Originally posted by Blair Wind
So basically when I say that I will win the tournament and when I do it was always going to happen that way anyways and none of the contestants have a say in the matter 😖hifty:
Precisely. There's only 1 way the tourney can end. We're just finding out which ending that is.
I'd sidetrack this thread with more tourney smack-talk, but this is actually an engrossing discussion, so I'll refrain.
Originally posted by Blair Wind
So basically when I say that I will win the tournament and when I do it was always going to happen that way anyways and none of the contestants have a say in the matter 😖hifty:
If you do win... then yes!
but according to this theory whoever wins has always eventually been going to.
Originally posted by Blair Wind
Well, while I disagree with your opinion, you guys can all get excited about the topic. Interesting while it may be, I refuse to believe that everything is pre-arranged and that free will is nothing more than a set of choices already set to happen. Thats my two cents on it 😬
Fair enough, and you're entitled to your opinion.
...
I just can't fathom how anything is somehow "outside" of causality, which is what would need to happen for anything like free will or choice to actually exist.
Nothing in the physical world displays anything of the sort. And while arguments involving spirituality, souls, divine creators, etc. may hold some weight (and I wouldn't openly refute them), we still exist in the physical world and adhere to the same principles as anything else. Our choices are no more "choice" than a pen chooses to fall to the ground if you drop it because of gravitational forces.
...
So back to the topic:
If Vision isn't "alive", neither am I.
And if I'm "alive", so is all of existence.
Broad, I know, but that's my view.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
No, the conept of choice you're using is too vague.How do you arrive at any choice? Chocolate instead of vanilla, for instance. The causes that preceded it, however random and arbitrary they may seem, force that outcome. If you choose, say, chocolate, the universe would not allow for any other choice other than "chocolate" given the circumstances that preceded the choice....simply because that's the one that happened.
Saying something like "well, I could've chosen vanilla" is false, because if you had chosen vanilla, the causes that preceded it would have allowed for the choice, and we would exist in a differently ordered universe. Thus, "chocolate" affects everything in the universe that follows it, just as everything that that preceded it caused "chocolate" in the first place.
In such a system of thought, choice itself is an illusion. Concepts of choice and free will are themselves determined by causes, and not exempt from determinism.
The choices are already made....or at least they are inevitable. We just don't know what they'll be, thus our continued excitement in life.
if that were the case, it would follow that there is potential for us to at some point 'predict the future' -- ie -- given any set of circumstance, we should be able to accurately predict the outcome of said event if only we can understand the processes involved or find the correct mathematical formula. i disagree with that assessment. 😬
as far as scoob's question: based on current definitions of consciousness and life, i'd say that yes, all those you listed above ARE alive.
nice topic, scoob. 😉
Originally posted by leonidas
if that were the case, it would follow that there is potential for us to at some point 'predict the future' -- ie -- given any set of circumstance, we should be able to accurately predict the outcome of said event if only we can understand the processes involved or find the correct mathematical formula. i disagree with that assessment. 😬as far as scoob's question: based on current definitions of consciousness and life, i'd say that yes, all those you listed above ARE alive.
nice topic, scoob. 😉
Well, several scientist have agreed that if you could accurately know the path and movement of all electrons in the universe you could possibly predict the entire outcome of all time and space. Past, present and future!
Originally posted by leonidas
if that were the case, it would follow that there is potential for us to at some point 'predict the future' -- ie -- given any set of circumstance, we should be able to accurately predict the outcome of said event if only we can understand the processes involved or find the correct mathematical formula. i disagree with that assessment. 😬as far as scoob's question: based on current definitions of consciousness and life, i'd say that yes, all those you listed above ARE alive.
nice topic, scoob. 😉
To the predicting the future: yes and no. Allow me to explain...
In theory, if we could, say, make a computer capable of running the infinitely astronomical calculations necessary to "predict the future" we could indeed do just that.
But the very act of predicting the outcome would alter the system in which it was predicted. So if the prediction came out "chocolate", the prediction is instantly invalidated.
Because the outcome may still very well be "chocolate", but it will be from an entirely different set of circumstances than the ones which were used to make the initial prediction. Thus, we'd still have no way of telling whether it would be "chocolate" or "vanilla".
...
