14 May 10
2 edits
Apologies if it looked like I killed the chance for debate...I thought I'd qualified my acknowledgement of the weaknesses in my idea with an important "however" or two though!
It's rare I actually post my own position of belief on these forums (how many beliefs can one have about not believing in something?), and at the moment it is still rough round the edges, for that reason I don't try to dogmatically champion the model as an accurate representation of how things happen. On the otherhand I think at a basic level one can regard humans and other creatures as machines (albeit highly complex and sophisticated), with our thoughts and actions manifesting purely through the physical workings of our brains (being the CPU so to speak), and to a lesser extend reflexes.
Thanks for the link 🙂
15 May 10
Originally posted by AgergThree creations: angelic, human, food chain. Two with self awareness, self
Apologies if it looked like I killed the chance for debate...I thought I'd qualified my acknowledgement of the weaknesses in my idea with an important "however" or two though!
It's rare I actually post my own position of belief on these forums (how many beliefs can one have about not believing in something?), and at the moment it is still rough round the ed ...[text shortened]... ins (being the CPU so to speak), and to a lesser extend reflexes.
Thanks for the link 🙂
determination and incredible cognitive function. One a pyramidal cafeteria.
15 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyBut then as suggested in my OP (and a clarification post later down the same page), one could argue that since members of said "foodchain" fail to get so many perks as we get in life, they would be more deserving of such perks in the afterlife (more so than humans).
Three creations: angelic, human, food chain. Two with self awareness, self
determination and incredible cognitive function. One a pyramidal cafeteria.
Also, in the country where you dwell, are dogs or cats considered food?
15 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergAppreciate both your levels of abstract conviction and tenacity... but reject the ipso facto notion
But then as suggested in my OP (and a clarification post later down the same page), one could argue that since members of said "foodchain" fail to get so many perks as we get in life, they would be more deserving of such perks in the afterlife (more so than humans).
Also, in the country where you dwell, are dogs or cats considered food?
of an imbedded equality, superimposing subjective viewpoint on the obvious integrated design.
.................................................
Edit: Also, in the country where you dwell, are dogs or cats considered food?
Yes, of course, within the food chain. Wolves, rats, racoons get hungry too.
15 May 10
4 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI would say that the subjectivity of viewpoint is property only of those who, as humans, regard only themselves as creatures that warrant a continued existence after they die. From an objective standpoint the question I ask is why? (and the most common answer being "we have souls, animals don't" needs to be justified further than simple decree).
Appreciate both your levels of abstract conviction and tenacity... but reject the ipso facto notion
of an imbedded equality, superimposing subjective viewpoint on the obvious integrated design.
.................................................
Edit: [b]Also, in the country where you dwell, are dogs or cats considered food?
Yes, of course, within the food chain. Wolves, rats, racoons get hungry too.[/b]
Assuming that "obvious integrated design" means designed by God (as opposed to evolution (where design is used in a loose sense)), it is far from obvious to me that we were designed by God or any other lowercase G god. (I'll grant it's an "easy" answer, but I just don't think that way...appeals to 'magic' offer zero insight)
As regards your food comment, my question would have lost something had I replaced dogs & cats with members of the canidae & felidae genera respectively (since dogs and wolves are in the same family); despite this, rats that eat dogs (presumably dying, dead or suitably enfeebled) would also eat humans under similar circumstances; and so we should also be considered part of the foodchain too.
15 May 10
Originally posted by AgergFirstly I do not agree that a materialist explanation of humanity reduces us to machines which are extremely restricted in their capabilities, as exemplified in my earlier comparison of a cockroach with a laptop.
Apologies if it looked like I killed the chance for debate...I thought I'd qualified my acknowledgement of the weaknesses in my idea with an important "however" or two though!
It's rare I actually post my own position of belief on these forums (how many beliefs can one have about not believing in something?), and at the moment it is still rough round the ed ...[text shortened]... ins (being the CPU so to speak), and to a lesser extend reflexes.
Thanks for the link 🙂
Secondly, I do not agree that even the behaviour of very simple organisms can be reduced to the level of a reflex: because even simple organisms display organized patterns of behaviour.
Our behaviour is as rich and complex and creative as it is, not less so in order to conform to any hypothetical model, and we need a model sufficiently complex to account for what we evidently are.
