Alive .... ?

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.

That is merely a belief.

It is based on the concept of something that can't be disproved rather than something that can be proved and is, by definition, unscientific.

________________

*A & B are at the movies ... B is enjoying his chocolate ice-cream*

A. "You chose chocolate because the universe wanted you to"

B. "really? .... but what if I had chosen vanilla?"

A. "well then that would've been because the universe would have decided you would choose vanilla"

B. "so no matter what I had done you're saying it's because of an unseen force that no one can actually prove"

A. "Um .............. I would've chosen strawberry"

________________

No offence to anyone's beliefs .... you can all worship a giant space worm for all I care.

😛

Originally posted by DigiMark007
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. .

Um mm sorry Digi buts thats completely and utterly false. Electrons and other quantum particles violate causality ALL the time. Thanks to the development of quantum theory in the early 20th century, the deterministic perspective of the universe is all but nonexistent now.

eradicator is definatley alive.cuz the program invaded some poor sap and erased his baseline dna, and his mind and overwrote it with kryptonian...the same that brainiac has been wet dreaming about doing to superman and almost did to doomsday

Um mm sorry Digi buts thats completely and utterly false. Electrons and other quantum particles violate causality ALL the time. Thanks to the development of quantum theory in the early 20th century, the deterministic perspective of the universe is all but nonexistent now(although many wish it was).

This is especially applicable when you consider the fact that our universe was once a LOT smaller than a electron, and therefore susepctible to quantum effects that violate CAUSALITY. Infact it has been debated since the 5th centuary whether or not causality is actually as big a delusion as Free Will. I.e. its the way in which our brain percieves Entropy(The process of time moving forward), allowing us to utilize contingency (Cause and effect) me to survive. E.G. i will eat this food (The cause) and it will give me energy to survive (The effect). Its known that this process of entropy brakes down at the quantum level (The very small, atoms and electrons) therefore why should it apply to the visible universe ?

Originally posted by Doctor S.T.D.
Um mm sorry Digi buts thats completely and utterly false. Electrons and other quantum particles violate causality ALL the time. Thanks to the development of quantum theory in the early 20th century, the deterministic perspective of the universe is all but nonexistent now(although many wish it was).

This is especially applicable when you consider the fact that our universe was once a LOT smaller than a electron, and therefore susepctible to quantum effects that violate CAUSALITY. Infact it has been debated since the 5th centuary whether or not causality is actually as big a delusion as Free Will. I.e. its the way in which our brain percieves Entropy(The process of time moving forward), allowing us to utilize contingency (Cause and effect) me to survive. E.G. i will eat this food (The cause) and it will give me energy to survive (The effect). Its known that this process of entropy brakes down at the quantum level (The very small, atoms and electrons) therefore why should it apply to the visible universe ?

I'm familiar with quantum mechanics, at least in layman's terms.

It doesn't necessarily invalidate determinism, but merely states that we can't accurately measure quantum effects (because of the uncertainty principle).

And while I've never asserted that total causality exists, I stand firmly by the assertion that what most people consider to be "free will" is nothing of the sort. I'll use the anaolgy again, that any choice we make is no more a choice than a pen "chooses" to fall to ground when it's been dropped due to gravitational forces.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
I'm familiar with quantum mechanics, at least in layman's terms.

It doesn't necessarily invalidate determinism, but merely states that we can't accurately measure quantum effects (because of the uncertainty principle).

It is, when you consider Schroedinger's cat (Which I'm sure you are familiar of), causality gets thrown out the window when you consider the collapse of wave functions and the SPONTANEOUS appearance of particles in the vacuum of space, or in layman's terms (Zero Point energy). The key word being SPONtANEOUS in that sentence.

from digi's pov, that can all be explained away easily -- we just haven't yet figured out the rules that bind these seemingly 'spontaneous' events.

