Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 07:01am PT
|
I'm curious does randomness help with problem solving? Seems like a game theory type question. Anyway..Whether a decision is random or not does not quite equate to free will.
Where I was coming from is that from an observational point of view if a structure Allowed for randomness it might be something that instead allows for free will. But that still requires a "ghost in the machine". Ghost in the machine is about as unscientific as "god". Requiring reliance on some imagined but so far unknown unobserved characteristic of the universe.
Free will seems hard to define even if it feels like we know what we mean. One semi satisfactory way to do it is to simply define it as the experience of feeling like we have a choice. The widespread common impression that we have of being able to choose (whether or not we actually do) has been found to be important in psychological studies. Negative behaviors are shown to quickly arise when people lose belief in it.
Seems like real chicken or the egg stuff. I get the impression I am looking at things the wrong way .. kinda like a new physics student usually does.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 07:52am PT
|
I think the point is that there is no free will...
the difficulty (an impossibility) is to twist things around so that you can argue that there is.
on a physical theory of life, the major problem is that life is a meta-stable phenomenon. This isn't unusual, but such things aren't usually so robust. The history of life on Earth indicates that it has been going for about 3.4 billion years.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 08:07am PT
|
One has the free will to run a stop sign when there's no one around at 1 am in the morning on an rural road.
Stop sign means stop at all times.
One has the independent free will to go against any rule, law, any so called enforcement, any govt. and anything created by man including God himself.
One never has complete absolute free will, only limited free will, just as every living entity is limited in all opulances.
Thinking there's no free will is completely unscientific and just plain guessing and pure mental speculation due to poor fund of knowledge of to the true origins of ones own self ......
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 08:14am PT
|
NASA the most advanced research center in the world for cutting edge technology has discovered that Sanskrit, the world’s oldest spiritual language is the only unambiguous spoken language on the planet.
Considering Sanskrit’s status as a spiritual language, a further implication of this discovery is that the age old dichotomy between religion and science is an entirely unjustified one.
It is also relevant to note that in the last decade physicists have begun to comment on the striking similarities between their own discoveries and the discoveries made thousands of years ago in India which went on to form the basis of most Eastern religions.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 09:26am PT
|
My long post magically or randomly disappeared as I was typing. I am not blaming that on poltergeists or G*d, however.
But I wanted to make a couple of comments:
What we see today as randomness may yield up its patterns or structures to our observations when we are able to better comprehend its character, much as the study of fractals has yielded up patterns heretofore unrecognized, although existing;
QM, or its derivative, may have more variability in its expression than we presently comprehend, and may be a part of a pattern or structure related to the creation of existence. I do not know. I think about this sometimes, but it seems to me that while QM may anticipate some interface between consciousness and brain, which we have yet to identify, it may not be the ultimate, or even penultimate, structure or pattern identifying that interface;
Being in the same sentiment camp with Einstein, Jefferson, and Aquinas on this question, I have no problem seeing the orderliness of the Universe as proof of the existence of some Creator. Because it is convenient in western society, we call this G*d, but you could call it the Guy in the Sky, and it will not change the perception. We discover more and more frequently that what we once perceived as randomness (or the actions of some angry god) are beautifully and elegantly integrated parts of a larger system. None of this do I understand well. Most of it I understand very poorly, but I admire the Artist;
I remain concerned with the question of efficacy with respect to brain activity. While we can sincerely and somewhat effectively describe the process of vision, we have little comprehension of the decision-making process which causes one individual to prefer to look at clouds, another to prefer to look at rocks, and yet a third to prefer to look at handsome men. We are each incredibly unique at one level, and yet incredibly alike in many ways. Yet I think there is a relationship between the choices we make, our imagination, and what we call free will, even if our perception of our efficacy is perhaps illusory. (I will search for a good definition, but tend to think of free will as the exercise of a sense of efficacy in the face of situations and choices—that we have the ability to make choices to save ourselves from a burning building, or to choose to exercise or not exercise our bodies, or to choose this mate or someone else);
We are beginning to see how trauma can cause actual physical changes in the human brain. And how to fix it. This is a relatively new field, one where chemical intervention has worked poorly compared to compassionate intervention by other humans. And this contrast in intervention protocols has been measured scientifically. Is there an accounting for cultural evolutionary shifts within the mechanistic model? Is it possible that globally shared information is shifting the evolutionary model to one of more conscious intervention in what were heretofore considered random acts and outcomes (among humans) with little if any remediation?
I am working on formulating a question, which will probably end up as a synthesis of some of the following questions: Is there a factor in the brain's processing of data that is unaccounted for by (known) (mechanistic) evolutionary considerations? Can this factor's existence be demonstrated through replicable experiments? How can it be determined that this factor does or does not have an evolutionary basis? Is evolution limited to physical shifts in the organism?