A major trap is the "nothing but" way of thinking. I am very comfortable recognizing that our thoughts are mapped out physically within our brains, just as our conversation is mapped out in the technology of the keyboard and the internet. If they could not be digitised and transmitted physically then we could not converse in this way. I do not agree that the most useful, meaningful or efficient way to describe what goes on in this conversation would be a technological one. Apart from psychology and the role of language, I would refer to cultural and social processes. What I would not find useful would be to ignore the material basis of this transaction and try to account for it magically.
16 May 10
Originally posted by finneganWhen I talk about machines I'm not comparing us to laptops or vacuum cleaners anymore than talking about ourselves as animals should imply we are like hamsters. I talk about constructs for which the range of things they can do (subject to natural laws) are many orders of magnitude beyond anything humans can construct at present.
Firstly I do not agree that a materialist explanation of humanity reduces us to machines which are extremely restricted in their capabilities, as exemplified in my earlier comparison of a cockroach with a laptop.
Secondly, I do not agree that even the behaviour of very simple organisms can be reduced to the level of a reflex: because even simple organis ...[text shortened]... would be to ignore the material basis of this transaction and try to account for it magically.
Secondly, I don't recall on any occassion trying to account for the behaviour of simple organisms only by reflexes. Moreover your observation that they can display organised patterns of behaviour compliments (I think) the model I've been trying (in a rudimentary sense) to put forward.
I must stress again i'm not trying to explain the interplay of processes which are involved in any facet of our behaviour. Without a more sophisticated model this would be madness; I cannot imagine how unimaginable would be the number of individual cell level events I'd have to account for in order to do this with the approach I'm taking for even the most trivial action, and it is not my desire to do so.
No, the only thing I'm suggesting is that our and other creatures actions are in some way a function (or functions) of the information/stimuli (internal or external) available to it at a particular time (without going into the details about what these functions actually are).
Importantly though and this is where I suspect our viewpoints seriously diverge, I believe that our actions are already, in a mechanical sense, determined by by the current configuration of our local (and alluding further to chaos, not so local environments). Even if one says the universe exhibits true quantum randomness, I say it is the collective system of outcomes (once they occur) which influence our own actions. That it seems like we have free-will is a consequence of lacking the unimaginably large wealth of information about the positions and derivatives of every material 'entity' even in our local surroundings and how they interact with us. This is what I mean when I say 'machines'; ie: that our actions (all of them) are determined by the uncaring mechanical workings of the universe. The great illusion I assert, is that we or other creatures don't notice it!
Where we both agree is that one shouldn't be so quick as others to invoke magic.
16 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI would rather not argue with you over your fondness for the analogy with machines, but there is a risk of other people interpreting that analogy in a way that is far too restrictive.
When I talk about machines I'm not comparing us to laptops or vacuum cleaners anymore than talking about ourselves as animals should imply we are like hamsters. I talk about constructs for which the range of things they can do (subject to natural laws) are many orders of magnitude beyond anything humans can construct at present.
Secondly, I don't recall on ...[text shortened]...
Where we both agree is that one shouldn't be so quick as others to invoke magic.
I have to argue with you about determinism. At the level of the cosmos following the Big Bang, the point about randomness is that there is no way to plot through cause and effect the paths followed from then to now by the matter in the universe. This is not a lack of data or ability to analyse lots of data, it has to do with the nature of the process in itself. By virtue of its random nature, there is no way at all even in principle to predict from the conditions of the Big bang how the universe would develop.
This bears on the notion that a God might have caused the Big Bang in such a way that the universe subsequently evolved according to any plan following His divine laws. Without interference through miracles of which we have no evidence, there is no way that would have succeeded.
19 May 10
3 edits
Originally posted by finneganMy "fondness" for the analogy with machine comes about from the fact it is my belief that we don't have any magical spirit or soul residing in us and that all our actions are caused by the universe around us (in as much the same way a tennis ball's trajectory is caused (for the most part) by the change in velocity induced by impact from the tennis rachet, air resistance, and gravity).
I would rather not argue with you over your fondness for the analogy with machines, but there is a risk of other people interpreting that analogy in a way that is far too restrictive.
