|
Post by Mielu on Aug 12, 2005 14:27:52 GMT
The limb moved first. It proves that our sensation of conscious control is either partially or wholly illusory. It proves that some of the processes happening within the nervous system are not under conscious control for most individuals; again, there are people who can control a lot more than you would imagine. I think the most important point is: the fact that some things happen automatically doesn't mean all are automatic; there is simply no premise for that conclusion. Nobody said consciousness is an all-or-nothing matter. By 'logical' I mean exactly what you're describing below: a structure that is used to generate statements about a particular topic in the same way that, say, mathematics and physics generate theorems. All that is based on Aristotelian logic. Not flawed, just limited. Like many other well-designed models, it has its area of applicability, and it falls short of addressing some issues. Most, if not all, models have this problem, and that doesn't make them less useful. The classical example is Newtonian mechanics: it addresses a lot of the phenomena of the real world very well, and that's why it's still widely used; but it fails to explain some things, and that's why newer theories had to be introduced, for example, for the sub-atomic level. The current models also fail (or will fail) to describe some stuff, so they will be replaced by others. This doesn't mean they're bad; you just have to recognize the limits of the applicability of a model to be able to evolve. And besides, I'm not saying you should try to improve your model; I'm saying that there's a part of the human mind that cannot be described by any logical model. You're not starting from nothing; you're starting with a set of axioms or principles. Those starting points are cleverly chosen so that they can form the building blocks for a system that is useful in describing reality. But in themselves, they're nothing more than educated guesses, or, in your terms, 'groundless assumptions'. There's no logical chain of inference that leads to them; they are the origin of all the other inferences that form the theory. How do they get there in the first place? Some will say 'through a conscious decision' ;D. It all boils down to a conscious (sic) choice: you choose to believe in the axioms of your model, I choose to believe there are things that cannot be covered by a model.
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 12, 2005 19:40:39 GMT
I don't think the fact that some people can do strange things with their bodies adds much to this discussion. You're right that just because some things are demonstrably automatic it doesn't mean that all things are automatic, but I don't know of any things that are demonstrably non-automatic. When I said I start from nothing, that was a little white lie, because I have to assume certain physical features of the universe. I have to assume things at the quantum level about the atoms and molecules in the brain, I have to assume things relating to the chemical and electrical activity there, and I don't have much to say about things like memory and visual sensations. However, I am very confident in my theories about free will, consciousness, and the soul. My ideas on free will are basically taken from evolutionary psychology, so are powerfully backed-up by the theory of evolution. I think that the hierarchial representation of behaviours is demonstrably accurate. The "selfish genes" are at the root of it all. My latest theory about consciousness uses a comparison with vision. When we "see" something, we feel as though the experience takes place where the thing we're looking at is, when in fact the experience takes place spatially in the brain. Likewise, when we touch something, the feelings are "in the fingers" even though it's neurons firing in the brain that cause it. We feel as if our consciousness is somehow separate to our bodies. Some people envisage a "soul" existing separate to the body, that mysteriously floats out of the body when we die. I believe that consciousness is no more remote that sight or touch. I believe that even if we do have souls, they exist as a consequence of the physical brain, so when the brain dies, the soul "dies" too. Btw, do you ever have cause to use AI techniques in your work? [This is a question to mielu, but other people can answer it if they want to ]
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 12, 2005 21:53:32 GMT
Sadly, no... not really. I have occasionally used some heuristics to handle complex system behaviours, but that doesn't qualify as AI. No neural networks, that's for sure ;D.
I have a question about your level of confidence in your theories: are you very confident that they are the absolute truth, that is, that they exactly and completely describe the real thing? Or are you confident that they are useful as tools in your quest to learn more about the subject, but they are, after all, nothing more than models, that is, a representation of something that might be much more complex in reality?
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 13, 2005 10:42:51 GMT
I certainly don't think it's the absolute truth. The model is abstract and essentially non-biological, and supported more by macroscopic observation than microscopic knowledge. It's a framework to explain human behaviour and motivation, both individual and collective. My confidence derives from the accuracy of the predictions it makes, not from my limited knowledge of the biology.