And where, if anywhere, does the issue free will fit into this discussion? To think about this, I may need to narrow the corridor of thought down to a question of free will about some specific. Obviously, we have little free will concerning all that is outside of our control, but we may have free will to choose to look at clouds or rocks, or even handsome men. If we define free will as the ability to make choices when choices are available, perhaps we begin to approach a working definition of free will. And as one physicist once asked me, "Does it matter?"
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 10:50am PT
|
To say that science might one day make sense of it all just doesn't work for me.
Science is a way to answer certain kinds of questions. It is up to you to make sense of as much or as little of your world as you are motivated to. Once you have left formal education behind you, I guess. I cannot see why someone would want to make sense of everything but if you manage to, please help me with my income taxes.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 10:52am PT
|
Science IS the only method that actually reveals the truth.
But if you don't do the science correctly then the true results are never revealed .....
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 10:53am PT
|
According to current origin-of-life researchers, some of the components of life spontaneously self assemble given what we think were the conditions and available materials on early earth. For example - life needs a container to protect its delicate genetic material from the outside environment. Such containers readily self assemble in fresh warm water pools that undergo dry/wet cycles given the ride set polymers - which we know were available because we've found them in meteorites that have made it to earth since then.
The problem life had to solved was putting all the components necessary for a self sustaining biological system together at once - no mean feat. That probably took a long, long time.
Creating such a meta stable biological system wasn't entirely random - hydrogen bonding, van der waals forces, and catalysis helped life's molecules self assemble and 'beat the odds' by many orders of magnitude. Still - it was a very complex problem to solve.
Yet here we are.
It's likely that only a few environments, and possibly only one - provided the right petri dish for life's emergence on earth. If we could find another - most notably undersea volcanic vents - then life on Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus, and a whole host of worlds that probably outnumber near-earths many times over becomes a real possibility. Under that scenario - life wouldn't even require a star to exist - just tidal heating. An ice moon of an orphaned planet without any star at all would suffice.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 12:02pm PT
|
One never has complete absolute free will, only limited free will, just as every living entity is limited in all opulances.
We are fortunate that there are not many questions beyond the reach of Werner.
Is God limited in any way, Werner?
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
|
I am not sure science can answer it all, either. Actually, I am fairly certain it cannot. Thus my reference to the healing of trauma by compassion and caring rather than chemistry.
Much of our observation of phenomenon in western culture has been hijacked by the scientific method, so that we are in fact often timid to describe something as being subjectively beautiful and heart-stirring, and fall back on describing the prismatic effect of water drops on light, which might tell us how something functions, but does little to tell us how its existence relates to aspects of humans which extend beyond our ability to provide accurate measurements. We largely overlook the harmonics of the human body—its rhythms and songs.
Bessel van der Kolk, who specializes in trauma, speaks of the changes in brain function as a result of what people think about. One could measure and describe excitation, neurons activated, and chemical shifts in the human body by observing the images of the brain. Fine. But there are subjective changes that can only be measured by conversing with and sharing knowledge among humans. And who is exploring the impact of compassion on human brain function? Because there is one. And it does not yield as easily to scientific explanation as does the measurement of chemical traces. Yet I doubt if anyone could deny this human experience. Now that we can measure the activity of the human brain, more scientists are nodding. While we often ignore subjective experience, we are also slowly learning that subjective experience is a set of data we ignore at our peril as humans.
My point here is that while science may lead us to greater knowledge of how the material world functions, it does not educate us concerning our human sense of wellness, safety, belonging, being loved, or of healing. Nor efficacy. Technologically, we are on a marathon of progress as humans who are manipulating our environment as we learn about it. But spiritually, we are falling behind when we ignore the rational, subjective recounting of such manifestations as are apparent from such energy states as meditation, warfare, love, or fear.
Perhaps not all of human experience can be measured. Perhaps it eludes science. Subjective experience might be called spirituality or awareness. But it exists and is a component of human life. Without it, we would be automatons efficiently programmed by our evolution and perhaps television advertising. To discard subjective experience because the present technology can barely measure it is not the same as proving it does not exist: if humans from across a variety of cultures have a sense of efficacy or free will, to deny their experience because there is no means of measuring it, or replicating it in controlled conditions, does not negate its existence. It merely shows the limitations we presently encounter in our attempts to do so. But that is changing, and I believe it serves us well to pay close attention to the developing body of research on awareness and human subjective states of being.