A lot of that is paraphrased from an essay I have by some physicist, whose name eludes me right now. But the chocolate/vanilla anaolgy, as well as the actual wording, are my own.
....
And it's not unknown for deterministic systems of thought to arise independant of science. Buddhism, for example, is entirely deterministic in its philosophy.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
To the predicting the future: yes and no. Allow me to explain...In theory, if we could, say, make a computer capable of running the infinitely astronomical calculations necessary to "predict the future" we could indeed do just that.
But the very act of predicting the outcome would alter the system in which it was predicted. So if the prediction came out "chocolate", the prediction is instantly invalidated.
Unless the act of predicting the future was always part of the original past anyway.
This is what I understand and I have so much trouble explaining to my friends. Like when it comes to movies or TV when people have visions of the future. The times when "visions" so to speak, try to tell people the future but also that there is no changing it. Most people never consider that the very knowledge of this possible future was always part of the said future's past too.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
To the predicting the future: yes and no. Allow me to explain...In theory, if we could, say, make a computer capable of running the infinitely astronomical calculations necessary to "predict the future" we could indeed do just that.
But the very act of predicting the outcome would alter the system in which it was predicted. So if the prediction came out "chocolate", the prediction is instantly invalidated.
Because the outcome may still very well be "chocolate", but it will be from an entirely different set of circumstances than the ones which were used to make the initial prediction. Thus, we'd still have no way of telling whether it would be "chocolate" or "vanilla".
...
A lot of that is paraphrased from an essay I have by some physicist, whose name eludes me right now. But the chocolate/vanilla anaolgy, as well as the actual wording, are my own.
....
And it's not unknown for deterministic systems of thought to arise independant of science. Buddhism, for example, is entirely deterministic in its philosophy.
😂
that sounds like godel. but godel's theorems don't imply that free will is an impossibility. collections of things, people, electrons, transcend their origin states naturally all the time. emergent phenomena arise from these collections. there is no reason why, given an infinite amount of complexity, that NEW and random effects can't be generated. what is randomness if not something that is infinitely difficult to predict?
So what do you call it if you pick chocolate, but then decide to take vanilla instead or just close the fridge? You're defining the concept of choice and free-will too narrowly. You have to accept the idea of something chosing a previously unthought-of option. For example, if you had a stick in the stone age, you could use it as a club or maybe a pillow or a throwing stick. But what you rub too stick together? You get fire. Does that the fact that fire wasn't a known option mean that you are now outside the known laws of causality? There is causality, but it's not absolute. Take the matrix, 99% accepted it, but it was the random 1% that didn't that turned into a problem for the machines. That 1% is free will. By attempting to suppress free will and defining the concept of choice by only a few options, you ignore the possibility of someone thinking outside the box.
Originally posted by Entity
Unless the act of predicting the future was always part of the original past anyway.This is what I understand and I have so much trouble explaining to my friends. Like when it comes to movies or TV when people have visions of the future. The times when "visions" so to speak, try to tell people the future but also that there is no changing it. Most people never consider that the very knowledge of this possible future was always part of the said future's past too.
But you couldn't formulate a prediction method that accounts for the prediction itself being a part of the history, because you'd have to know the outcome of your prediction before you made it. Your explanation only works with the TV "visions" and such, not in, say, a laboratory setting.
Originally posted by leonidas
😂that sounds like godel. but godel's theorems don't imply that free will is an impossibility. collections of things, people, electrons, transcend their origin states naturally all the time. emergent phenomena arise from these collections. there is no reason why, given an infinite amount of complexity, that NEW and random effects can't be generated. what is randomness if not something that is infinitely difficult to predict?
What is random exactly? "Random" is simply things that are beyond our ability to measure and/or predict. It doesn't mean they don't follow rules like anything else.
Originally posted by TricksterPriest
So what do you call it if you pick chocolate, but then decide to take vanilla instead or just close the fridge? You're defining the concept of choice and free-will too narrowly. You have to accept the idea of something chosing a previously unthought-of option. For example, if you had a stick in the stone age, you could use it as a club or maybe a pillow or a throwing stick. But what you rub too stick together? You get fire. Does that the fact that fire wasn't a known option mean that you are now outside the known laws of causality? There is causality, but it's not absolute. Take the matrix, 99% accepted it, but it was the random 1% that didn't that turned into a problem for the machines. That 1% is free will. By attempting to suppress free will and defining the concept of choice by only a few options, you ignore the possibility of someone thinking outside the box.
