Materialism and Consciousness.

[Gothmog]

cg wrote:

I'd love some elaborations, because I haven't come across, nor can I even conceive of, a doctrine compatible with pure science that allows for free will.

Pure science... hrm... well part of science is accepting that we do not have all the answers, that there is still more to be learned. There may exist a collective unconscious that creates reality as we find it, can't rule that out on the basis of science. The Jungians believe that (at least some do). Or there may in fact be a mind body duality where consciousness is a consequence of the details of physical reality that we are just not aware of. Not much more I can say about it, I don't see the need for these extrapolations but others do.

One apriori you are working from is that there is something special about consciousness, and that only humans suffer from it.

In science if a hypothesis (e.g. a soul responsible for true free will) adds no additional explanatory power then it needs to be put aside at least temporarily. Those are a dime a dozen and serve only as a distraction. I don't see the need to hypothesis a soul, except to satisfy human vanity.

I do not mean that this drive wouldn't exist, I mean that it would lose its virtue. Without free will the ideas of virtue, guilt, etc. must be thrown out - ideas that are closely linked to love in the Christian view.

Heh, virtue.

Without free will I still experience love and guilt. I still evaluate my past actions and try to improve my future ones. But I accept that the combination of my physical nature and my experiences account for all of me. I don't need to have a mystical imortal soul that is appart from these things (though it would be cool).

You seem to think that all drives are subsets of the drive to happiness: I think there is a definite drive for truth.

I agree that there is a drive for truth, and the satisfaction of that drive makes us happy (brings us pleasure). It is bound up with 'purpose', i.e. why am I here. We don't even need to find truth to satisfy that drive, just look for it. There are obvious reasons why that would be a good trait in a biological entity.

Perhaps believing that we've found truth is a product of lust, the strength of the desire causes us to lose sight of everything else.

Again to the semantics, if you do not obey your desires - doesn't that mean that your desire to not obey your other desires is your overriding desire?
Or that your desire is to control certain of your desires?

Perhaps you learned that following base instincts wasn't giving you the results you hoped for, so you learn to ignore some of those instincts. There is no reason why that has to be outside of your physical nature.



Sidhe wrote:

... laughable ... lame ...

You know what they say, he who smelt it delt it.

As I said before:

QM = statistical outcomes, not free will.

This is certainly not a case of either determinism or free will. Certain interpretations of QM do rule out determinism (though not all), but still say nothing about free will.

Just because an outcome may be probabilistic, or even random (for certain values of the word random), does not imply that human will exists or not as far as I have been able to determine.

Just because outcomes are not predetermined does not mean that we have any relevant input. There may be infinite possible outcomes this does not mean we can choose among them, or even influence the set of possible outcomes, due to free will (in the sense cg means).

The question is why we act as we do. Is it the sum of our experiences and physical make up, or is there more than that. I don't see a need for there to be more than that.



cg wrote

Of course not - but is there any difference between not being able to violate physical laws, and being completely determined by them?

This is troubling me, now: I'm wondering if beleiving in free will amounts to beleiving in some mystical, interloping force that can violate physical laws!

Now your thinking!

Finally, arrive at the conclusion that we can not distinguish!

Mystical, interloping forces (especially ones that need not obey currently measurable physical laws) do not contribute to accumulated scientific knowledge, which for me is the closest thing to 'truth' that humans can understand.

You also have the option of revelation, as punkbass said: "pray and ask god himself. Only he could give you a truly meaningful answer to such a question"

But be aware that different people will recieve different answers when following this path.



a space oddity wrote:

However we will never be sure that we know all the 'reasons' why we eventually select any one of the available options and therefor one can still assume that it's the combination of all factors: knowledge, genes, experiences, external circumstance that will always lead to the same choice.

That's perfectly clear to me.

To confuse the issue, the choice we ended up making is the only one we made. We can not have chosen another. Time is like that, it only seems to point one way.

 

[Sidhe]

Yeah well I wasn't the one claiming that free will was an illusion as if I'd just proved it was now was I? I think some other people quoted your arguments as nebulous as they were as some sort of proof of the unproovable.

cg wrote:


QM = statistical outcomes, not free will.

This is certainly not a case of either determinism or free will. Certain interpretations of QM do rule out determinism (though not all), but still say nothing about free will.

Just because an outcome may be probabilistic, or even random (for certain values of the word random), does not imply that human will exists or not as far as I have been able to determine.

Just because outcomes are not predetermined does not mean that we have any relevant input. There may be infinite possible outcomes this does not mean we can choose among them, or even influence the set of possible outcomes, due to free will (in the sense cg means).

The question is why we act as we do. Is it the sum of our experiences and physical make up, or is there more than that. I don't see a need for there to be more than that.

.

