jonkc

Isaac Wrote: There are, essentially, 2 ways to rebut an argument. 1) Show that one or more of the premises are untrue. (Note that p1-p4 are held as axiomatic in Objectivism.) 2) Show that one or more of the conclusions do not follow from the premises. There is a third way, show that you have used another axiom besides the 4 listed, namely that all events have a cause. You even mentioned it another post and called it “The Law Of Casualty”; however it is not a law just an empirical observation that some events have a cause. We’ve suspected for 80 years and known with certainty for nearly 40 that some events have no cause and are random. I mean, I liked Atlas Shrugged as much as anyone but if Ayn Rand tells me one thing and experiment tells me another it’s no contest; I’m a rational man so I have to go with experiment. Personally I think it would be pretty neat if the universe was totally deterministic, it would be pretty neat if the sun went around the earth too, but that’s just not the way things are. John K Clark

It is clear that we do not know enough about how the human mind works to say specifically which attribute(s) cause one's choice to go one way or the other. That’s true, but so what? If it has a cause then it is mechanistic. In fact, since so much of the brain's activity is on a microscopic - even subatomic level, it seems to me that the limits set by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle imply that it is impossible to ever say exactly what those characteristics are. And if it doesn’t have a cause then it is random. John: Despite the mystics in modern physics, the HUP does NOT show that things ever happen for no reason. That was Heisenberg's interpretation of his principle. The principle is true - his interpretation is invalid.[...]Do not be so arrogant as to confuse an epistemological limitation with a metaphysical fact. Einstein thought as you do, till the day he died in 1955 he thought that the only reason some things appear to be random is that there are hidden factors we haven’t discovered yet influencing them. In 1964 a way was proposed to test if he was right or wrong and about 10 years later the experiment was actually performed, it’s called Bell’s Inequality. Because of that experiment we now know with certainty that Heisenberg was right and Einstein was wrong; this is how it works: When a photon of undetermined polarization hits a polarizing filter there is a 50% chance it will make it through. For many years physicists who disliked the idea that God played dice with the universe figured there must be a hidden variable inside the photon that told it what to do. By "hidden variable" they meant something different about that particular photon that we just don't know about. They meant something equivalent to a lookup table inside the photon that for one reason or another we are unable to access but the photon can when it wants to know if it should go through a filter or be stopped by one. We now understand that is impossible. In 1964 (but not published until 1967) John Bell showed that correlations that work by hidden variables must be less than or equal to a certain value, this is called Bell's inequality. In experiment it was found that some correlations are actually greater than that value. Quantum Mechanics can explain this, classical physics or even classical logic can not. Even if Quantum Mechanics is someday proven to be untrue Bell's argument is still valid, in fact his original paper had no Quantum Mechanics in it; his point was that any successful theory about the world must explain why his inequality is violated. I will attempt to show how to find the inequality, show why it is perfectly logical, and demonstrate that nature refuses to be sensible and just doesn't work the way you'd think it should. I have a black box, it has a red light and a blue light on it, it also has a rotary switch with 6 connections at the 12,2,4,6,8 and 10 o'clock positions. The red and blue light blink in a manner that passes all known tests for being completely random, this is true regardless of what position the rotary switch is in. Such a box could be made and still be completely deterministic by just pre-computing 6 different random sequences and recording them as a lookup table in the box. Now the box would know which light to flash. I have another black box. When both boxes have the same setting on their rotary switch they both produce the same random sequence of light flashes. This would also be easy to reproduce in a classical physics world, just record the same 6 random sequences in both boxes. The set of boxes has another property, if the switches are set to opposite positions, 12 and 6 o'clock for example, there is a total negative correlation, when one flashes red the other box flashes blue and when one box flashes blue the other flashes red. This just makes it all the easier to make the boxes because now you only need to pre-calculate 3 random sequences, then just change every 1 to 0 and every 0 to 1 to get the other 3 sequences and record all 6 in both boxes. The boxes have one more feature that makes things very interesting, if the rotary switch on a box is one notch different from the setting on the other box then the sequence of light flashes will on average be different 1 time in 4. How on Earth could I make the boxes behave like that? Well, I could change on average one entry in 4 of the 12 o'clock lookup table (hidden variable) sequence and make that the 2 o'clock table. Then change 1 in 4 of the 2 o'clock and make that the 4 o'clock, and change 1 in 4 of the 4 o'clock and make that the 6 o'clock. So now the light flashes on the box set at 2 o'clock is different from the box set at 12 o'clock on average by 1 flash in 4. The box set at 4 o'clock differs from the one set at 12 by 2 flashes in 4, and the one set at 6 differs from the one set at 12 by 3 flashes in 4. But I said before that that boxes at opposite settings should have a 100% anti-correlation, the flashes on the box set at 12 o'clock should differ from the box set 6 o'clock by 4 flashes in 4 NOT 3 flashes in 4. Thus if the boxes work by hidden variables then when one is set to 12 o'clock and the other to 2 there MUST be a 2/3 correlation, at 4 a 1/3 correlation, and of course at 6 no correlation at all. A correlation greater that 2/3, such as 3/4, for adjacent settings produces paradoxes, at least it would if you expected everything to work mechanistically because of some hidden variable involved. Does this mean it's impossible to make two boxes that have those specifications? Nope, but it does mean hidden variables can not be involved and that means something very weird is going on. Actually it would be quite easy to make a couple of boxes that behave like that, it's just not easy to understand how that could be. Photons behave in just this spooky manner, so to make the boxes all you need it 4 things: 1)A glorified light bulb, something that will make two photons of unspecified but identical polarization moving in opposite directions so you can send one to each box. An excited calcium atom would do the trick, or you could turn a green photon into two identical lower energy red photons with a crystal of potassium dihydrogen phosphate. 2) light detector sensitive enough to observe just one photon. Incidentally the human eye is not quite good enough to do that but frog's can, for frogs when light gets very weak it must stop getting dimmer and appear to flash. 3)A polarizing filter, we've had these for a century or more. 4)Some gears and pulleys so that each time the rotary switch is advanced one position the filter is advanced by 30 degrees. This is because it's been known for many years that the amount of light polarized at 0 degrees that will make it through a polarizing filter set at X degrees is [COS (x)]^2; and if x = 30 DEGREES then the value is .75 If light is made of photons that translates to the probability any individual photon will make it through the filter is 75%. The bottom line of all this is that there can not be something special about a specific photon, some internal difference, some hidden variable that determines if it makes it through a filter or not. Thus the universe is either non-deterministic or non-local, that is, everything influences everything else and does so without regard for time or space. One thing is certain, whatever the truth is it's weird. John K Clark

