Determinism Is Self Defeating

[little_monkey]

Insisting that all philosophical issues be filtered through the scientific process pretty much defines "begging the question," since as Joe pointed out, science is pretty much founded on physical determinism.

I think you're too focus on humans and their alleged free will. You need to pull back and look at the big picture. There's nothing that sentient beings like us - living on a rock, in one solar system, out of millions of stars in a galaxy, which is one of gazillions in the universe - can do to affect the fate of the universe, which is basically determined. So if the 99.9999999999999999999999....% of this universe is determined, and you insist that whatever is not is more important, then fine, you're entitled to your opinion.

Joe

[Koolay]

It's really not complex guys.

Determinists fail their own test of logic. People that believe in Free Will do not.

Their next response is typically "Well, we are trying to change your mind, not because we recognise you have free will, but that we are programmed to try and change your mind" Well, that's a pretty good cop out for failing your own test of logic by creating a concept unbound by reason or evidence.

If determinism is self admittedly impossible to confirm or deny by the determinist, why even bother talking about it then? Should we have these conversations about everything we imagine but can never verify? "In another universe that we can never get to, all planets are ontop of a giant floating turtle. Discuss."

[Red Celt]

It's really not complex guys.

Determinists fail their own test of logic. People that believe in Free Will do not.

Their next response is typically "Well, we are trying to change your mind, not because we recognise you have free will, but that we are programmed to try and change your mind" Well, that's a pretty good cop out for failing your own test of logic by creating a concept unbound by reason or evidence.

If determinism is self admittedly impossible to confirm or deny by the determinist, why even bother talking about it then? Should we have these conversations about everything we imagine but can never verify? "In another universe that we can never get to, all planets are ontop of a giant floating turtle. Discuss."

Koolay, do you still have the boxes that your PC and assorted peripherals came in? If so, unplug everything and put them all back in their various boxes. Take them all back to where you bought them and leave them on the Returns Desk with a post-it note attached:-

"Sorry, but I'm too fucking stupid to be allowed anywhere near the internet."

Then go back home and keep that bubble of stupidity that you inhabit very clearly confined to your more immediate surroundings.

Y'welcome.

[pocaracas]

It's really not complex guys.

Determinists fail their own test of logic. People that believe in Free Will do not.

Their next response is typically "Well, we are trying to change your mind, not because we recognise you have free will, but that we are programmed to try and change your mind" Well, that's a pretty good cop out for failing your own test of logic by creating a concept unbound by reason or evidence.

If determinism is self admittedly impossible to confirm or deny by the determinist, why even bother talking about it then? Should we have these conversations about everything we imagine but can never verify? "In another universe that we can never get to, all planets are ontop of a giant floating turtle. Discuss."

If indeterminism is true, then how can we verify it?
Why is it that indeterminists only pick cases where the system is so complex that no computer available today could hold the geometry of that system, let alone process how it works?
For any simple enough system, we can develop even simpler models that can be computed and the results of such computations approximate extremely well the observed behavior of that system. This is a horizontal observation from the tiniest of systems to the largest.... they can be determined, provided the models used are valid. (electron orbits around nucleus; planets/comet orbits around stars)

If a human mind does not deterministically arise from the workings of the brain, then the same should happen with a simpler brain and mind, like that of a fly, or an ant.... even these are so complex that we can't model.
So... what is a small enough brain that we can model to show a direct link between brain function and "mental activity"?


Maybe... just maybe, we are not the fist group of people with this idea...

This book (Neural Networks And Animal Behavior) seems very interesting.. too bad a lot of pages are missing from this google books preview:
http://books.google.pt/books?id=YGLuAdRd...&q&f=false


Then we have a nice paper, of which I can only read the abstract but that also sounds very interesting:
Neural Networks That Mimic the Human Brain: Turing Machines versus Machines That Generate Conscious Sensations

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10....0-0_97.pdf

Abstract

This paper shows that neural-net based machines may be designed to mimic the consciousness-sensations generated by the human brain. It is shown that the standard definition of biological modalities of the tactile and visual receptors, coupled with the law of specific nerve energy, leads to a fundamental relationship that relates human subjective experiences, or consciousness, to explicit neuronal activity. Such a relationship is a giant leap forward in the study of consciousness since it converts the parameters of consciousness, which have never been amenable to mathematical calculations, into mathematically calculable functions.