I posted about my theories in another forum, and the people there were quite sympathetic to it. In fact, they were more interested in talking about one of the implications to society of there being no free will, namely, the issue of responsibility. The question was: should we punish people for their crimes if they can't control their actions? What are your thoughts on this (I've got a response to it)?
|
|
|
Post by Frosty on Aug 13, 2005 11:23:59 GMT
Very interesting thoughts Penguin. If you were right and that there was no free will, then clearly people are still taking into account the rules and laws of the society. Whether they do it 100% consciously or not is I suppose what we are debating here. I suppose among others, it could be the self-preservation instinct (or fear of punishment) that make people try to fit in to the society. If all punishments (even things like social isolation) were removed altogether then I believe more people would simply start committing crimes. (which kind of proves your point)
I still think that there must be at least some decisions where free will is involved. It could be that you're right that none of them are 100% free, in that other instinctive factors are being taken into account without your awareness. However I believe that in some decisions the free will prevails and it can be executed. Whether this is true free will I don't know.
For example most people could not probably commit suicide even if they wanted to.
On another point. This half a second delay doesn't necessarily prove your theory though. It could be that the self-awareness/free will brain activity is not measurable by current techonlogy. Perhaps it is controlled in such a tiny area of the brain or it is not using the "normal" signaling system. Perhaps this are of the the brain is your "soul" and it will be discovered in the future.
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 13, 2005 15:37:58 GMT
I certainly don't think it's the absolute truth. The model is abstract and essentially non-biological, and supported more by macroscopic observation than microscopic knowledge. It's a framework to explain human behaviour and motivation, both individual and collective. My confidence derives from the accuracy of the predictions it makes, not from my limited knowledge of the biology. Could you give us an example of the accuracy with which the model can predict actions like, say, Jigsaw's example ('I'll either post or I won't')? Is there a documented study that went into so much detail of the behaviour of a specific individual to be able to actually predict all of that person's actions? To me, it looks like this: We're living inside a very complex system mainly composed of the physical world and the human society. In order to merely survive within this system, we have to do a lot of things that are direct consequences of the inputs that are given to us; this is to accomodate the system, which supports our lives. But now and then, somebody will do something totally unexpected, something that nobody else could predict using any kind of model. When that happens, disciples of MrTP will look at that event with a condescending eye and, with the benefit of hindsight, will say something like: 'Yeah... of course you know there was this hidden X factor that deterministically produced this behaviour'. The problem is nobody really knew that factor existed, it just appeared there mainly to make the model conform to reality. This is an age-long method of scientific study: when the experimental results are not according to the theory, then clearly the experimental results are somehow corrupted and must be adjusted. I'm only bantering here, of course, most of science doesn't work that way, but the initial question remains valid in my opinion. I think there's an easy answer to this: from the point of view of the society, punishing crimes is not a question of whether they were based on free will or not, but an issue of protecting the system from 'components' that behave erratically. If the behaviour affects the fabric of society, then the system will react to protect itself, and inherently the rest of its parts.