Actually all interpretations of QM rule out determinism in any form you care to put it pretty much . My roulettee wheel anology shows that predeterminism can't exist if random chance can deflect a result. It would take some pretty freaky word play to deny that an occurrance that is random that creates chance in a feedback loop cannot be reflected on and thought upon and this cannot change someones views and therefore the way they behave, if you accept QM then you have to accept there is free will, and by extension that predeterminism is bs, I'm not the first to independantly come to this conclusion there are plenty of thesis papers from both psychological sciences and from a more philosophical view point: I'm not saying it's true but the current trend in thinking is to think free will exists. Whether they are right will be a matter for science to prove

Trying to say behavioural values are programmed and can never change is the largest leap of faith I ever heard. If you brought two twins up in the same environment exposed to exactly the same stimuli all there lives, I bet you'd find one was different from the other

 

[Gothmog]

Actually all interpretations of QM rule out determinism in any form you care to put it pretty much

This is simply false. You are just so used to the Copenhagen interpretation (or subset of it), that you haven't looked farther than that.

To over simplify the deterministic view, QM is a consequence of what we can measure and how we measure it. The properties in question appear probabilistic and even random because of the way we pose the questions and do the measurements.

For example the uncertainty principle its self is a consequence of what we believe to be the very smallest quanta of a specific type.

In general determinism is the idea that the state of a system at an instant of time is a function of the state of that system in the previous instant.

The precise moment of a given nuclear decay may be predictable if we could track the properties of every quark within it without disturbing them appreciably. That is a question we cannot currently answer, nor if there are things that make up quarks.

At its core QM is a mathematical method for performing calculations on very small objects, as Paul Dirac would have said: "Shut up and calculate".

if you accept QM then you have to accept there is free will

You keep saying this, but it not true. I do agree that by certain interpretations of QM determinism can be ruled out.

People have always wanted to believe that free will exists and even great thinkers have gone to great lengths to shoehorn it into their points of view.

In part this is because of the fatalism that cg feels when he thinks of a world without it.

From a purely scientific point of view, there is no need for it.

From an agnostic point of view we will never know if we have it.

I just happen to be an agnostic scientist.

If you brought two twins up in the same environment exposed to exactly the same stimuli all there lives, I bet you'd find one was different from the other

You cannot bring two twins up in the same environment, even their relative position in the womb affects their future development.

But let me ask you this, where do you think your will originates? Not in your DNA, or extranuclear material; not in the sum of your experiences or their interaction with your physical being; so where?

It seems to me that you are saying that if your 'will' had inhabited my physical body at the moment of my conception rather than my own, you would have turned out as a different person. Even given all the same probabilistic outcomes occuring on a QM level.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm not saying I can prove free will merely that the QM of the system are a good advocate of it. Personally as I've said twice before I have no view either way whether determinism rules or free will but I'm not going to say neither exists or one doesn't based on my own opinion. The trouble is that central to the materialist idea is determinism, so if we can say that free will exists or that we are not bound to fate then we can destroy determinism, the problem is we can't. The solution as I said therefore is for science to prove how the system works itself. I would submit that even though we are all just DNA chemicles and conciousness, I don't think that the sum of the parts equals the whole. I think that they are greater. And I tihnk that uniquely amongst the animals of this world we can overcome our programming, and we can reevaluate our beliefs and change our natures, I don't think human conciousness as you portray it means that very individual is a stagnant carbon copy of his DNA. I think the vast complexity of human interaction and the unending feedback loop of conciousness throughout evolutioon in and of itself is enough for me to say that we can all change or grow or evolve regardless of the physical prgramming, after all that is what DNA does. After all that is what Philosophy and science is, if we do not grow we stagnate, it's the same in physical evolution as it is in concious evolution. I simply refuse to believe that we are programmed and that nothing we can do will change what we will do from one moment to the next. That seems absurd to me? I wont say it's not the case but I wont assert that it is without proof either, that's not science it certainly isn't philosophy and it certainly isn't wisdom.

 

[Birdjaguar]

It's nice to see you posting again Gothmog.

 

[punkbass2000]

This is what I've found sofar in what Buddism is about: knowing where certain feelings and leanings stem from by careful observation. It has more to do with science i.e. knowing than with mysticism.

I would agree. Unfortunately, Buddha-Dharma is generally confused with the Buddhist (particularly Tibetan) culture which has grown around it.

 

[punkbass2000]

It's nice to see you posting again Gothmog.

Quoted for Truth.

 

[Sidhe]

I would agree. Unfortunately, Buddha-Dharma is generally confused with the Buddhist (particularly Tibetan) culture which has grown around it.

I saw an interesting article on just how closely bhuddist belief ties in with modern day quantum mechanics. It's quite extroadinary the tennants of their faith almost mirror the same ideas inherent in QM theory. It's a nice coincidence, or is it a natural evolutionary way of thinking

Quoted for Truth.

I presume that's some in comment

Sorry just it seemed a bit out of context?

Oh no you mean you agree? need more coffee

 

[Birdjaguar]

Oh no you mean you agree? need more coffee

I believe so, nothing sinister.

