Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

neolithic

Regulars
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

neolithic's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. I have a sneaking suspicion that we have been arguing similar points. Succinctly volition means this to me: Given full knowledge of the state of every particle in my body and interacting particles, I could do something other than what is predicted by a complete theory of physics. I think another important difference is that I believe consciousness comes in degrees. I do not believe that it is an all or nothing thing that once you hit a certain level of sophistication, it "pops" into being. We see this in the lower species in dogs who have separation anxiety and elephants morning the death of one of their own. I do not believe these are anthropomorphisms either, but instead are evidence that the light inside us has a dimmer switch.
  2. This is also a good point. There is a lot of semantic baggage when using these terms. In a quantum mechanical sense, our universe as we currently understand it is non-deterministic. This is microscopic uncertainty is wholly different than the macroscopic determinism we are talking about . From a QM perspective, you can only know states of a particle with a given probability, not with absolute certainty. As such any predictions made on a system are inherently probabilistic, and not deterministic in a mathematical sense. However, whatever the state a particle actually ends up assuming does fully determine what the system does. This is what I am saying when I mean determinism. Entanglements are resolved, momentum and position finalized when a measurement or observation is made, and thus the system is continues on based on these results. Incidentally, there is some suspicion that QM uncertainty is just an approximation of deeper model that excludes these probabilistic issues, but that's really a separate issue. Perhaps God does not play dice after all?
  3. It certainly does set humans apart! We are comprised of matter to be sure, but no where else have we ever observed matter arranged in such a way. It ain't the meat, it's the motion! In other words, it's not what we're made of, but how it is arranged. So far as we have observed there is no other arrangement of matter that can monitor itself with such extensibility and plasticity as we can. This arrangement doesn't imbue any supernatural powers though, it doesn't permit downward causality, and fundamentally it is all still particle physics. However, as you move up through different hierarchies of matter (think about the differences between atoms, molecules, proteins, cells, flies, mice, dogs, apes, people), there emerge certain abstract patterns that appear to have their own causal forces. The primacy of 641 from the link I posted is a good one. It is in fact a very good short hand for us to use these labels, such as hunger, hate, hostile, and hungover to describe the states of certain complex systems. Think about the contents of a balloon. Is it useful for us, at this point in our understanding, to describe the contents of the balloon in terms of particle physics? To gain a full understanding one would have to necessarily incorporate every particle in the universe! Instead we politely agree that temperature, pressure, and volume suffice. These are patterns that emerge from the lower particle physics level and confer information at a level we can deal with. It doesn't change however, that those patterns are the direct outcomes from the particle physics level, and not vica versa. As I was saying, the reflexivity of our pattern has not yet been observed else where in nature, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't be. I think that we are in the middle of another paradigm shift as a species, as we have been many times before. With each successive shift, we move ourselves further and further away from the center of existence but closer to true understanding. There are always growing pains, but I believe we will adapt and incorporate this knowledge eventually.
  4. I encourage all of my friends to read it and I hope you enjoy. It isn't what you would expect it to be. It is amazing in it's depth and clarity but it is also profoundly personal. He tragically lost his wife to cancer in the early 90s which forced him to reevaluate if he really believed all of these ideas. Difficult philosophies are remarkably easier to hold during the good times, but it is when we are at our lowest we can see how willing we are to believe what we say we do. If you've ever read any Christian apologetics, the passages discussing the loss of his wife remind me of a materialistic version of C.S. Lewis's "A Grief Observed". I find both works fascinating, but for very different reasons. This is well said and I agree with it 100%.
  5. This is easily one of the most productive posts I have seen here on this topic, and not one that is easily answered. Why do they write books like this? Scientific compulsion. We are all searching for some sort of explanation for the "how" and "why" of the universe. This is their best attempt. I do not think they see it as the obliteration of the human condition, but rather a more profound understanding of it. This isn't some modern form of evangelical nihilism. I started writing a lengthy reply here, but I found a blog (I know, yuck) post that includes some key excerpts from Hofstadter's I am a strange loop. I think you will be surprised with how many points you agree. http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.com/2...ogy-part-2.html I imagine that the language in the passages included may make some of you say "well you do agree with us!" Unfortunately there is some slight context dropping on the page above, though not intentionally. Everything that we call "free will", intentionality, personal caustion, dreams, desires, etc is just semantic shorthand, though sometimes an indispensable one, for what is happening at the lower levels. I'm not sure that was entirely clear from the website I posted. Hope this helps.