I have to argue with you about determinism. At the level of the cosmos following the Big Bang, the point about randomness is that there is no way to plot through cause and ...[text shortened]... erence through miracles of which we have no evidence, there is no way that would have succeeded.
I want to make it clear by talking about us as machines that I divorce myself of any non-mechanical notion of the mind. Again I do not mean to imply the 'simplicity' of capabilities one associates with human created machines.
As for the point you contest in your second paragraph, That was a balls up on my part trying to preempt you in the case you mention true-randomness. I retract that statement and my reason for this is that with a defintion for random being such that the outcome of an event is not wholly determined by any collection of parameters; it remains to be demonstrated or even justified that this really is the case! I intuitively side here with Einstein who asserts "God does not play dice".
Of course, saying that true randomness does not exist is not the same thing as saying all things can potentially be predicted since some of the parameters which govern the nature of some action may be permanently beyond our capacity to access or exploit.
Your last point stands if my position is false in that true randomness actually does exist. I don't see how you could possibly show this is the case however.
19 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergI have to think slowly about your meaning here.
I retract that statement and my reason for this is that with a definition for random being such that the outcome of an event is not wholly determined by any collection of parameters; it remains to be demonstrated that true randomness actually does exist. I don't see how you could possibly show this is the case however.
In the context of the material spinning chaotically through space, sometimes coagulating into stars, then exploding into chaos again, we find some types of memory for what has been going on, such as the new and larger atoms which are only formed in the interior of stars. We are made of Carbon for example and that was cooked up in a long dead star. In this sense, we have a coherent pattern of cause and effect that accounts for how things are.
However, we have this picture after the event. Randomness does not preclude that - just as I can see a six on a die after it has fallen and know that result with certainty. Dice have six sides so what is determined is that there will a number from one to six as the result of a throw, but that leaves six possible outcomes to be selected randomly (if it is fair).
The range of possible outcomes is incalculable for the universe. A fundamental principle in physics is that there is an inexorable movement from order to chaos. At the moment of the Big Bang, there was total chaos in a tiny space. In an expanding universe, there is scope for a degree of order against a background of increasing chaos but only locally and for a period of time (which can be greater as the universe expands further).
This principle is sufficient justification for the claim that there is true randomness in the universe. It is not conceivable that another Big Bang in another void would generate the identical outcome and if you decide that it is conceivable in an infinite cycle of universes, then I would only agree in the sense that a million monkeys might conceivably type out Shakespeare's plays after sufficient time playing randomly with a keyboard. It might happen but there is no reason for it to happen - the only type of determinism that you could employ here is one that says - if we get an infinity of trials, then even random events will eventually generate a required outcome. Most people would not find that terribly deterministic in any useful sense.
Einstein did not like this and sought a way to unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics but he failed to achieve that. He found Quantum Mechanics ugly but that was to some degree an aesthetic judgment. Roger Penrose and Stephen Hawkings certainly argued that Relativity cannot be applied to discuss the initial instant of the Big Bang, for which we have to turn to Quantum Mechanics. Yes we still await the unified theory, but whatever that turns out to be, it will not be Relativity Theory because that simply does not work (nor does QM in other situations but they do merge coherently into each other - they do not disprove each other).
20 May 10
8 edits
Originally posted by finneganWell, as I understand it (I'm not a physicist btw) it is not yet known whether the universe is discreet (ie: can one break the universe down into units smaller than the planck length/time?) or continuous. If the former, then the range of outcomes upto any pre-specifed point in time would actually be (in theory) countable (and finite).
I have to think slowly about your meaning here.
In the context of the material spinning chaotically through space, sometimes coagulating into stars, then exploding into chaos again, we find some types of memory for what has been going on, such as the new and larger atoms which are only formed in the interior of stars. We are made of Carbon for example her situations but they do merge coherently into each other - they do not disprove each other).
Also, the outcome of throwing a die, is to us random because we are not privy to the complete set of local information which determines the trajectory of the die and are unable to repeat further throws with the same settings as the last. If one was to eliminate certain environmental/ atmospheric variables (in a vacuum, say) and have control over position, velocity, and force of such throws then the outcomes would be very much non-random.
