Time Travel, consideration of effects of point alteration

Post Reply New Topic

The behavior of DNA which is hardly microscopic (as compared to sub-atomic particles) cannot be explained by classical physics. Since classical physics cannot even account for stable atoms it can hardly account for molecules large or small.

ruveyn

Interaction between and within a molecule, even as large as DNA which is observable directly, is primarily controlled by electron interactions. Electrons are quantumly determined. Whether DNA is large enough for statistical law of averages to take control of or not, is a bit iffy. So it looks like you two have found the perfect intermediary between the two "worlds" a "bridge" if you will.

I understand that, but compatibilists have a real case against libertarians, even in terms of which notion of free will makes more sense in relationship to human actions. Just read something like Hume's comment about free will and responsibility.

"Actions are, by their very nature, temporary and perishing; and where they proceed not from some cause in the character and disposition of the person who performed them, they can neither redound to his honour, if good; nor infamy, if evil"."

If there is some "uncaused" thing in existence, then it being temporary and perishing means that no person can deserve punishment for this arbitrary thing.



Compatibilism is a different theory on the nature of free will, not just "illusory free will", by labeling it as such, you are stacking the deck for a favor that appeases your intuitions, but in a situation where the sum of all of our free will intuitions can be rather mixed.

So, you are saying to discuss a diamond, I must consider all quartz and zircon to be diamonds too?

I can only see one reason to consider them... and that is to immediately show why they are NOT diamonds. Upon doing so, they may be discounted from further discussion.

If free will is illusionary, there is no point in the continuation of it's discussion beyond the reasons why it is not free will.
Well, i can think of a reason, at least for theists... Because it can be used to justify their god's validity in judging them for their actions - Thus justifying morality, even when such justification does not exist. However, blame, responsibility, and the corollaries of free will are NOT my my interest, rather it is the existence of free will that is my interest. What free will implies is a totally different discussion. What implies free will is what i'm currently discussing.

You do not like me taking such a hard definition of free will, and that's what I don't understand.
I've not hit about 20 to 30 sites discussing the matter, but none have discussed solely the issue of real free will, they essentially try to write off the distinction. If you could explain to me why you think that distinction does not need to be made, it may help.

My claim stands still, "If (true) free will exists, then it can only arise from something that can deviate from the otherwise deterministic universe, Quantum Mechanics, which in turn implies a Quantum brain."
I will also add the corollary that illusionary free will is no different than hard determinism.
I am NOT, because i do not have the science to do so, claiming that that free will exists. Instead i'm saying that I will operate under the assumption it does, until proven otherwise, because of the corollary i stated above and the game-theory logic of Pascal's Wager.

Anyways, I'm back to looking for something that discusses real free will in the compablist framework

Yes, but ruveyn, the real question is the behavior of neurons, and other similar things, and neurons have been shown to work by classical physics due to the fact that the time scales are too large. After all, both size and time are relevant when talking about these things.

No, I am saying that you are discounting a theory covering the same perceived phenomena and accounting for the kinds of problems you are putting forward because you are using a definition that precludes meaningful interaction with these ideas from the onset, and that this is itself a manifestation of deep cognitive biases. That being said, we aren't talking about anything remotely similar to diamonds, we're talking more about theories, and to talk about one theory of let's say macroeconomic policy, we have to consider ALL OTHER theories so that way we can assess the comparative theoretical strengths and weaknesses of each theory.


Umm.... ok, and if free will is compatibilist? Saying "that's just fake free will" isn't a meaningful engagement and any person should recognize that. It is just like saying "I'm sorry, Keynesianism is wrong because I defined it as Marxism and it is therefore wrong".


Your entire justification of free will is the corollaries of free will, as that's why you could invoke some "pascal's wager" nonsense. As for "what implies free will"? You haven't mentioned any foundations, and as it stands, you've shown yourself intellectually bankrupt.