I'm not going to bother reading or replying to anything in this thread that doesn't have to do with Volition First of all we both know what you just wrote is untrue, you may not respond but of course you will read this. Second, I was on topic, I was writing about nothing but Volition. Third, I always find it amusing when people on the net write a lot of off topic comments and then say it should all end here and nobody should rebut my off topic comments with their own off topic comments, just let me have the last word. Fourth, it’s true, I do seize on the tiniest points to attack and I invite others to do the same with my ideas, or try to; I think that process is the best way to find the truth. And fifth, if you want me to respond only in private Email then you should not have posted a message but sent a private Email. John K Clark [email protected]

do not confuse free will with "ability to do anything I don’t, It’s very simple, I say free will is the inability to always know what you will do next even in a simple predictable environment. I'm going to the restaurant. Why? Why indeed. I’ll bet sometime in your life you’ve gone into a restaurant and I wouldn’t be too surprised if at least once somebody asked you why you went into that particular restaurant, did you have an answer for them? Usually when somebody is unable to give a reason for why they acted the way they did we take it as a sign of insanity, or at least irrationality. John K Clark [email protected]

If it [my definition of free will] could be used in productive thought, then it would be useful, would it not? Traditional ideas about free will are not true but they’re not false either, they’re just gibberish. It’s true, my definition doesn’t generate a lot of productive thought but at least it is not contradictory and does not send the brain into an endless loop. Best to just call it a bad job and stick the entire free will thing (calling it an idea would give it far too much credit) into the trash can. ultimately, arguing with any committed determinist, even if he tries to claim he isn't one by putting a prefix in front of it, is a waste of time. I am not ashamed of my views, if I was a determinist I would not hesitate to say so in a loud clear voice, the reason you have not heard me say so is I don’t believe it is true. I know of no law of logic that demands every event have a cause, and indeed modern physics tells us that some things have no cause; the word for such things is “random”. This conversation has just gotten absurd. […] how is it interesting when it is arbitrary and meaningless? It is my experience that nobody gets mad when they are winning an argument. John K Clark

