", we remember our actions, and the response to those actions.
However, in terms of defining "free choice," when we arrive at a circumstance that does not have a prescribed course of action, we draw on that set of memories to formulate an action based on our perceptions. The entire process can be viewed as "deterministic" and our final choice of an action dependent on our experiences, where reside in memory.
Part of the equation is our calculation of the future, and in particular, what we might gain later if we defer now, based in large part on past experience, and our ability to make a guess on what might happen in the future. Interestingly, the same sort of behavior mechanisms exist to do that calculation as to guess at the intentions of other people (and other things) based on the types of mechanisms Graziani discussed in those articles.
In the program generalization that uses those parts of the brain to orchestrate our own actions as a way of determining, given some "test problem" what someone wired the same way as, and with similar experiences, would do.
Interestingly, this calculation of "intent" also assumes that our experiences are similar, and in settings where two groups come together that have vastly different experiences, the determination of intent might fail, leading to the classic response of such groups distrusting each other. The consequence of the failure of "theory-of-mind" and the establishment of the concept of "other".
One could assume that this distrust is based on our "free will", and that it is entirely within our capability to choose not to distrust. But we see that trust requires an expansion of our "theory-of-mind" to include the possibility that other groups have different experiences, and that understanding what those experiences were help us better understand the other group's intent.
From a mechanistic point of view, we have a more nuanced theory, more akin to statistical mechanics, where the underlying mechanisms are completely deterministic, but that the average behaviors have some dispersion allowing for "individual" behaviors that are quite different. Not only that, those averages might be subject to dynamics which characterize the system without having to follow each individual component.
The basic philosophical objections to declaring lack of "free will" has more to do with assigning responsibility for actions. Who is responsible for a sin? for a robbery? for addictive behavior? for obesity? Our entire concept of law is based on the fact that we have "free will" and have a choice of actions. If we find that the situation is more complicated, how does our concept of "individual responsibility" change?
Because this is such a huge question, it is easier to deny that we lack free will and that our actions are deterministic (at their basis). This avoids the response "the 'devil' made me do it" where we replace for 'devil' your favorite mechanism.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 09:34am PT
|
Our entire concept of law is based on the fact that we have "free will" and have a choice of actions. If we find that the situation is more complicated, how does our concept of "individual responsibility" change?
Care to take a stab at it? :)
1) the devil made me do it
2) a demon possessed her, it caused this
3) a nickel sized tumor on the pfc made him do it
4) an cluster of aberrant cells and dendrites made him do it
5) a single dendritic inhibition caused him to zig instead of zag
Where to draw the line?
And even if fully-intentioned, fully-premeditated, where to draw the line? Under this framing, what kind of killer, eg, "deserves" life in prison in solitary confinement 23 hrs a day?
Is it possible, owing to scientific advances and the info age and the internet, we have become too smart nowadays for our own adaptive good?
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 09:59am PT
|
JL and HFCS,
I totally believe in free will and choice in not only humans, but some other animals as well.
That does not conflict with the fact that the mind lies within our brains, and physics and chemistry rule, so to say. Our minds are made up of matter, but the systems are horribly complex. Even precisely modeling the turbulent flow in the heart is not possible.
I mentioned this earlier, but we see many examples of complex dynamic systems in nature. If anything, the brain has numerous complex and dynamic systems. The fact that we cannot make a copy and turn it on doesn't mean that we can't understand how it works. I would argue that trying to copy the human brain is a waste of time if you are trying to create AI.
Currently, modern neuroscience has told us a lot about how the brain functions, but the methods of observation are crude, because they are non-invasive due to moral limits.
Even if you know the initial conditions of every molecule, you cannot precisely model it forward very far. That does not mean that they cannot be modeled, of course. Many can be, such as the weather, a flame, a turbulent river, or even the brain, which may be the most complex system that we know of in the entire universe.