YOU'RE DISMISSING LOADS OF PHILOSOPHY OFFHAND!! I mean... look, if the distinction of "real vs fake" free will were unimportant in how you addressed the subject, then your definition would be irrelevant. However, you are failing to address the other side through dismissing them.


Umm.... compatiblism is a theory of free will. They also think that libertarian free will can't really account for the phenomena of free will, and even label it incoherent at times. That being said, most philosophers are compatibilists, not libertarians, as libertarianism is too ad hoc and compatibilism provides enough of the beliefs they consider having to be worthwhile. Even then, I still wouldn't even dismiss incompatibilism off-hand, as much as you did, as I think you've created this myth and one that is irrelevant to the reality anyway.


Umm.... if by "compatibilism" then it isn't. Hard determinism is the stance that human beings have no free will and thus cannot be responsible for their actions and so on and so forth. Compatibilism is the stance that human beings have free will, that this is compatible with the workings of determinist physics, and that human beings can be responsible and all of the human things we do are completely compatible with determinism.


You mean a steaming pile of BS and nonsense that you use to close your ears because you're afraid of a theory you dislike. Yeah.... sure..... that's not Pascal's wager though, that's just you being a fool.


Umm.... sure. I don't know what you are looking for, compatibilism is a different theory of free will, and one that rejects your theory of free will as silly, and even to some minds, logically incoherent. Unless you are recognizing that and engaging it as a theoretical alternative, you aren't going to get anywhere.

Okay, so here are our alternatives.

Absolute Determinism. I can't change my mind, I don't have control of my mind, it has control of me, and is just a physically deterministic structure like all parts of the of the universe, where the current state is determined by it's earlier state(s) and the states of the rest of it's immediate environment.

So called Compatibolist free will. Where we can "choose" from various possible outcomes, but in fact your ultimate choice was pre-picked based on the exact same criteria as are listed in option 1.

True free will, whereby we can deviate from determinism, via some method. That is, via some method we call free will, we undermine what would otherwise be the deterministic universe.

Under the first two, if we knew every parameter and law of the universe, we could determine the future. Thus the future is already set, and immutable. Under the third, that is not true.

What i'm trying to figure out is why you make any differentiation between the first two? They are the same bloody thing, one just has a warmer-sounding name than the other. But a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, ditto for a pile of dung.

That our minds develop this compatibolist theory of free will is no surprise, from a biological viewpoint, any sentient mind who does so would be much more likely to survive. And memetics would take over at this point.
I won't argue that our minds comprise exactly what you and compatibolists claim... they do.

What i'm saying is one step beyond. And you don't have to agree with it. My logic, i'll show, and i won't use the framework of the wager here, i'll just apply it as straight game theory.

what we decide is between believing in true free will or not.
what we have decided for us, without control, is whether there really is true free will or not.

under reality a) no real free will
i) believe in free will = empty reality, but nice perception of it.
ii) don't believe = empty reality, empty perception

under reality b) free will exists.
i) believe in free will = full life, and living it to it's full
ii) don't believe = potential full life, not being lived to it's full.

regardless of reality, i) is the better option for us.
As for your issue of intellectual dishonesty, it only arises if I am an automaton who just thinks he's real, in which case it doesn't matter.
The reason this logic works here but not for Pascal's original scenario, is that there is no hidden cost of belief. (the cost he didn't see was the need to submit yourself to someone else's "morality")
In fact, you don't even have to "believe" in free will here. And in truth, i can't say that the word believe is really my viewpoint. You just need live your life as if it were true, regardless of how you believe.. or as in my case, I don't believe either way.. I see it open. But i live as though I did have free will, and will continue to do so, because there is no gain to be made from changing that viewpoint.

I am glad to continue discussing free will.. But something such as the version of free will that you and compatibolists have adopted is not free will. A man wearing a bear costume is not a bear. a zircon is not a diamond, even if you tell your wife it is.
the man in a bear costume, and the zircon are real things, and some people might have reason to discuss them. the psychology of why a man would lie to his wife, or why the other man would dress up and pretend to be what he is not, is a perfectly good topic of discussion.
But that's not my interest.