🙂

schroedinger's cat doesn't really support EITHER view, imo. afterall, it's up to the universe to decide whether we open the box, or not. right digi . . .? 😄

i do agree with the, erm, 'doctor', though. quantum mechanics seems to throw quite a large fly in the ointment of determinism. things like action at a distance seem to negate all the laws that atomistic physics seems to pride itself on. even inflation -- where the universe apparently expended at a rate FASTER than light -- seems to break the commonly held rules of causality.

once again i fall back on emergent phenomena. increase complexity to a certain level and spontaneous, emergent events can and have occurred.

in other words, i like to think we are -- all of us -- MORE than the sum of our parts. 🙂

Did you clear that statement with King leonidas?

😛

😆

😐

Originally posted by leonidas
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.

Aside from some really messed up work done in the past couple of years where they have predicted movement in monkeys by monitoring brain activity, no, there is no way in accurately determining what people will do sometimes.

However, there are many things about behavior that are predictable. Social psychology has some really interesting findings, however, no, there is nothing that really is 100% predictable.

I guess the best argument that can pose against free will would be more along these lines; Free will supposes that there is someone inside of us making those choices, it almost assumes a duality between brain and mind. There have been no findings in neuroscience that support that though. There is no centre of the brain that makes these yes or no choices, it is a continuous flow of activity moving from one subconsciously preplanned action onto the next.

The control we do seem to have is linked to the inhibition of actions. when we get consious awareness of our subconsious processess, there is a small window of opportunity for us to suppress their action. From an evolutionary standpoint this can be explained in light of intense socialization. To mate, it would have become more and more necessary to inhibit natural urges and act "civilized".

It doesn't rule out some form of free will, other than to say the whole concept is not in line with scientific findings.

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? 😬

Things that are infinitely difficult to predict are unscientific. The fate of every atom in the universe may be something just like that. I don't know if it will ever be possible for humans to comprehend that.

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. 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.

I find studying the brain to be the most rewarding thing I have ever done. Regardless of what conceptions of the world I may have to abandon, its so incredible to understand how we work.

There are over 150 billion cells in the brain, and more connections between them than stars in our galaxy.

Originally posted by leonidas
no offense, digi . . . 🙂

I'm offended 😠

Originally posted by leonidas
from digi's pov, that can all be explained away easily -- we just haven't yet figured out the rules that bind these seemingly 'spontaneous' events.

🙂

schroedinger's cat doesn't really support EITHER view, imo. afterall, it's up to the universe to decide whether we open the box, or not. right digi . . .? 😄

i do agree with the, erm, 'doctor', though. quantum mechanics seems to throw quite a large fly in the ointment of determinism. things like action at a distance seem to negate all the laws that atomistic physics seems to pride itself on. even inflation -- where the universe apparently expended at a rate FASTER than light -- seems to break the commonly held rules of causality.

once again i fall back on emergent phenomena. increase complexity to a certain level and spontaneous, emergent events can and have occurred.

in other words, i like to think we are -- all of us -- MORE than the sum of our parts. 🙂

Nice. 🙂

Originally posted by inamilist
Aside from some [b]really messed up work done in the past couple of years where they have predicted movement in monkeys by monitoring brain activity, no, there is no way in accurately determining what people will do sometimes.[/b]

ironically, we can predict the behavior of groups to a MUCH higher degree than we can predict the behavior of any one individual. some of taken to using group predictions to make decisions, the theory being that while any singular prediction may be wrong, the group itself will negate these single errors. it's kind of a fascinating idea but it think the jury is still out on just how well it works.

I guess the best argument that can pose against free will would be more along these lines; Free will supposes that there is someone inside of us making those choices, it almost assumes a duality between brain and mind. There have been no findings in neuroscience that support that though. There is no centre of the brain that makes these yes or no choices, it is a continuous flow of activity moving from one subconsciously preplanned action onto the next.

you are MORE than welcome to your opinion. i just find the idea of a determined universe very . . . limiting. why do anything if, regardless of what we do, it's already determined? scoob also raised an excellent point above in his post that fits nicely with my personal feelings on the matter. 🙂 and neuroscience is still an emerging field, with new findings all the time. beyond that, many in the field itself believe in the idea of free will. searle and turing, (i believe . . . it's been a while since my cognitive neruopsych classes . . .) to name a couple of giants.