I have a lot of meteorologist buddies. They are always modeling things such as microbursts, tornadoes, hurricanes, you name it. The models work (except for the tornado one so far), despite the fact that on the microscale, every atom cannot be completely modeled. The process can be, though.
This is all just math and chaos theory. We see these systems all around us in nature.
From this, determinism has its practical limits. It hasn't stopped us from understanding dynamic systems, but modeling every molecule isn't possible. Some, like a turbulent river, can be easily explained. They cannot be precisely replicated, though.
JL has constantly harped on determinism as some rigid method. In practice, it isn't rigid to the degree that he claims. It hasn't stopped meteorologists from numerically modeling microbursts, and using that information for forecasts around airports. The physics of the process are understood perfectly, even the microphysics of the air and water molecules.
Even the systems and processes in a living cell are to some extent captive to this mathematical reality. Sure, we know how many cells work. We just can't predict the XYZ location of every particle and force in the cell.
There ARE ways to get around this problem, and we do it all of the time. It is a part of our behavior itself.
The only deterministic form of human behavior is instinct. We all have that. We take a sip when we are thirsty, we try to find a mate when we are horny (give me some room here). All of these instincts drive much of our behavior and decisions. Not all, though, by a long shot.
This very conversation is not purely the result of instinct. If it isn't pre-programmed instinct, then what is it?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 10:03am PT
|
HFCS: Where to draw the line?
Try not doing that. You'll avoid more errors.
Werner: Intelligence is measured by consciousness and not by brain, academics or book knowledge.
Best thing said here.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 10:05am PT
|
So BASE in essence is saying our will is free because outcomes (a neuron's, a circuit's) due to system complexities aren't predictable.
Well then, many of the characters in my computer FPS games (esp those playing at "Godlike" level in skill, lol; yes I am that good!) have a "free" will then, too!
I totally believe in free will...
Congrats, probably makes your life easier. ;)
.....
Finally,
precisely modeling...
Totally irrelevant. We're not talking about the Laplace Demon here and its ability to predict (ala an out-dated 19th century version of "determinism"). As I said earlier, determined (by physicochemical laws or antecedent causes) is one thing; prediction or predictability of outcomes is altogether different. Call it predictionism if you like. But don't confuse predictionism (by an omniscience, say, or the Laplace demon) with determinism (by physicochemical law or causation). That's Determinism 101, Basic Principles.
It's quite clear that BASE is basing his beliefs or views on "determinism" on ability (by human or omniscient or super computer) to model/predict outcomes. This is the misstep. Today's mainstream sense of "determinism" in the sciences has more to do with being "determined" by natural law/antecedent causes and less to do with being "determined" by modeling and/or prediction.
The weather's a fine example. Completely mechanistic and "determined" in terms of physics / antecedent causes yet hardly if at all "determined" by modeling/prediction (yes, because of chaotics, quantum... et.c..)
Good luck teasing out the nuances. :)
.....
btw, show me anyone nowadays, ie a thought-leader in the sciences, who is a "determinist" /predictionist in the old sense, the sense of believing future can be modeled and predicted in full and I'll give away all my climbing gear. Such determinists don't exist since modern times.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 28, 2014 - 10:16am PT
|
Now Ed, and Frutcake to a lesser extent, you both are wanting it both ways, but I'm not letting you slip out of this so easily, despite you reverting to insisting that I don't understand what I am asking or talking about. Guero, please . . .
Determinism by any definition means that all of our choices are determined by SOMETHING. A FREE choice would be free of that SOMETHING, however you describe it.
Fruity insists on a staunch determinism, but also insists that he freely chooses what to eat for breakfast. We wonder what the hell he means?? Free from what, exactly. From what is his decision drawn? He insists that biology and physics and chemisty DETERMINE every choice, but apparently his breakfast is another affair. What or who is deciding that Fruit Loops is Fruit's mean of choice, if not his bio/chem/physics triad he keeps harping on. What mysterious self is deciding who is not entirely beholden to his past and his biology?