Now, if you can tell me WHY your view of free will is not just a twisting of words, and our mind tricking us... ie, why it is more than just hard-determinism in disguise, which no one has been able to show me, and in fact no one has even tried to address, then i will continue this discussion. Otherwise I'll stop wasting my time, and move on to more worthwhile pursuits.

Either way, i want to thank you for pointing out what you did, it didn't give a name to my viewpoint, but it did put me in the non-compatabolist camp, and I know it's not as a Libertarian, because I do not believe in something extra-physical.
I'll just say "The soul is an outdated name for a quantum process"
If i'm wrong, then so be it. Without free will, it was all determined at the big bang, and likely long before that.

I think i figured something out here, Awesomelygorious

You need this discussion, and this distinction to justify your need for morality.

Without this distinction, you cannot justify a need or purpose for morality.
I'm a moral relativist at heart, so the only justification for morality I need is from within, and relative to where and who I am. Ergo, I don't need a justification, at all.

I think that fundamental difference will make sure we stay on opposite sides of the fence.

Ok, I suppose this could work as a definition. Talking about "I don't change my mind" and "I don't have control of my mind, it has control of me" are both ridiculously dualistic. If you are your mind in some sense, then you probably could change your mind in that your mind can engage in a process that alters itself. Also... the separation between self and mind is just too extreme to take seriously.


Umm.... compatibilism is a view of free will that is compatible with determinism. You haven't actually analyzed the issue very deeply if you don't recognize that.


Honestly, the future is probably already set and immutable regardless. You see, if there is an absolute present, then there is absolute simultaneity, right? As in things that are simultaneous with each other will all be simultaneous with the same things. Well, the issue is that Einsteins' theory of relativity shows that there is no absolute simultaneity, that is to say that whether events are simultaneous depends on a frame of reference meaning that the sequencing of events could be different between frames of reference, meaning that from some perspective an event that is the future to another frame of reference is simultaneous with an event that is the present to that other frame of reference.


You don't know what you are talking about. Y'see, there is hard determinism and there is compatibilism. Compatibilism is a theory of free will that can work with determinism. Determinism isn't a theory of free will though. Hard determinism is an idea that disagrees with compatibilism in that hard determinism rejects all notions of free will, but compatibilism is a notion of free will. Because of that, they really can't be the same thing, they're different, period. That's not even a debatable assertion in any meaningful sense, as it just relates back to the basic theories being addressed.

Also, I think that roses and dung would probably smell different with different names. Brains expect things, and these expectations alter the perceptions.


Umm.... ok? I don't think that there are hoards of people dying from a lack of compatibilism.


The issue is that you're putting together so many stupid assertions that it is hard to separate any value from the BS.

Would reality be empty without free will? Probably not. Life would still be life-y and it would still be full of interesting and compelling distractions.

Would life not be lived up to its full potential if one does not believe in free will? Umm..... I think that if you failed due to something so abstract that it has no impact on anything you'd ever do, that this is really more a sign of a mental problem than a problem about free will.

So, no, I don't think your game theoretical model makes much sense. It stinks more of "oh no, there is a different idea and I am afraid of it" than any study into free will, or any study into even the psychology of happiness. At least Pascal had a sure bet with heaven, but with you... well.... you'd have to say that free will is amazingly better than the lottery(which seems quite odd given that the lottery actually has a meaningful impact) or that not believing is worse than suffering an injury that paralyzes you, which... still.... paralysis is a real world thing with real world impact. The reason I say that is because within a year, lotto winners and paralysis victims are just as happy as each other, and so.... I get a very strong feeling that the same thing would occur with free will, period. And so.... I don't think your game theory is meaningful.


Intellectual dishonesty is a method. You are engaging in an intellectually dishonest method, therefore it is relevant whether free will exists or doesn't exist. If free will exists, then you are still being intellectually dishonest in evaluating the notion.