  6. I'm not sure about others, but here is a list of authors who I feel have led to my views: Determinists with whom I agree: Douglas Hofstadter - I am a strange loop, GEB, some stuff out of Metamagical Themas Derek Parfit - Reasons and Persons Daniel Dannet - Where Am I?, The Mind's I (coedited by Hofstadter), Consciousness explained Stephen Wolfram - A New Kind of Science And Laplace, of course Non-determinists with whom I disagree and have subsequently reinforced my deterministic beliefs: Martin Gardner - Check out "The Whys of Philosophical Scrivener" Ayn Rand (obviously) Kant And Descartes, of course Yes, I know the people on the "with whom I agree" list are not the giants of philosophy like the ones on the "with whom I disagree" list are. Most of the people I agree with are Cognitive Scientists, Computer Scientists (these first two are my fields), and Physicists so it's not surprising that we share a very materialistic view of the world. To us, it's all just particle physics, from which higher level patterns emerge. Yes, these patterns are loopy, have feedback to the lower levels, which make them stranger still, but there is no "downward" causality happening here. An understanding on the level of the Standard Model is all one needs to predict the system's behavior, one doesn't need to "ask it" what it is going to do.
  7. You are right, this has been talked to death. I just want to clear up one thing. From your perspective (Objectivism), one's will is "free" if an action happens that is not directly determined by physical law. Is this the correct definition? Whenever I hear "free will" (which is probably too loaded a term for me to use now) I imagine some sort of non-physical soul watching from the ether pulling puppet strings. It's hard for me to attach any sort of reasonable imagery to it.
  8. Understood, and it is of course incompatible with Objectivism. I'm always confused about this part of Objectivism as well, maybe it just means my epistemology is weak. It seems to me like free will is the new God. People passionately dislike the notion of existence without it, claim life has no meaning in it's absence, and will defend it with their dying breath. I'm also confused in a semantic sense. What does it mean for a will to be "free"? If it is more than sum of physical interactions, would a person under identical physical conditions make a different choice if the scenario was replayed multiple times? If it isn't guided by physical law, does a "real" choice happen in some sort of ether wholly outside our physical universe? If it doesn't, then what some are suggesting is that the universe "waits" for us to make a decision, and then that decision is manifested in resulting physical interactions. If true intelligence is created in silico (which is a deterministic system), would it simply be a simulation and not the real McCoy?
  9. Does the appeal of a conclusion make it any more or less true?
  10. Hi all, I don't post here often, but this is a subject that is near and dear to me. There seems to be a bit of confusion in this thread, especially in regards to the threads original question. The thread is asking should we? For some insight into the should (as well as the could) check out: http://singinst.org/media/interviews However, the harder question I believe is the could we? There are quite a few excellent sources on this. One of my favorite authors is Douglas Hofstadter, who is featured in one of the presentations above. For an overarching exploration through consciousness, analogy, art, perception, AI, formal logic, and the human experience read the Pulitzer Prize winning classic "Goedel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid". For a more succinct and updated version, check out "I Am A Strange Loop". Both are fantastic works of literature and insightful to the topics mentioned here. Kurzweil is a decent source as well, and provides a bit more rigor (and sensationalism) when considering the could question. For arguments against artificial consciousness read anything by John Searle (the originator of the now famous "Chinese Room" argument) or Hubert Dreyfus. For the original argument for strong AI, you can always read the original paper by Turing, which remains compelling and highly readable, even today: http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html I can put neither should nor could in terms of Objectivist ethics, but I hope the references are helpful. Best
  11. I know I'm new but I would appreciate it if we could avoid loaded questions; I hope we can keep it purely academic. I am certainly aware of the mental effort required in thinking and that is a perspective I have not considered. I would like to think it over to avoid a knee jerk reaction. I think however that the race car analogy isn't quite right though. What I am saying is that if we have a choice it's not that we don't know how the mechanism works, its that there could be no mechanism at all because at least part of you would have to exist outside of reality in order to avoid its influence. It seems to me to be similar to *braces for impact* to the concept most people have of god in that it seems reasonable though is inherently inexplicable. Please note I'm not accusing anyone of being intellectually shallow but that was the only analogy I could think of. Best, Andrew
  12. Hello All, I don't mean to hijack this thread nor to engage in a one versus one or one versus many debate. I used to read these forums regularly but have not visited as often as I once did. I would like to read all 45 pages of this thread to catch up but that is in no way practical. I simply have some things that neither I nor my friends have been able to find any way around concerning determinism and would greatly appreciate your thoughts. I find that I fall into neither the freewill nor the determinism camp. First let me be frank; I do not believe we have any choice what so ever. However, this does not mean we are predetermined, it simply means we have no say in the matter. This position is made possible by Quantum Mechanic randomness. I would also like to state however, that on a macro scale I do not believe Q.M. to cause anomalousness behavior in a statistically significant way (e.g. in a computer you won't see enough Q.M. randomness to cause a single bit to flip unpredictably) but still would mean that we are in essence, non-deterministic. Why does this matter? While the Q.M. difference no longer matters on a large scale such as