 

[punkbass2000]

I saw an interesting article on just how closely bhuddist belief ties in with modern day quantum mechanics. It's quite extroadinary the tennants of their faith almost mirror the same ideas inherent in QM theory. It's a nice coincidence, or is it a natural evolutionary way of thinking

In his book Taking the Quantum Leap, Fred Alan Wolf (former Physics professor) shows how modern physics reflects ancient Hindu and general Eastern thought. It's quite good. By the end of it he reveals that he considers himself a "quantum solipsist", which is a term I believe he coined.

 

[punkbass2000]

I believe so, nothing sinister.

Indeed. Unfortunately, this isn't the sort of forum where you can just quote it and leave it without specifically indicating agreement due to the XCL.

 

[El_Machinae]

I have a hard time equating QM with free will, but I think it can account for some intuition.

Because some neurons will fire in a 'non-standard' manner (becuase quantum effects allowed an ealier firing) - but only rarely - the seeds of original thoughts will sometimes be triggered (a brand new variation on a theme). This will create an original thought, and not one that is derived in response to some 'macro' stimulus.

I bet it's nothing to write home about, though ...

 

[Shaihulud]

I always thought neurons were too large to be affected by the small changes in QM. That it it take alot of quantum event to determine the nature of a neuron, and it all equals out, but then I don't really know very much about how the brain works.

 

[El_Machinae]

They mostly are. But sometimes the firing of a neuron (ahead of another neuron) comes down to a race between electrolytes. And with the small number of electrolytes (and the huge number of neurons), I think it matters sometimes.

 

[Sidhe]

In his book Taking the Quantum Leap, Fred Alan Wolf (former Physics professor) shows how modern physics reflects ancient Hindu and general Eastern thought. It's quite good. By the end of it he reveals that he considers himself a "quantum solipsist", which is a term I believe he coined.

Sounds interesting I'll put it on my to read list.

I think that QM could explain intuition. It could also be neurons misfiring? But intuition is hard to equate with encoded DNA, as is inspiration? Something that comes from nothing, and seems to occur more often when the brain is not occupied with anything in particular, day dreaming or idling. I don't think materialism can from a surface view explain conciousness very well. I'd at least like to see someone try and explain some of the high order concious displays with it. I sometimes seem to know an answer without having to think about it, I often stun myself by pulling say a number out of the air say in regards to an exchange rate or some other rate change or a calculation without seemingly having gone through the thought process. So someone will say 30 pounds and I'll say about $52 without the need to think about it, this seems odd to me because I do this so frequently and I am rarely if ever wrong, I'd love to know the dynamic between my subconcious and concious and how it gets the answer?

I have extremely good mental arithmetic skills(although I cant multiply 1223298937286*392832987823287232 in 2 seconds or anything like that, I'd say faster than about 99.9% of the population, something I was singled out for in school so I think if you do enough calculations eventually the brain just uses already worked out calculations from memory and feeds them to you, but the fact it does this is in itself amazing to me.

 

[punkbass2000]

I do that sort of thing as well. I usually keep it to myself, unless I think people can handle it.

 

[CartesianFart]

Also i want to mention that pre-socratic philosophers also had unique theories(quite impressive without partical generators)on the atom.One that comes to my mind is Democritus who somewhat inspired 20th century physics.Too bad only some fragmentary letters remains.

This is what i remember by memory of what he was saying.

Tiny things that cannot finally be cut any further or matter can't exist.Atoms move,collide,form new compounds and sometimes indivisible.Which we can infer by qualities of the world around us like weight,shape and sizes.Other qualities like smell can only come into being when the atoms of an object come into contact with atoms of human nose.

Primitive,yes.But i think they had some good imaginations that Einstein can admire.Of course you guys are obsessing with quantum mechanics,but what will be the future when quantum mechanics is obsolete?Guess no time machine will help us on that one.

 

[Sidhe]

Wormhole theory does not rule out time travel, of course wormhole theory is about as hypothetical as string theory but nm. QM is wrong I am sure of this I have seen the future. I would suspect QM is a close aproximation but it's not the whole picture and I think we're missing some colours and shades from our picture anyway.

Impressive when you consider science was still messing around with elements for at least the next 2 thousand years or so after Democritus's death.

QM as a theory seemed very at odds with the world of science when first proposed, it seemed counter intuitive that you could start talking about particles that you couldn't see or measure and that you could theorise using mathematics without empirical evidence. The amazing thing is though that just about every mathematical equation and particle now tallies with scientific experiment. There do indeed seem to be two quarks in leptons and 3 in Bosons, and the quanta experiments expain beutifully the colours of materials and the particle acelrator experiments not only tally with Einsteins equations but they appear to show that all the theoretical bosons such as a w or y boson appear to exist. It's a case of mathematics before experimentation that actually worked. Now the strong force itself is being played with and the predictions made about his are looking ever more intriguingly correct. The fact is it all just seems to be right, but not quite right, like there's a niggling doubt in the back of your mind somewhere you can't put your finger on.

 

[El_Machinae]

My transhuman capabilities tell me the answer is about 4.80552176535111E+29

 

[Sidhe]

Amazing so you define transhuman as the ability to use a calculator

actually the answer is:

480552176535111449268732532352

If you want to be precise