Your problem with determinism seems to be that with such a vast number of different ways the universe could have turned out (ie...in a hazy sense the probability of our universe being (for all practical purposes) zero) then one cannot say the universe had to deterministically take this precise form. I argue to the contrary. Consider the following:
Throw a coin with some prescribed strength/direction into a chess board in a box. arbitrarily setting "bottom left" to be a1 (not important), at what point is the outcome of said coin's final position not deterministic?
0) It lands on the chess board
1) It lands on at least one of 32 squares in the upper half of the board
2) It lands on some 4x4 square region of the upper half of the board
3) It lands partially on e6
4) More than half the coin lands on e6, and a more than a third on e5
5) Between 91/170 and 93/170 of the coin lands on e6, whilst between 53/150 and 59/150 of the coin lands on e5
6) Between 913621/1700034 and 930493/1700034 of the coin lands on e6, whilst between 530307/1502133 and 592245/1502133 of the coin lands on e5
.
.
.
and so on
At what point do we have to stop and say the final resting place given to x degrees of precision was not fully determined by the initial throw and the local environment? 😕
As another example, what are the chances that you throw a cup of coffee at your wall you are left with a particular spatter on the wall (accounting for every molecule at some instance of time)? Given such a vanishingly small probability, must we say the picture at such a time was not determined by the material properties of wall/coffee, speed of throw etc...? Yes the degrees of freedom for our universe with respect to how it could turn out are much bigger than the examples I gave but essentially it can be argued to be the same problem (I am assuming a discrete universe btw).
My argument is that the universe was determined by some particular set of seed parameters (whatever they may have been, I don't rule out the possibility of a multiverse).
With regards to the fact that both relativity and quantum mechanics are not *fully* compatible I am indeed aware of this but apart from exposure to popular science books like Brian Green's The Elegant Universe, I have little more insight. (You seem to be better read in these areas than me)
20 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by AgergTo me the difference that matters is this. Any outcome is determined by a particular set of conditions. However, there is nothing inherent in the situation to determine which of many outcomes will be favoured by chance. I don't concede your notion about dice being ultimately predictable with sufficient data because I am only interested in the ideal dice as a simple way to discuss something random.
Well, as I understand it (I'm not a physicist btw) it is not yet known whether the universe is discreet (ie: can one break the universe down into units smaller than the planck length/time?) or continuous. If the former, then the range of outcomes upto any pre-specifed point in time would actually be (in theory) countable (and finite).
Also, the outcome of Universe, I have little more insight. (You seem to be better read in these areas than me)
A universe that had any form of order would require an input of energy to make that possible. But the universe is not a perpetual motion machine. So while there can be an amount of order, this will be unstable in the long run and will deteriorate back into chaos. By and large, the universe is chaotic.
The simplest way I have read this matter of reconciling QM with Relativity described is that Quantum Mechanics relies on mathematical formulae in which key values which make a difference at very small scales cancel out to zero on each side of an equation at a certain point to merge into the formulae that are used in Relativity for stuff of a larger scale. That leaves a mountain to discuss but the notion is a simple one. (I think!) I refuse to quote sections of books or cut and paste stuff from Wikipedia or the like. I am not a physicist nor a mathematician either. I am wide open for anyone to explain why my sources are wrong and I'd be interested.
My motivation here is to attack determinism as a way to achieve what you seem to want. It sounds too like a Newtonian model of the universe and he has been nicely described as "not the first true scientist but the last true alchemist." From there through to Einstein there has been a notion of God as the designer who put all this nice clockwork stuff into motion. Well I don't think I am clockwork and nor is the universe. Not only do I exercise free will and make genuine choices, but in an immense materialist universe where I am materially trivial, my ability to do that is remarkable and worthy of investigation. Obviously I am aware of the difficulty of freeing myself from my environment to any significant degree - the social, economic, historical and other conditions which shape my thinking are not hugely different to those of my neighbours. Yet I can and do take decisions that differ significantly from theirs.
21 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by finneganI don't attach the same importance as it seems you do in having potential to predict that which is determined. I stand by my argument that most examples of randomess you are likely to offer are random purely as a result of variables we don't have access to.
To me the difference that matters is this. Any outcome is determined by a particular set of conditions. However, there is nothing inherent in the situation to determine which of many outcomes will be favoured by chance. I don't concede your notion about dice being ultimately predictable with sufficient data because I am only interested in the ideal dice as e of my neighbours. Yet I can and do take decisions that differ significantly from theirs.