our brains, it once did. If you had a complete working knowledge of physics and all conditions were known right after the big bang (I'm not saying this is possible, but it is useful for this thought experiment) then you could not predict that I would be typing this right now, you could however assign a probability to it. If however you had the same knowledge of physics and all known conditions 10,000 years ago, you could with relative certainty. So this leads to a hybrid version of determinism, which admittedly is very much closer to pure determinism than free will, but still can not be called pure determinism because even though it is very unlikely we can still behave in a non-deterministic way. First I'll tell you a little about my education and literature exposure so you don't promptly send me off to read OPAR et all. I'm a senior in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, and Electrical Engineering so in your responses feel free to use the language of Physics, Math, Theory of Computability, and Philosophy freely and often; I've had significant exposure to it all. My exposure to Objectivism is also considerable; I've read The Fountainhead and AS multiple times, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, OPAR, this message board, AynRand.org (including online lectures and nearly all of the op-eds), and most interviews Rand gave that are available online. If I have read all of this you may be asking yourself why I am confused. The answer is simple and will probably seem blasphemous to dyed in the wool Objectivists; I think Rand's proof of volition is glib. I think she fundamentally fails to analyze how a choice is made (but more on that later). Any finally to my questions. I would very much like to find myself wrong and would appreciate you all destroying my points in scientifically sound manner. 1) The proposition of god notwithstanding, there was no choice in the big bang. It was a purely physical phenomenon happening under the restraint of physics. Then hydrogen clouds formed, condensed and produced stars, the factories that manufactured the heavier elements. This all continued until matter organized itself into a patterns known as cells and physics continued in a manner we have described as evolution. When then did the universe stop being behaving in a way that is completely dictated by physics? Is there a certain level of organization that is immune from physics? If so are the levels of immunity tiered or is it a plateau? 2) This question is very much the same as the first but from a different perspective. If there is a choice where does it take place? If it takes solely in the brain, how can it not be a physics subordinate? If it does not take place in the brain, then I am truly at a loss. Now to my problem with Rand's logic. To her this entire post is moot because in order to investigate volition I had to choose to do so. However, a computer investigates how proteins fold but it has not chosen to do so, it is simply a product of software (in our case learned from experience) and hardware. Fundamentally and computationally we are no different from a computer. Now you say, but how did you learn those things? - you chose to do so. Even that is being a bit glib; evolution has hardwired me with goals that I am not completely aware of which intern has lead me to want to learn things. Because we are so complex our "software" is no very transparent, so admittedly this is difficult to do. I think you take a choice down to its most fundamental level you will see this too. If this has been covered previously in this thread or elsewhere, kindly point me in the right direction and I'll come back when I'm flummoxed. I look forward to your considered responses. Happy Hunting! Best, Andrew
  13. The length is 6-8 minutes so I can't expound too long on any one issue. If anyone has any particularly striking or memorable quotes from the founding fathers or directly from our legal framework that would help me, I would appreciate your suggestion.
  14. Greetings, I have to give a persuasive speech for my Public Speaking class and I have chosen to do it on the proper role of Government in a free society. It is an extemperaneous speech so there will not be any explict form of it written, but I would appreciate your comments on my the topics and points I intend to make. Speech Outline: 1) Intro - Why do men need government at all? - Protect Individual rights - Legal Monopoly on force 2) What is the proper role of Government? - Define and uphold objectively defined laws - Protection from domestic violence (i.e. non-foreign) - Protection from foreign violence 3) Examples of Government misuse - Unwieldly and bloated tax-system - Welfare - Defining and endorsing religious functions - Creationism in schools - Defining marriage - NASA 4) Conclusion Obviously my speech is still in its infancy so I will ask again when it is nearer to completion. I intend to argue that our current Government has long since over-stepped its proper bounds that were laid forth in the Constitution. I intend to cite the founding fathers directly, the Constitution, Rand's Essay "The Nature of Government" from The Virtue of Selfishness, and perhaps a pro-capitalist source. I would appreciate input as to whether you all think I am missing any crucial points (I have a feeling that you will) but bare in mind that this is a very rough sketch, merely something to get the ball rolling. At the conclusion we are should have a what our teacher calls "A call to action". I am not really sure what the best way to go about that is as in this context I would be happy just to change a few peoples minds. Our teach insists that physical action must be called for. What would you all suggest?
  15. Thanks again everyone. Convincing others isn't a major priority for me right now. I am 20, so what I am more concerned with is making sure my philisophical foundation is firm, others be damned. The only reason me and my brother entered into a debate is because he asked me, not the other way around. I am glad he did however, as it reminded my foundation is not set yet. Since I am currently pursuing 3 engineering degrees venturing far enough into biology to take a class on evolution simply is not possible. I was hoping that there would be a comprehensive book (a bible, if you will) on modern evolutionary biology that would help fill my holes. I see now that it will not be that simple. but I will continue to further my understanding.
×
×
  • Create New...