As for it not mattering if you are an "automaton who thinks he's real" umm..... once again, if I was beating you with a stick, you wouldn't say such stupid things. The reason being simple, because being beaten with a stick forces you to recognize that whatever you are, there is a desire to continue and to avoid such "trivial" things. That being said, I kind of don't think that people really hold to the view that "if determinism is true, then beating puppies is correct", in fact, I think they've done surveys saying that people have compatibilist intuitions on some issues.

As for it not mattering? Um..... yeah..... that's a really good way to be honest about something.


Y'know, except for intellectual dishonesty.


Umm..... ok? I don't think there is a major difference between "live as if you have free will" and "live".


Right, because a debate about the words means that somebody has already won by defining them just right. And Newtonian physics is not physics at all, and never was, because wrong equations can't be right equations. Once again, you are picking terrible models for this kind of analysis, as compatibilism is a theory of free will, not "fake free will", rather compatibilists often have their reasons for holding that compatibilism is more correct and even that libertarian free will is wrong or incoherent or something.


Because it isn't hard determinism in disguise by definition. And it isn't "just a twisting of words" because it is a different theory about how to regard for our notion of free will and the other intuitions related to that notion of free will. Your question is wrong though, I mean, there are right questions, ones that get us somewhere, and there are ones that confuse the issue. Your question falls more into the latter, as it stinks of a poor understanding of this issue.


Umm.... no, you are a libertarian, libertarian free will isn't necessarily extra-physical, but it is often called "contra-causal" in that it isn't causally determined.

Umm.... I don't see how it is relevant even if all things were "determined at the big bang". That's utterly pointless to invoke, a non sequitur. You pretend that you have to have some magical ability to be special.... and.... um..... that's just silly.


Uh.... sure.... yeah, don't become a psychologist. You aren't doing a good job of psychoanalysis, and you don't even know what you are talking about.


Umm.... yeah, you don't even know who you are talking to.

But yeah... moral relativism... that's swell. Basically, you hold to the view that if Hitler wants to rape, kill, and eat Jewish babies he's doing the most moral thing he could? Or am I being confused here?


Ok, so you made up a difference, stemming from NOTHING I SAID, and then invoke it to magically settle the argument on let's agree to disagree? Wow...... my mind is boggled by your words. They hurt something deep inside my brain.

I disagree. AG is just playing, he enjoys this kind of thing. He admitted to me once (in a topic he started) that it was just a “playful exercise” that he was not taking seriously.

Now, you have a choice to make Exclavius. You can choose to continue this conversation or decide that you have better things to do with your time. You might consider it interesting to read his explanation of how that choice can not effect the future evolution of your mind and how that can not effect your future choices, or how all these choices could have been predetermined in the past yet you are making them in the present; but only (I would think) if you share his delight in BS art.

the transport of ions through a semi-permeable membrane is (at its root) a quantum process. It is not fully describable or predictable using classical physics. There are areas where classical physics, in particular mechanics, is adequate and quite feasible. The static analysis of stress in structure such as bridges or machines whose parts are sufficiently rigid is an example. Even the dynamic analysis of components not exhibiting chaotic behavior can be sufficiently well described and predicted that classical mechanics can be used. But they are an approximation, and a sufficiently good approximation for practical purposes.

ruveyn

ruveyn

The issue is that the time scale involved in something like this is too large for meaningful quantum impact. The quantum effects take along the lines of 10^-13 or 10^-20 seconds, but the fastest neurons work on scales of 10^-3. Given all of that time, we have decoherence as neurons end up behaving along lines of classical mechanics in any meaningful sense.

That being said though, all talk of "quantum free will" just seems to require some form of pantheism/process philosophy to even make sense. After all, if the brain is quantum and that gives us free will, then what non-ad hoc principle makes the brain free-willed but not uranium or the sun or any other thing in existence? The issue is that this is all nonsense, as the best theory for explaining the universe is materialist, and wishful thinking won't create gods or free wills for us to enjoy.

I agree with you that I am being misinterpreted, but I disagree with your use of that reference. That particular thread was ONLY a playful exercise. The question was a "What if" question that only referred to oneself, it couldn't reasonably not be playful as it wasn't even an attempt at truth.