For determinism to fail, it has to be demonstrated that at some level the behaviour of 'stuff' in the universe bears no correlation with any set of parameters available or hidden from us. Chaotic systems are not those where the processes are 'truly random', they are those where the evolution of said system is strongly sensitive to initial data --- almost negligibly small perturbations from some stable point can have massive consequences. Yes, these systems are impossible to predict but they are still, in the sense I am interested in, determined.
As for the transience of "order" in the universe you suggest, I don't see how this undermines the notion that the chaotic development of this universe as time meanders on was determined by some initial set of parameters.
I disagree with your charge that determinism is a Newtonian model of the universe because I fail to see how you make the correlation here. I understand that you find it distasteful that one should, as you put it, behave as clockwork. Others find it distasteful that we humans evolved from apes as opposed to magically created by God in the Garden of Eden. I find it distasteful to consider the fact that my body is a happy haven for large colonies of bacteria (beneficial and not so), at the age of only 29 it is on an unrelenting path of decay that shall accelerate as my age increases, or that most of the material I am made of has at some point passed through the digestive tracts of other humans or creatures. That they are personally unsettling is irrelevant however with regards to their veracity.
21 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI don't attach the same importance as it seems you do in having potential to predict that which is determined.
To me, if something is determined by a set of conditions (however complex and slippery) then it is in principle (not practically) possible to predict the outcome given that set of conditions exists. If you are prepared to predicate a God with staggering capabilities, then a determined universe is an option by which He might set the ball rolling and leave it to work its inexorable path through the predetermined operation of His laws. Including the falling of a sparrow. Such a deist would appeal to you for support. There are such people as you know.
For determinism to fail, it has to be demonstrated that at some level the behaviour of 'stuff' in the universe bears no correlation with any set of parameters available or hidden from us.
I suspect that is a skeptic's argument and as such incapable of refutation. My reading suggests that you are mistaken but I can't recite the evidence and "Appeal to Authority" is not going to work with you.
I understand that you find it distasteful that one should, as you put it, behave as clockwork. ... That they are personally unsettling is irrelevant however with regards to their veracity.
No I am not driven by that type of distaste. I am driven by my understanding of biology and especially of human psychology. I am intensely aware of my conditioning by environment and also, of course, by my dependence on biological functioning. But I am also impressed by my capacity to make autonomous decisions. I do not find a materialist philosophy depressing - I find it exciting and energizing. Not only can I think and feel for myself, but I can think and feel without the crutch of a half baked religion.
I find it distasteful to consider the fact that my body is a happy haven for large colonies of bacteria (beneficial and not so), at the age of only 29 it is on an unrelenting path of decay that shall accelerate as my age increases, or that most of the material I am made of has at some point passed through the digestive tracts of other humans or creatures.
Why is that distasteful? Why is it not fascinating? Maybe you just have a bum line in poetry. Try another notion - that you are made of carbon atoms which were formed deep within a star and blown into space by a Supernova. Why are you focusing on your decay with age (about half of mine) and not on the remarkable fact of your being alive and having the awareness to appreciate that?
21 May 10
Originally posted by finneganI might be reading you wrong, but it seems to me you have used the term “chaos” in two different senses that ought to be distinguished: (1) sensitive dependence on initial conditions that are not inherently stable (“chaos theory” ); and (2) chaos as opposed to coherence, or a low-order state (entropy) as opposed to a high-order state.
To me the difference that matters is this. Any outcome is determined by a particular set of conditions. However, there is nothing inherent in the situation to determine which of many outcomes will be favoured by chance. I don't concede your notion about dice being ultimately predictable with sufficient data because I am only interested in the ideal dice as ...[text shortened]... e of my neighbours. Yet I can and do take decisions that differ significantly from theirs.
In the first case, a system may jump from a coherent but unstable state to another (radically different) equally coherent and equally unstable state.
In the second case, there is no way (absent input from some exogenous energy source) to move from high-entropy (chaotic) state to a low-entropy state. I’m not a scientist, but based on my casual reading, I’m not sure the jury is out, among physicists, on the universe moving inexorably toward a final entropy (if that’s what you meant by “deteriorate back into chaos” ).
Again, I might be reading you incorrectly, and will be happy to stand corrected…