or this one
A hybrid neural network model for consciousness
http://www.zju.edu.cn/jzus/article.php?d....2004.1440

Abstract: A new framework for consciousness is introduced based upon traditional artificial neural network models. This framework reflects explicit connections between two parts of the brain: one global working memory and distributed modular cerebral networks relating to specific brain functions. Accordingly this framework is composed of three layers, physical mnemonic layer and abstract thinking layer, which cooperate together through a recognition layer to accomplish information storage and cognition using algorithms of how these interactions contribute to consciousness: (1) the reception process whereby cerebral subsystems group distributed signals into coherent object patterns; (2) the partial recognition process whereby patterns from particular subsystems are compared or stored as knowledge; and (3) the resonant learning process whereby global workspace stably adjusts its structure to adapt to patterns’ changes. Using this framework, various sorts of human actions can be explained, leading to a general approach for analyzing brain functions.

So... it seems models do exist and whatdoyouknow?!... they do seem to mimic some mental functions.
If simple models which are already available can mimic mental functions, why Can you accept that more complex models can mimic more complex mental functions?
Ultimately, this means that the entire human mind can be modeled, given enough computing power (not yet available) and, as such, is indeed deterministic.

[genkaus]

It's really not complex guys.

Determinists fail their own test of logic. People that believe in Free Will do not.

Their next response is typically "Well, we are trying to change your mind, not because we recognise you have free will, but that we are programmed to try and change your mind" Well, that's a pretty good cop out for failing your own test of logic by creating a concept unbound by reason or evidence.

If determinism is self admittedly impossible to confirm or deny by the determinist, why even bother talking about it then? Should we have these conversations about everything we imagine but can never verify? "In another universe that we can never get to, all planets are ontop of a giant floating turtle. Discuss."

Here is undeniable proof of determinism right here.

If humans had free-will, then Koolay having read all the logical refutations of his inane argument as well as how the debate had gone beyond that level and would've chosen to come up with a better argument.

Instead, he is simply following his programming that condemns him to be stupid and reposting the old refuted argument once again 13 pages later. What else could it be other than determinism at play.

[little_monkey]

Determinists fail their own test of logic. People that believe in Free Will do not.

Can you change the course of the universe and whatever its ultimate end will be?

I think not.

In the end, the universe will be whatever it is already destined to be, regardless of what you think, feel or want.

Sure you might think you can change your own destiny. But whatever you do, one could always claim you were destined to do that. And you can argue that point. But in terms of the universe, you can't make that same argument as you can't do anything about the fate of the universe.

[bennyboy]

Determinists fail their own test of logic. People that believe in Free Will do not.

Can you change the course of the universe and whatever its ultimate end will be?

I think not.

In the end, the universe will be whatever it is already destined to be, regardless of what you think, feel or want.

Sure you might think you can change your own destiny. But whatever you do, one could always claim you were destined to do that. And you can argue that point. But in terms of the universe, you can't make that same argument as you can't do anything about the fate of the universe.

I'm very interested in this argument you're making; it kind of feels like the extension of the statistical combination of an active QM world into the apparent solid stability of a rock. I'm kind of divided between that statistical approach, and a kind of butterfly effect-- wherein EVERY willful act, no matter how tiny, could potentially cascade up into bigger changes-- maybe a species that spreads throughout galaxies and uses future technology to prevent them from spreading apart.

Question: if QM particles come from "empty" space, is there any chance that they can be deliberately drawn from empty space, thereby preventing the cold death of the universe?

/uneducated sci-fi fantasy about how free will saves the universe.

[Zen Badger]

On the matter of a rock falling down a hill

When a rock falls down a hill, there's only one question that needs to be asked in order to determine whether or not we could feasibly predict its path and final destination. And that question is:-

Does the rock obey the laws of physics?

If the answer is "yes", then our ability to predict its path relies solely on our ability to recreate the environment perfectly. If we can, then we can predict the rock's path.

And when I say "perfectly" I really do mean perfectly. If we had a model of the hill at a molecular level, allowing for humidity, air convection and every other item that is controlled by the laws of physics... there is no feasible reason why we couldn't then predict everything that then happens.