"Well, I don't know whom you got your definition of free will from" I made it up. "the inability to predict one's actions is certainly not what Objectivists call free will. A bottle of water cannot predict its own actions, but that doesn't mean it has free will." Why not? By my definition a bottle of water does have fre will, I don’t claim my definition is terribly useful but at least it’s concrete, consistent and is not a hindrance to productive thought, something no other definition of the term has. "Free will (and this is my definition) is when a conscious, intelligent entity defines certain aspects of its own nature independently, on its own initiative. In other words, when an entity acts not as a mere agent of the rules of physics, but on its own behalf." On my own behalf, of my own free will, I consciously decide to go to a restaurant. Why? Because I want to. Why ? Because I want to eat. Why? Because I'm hungry? Why ? Because lack of food triggered nerve impulses in my stomach, my brain interpreted these signals as pain, I can only stand so much before I try to stop it. Why? Because I don't like pain. Why? Because that's the way my brain is constructed. Why? Because my body and the hardware of my brain were made from the information in my genetic code (lets see, 6 billion base pairs 2 bits per base pairs 8 bits per byte that comes out to about 1.5 geg, compress it into a zip file and you could burn it on to a CD). The programming of my brain came from the environment, add a little quantum randomness perhaps and of my own free will I consciously decide to go to a restaurant. "Note that both versions of this definition require you to abandon your (I take it) materialist view of the world. You have to think about the meaning of words like "conscious," "intelligent," "define," "independently," "initiative," as well as the ones I mentioned earlier on this thread: "power," "control," and "can." These words do not make sense in a materialistic, physics-only world. In fact, in a purely material world, you wouldn't even be conscious of my writing these things to you, because the very definition of the spiritual is "that which is related to consciousness." But yet, people do use these words and they do seem to have definite meanings which everyone apparently understands. Why is that?" Conscious" and "intelligent" have a lot of meaning for me, independently," and "initiative” a bit less, “free will” none at all. And asking for a definition of definition makes no sense at all, if you can understand the question you don’t need at ask it. "then I'll just clone you and kill you. I'll give the clone twenty bucks for your letting me do this. Is that a deal? (Before you make your decision, talk to some identical twins.)" A clone (a twin is just a natural clone) is not good enough because it would not have any of my memories, but if you have a matter duplication machine that can record the position and momentum of every atom in my body to the accuracy allowed by the uncertainty principle and then use generic atoms to build a copy of me then yes, it’s a deal, give me 20 bucks and you can kill the original. As a matter of fact for all I know you may have already done so last night. "As an aside, may I ask if you are a feminist? No. John K Clark [email protected]