Ed now has dragged "input" into the equation, constructing an "I" out of past experiences, whereas one's conditioned history and perceptions factor into any decision. So now Ed's "I" makes the decisions, basesd on past perceptions. But is not that "I" as equally determined by his past as he would be if Fruity's biology/physics/chem triad is had it mechaniclly made the decisions?
My point is that in all of these cases, including Ed's conditioned (by past perceptions) "me," Fruity's bio/chem/physics triad, and so forth, our choices are attributed to operate antecedent factors and causes which MECHANICALLY IMPOSE a choice based on said past.
So again, in determinism is there any room for a choice "free" of our conditioned preceptual past (Ed's "I"), our bio/chem/physics triad, etc?? And if so, from where would such a free choice arise?
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 10:32am PT
|
but also insists that he freely chooses
There it is again, "freely." No where do I say that. (Except regarding demons, demonic possession). Don't put words in my post.
Again, I chose what to have for breakfast. But all the causes behind that "choice" or decision (or even determination, lol) were determined by antecedent causes.
Perhaps watch Harris again on this and related points, he's very clear.
.....
QT All our choices are determined by antecedent causes?
ANS Yes. (Now "get over it.")
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 10:51am PT
|
"Tvash your back ; I thought you went on that needed Long Silent Retreat."
I took zee German girl mit me. We had a blast ignoring the silence requirement.
I'd been struggling with the free will/awareness thing until Graziano's schema theory percolated up. I don't see any issue with a spartan command and control center (conscious awareness)
A)delegating most of the ops to the subconscious and either getting the memo afterwards or
B) taking the final decision and 'informing' the 'you' simultaneously - which, since that process occurs within the consciously aware schema, are one in the same event.
Largo et al seem to wrapped around the axle with regards that decisions which result in action (outgoing signals to do something somewhere - regardless of whether that means just accessing another 'pure' thought or choking your chicken on a crowded bus). These decisions happen in different parts of the house wiring is all - both subconscious and conscious. The only difference between the two is location, location, location. You get to 'feel' those decisions taken in the conscious awareness portion of the brain, the awareness schema, as they occur.
The brain has specialized functional components. Our pleasure center makes us smile, and our pouty center makes our lower lip real big. Being able to experience decisions made in the conscious awareness region but not in the subconscious areas shouldn't be too much of a mystery here.
Both conscious and subconscious decisions, in the aggregate, constitute the 'you' Largo refers to. And that's it - there's no extra ingredient needed to make 'you'.
People do have trouble with the idea that the 'you' and the biological machine are one in the same 'thing' and that there is nothing more. The light does not float above the electricity, nor does the electricity float above the wiring. For some, 'machine' is a bad word, but that is merely a value slathered on by the 'you' to satisfy an evolved ego need. Such a perception ironically serves as a data point to support the idea rather than counter it.
Biological machines are wonderful in their complexity, richness, and evolutionary history. I'm happy to be here, so, by definition, I'm also happy to be one. I'm not as happy when being eaten alive, but the realization that what's eating me is a fully self contained, flying, target acquiring, self replicating organism that weighs all of 2 mg is nothing short of amazing.
I don't need to meditate to appreciate the wonder of that, either.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 28, 2014 - 11:03am PT
|
Fruity - now we have it. And the reason Harris is no help here is because he never got the whole train of thought here.
You say: Again, I chose what to have for breakfast. But all the causes behind that "choice" or decision (or even determination, lol) were determined by antecedent causes.
-----
At this point you will have to define for us, in strictly scientific terms, what you mean by "I." You say, "I" choose, but what choice or lattitude of choice exists if "all the causes behind that "choice" were determined by antecedent causes." By your own definition, the "I" you say who chooses in fact has that choice and every choice mechanically conferred or imposed on it by "antecedent causes," or by an aggregate of past experiences (Ed's "I").