It doesn't rule out some form of free will, other than to say the whole concept is not in line with scientific findings.

not as we currently understand them, anyway . . . 😉

Things that are infinitely difficult to predict are unscientific. The fate of every atom in the universe may be something just like that. I don't know if it will ever be possible for humans to comprehend that.

nor will we perhaps ever understanding how a biological life form like ourselves could evolve free will. 🙂

I find studying the brain to be the most rewarding thing I have ever done. Regardless of what conceptions of the world I may have to abandon, its so incredible to understand how we work.

i studied neuroscience at university as well, and should have stayed with the field. an unwillingness to move and a lack of money dictated i go into teaching. if i could do it again i would have pursued the area. it was the a truly awesome field to study.

I'm offended 😠

Originally posted by leonidas
from digi's pov, that can all be explained away easily -- we just haven't yet figured out the rules that bind these seemingly 'spontaneous' events.

🙂

schroedinger's cat doesn't really support EITHER view, imo. afterall, it's up to the universe to decide whether we open the box, or not. right digi . . .? 😄

Now wait a second. Let's not pigeon-hole me quite that much. 😛

Anyway, as for Schrodinger, yes the emergent phenomenon and uncertainly with the cat (or anything else) throws an interesting loop into strict determinism.

It's something called an "unknown variable theory" that suggests that certain forces may be inherently unpredictable and/or random, but still within the realm of causality. "Random" itself may be included in the equation, and simply beyond our ability to ever understand or predict. Sketchy? Probably. Able to account for, say, the random appearence of particles in space or the >> light speeds of the supposed Big Bang? Maybe not. I can't say I'm enough of an expert on the subject to make a definitive judgement.

My initial point (taking it back to Scoob's original topic) is simply that peoples' idea of "self" or consciousness, or conepts like choice and free will, are much less romantic than most would believe, and in my opinion completely illusory except for accepted conventions of societal norms. The idea of "me" can be broken down to electrical impulses no different than any machine, albeit an insanely complex machine capable of self-awareness.

Whether or not this includes absolute determinism I won't touch any more, because you guys make some interesting points that I'm not sure I can totally refute (though I'm more than happy to admit such). But our behaviors, largely at least, are as controlled and predictable as benign physical occurences that we take for granted (like my pen analogy).

Originally posted by leonidas
ironically, we can predict the behavior of groups to a MUCH higher degree than we can predict the behavior of any one individual. some of taken to using group predictions to make decisions, the theory being that while any singular prediction may be wrong, the group itself will negate these single errors. it's kind of a fascinating idea but it think the jury is still out on just how well it works.

you are MORE than welcome to your opinion. i just find the idea of a determined universe very . . . limiting. why do anything if, regardless of what we do, it's already determined? scoob also raised an excellent point above in his post that fits nicely with my personal feelings on the matter. 🙂 and neuroscience is still an emerging field, with new findings all the time. beyond that, many in the field itself believe in the idea of free will. searle and turing, (i believe . . . it's been a while since my cognitive neruopsych classes . . .) to name a couple of giants.

nor will we perhaps ever understanding how a biological life form like ourselves could evolve free will. 🙂

You are compleatly right, as far as the absolute answer to free will, the jury is still out. It'd be something I'd love to be involved in the research of, although very hard to pin down.

Its these mysteries that make life so wonderful. Great arguments and great discussion, DANKE!

Oh, and a quick note on Schroedinger's cat... I don't even think Schroedinger himself would have postulated those ideas... The cat in the box, as a philosophical concept, has for the most part been taken out of context.

A lot of quantum physics is based on predictable results, but the mechanisms behind those results are not yet known. Any extrapolation from there, even the assumption that observing a phenomena alters it, are not "scientific" as they have not been tested.