If we can't do that, then there is a problem with our method of recording the details, or our computational model.

We could always simplify everything, predicting the path of a dropped ball down a level ramp in an airless chamber. If your argument is one of complexity, then I'd inquire just when (exactly) determinism fails.

If you don't accept all of the above, then I have a simple question for you:-

What is governing the direction of the rock/ball other than the laws of physics? The gentle blowing of a deity? An angel gently flapping its wings? A leprechaun farting?

Just what, exactly, are you proposing if not the material world and (with enough knowledge and computational skills) predictable mechanisms?



"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke (third law of prediction)

---

Oh, and you'd best be careful when using the word "random". Do you know how difficult a concept randomness is? Do you know how a computer generates a random number? Hint: it isn't random.

Let me reiterate for the slow of comprehension.(I'm typing slowly so you can keep up)

Until such a time as you can make predictions that are 100% accurate then determinism is merely a hypothesis.

Do not equate evolution with determinism. They are not even in the same ballpark when it comes to evidence.

[max-greece]

Wow - what a great discussion and I missed it completely.

Strangely I am somewhat open minded on this one - as in I flick from one side to the other depending on....mood I guess.

I suppose the real question is could you produce a model of the universe in its entirety - given enough data and processing power that would mimic the actions of the universe to date?

This is not a predictive issue - as yet - but one that would show what has happened.

The first question in creating such a model would be the start point. I am quite taken with Professor Krauss "universe from nothing" hypothesis. That appears to be based on the idea that nothing(ness) is unstable in a quantum model and sub-particles randomly appear all the time.

As there is no indication that the formation of a universe from that point has to follow any given path until such time as the universal constant is determined (can that vary from one universe to another - at appears that it can - theoretically).

If we were to start from the big bang then modelling should be possible - within limits.

Someone earlier in the thread mentioned the accuracy of Pi as a limiting factor for a model. This is a decent example - and one of many. This could create a cumulative effect throughout the model that would lead to wild divergence with reality over time.

Further - taking the number of waves, particles and sub-particles in the universe and the number of possible pathways for any or all of them along with the various possible interactions between them we may well tend towards the infinite in terms of some of our calculations for the model.

A single infinite in the model and the thing fails.

Basically as I stated I am open minded on this one. If free will is an illusion it is a strong one and with such a complex system of in-differentiable from the real thing.

[little_monkey]

Can you change the course of the universe and whatever its ultimate end will be?

I think not.

In the end, the universe will be whatever it is already destined to be, regardless of what you think, feel or want.

Sure you might think you can change your own destiny. But whatever you do, one could always claim you were destined to do that. And you can argue that point. But in terms of the universe, you can't make that same argument as you can't do anything about the fate of the universe.

I'm very interested in this argument you're making; it kind of feels like the extension of the statistical combination of an active QM world into the apparent solid stability of a rock. I'm kind of divided between that statistical approach, and a kind of butterfly effect-- wherein EVERY willful act, no matter how tiny, could potentially cascade up into bigger changes-- maybe a species that spreads throughout galaxies and uses future technology to prevent them from spreading apart.

Question: if QM particles come from "empty" space, is there any chance that they can be deliberately drawn from empty space, thereby preventing the cold death of the universe?

/uneducated sci-fi fantasy about how free will saves the universe.

In QFT, we postulate that space is permeated with a photon field, an electron field, a quark field, etc. Particles are just ripples in those fields. That's why an electron produced 13.7 billion years ago is the same electron produced today here in our lab or on Alpha Centauri - same mass, same spin, same charge, i.e. totally identical. So, accordingly, "empty" space simply doesn't exist. It is filled with quantum fluctuations. Given the right conditions, pairs of particles/antiparticles can be created - Hawking radiation, Casimir effect, and according to the latest from Krauss, the universe popped out of those q. fluctuations.

The question is, what is Dark Energy? Is it those quantum fluctuations or something totally different. So far, our theories are failing on trying to link these two. We do know that DE is very weak -- you would need to harness it from the whole galaxy to light up a 100-watt lightbulb. It is only noticeable when you start looking at hundred billion galaxies.

So as to your question, until we know what this Dark Energy is, we can't tell if we can use it for any purpose, let alone change the course of the universe. But it could be a nice theme for the next Star Trek movie.