So while you insist that You ("I") choose what to have for breakfast, for that to mean anything at all, you woulod have to demonstrate how that "I" has a choice NOT beholden to antecedent causes, otherwise it is, incontrovertibably, the antecedent causes themselves that mechanically make the choice about your Frit Loops, NOT you.
What's more, exactly what IS this "I" that you keep positing in the discussion. In a material, determined, mechanistic world, as some hold on this thread, such an "I" is at most an impotent observer, totally at the mercy of his coding and past experiences (conditioning). You posit this "I" with such authority and conviction ("I" decide what to eat - LOL indeed), but by your own definition, said "I" has no agency at all to decide anything, determined as it is by your "antecedent causes."
The fact is, no matter how you try and concoct an "I" that has some dominion, it has none whatsoever so long as you cling to a staunch deterministic model. Or you can totally opt out with doubletalk like Tvash: "the 'you' and the biological machine are one in the same 'thing' and that there is nothing more." Once again, we are back to conflating the subjective and the objective. It makes for easy explanations, but they aleays break down with you ask for definitions.
JL
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 11:06am PT
|
our choices are attributed to operate antecedent factors and causes which MECHANICALLY IMPOSE a choice based on said past.
not just that, but on our perception of that, and the current issue at hand... the deer in the headlights, having no past experience, and no perceptual model, also has no action in response. That's deterministic.
The brain location which Graziani proposes is the "seat of consciousness," when confronted with input which is outside of its perceptual framework, has to work overtime to come up with some action... and in doing so, inducts an answer based on similar past experiences, and runs these various scenarios through the same brain components calculating the outcome...
unfortunately this takes time and energy... (fortunately it takes energy, which is why we can measure it, but that energy consumption has to be compensated by the increased survival likelihood as a consequence of that consumption).
Many years ago we were taking out an experiment we had installed in the B5-beamline at the Brookhaven Alternating Gradient Synchrotron (AGS). We were on top of shielding blocks removing cables. About 30' from us, the overhead bridge crane was removing shielding blocks that formed a roof of our beamline. The shielding reduced the total radiation while the beam was running so that normal operations could take place near by.
The bridge crane was about 100' to 150' long, built out of I-beams, with a trolly where the crane operator sat, and another trolly where the crane lifting mechanism could be located over the blocks to lift them out. These were A-blocks, probably 20' long by 5' by 5'. They were specially made with recessed I-rings for lifting in just the manner that was taking place on that day.
We weren't paying any attention to that operation, it was pretty common place and we were well enough known to the crews not to represent a hazard to ourselves or the ongoing operations.
Suddenly a huge crash, that of a block being dropped, caught our attention. We looked over to see dust rising from around a block. But more amazing, as I looked up at the crane to see what had happened I was at a total loss to make sense of what I was seeing.
What eventually emerged from what seemed like a very long look, was that the bridge of the crane was vibrating like a plucked guitar string, not at a high frequency, but a long period oscillation sort of like the waves coming in on a beach. I had never seen or experienced or even thought of such a thing.
My perception of a rigid bridge, built of steel many tons in weight did not fit the rather dynamic system I was now witness to. I didn't even have enough thought to look at the ends of the bridge, where it tracked on rails like a railway car... these wheels were not connected in any way but the force of gravity on that massive structure, a structure that was now bouncing up and down on those rails.
That lack of presence was fortunately not a consequence. The bridge somehow managed to stay on the rails and didn't come crashing down in the experimental hall. Had that happened there is no telling what mayhem would have resulted.
Looking back on it it all makes obvious sense. The crane was pulling on a very large load, the beams of the bridge were bending, elastically just as it was designed, the cables were tensed by the load.
What had happened, as established by the subsequent 6 month investigation was that the I-ring that the hook was in failed. It failed because the riggers would use a torch to melt the ice that would collect in the recesses that I-rings sat in, frozen water from the autumn rains that froze in the winter... this heating changed the metallurgy of the steel, crystalizing it and embrittling it...
When the I-ring failed, there was no longer any force keeping the bridge deformed. It reacted like a drawn bow.