Actually no. All you're doing is throwing more perceived "choices" into the equation. "Chocolate vs. vanilla" was simply to simplify it down to 2 things. But everything I've described holds true for the infinitely many number of effects that happen in each instant. So yes, closing the fridge, switching your choice of ice cream, one molecule going one way instead of another, etc. is all still within the laws of causality.
And did you really just try to use the Matrix as a discussion point?
....
This is always fun because most of the people in the English-speaking world are so firmly entrenched in a free will philosophy because it's just ingrained within our culture. Your opinions are certainly valid, but too often I run into people who refuse to consider that free will might be a complete illusion simply because they don't want to force themselves to think that way. Usually their logic is completely unsound, but at least it makes sense to them.
That's not quite the case here (this is an interesting discussion) but it's something I see a lot, since I've had similar talks with friends and family and such.
Oh I agree. But it's partly because of the uncertainty principle. People aren't willing to live with having unknowns. They seek to define things even if they can't be properly defined. And by doing so, they lock themselves into a thought pattern.
Yes, I admit it, I tried to use the matrix. 😛 😆 It was the exact kind of thing that they were talking about in the 2nd and 3rd movies. Which kind of shows how this discussion could go. I like the topic, but ultimately, aren't we just going to get so far into it that we sound like Matrix: Reloaded?
Originally posted by TricksterPriest
Oh I agree. But it's partly because of the uncertainty principle. People aren't willing to live with having unknowns. They seek to define things even if they can't be properly defined. And by doing so, they lock themselves into a thought pattern.Yes, I admit it, I tried to use the matrix. 😛 😆 It was the exact kind of thing that they were talking about in the 2nd and 3rd movies. Which kind of shows how this discussion could go. I like the topic, but ultimately, aren't we just going to get so far into it that we sound like Matrix: Reloaded?
Probably. I didn't like the movies at all, but I'm honestly probably more in accord with "The Source" (the dude in the chair) and the Oracle than Neo, philosophically at least.
Hey, not to venture too far off of the theoretical physics but Digi's talk about Western ideas of free will and consciousness and such relates very much to this.
In neuro psychology, they have recently found that the brain prepares for an action long (in brain terms) before an individual becomes consciously aware of it. So, as you read this, however you respond consciously has already been set into motion and pre planned by your unconscious mind.
Further, consciousness has become an almost enigmatic concept that refers more to a "binding problem" then a real entity as most philosophy would put it. Explaining consciousness is more explaining how certain regions of the brain work to produce different neural signals which are combined together to form our experience. There is no "centre of consciousness" in the brain, and no single part responsible for "free will" or any such notion, but rather very specialized parts that, when working together, produce this experience that we have historically referred to as the "self".
And I recommend the book "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore
Originally posted by inamilist
Hey, not to venture too far off of the theoretical physics but Digi's talk about Western ideas of free will and consciousness and such relates very much to this.In neuro psychology, they have recently found that the brain prepares for an action long (in brain terms) before an individual becomes consciously aware of it. So, as you read this, however you respond consciously has already been set into motion and pre planned by your unconscious mind.
Further, consciousness has become an almost enigmatic concept that refers more to a "binding problem" then a real entity as most philosophy would put it. Explaining consciousness is more explaining how certain regions of the brain work to produce different neural signals which are combined together to form our experience. There is no "centre of consciousness" in the brain, and no single part responsible for "free will" or any such notion, but rather very specialized parts that, when working together, produce this experience that we have historically referred to as the "self".
And I recommend the book "The Meme Machine" by Susan Blackmore
Good stuff. And it probably supports my argument here, though I won't make that claim without proper knowledge of it.
It's also scary how closely that resembles Buddhist thought (which I've mentioned once already, go figure). The "self" doesn't exist to them, and the path to this realization is a large part of the road toward enlightenment.
An ideological difference, to be sure, probably as much so as any scientific difference in philosophies.