I love science. It has been very good to me. But I also love metaphysics, and that has been very good to me as well. I find it difficult to parse awareness/mind/Spirit into separate units of being, and so, when I speak of mind, I am unable to hold it apart from my own sense of being, from my own awareness, from my own Spirit. (And this is my own subjective view of life and spirit and being, but I think it is shared by many humans.)
And it is Spirit, I believe, which gives me the humanity to appreciate the prismatic effect of sunlight on water, and smile at a rainbow. And yet I know at a certain level that the rainbow is a display of quantum mechanics. So my delight is also in having that understanding of a rainbow. Are we not, as humans, capable of enjoying and appreciating both aspects—and other aspects which may yet be revealed—of a rainbow? Of the human experience?
I offer the above to say, in summary, that human beings are easily capable of holding both their scientific method and their subjective humanity as we explore concepts and phenomenon from our human perspective. There are balances and contradictions that will continue to emerge. How we approach and entertain and examine these internal and external phenomenon will depend largely on our human ability to hold objective and subjective aspects of experienced existence as both of significance.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 12:46pm PT
|
There's a lot of anti-science backlash here. It doesn't have to be an either/or mindset or setup.
"hijacked by the scientific method"
Hijacked? That's a curious (if not biased) verb to use, it seems to me.
"And who is exploring the impact of compassion on human brain function? Because there is one." -ff
Of course there is one. And an example, one eg, of who? is Kelly McGonigal, a clinical psychologist who's providing "compassion-based" healing programs (e.g., via meditation). One can find her all over amazon and the internet specifically concerning her "compassion-based" approaches / scholarship.
Also what is psychology? chopped liver? Emergent in recent years, stronger than ever, is clinical psychology (which is an applied science taking into account goals, objectives, of the client-patient and suggesting prescriptive counsel). Dr Phil, a clinical psychologist, one of scores of excellent guides, has advised and helped hundreds through his practice.
Are we not, as humans, capable of enjoying and appreciating both aspects—and other aspects which may yet be revealed—of a rainbow?
There it is. So who is incapable of it? So who, other than a caricature, is not appreciating BOTH aspects of it. I know tvash and ed are, I know others here are, I know I am. The irony here is that many people actually go into science in the first place because of their sky high interest in how the world works and/or because of their great passion for the very topics you cite.
So it's a little unfair I think for someone, a Jim Smith, say, who was never interested in such things earlier in life (to the point of little or no inquiry, to the point of ignoring nature investigation, perhaps altogether, for eg) to come around later in life - perhaps way later - to appreciate, through personal discovery and intention, a butterfly's wings or flight or a exquisite arcing rainbow, get really excited by such a thing, and then to feel, otherwise claim, that they have the aesthetic appreciation for these natural wonders but the scientist or science-type doesn't.
"human beings are easily capable of holding both their scientific method and their subjective humanity as we explore concepts and phenomenon from our human perspective..." -ff
Yes. As a science type, I 100% agree.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 01:27pm PT
|
Thank you HDCS. I do not disagree with anything you have said. My older daughter is a (published) clinical psychologist, and she is seeing a slow shift in how patients are "managed" in a private facility.
There is a shift, but when we examine the mainstream medical profession, for instance, we see an abundance of chemical interventions where none, perhaps, are needed. We see mounting medication of school children, disproportionately among the poor.
***
But that is not central to my point, which is that many humans experience a subjective sense of and external validation for the concepts of efficacy or free will. To discount free will as non-existent because it does not meet the criteria for mechanistic models seems to me to be rather short-sighted in light of the abundance of subjective affirmation of free will.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 01:30pm PT
|
we see an abundance of chemical interventions where none, perhaps, are needed. We see mounting medication of school children, disproportionately among the poor.
Here I could not agree more.
It is scary and this development in/of pharmaceuticals has adulterated my love affair with technology more than anything else in its history, even nuclear.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 01:31pm PT
|
Thank you Ojai Alex and Moosedrool.
Yes, I did know about emotional states in other animals, and that human emotions can be induced by electrical stimuli or chemicals.
But I think we are talking about humans for purposes of this discussion on free will or a sense of efficacy, so I will leave out other life forms. But thank you.
feralfae
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 02:04pm PT
|
"To discount free will as non-existent because it does not meet the criteria for mechanistic models seems to me to be rather short-sighted..." -ff
Well it is important to remember that the "free will" term is used in multiple contexts and has different definitions.
"Free" in regard to what exactly? Free in regard to demonic influence (a very real belief and real fear esp in early and medieval times)? Free in regard to social or political coercion (a gun to the head)? Free in regard to no constraint by physical or chemical forces or prior causes?