There has been some discussion here about free will and it touched a raw nerve in me for I have had similar conversations when I get in a philosophical mood . The conversation usually centers on the question of whether Homo Sapiens has Free Will or not. Few ask what is meant by the term. I suppose they think it's so obvious so self explanatory that it's not worth talking or even thinking about. The discussion invariably ends with a demonstration. Someone picks up an object and drops it from one hand to the other and says "This proves I have Free Will, I can hold it in my hand or I can drop it. If I drop it it's not because anything made me, in fact I could have held on to it but I just didn't feel like it". When asked why he didn't feel like it the only answer your likely to get is "I just didn't!" as if that explained everything. If I point out that I was the cause of the demonstration by bringing up the subject in the first place, anger sometimes results. To say "I can do anything I want to" is not an expression of absolute freedom but a severe restriction on it for the clear implication is "I can do nothing I don't want to". We feel certain that we are totally in control of our actions yet when someone acts in a way we don't understand we still ask "Why did you do that?" by which we mean what CAUSED you to do it. At the same time we pretend that our will is completely independent of external factors as if our behavior has no cause although if this was true our conduct would be totally random. No concept in Philosophy has been analyzed as poorly or has greater practical implications. This confusion largely stems from the enormously powerful intuitive feeling that we are not robots and that our minds are not deterministic. Indeed modern Physics has shown, by way of Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle and Bell's Inequality, that some things happen for no reason, in other words they are truly accidental. No one has shown that this element of chance extends to the workings of the mind but it seems likely that at least to some degree that it does. I maintain that randomness, whether it exists in the human brain or not, has much to do with the question of determinism but nothing to do with volition. Intuition should not be dismissed lightly especially when it's almost universally held. But what is this intuition trying to tell us? People differ greatly over this but I think we can find a minimal definition of free will that almost everyone can agree on ; and that is a feeling of choice. This sensation of autonomy is a crucial aspect of our internal life so any successful theory of the Will must explain the source of this emotion. Let's simplify things to their essentials. Imagine a world in which the environment was so simple it could be predicted with complete accuracy. Doubtless we would find such a place boring and unpleasant but I don't think we would feel like robots. Thus the origin of the sensation of autonomy can not be external. What does it mean to "feel like a robot"? I think that if you could always forecast your own behavior and thoughts with complete accuracy then you would feel like a robot. Uncertainty is at the root of freedom and choice. I hope to show that even in a predictable habitat and even ignoring whatever effects quantum uncertainty has on the macro-world, it is impossible, even in theory, to entirely foresee ones own conduct. For the mind to totally understand itself it must form a perfect internal model of itself. The model must not only describe the rest of the mind in every detail but it must also depict the model itself with a micro model. This micro model must represent the rest of the brain and the micro model itself with a micro micro model. This path leads to an impossible infinite regress. Both the brain and the model must be made up of a finite number of elements. If we are not to lose accuracy the components of the brain must have a one to one correspondence with the elements of the model. But this is impossible because the brain as a whole must have more members than the part that is just the model. This argument does not hold if the mind is infinite, that is if it has an infinite number of segments. It would be possible to find a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of itself; for example you CAN find a one to one correspondence between the set of odd integers with the set of all integers. Thus an infinite intellect could predict all its actions without error. So we are lead to the interesting conclusion that man has free will but GOD if SHE exists does not. Let me suggest a thought experiment; a man is walking down a road and spots a fork in the road far ahead. He knows of advantages and disadvantages to both paths so he isn't sure if he will go right or left, he hadn't decided. Now imagine a powerful demon able to look into the man's head and quickly deduce that he would eventually choose to go to the left. Meanwhile the man, whose mind works much more slowly than the demon's, hasn't completed the thought process yet. He might be saying to himself I haven't decided I'll have to think about it, I'm free to go either way. From his point of view he is in a sense correct, even a robot does not feel like a robot but from the demon's viewpoint it's a different matter, he simply deduced a purely mechanical operation that can have only one outcome. But is it really a purely mechanical operation, what about the uncertainty principal? I don't see how it effects matters one way or another. It says that some things can happen for no cause and thus are truly random, but happenstance is the very opposite of intelligence and even emotion. Things either happen because of cause and effect or they don't and if they don't then they are by definition random and have nothing to due with volition. Those who claim that this is the source of the will must also believe that a nickel has free will when you flip it. This topic muddies the question but does not change it. In my example the demon did not tell the man of his prediction, but now lets pretend he did. Suppose also that the man, being of an argumentative nature, was determined to do the exact opposite of what the demon predicted. Now our poor demon would be in a familiar predicament. Because the demon's decision influences the man's actions the demon must forecast his own behavior, but he will have no better luck in this regard than the man did and for the same reasons. What we would need in a situation like this is a mega-demon able to look into the demon's head. Now the mega-demon would have the problem. As a final variation let's make our demon have an infinite mind. Now our demon would be able to have full self knowledge yet because of the man's decision to be contrary he still can not say what he will do, even if he knows what it is. So under certain circumstances there are some things that even a limitless mind can not do, it can not communicate with us freely. Perhaps we should return to earth now because unlike some esoteric controversies in philosophy this topic has some practical applications. Don't worry that a duplicate of you will not REALLY be you because the copy will feel like a robot, he won't. If the copy thinks you have survived, then you have. Also, in the matter of criminal law the general public and lawyers in particular have some strange ideas about the purpose of punishment. They seem to feel that if someone has derived pleasure in a evil way, it is the law's duty to somehow balance the books by making the lawbreaker suffer. The cliche about man being responsible for his own actions is merely a rationalization for sadism. This leads to endless convoluted irrelevant arguments reminiscent of the medieval one about pins and dancing angles. What was the mental state of the lawbreaker? Did he grow up in a good home as a child? Did he undergo a lot of strain as a adult? Is there anything physically wrong with his brain? Was he in full control of his faculties? And even a question that philosophers fight about to this day "does he know the difference between right and wrong?". Little wonder that the legal system is hopelessly backlogged. The only logical or moral reason for punishing a wrongdoer is to prevent a similar crime from happening; it's the difference between justice and vengeance. Making an evil person suffer just for the fun of seeing him in pain is pointless and cruel, after all a bad man suffers just as intensely as a good man. It would seem to me that everything, and I mean absolutely everything, happens because of cause and effect OR it does not happen because of cause and effect. If it is the first then it’s mechanistic and if it’s the second then it is by definition random, I don’t see any third possibility. So if people have “Free Will” then so does a cuckoo clock or a pair of dice. Actually I think Free Will is one of those ideas that is so bad it’s not even wrong. John K Clark

Random means nothing can predict it, and Hawking said God not only plays dice he sometimes throws them where they can’t be seen. John K Clark [email protected]

I’ll tell you if human beings have “free will” or not just as soon as somebody explains to me what on earth the term could possibly mean. Everything, absolutely everything, happens because of cause and effect and is mechanistic OR it does not happen because of cause and effect and is random. Free will is an idea so bad it’s not even wrong, just gibberish. John K Clark [email protected]