|
|
|
Post by Dario on Aug 14, 2005 4:47:11 GMT
God, I thought this topic was dead, and now i come back and i have so damn much to read. Well, I have just finished reading it all (though without thinking too much). Its not that im mrP disciple but I agree with most of his thoughts. Let me add something from a different point of view: If you could travel back in time, and assume you won't make any kind of changes to the past, being just a watcher, don't you think you will see people doing exactly the same things they have done in the "other past"?. If real free will existed, then woulnd't at least 1 person in the whole world (not considering the time traveller) be doing something different from what they have done in the "other past"? I belive that randomness does not exist, every thing happens because something caused it, and even if something appears to have a degree of randomness, I am SURE there was a factor that we couldn't see. (and with caps I mean that nothing that i know will change my mind on that thought). Free will would be a random factor, right? even under exactly the same conditions a person would still be able to choose a different thing. I can bet that if there was a way to create 2 identical twins (not necesarilly human) that could exist in the same time and space (therefore both being affected by exactly teh same factors) both of them would do exactly the same things at the exactly the same times. Why can I assume that?, because there is no proof of randomness and we are just another (very very very very very very complex) conjunction of phisical fenomenum, hence there is no free will. Why things happened in the way they did?: because they coulnd't have happened in other way. Of course, if you take this too seriously, you may end killing yourself or screwing up your life. So I "choose" to live as if I had free will. To show my point again: if we could create a world EXACTLY like the world where I wrote the first post about this, well, that other me would have written the same thing, and the others would have answered the same things. ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by Leoric on Aug 14, 2005 8:53:32 GMT
What do you think about parallel universes then? let's think like this: if we split the time in infinite small parts, and think that another multiversum is born in every part. So new parallel universes are born all the time side by side, where everything is like in others except that in the current "worldline" you made the other choice that you made in another worldline. So you basically change the worldline all the time, and move like a quantum, where it's impossible to define the speed or coordinates at the same time. (like a quantum byte that is 1 and 0 at the same time, thus moving in impossible coordinates to us at the moment, that is) So if you get back in time, it won't affect the current worldline, but an other, and thus we can get rid of the paradoxes that exists in time travel. So, does the free will exist in this model? since every choice and every thing that has lead you to make the current choice has happened and currently happens as the world gets split every moment. I was sure that I won't take part in philosophical conversations in this board, but apparently it seems so that now I have. Does this have anything to do with free will?
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 14, 2005 10:50:16 GMT
FrostyYes, it could well be that there are mechanisms in the brain that we don't know about, where free will could be rooted, but until we find 'em, we can only work with what we've got. Suicide is a very strange (and very human) phenomenom. I can understand it when someone old and weak who has procreated does it, but when someone young does it it's confusing. It's confusing because it seems to fly in the face of the most basic instincts of them all: to survive and procreate. I said earlier that pleasure/pain is what enforces the hierarchy - if someone's life is too full of pain to be bearable, perhaps that overcomes the said base urges? If someone gives their live to save others, then that can be explain by the selfish gene theory. I think that when people commit crimes, they're striking a balance between the thrill of the crime and its rewards (eg, a new free TV), and the risk of capture and the effects on the victims. There are other factors too, but this is the essence of it. mieluThe hierarchial aspect (done by Maslow for me ) is widely respected and has existed for half a century without anyone showing it to be wrong. To actually predict a persons actions, we'd have to know and process so much data that it would be realistically impossible to do it. Instead, we can only make educated guesses based on what we do know. I agree with your summary of life on Earth for humans, but I disagree with the bit about my theory's reactions to "unpredictable" things. First of all, unpredictable things happen in nature: we don't know when there'll be an earthquake, or when there'll be a flu epidemic, etc. There are also causes for uncertainty in the human world, for example when someone goes mad. I think the situation you're getting at is where a sane person does something seemingly at loggerheads with his hierarchy of needs. What you've found here is the exception that proves the rule that the theory is a generalisation, not a full and exact description. This uncertainty in the things I said in the previous paragraph. My response to the guilt, responsibility, and punishment question is that those things are as much part of the "system" as crime is. They are all behaviours with evolutionary origins. As you said, they're self-repair mechanisms for the whole. darioHehe, I wondered where you'd gone I'm glad that you agree with me and I also glad that you aren't a "MrP yes-man", that is, that you don't think I'm always right about everything. I agree with your time-travel comment, although I prefer to use the example of a re-started universe. If there was another big bang identical to the previous one, then I think the universe would unfold in exactly the same way, atom for atom. A problem with this theory is that it seems to be contradicted by the existence of quantum probabilities. My response is that there is a deterministic mechanism at work that we haven't discovered yet. I say that because, like you, I don't like the idea of there being genuine randomness at work. There are lots of stories of identical twins who, separated at birth, are re-united as adults and have lots and lots of things in common (same job, same clothes, same watch, etc.) This rubbishes the liberal idea of babies being "blank sheets of paper". There's no point living, but there's no point dying either, so you might as well carry on living LéoricInteresting theory, but I don't think it affects whether or not humans have free will. If it's true, then we are all members of one worldline. I have a strong feeling that I am "me" - do the zillions of others me's all have that same feeling, and if yes, is one of the me's the "main me"? Welcome to the thread
|
|
|
Post by MasterTool on Aug 14, 2005 12:00:26 GMT
Haha! ;D What Leoric just wrote was part of our discussion at friday night after few biers, glasses of red wine and couple of shots of Napoleon brandy, yes we we're getting drunk Our discussion did never reach it's end and now U have made it public!, at the place U sayed U had no interest to write, but where U we're reading discussions and dialogues almost every day, like myself, so welcome aboard friend!