These are all different types of freedom that people relate (or attribute) to volition (will). Forgetting to remember this - these different contexts and types - of course contributes to the confusion.
Further, in regard to #3, my contention is the more education and experience one has conceiving life in terms of chemistry and cell biology, or, in different terms, in terms of hardware and software, the more inclined they are, due to causation, to rule this type of freedom out. This is an important component of the overall discussion because right now the American public is clearly plainly all over the map on this one. Just as it is, more or less, in regard to range of expertise or experience in just about every other art, trade, profession, game or sport.
I believe I have freewill regarding evil spirits and demonic possession though. No exorcism needed here!
Thusly, do I believe in freewill? (Freedom type 1) Of course. ;)
(That there shows the challenge of simple communicating we're all up against re this topic.)
We like to dangle participles.
We like to dangle gods.
We like to dangle varieties of freewill.
To dangle is human. :)
.....
Just today...
Why Free Will Compatiblists are like Creationists
by Jerry Coyne
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2015/03/24/why-free-will-compatibilists-are-like-creationists/
we still have some kind of “free will.” It’s just not the type of free will that most people think we have.
lol
Compare...
(a) "If we think we evolved from beasts, we’ll act like beasts."
(b) "If we think we are robots, we’ll act like robots."
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 04:09pm PT
|
I've used data from science to become more compassionate and caring over the years, so there's that. I've found the stuff really works. There are 7 billion of us, and we're all wired more similarly than different. Why reinvent the wheel?
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 05:24pm PT
|
Thought of something last night.
What is a choice?. It's imagination isn't it? Manipulation of symbols in your mind. You imagine this or that then you do something. Choice is not the action itself. Imagine a brunette or a blonde.. choose one.. That's choice? I guess so. We just do it.. is it all predetermined? Does it matter? It's just something we do..hmm.
It seemsthat we can choose poorly. We do choose poorly more often if we don't think something matters even when it does.. It does seem to be a process as important as our heart beating.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 05:48pm PT
|
Perhaps free will is not real.. but learning seems to be real. Unfree choice appears to be part of the process.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 07:43pm PT
|
Some physicists (I forgot who came up with that idea) speculate that every time the wave function collapses, the Universe splits. In the double slit experiment, it means that the particle goes through slit #1 in one universe, and through slit #2 in the other.
it's actually an interpretation that does not require the wave function to collapse... a new universe is created for each possible outcome.
Hugh Everett
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
|
|
Paul Martzen
Trad climber
Fresno
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2015 - 08:49pm PT
|
Interesting points feralfae. My ears perk up when I hear talk of body rhythms and harmonics. I heard a brief discussion about body clocks recently, suggesting that there are myriad clocks within us even down to cellular levels. All our clocks have to somehow synchronize in order for us to function. Rhythms and harmonics are a favorite subject for me.
To me, science is the rational process/processes for trying to perceive patterns in the world around us. In my opinion, when we learn new things it is generally through a semi scientific process. I think we learn most important things through direct experience and experimentation. We tend not to be systematic in our experimentation, so it can take us a while to figure things out.
When people object to science, I always wonder what they are actually objecting to? Are you objecting to how the term "science" is used by marketing professionals and amateurs? It seems to me that many time people use the term "science" interchangeably with the term, "God" or any other term of authority such as Doctors, Parents, President, Einstein, etc.. "Science/God/Doctors" say you should smoke menthols! "Science" says emotions are just chemicals. "Science" says you should feed your baby formula.
When it feels like "science" is shutting doors to areas that you want to explore, it is no wonder that you want to reject it.
I don't think that science says any of those things. Science is just a way of finding out what the evidence says. We don't even have to use the term "science". All that is important is trying to be systematic, and open minded in looking for patterns and evidence in the world around us. Since we are seldom sytematic or open minded, even those don't seem to be absolutely essential.
When people say that science can't understand everything, I have to agree, yet think, "what are the alternatives?" Most alternatives rely on higher authorities (God, parents, teachers, priests, CEOs) for truth. But we should ask, "What is the evidence?" We could rely on personal revelations. Then we should ask, how successful are these personal revelations? How do they match up with the revelations of others? Do we like being around people who don't care whether their personal revelations match up with anybody else or whether they are successful. Do you like being around people who just know their revelations are true and you had better follow along".
I am diverging and perhaps creating straw men.
I am fascinated by emotions and our body rhythms and harmonics. Maya Angelou said, "Everything in the Universe has its own rhythm. Everything dances." Learning how to feel new rhythms is not contrary to science, in my opinion. I think it is fundamental.
The enemy of understanding is grabbing onto flimsy answers when we could be saying, "I don't know. I wonder if there is a way to find out?"
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!