All very interesting in retrospect, and probably if I ever witness such a thing again, I'll react. But in that moment that I experienced the event, I didn't react at all, in fact I distinctly remember feeling like nothing was going on at all, that I wasn't conscious of situation in a very real sense. I was a deer in the headlights.
Were did my "free will" go off to? why did it abandon me at time of peril?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 11:23am PT
|
Anyone who has ever taken an unroped fall and done the exact right things to (barely) stay alive realizes that VERY LITTLE of the experience happens 'deliberately'. The subconscious steps in and says "I'll handle this, thanks"
I skied off a cliff in a white out two years back and my conscious brain told me "hmmm - didn't notice this 'dip' on the way up" - then - "why is there so much wind rushing past my ears?" - then - "I'm f*#ked".
Meanwhile, my body was doing all kinds of things - leaning back to protect my head, sticking the landing, looking downslope to see what fun was in store for me, recovering from cartwheeling downslope, self arresting - NONE of it was conscious - I don't have anywhere near the kind of conscious reaction time for all the things I was doing.
It ended well - I cleared all the rocks and hit deep n steep pow - minor hamstring pull on my left 'pogo stick' leg which still allowed me to ski back down 4000' of forest to home. Had I been 20' to the right or left, however...
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 11:24am PT
|
It's a shame that "determinism" like "free will" has multiple definitions. Sure causes a lot of grief.
I skied off a cliff in a white out two years back...
I did too! about 20 years ago. I was very very lucky that day.
|
|
Jan
Mountain climber
Colorado, Nepal & Okinawa
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 11:25am PT
|
I've had a similar experience to Ed's in terms of perception at least, but a different reaction. I was once in a concrete building during a massive earthquake and looked up to see the concrete ceiling undulating like ocean waves (I've since read that this was all an optical illusion). However, I wasted no time in grabbing my purse and heading out the door, as a hundred other people stared at the ceiling like deer in the headlights.
I think I ran out of out unconscious self preservation instincts. And I still puzzle why a room full of military officers did nothing although the military is trained in fast reaction times.Did they all know it was an illusion or were they all so afraid of appearing afraid they were paralyzed? I've never figured it out.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 28, 2014 - 11:25am PT
|
I think what Ed is doing here is showing that in terms of a mechanical stimulaus response system, when there is no relevalt past experience to impose an action on whatever world we encounter in real time, whenever we are left to make a desicion that is NOT beholden to antecedent factors/perceptions, a decision NOT backded by experience, perception or data, no such choice is ever made. We freeze in indecision, machines that for the moment have no programing to draw upon and confer an action.
But is this ALWAYS the case with human consciousness? And if not, what are the wormholes out of being trapped in a strictly mechanistic, determined perspective? If this can be seen as so many deer caught in the mechanistic headlights, how does one break out if we rule out supernatural factors, woo and magic, whatever the hell that is?
JL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
One breaks out through more experience and training - if that's possible, given the novelty of some situations.
Or one doesn't break out and one's options are limited 'deer in headlight's' style primitive responses.
Them's yer choices - or no-choices, as it were.
I had a similar experience to Jan's - I was the first person in an office of 30 who took action to get people to move to safer environs during an earthquake. Everybody else? Deer in headlights.
I'd been in an earthquake before.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 11:41am PT
|
"what are the wormholes out of being trapped in a strictly mechanistic, determined" universe?
There are none. There is no escape.
.....
What's clear is Largo needs to broaden his definition of "choice" and "choose." Use of these terms doesn't necessarily imply they are "free" of antecedent causes. Today's computers, robots, video game characters and such "choose." They make "choices" based on their design, programming, inputs, algorithms or analyses. It's understood - by those informed at least - that these are mechanistic choices they're making. It is the same with all living organisms as well, primates included, humans included, according to the latest science.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2014 - 11:54am PT
|
And therein lies the rub of this entire discussion.
You are what you, but that's OK.
Seek a way out or find a way in.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!