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 14, 2005 20:53:32 GMT
If you could travel back in time, and assume you won't make any kind of changes to the past, being just a watcher, don't you think you will see people doing exactly the same things they have done in the "other past"?. This depends on your view of space-time, not on free will and consciousness. It's a thought experiment that can go in many widely different directions, as there are a few meaningful models of space-time, and the results in each of them would be different. I also tend to think that there is a deterministic model that can accomodate a pretty good part of what we call reality, but I don't think that's all there is out there. I want to underline the fact that both your opinion and mine are just beliefs, nothing more - neither are logical conclusions derived from some premises. This is an inference based on the axiom outlined above (everything can be described deterministically). If you choose to accept that premise, then indeed, the conclusion follows logically; I don't.
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 14, 2005 21:17:47 GMT
Leoric: I think your post could generate a whole new thread of discussion, as this is indeed a very interesting topic as well. I happen to share your preference for the space-time theory you outlined; there are a few others that sound coherent enough for me, but this is one that I think deals with the issue of paradoxes in a pretty elegant way. I think it was a science fiction book that gave me similar ideas . But, on the issue of free will, I agree with MrTPenguin: I think the acceptance of this space-time theory doesn't influence the ideas one might have about the human mind - it could go either way. From what MasterTool says, it seems it had something to do with a certain quantity of alcohol; maybe that unleashed the free will ;D.
|
|
|
Post by Frosty on Aug 14, 2005 21:29:15 GMT
From what MasterTool says, it seems it had something to do with a certain quantity of alcohol; maybe that unleashed the free will ;D. LOL - in that case, see the following country ranking list of "the most free willed nations in the world." www.nationmaster.com/graph-B/hea_alc_con
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 15, 2005 0:38:34 GMT
To actually predict a persons actions, we'd have to know and process so much data that it would be realistically impossible to do it. Instead, we can only make educated guesses based on what we do know. So... where's 'the accuracy of the predictions' ? Yes, and that simply means we don't have working models for those phenomena. We can assume that we might get some in the not so distant future. The reason I think we can safely make that assumption for, say, earthquakes, is that lots of similar mechanical problems have been successfully addressed using very accurate models in the past. But the mind?... We're barely scratching the surface of this area; I think there's really no reasonable assumption to make about the possibility of obtaining a model for it. Which leaves you with the choice to just believe (as in 'religious belief' ) that it's possible; but for now, I fail to see any rigorous reasoning behind such a belief. Surprisingly enough, I think there's some logical reasoning behind the belief that a complete model of the mind is not possible. Think about Gödel's incompleteness theorem, or Turing's theorem of the undecidability of the halting problem. Those are both about systems trying to somehow issue statements about themselves, and failing at it. If your theory were to be true, then you would have exactly the same situation: a system (the brain) issuing statements about itself. What do you think about how this would work? I really don't have the energy to go into detail on this right now, but I've found a good place that contains quite a few relevant links to the problems mentioned above: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barber_paradox During the history of science, it was precisely such exceptions that led to the recognition of the limits of theories. This is what I meant by your theory being 'not flawed, just limited', and it's why I see no reason to believe it can describe all of the human mind.
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 15, 2005 0:51:00 GMT
Good one Frosty Note that there's no data for Romania - we must be off the charts .
|
|