As it stands, my real motivator is the perception of intellectual dishonesty. Although I recognize that all people have their flaws, but this is at a rather negative extreme.

Freeing up the will topic

Like many others, I used to confuse free will with free choice. As an existentialist in a western democracy, I still believe i have choices to make, though I know many are not easy, but if I deny those choices, this is a copout.

I suppose my mind is free to make the choices open to me. It is true that not everyone has the same choices, at the same time in the same place. The wisdom, I further suppose, is knowing the difference.

Quantum leaping through semipermeable membranes is not an issue for certain substances, though I would rather not, at least at this point.

Okay. Well, as I can't get AG to actually say what the difference between compatabolist free will and hard determinism, I guess i have to shrug my shoulders, and make a few last comments before I call it in on this.

I could have done otherwise, had i wanted to. But it seems I did not want to, and that not wanting to was predetermined (according to AG, though it still remains an exercise in free will?)

I can't prove my version of free will exists, and more than you can prove that it doesn't (at least with current science). Ergo, we have a lack of knowledge.
Thus, i simply apply the game theory that I outlined before, and base my choices in life on the two possible outcomes, maximizing my utility. That means I go on living as though there were free will.

In the end, if I am wrong, I will have lost nothing but my self-honesty, but I will not have lost it, it will have been predetermined by the wiring of my brain and my environment and my past experiences, that i would not have it.

But if I'm right, I shall live a full life, full of what Robert Kane labled Self Forming Actions (SFAs) Sadly, AG will have missed out on those opportunities. I shall be able to hold myself fully responsible for all my actions, regardless of fictitious moralities. I shall be able to take pride in my actions, knowing it was myself that initiated them, as a prime cause.

Kane suspected that many people would live their lives never knowing an SFA. And he is right. What little I know of AS so far, leads me to believe that Aspies, and the way they process information is more withdrawn from instinctual action, and that many things done at the subconscious level by NTs are done on the conscious level by Aspies. You are missing your opportunity AG. I would say i pity you, but no... I choose not to, despite wanting to.

PS... you gave me some interesting reads, so i feel somewhat obliged to give you one. I think within it, you will find even more to strengthen your own argument... Anecdotal as opposed to proof, mind you. Susan Blackmore - The Meme Machine. The entire study of memetics would be very useful in showing how, by use of the second replicator (the meme) and it's symbiotic co-evolution with genes, the illusion of free will (or compatabolist free will) would be likely to arise.... And moreover would have a selective advantage if it did arise, memetically.
However, in it, she talks about genes and memes "mistakes" such as contraception, some of which do not get "corrected" in a timely fashion. Contraception is a meme which ALLOWS us to choose contrary to our desires... Or at least the desires set forth by our genes... ie, Instincts.

Anyways, I've enjoyed the banter, and look forward to any future tussles.

Umm.... compatibilist free will is compatible with determinism. There shouldn't be a difference between compatibilist free will and determinism, because compatibilist free will is a different idea that holds different things as important. I think I already made this quite clear.


Well, why not?


Quantum mind ideas seem false and are quite philosophically problematic.


Because some abstract truth about the nature of human behavior prevents things that we observe, such as "anger", and so on from existing? Umm.... sure....


Umm.... no I won't. Robert Kane's self-forming actions are responses to existential crisis. From wikipedia:
"What allows for ultimacy of creation in Kane's picture are what he refers to as "self-forming actions" or SFAs — those moments of indecision during which people experience conflicting wills."

That being said, once again, you still aren't really engaging compatibilism as far as I can tell, and this very metaphysical distinction makes no real sense to me because there is nothing suspect with the use of local causes.


Ok? I really think that libertarian free will philosophy is a huge load of crap that is only maintained by the intellectual dishonesty of a large number of people. It does not make much sense.


I already know about memes.


Umm.... no, contraception fulfills desires. I may want sex, but I don't want children.