A great article from the Skeptical Inquirer talks about this at length, and why quantum theory isn't necessarily so crazy. The problem is, we have no context that comes close to accurately explaining the phenomena we observe, so it allows for ANY reasonable explanation.

Like the article says: "Its hardly headline news for a Physicist to come out and say that, in response to the question of how everything in the universe works, the answer is I don't know"

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Now wait a second. Let's not pigeon-hole me quite that much. 😛

Anyway, as for Schrodinger, yes the emergent phenomenon and uncertainly with the cat (or anything else) throws an interesting loop into strict determinism.

It's something called an "unknown variable theory" that suggests that certain forces may be inherently unpredictable and/or random, but still within the realm of causality. "Random" itself may be included in the equation, and simply beyond our ability to ever understand or predict. Sketchy? Probably. Able to account for, say, the random appearence of particles in space or the >> light speeds of the supposed Big Bang? Maybe not. I can't say I'm enough of an expert on the subject to make a definitive judgement.

My initial point (taking it back to Scoob's original topic) is simply that peoples' idea of "self" or consciousness, or conepts like choice and free will, are much less romantic than most would believe, and in my opinion completely illusory except for accepted conventions of societal norms. The idea of "me" can be broken down to electrical impulses no different than any machine, albeit an insanely complex machine capable of self-awareness.

Whether or not this includes absolute determinism I won't touch any more, because you guys make some interesting points that I'm not sure I can totally refute (though I'm more than happy to admit such). But our behaviors, largely at least, are as controlled and predictable as benign physical occurences that we take for granted (like my pen analogy).

👆

Originally posted by inamilist
You are compleatly right, as far as the absolute answer to free will, the jury is still out. It'd be something I'd love to be involved in the research of, although very hard to pin down.

Its these mysteries that make life so wonderful. Great arguments and great discussion, DANKE!

Oh, and a quick note on Schroedinger's cat... I don't even think Schroedinger himself would have postulated those ideas... The cat in the box, as a philosophical concept, has for the most part been taken out of context.

A lot of quantum physics is based on predictable results, but the mechanisms behind those results are not yet known. Any extrapolation from there, even the assumption that observing a phenomena alters it, are not "scientific" as they have not been tested.

A great article from the Skeptical Inquirer talks about this at length, and why quantum theory isn't necessarily so crazy. The problem is, we have no context that comes close to accurately explaining the phenomena we observe, so it allows for ANY reasonable explanation.

Like the article says: "Its hardly headline news for a Physicist to come out and say that, in response to the question of how everything in the universe works, the answer is [b]I don't know" [/B]

👆 👆

nice discussion gents. 🙂

*last-minute entry*

In order to answer whether an artificial character is alive or not, one first has to operationally define what one means by life. But before we even get to that, I will assume that since we are dealing with comic-book characters, we would define life within a comic-book context.

That said, may I remind everyone that in the comic-book universe, things like mysticism, magic and the supernatural are just as real as the laws of physics. Thus: 'immortal souls' can be taken as fact.

Therefore: a character is alive if it has a soul. No soul = at best, an excellent simulacrum of a living thing.

Originally posted by Mindship

That said, may I remind everyone that in the comic-book universe, things like mysticism, magic and the supernatural are just as real as the laws of physics. Thus: 'immortal souls' can be taken as fact.

Therefore: a character is alive if it has a soul. No soul = at best, an excellent simulacrum of a living thing.

Agreed, as i mentioned previously in my post. Souls are regularly made reference to, in all comics including the more realistic ones.

So how do you decide if someone has a soul or not?

Originally posted by Scoobless
That is merely a belief.

It is based on the concept of something that can't be disproved rather than something that can be proved and is, by definition, unscientific.

Just like God (One of the most contraversal debate topics of all time) right?

Originally posted by Entity
Just like God (One of the most contraversal debate topics of all time) right?

Pretty much.

It's all more a question of faith than science.