Who cares if technically there is no free will?if it is pre-ordained it still feels to us like we made the choice doesn't it?What i don't like is how some people have got together to try and make it feel like we have as little control over our own actions as we do over the rest of the world,if you presented this evidence to a person who suffers depression do you reaslly think they would keep putting off that suicide if they feel that it has always been their ultimate destiny.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Good stuff. And it probably supports my argument here, though I won't make that claim without proper knowledge of it.It's also scary how closely that resembles Buddhist thought (which I've mentioned once already, go figure). The "self" doesn't exist to them, and the path to this realization is a large part of the road toward enlightenment.
An ideological difference, to be sure, probably as much so as any scientific difference in philosophies.
It defiantly supports the idea that we don't have free will in the conventional sense.
Its not as absolute as the sort of atomistic determinism you were talking about, because human behavior is still variable, only based primarily on factors that occur before conscious awareness. For instance, the part of your brain that emotionally processes incoming stimuli (generally speaking) processes information before you become consciously aware of it, and sometimes processes stimuli you aren't even consciously aware of. However, in the Western world, we are so attached to the concept of the inner "self" we attribute these feelings to a justified intellectual process that gives us a sense of ownership over it which makes these findings almost counter intuitive to some. I can remember coming out of Cognitive Psyche lectures with students just denying what they had just heard because they still needed to think they had free will.
Blackmore's Book talks about that exact same connection to Buddhism that science is discovering. As far as introspection and understanding of how consciousness might work from and experiential level, the eastern philosophies are so much further ahead than the western ones are. However, there are some parts of Buddhist mythology I obviously wouldn't claim have any place in science. I believe Sam Harris is doing Neurological work with Tibetan Monks to see what could possibly be learned from them in an empirical sense.
There is also the evolutionary consideration. Our minds are only as conscious as was necessary for those of us with this level to reproduce more and those with a little bit lower level to reproduce less. It is argued that the intense socialization of early man, especially with the invention of language, would have been what pushed for some type of reflexive thought, but only what was necessary, as neural development is very costly from a body resource perspective. Not that this undermines free will, but it again demystifies the idea of "us" as this special thing that exists, peering out through our eyes that reflects and makes choices. It refers to conscious thought as more of a tool or survival technique in an environment that demanded increasingly more complex social interaction.
bleh, I will desist in the rambling.
i read an article on exactly what you're talking about inamilist. but even that in itself does not preclude free will. it simply says that are brains are capable of gathering and processing information more quickly than we thought, and more quickly than we can perceive. there is also nothing that says the brain was preparing for one specific choice over another. least i don't believe there is.
if something is infinitely difficult to predict (ie -- truly random), can we say a rule can possibly exist to predict it? 😬
either way, whether free will is an illusion or not, it makes no difference to us, aside from creating a mind-set in which we live. i've never really understood why people would choose to accept that every thing is already determined. that implies nothing is novel, or ever will be novel. it leads to one thinking why bother agonizing over any decision -- why take time to think things through and consider options? just seems . . . depressing to me.
no offense, digi . . . 🙂
Originally posted by inamilist
I can remember coming out of Cognitive Psyche lectures with students just denying what they had just heard because they still needed to think they had free will.
I've noticed the same, though in less academic environments.
Originally posted by inamilist
However, there are some parts of Buddhist mythology I obviously wouldn't claim have any place in science.
Absolutely.
Originally posted by leonidas
if something is infinitely difficult to predict (ie -- truly random), can we say a rule can possibly exist to predict it? 😬
I'd argue that no such randomness exists. We used to refer to things being "magic" but it was really just what we couldn't explain. And now we have uncertainty principles, random values, and the like to describe similar phenomenon. But, despite the uncertainty principle, a particle will follow a definite path. The uncertainty principle simply says we can never precisely measure it, but not that it isn't adhering to a set of rules.
Originally posted by leonidas
either way, whether free will is an illusion or not, it makes no difference to us, aside from creating a mind-set in which we live.
Right. In a conventional sense it doesn't mean much, but it's just a shift in perspective.
Originally posted by leonidas
just seems . . . depressing to me.no offense, digi . . . 🙂
None taken. And to be honest, my feelings on this way of thinking were similar when I first started to adopt it, so I know we're you're coming from.
But again, all it takes is a shift in consciousness and/or prespective to see it as something that is liberating rather than binding, and natural rather than depressing and unnatural.