Jump to content
The Dark Mod Forums

Sin 2 :)


Demigod

Recommended Posts

We may be automata, but it seems to me that an automaton has to have some purpose or goals. The purposes that we evolved to fulfill, such as secure food and reproduce, are now fulfilled with much less effort thanks to this artificial construct called society. We're also living way past our "natural" life spans (I put natural in quotes because maybe the development of better medical tools is natural too, who knows).

 

What do we do when our basic purposes of eat, reproduce, etc, are basically fulfilled? Just go crazy from boredom? It seems we develop other goals that do not directly come out of our evolutionary background, like say, leave a work of art behind for the world, paint a picture, make music, etc. You might say we have a drive to create something new, never seen before.

 

So can we still be called automata if we have the ability to do and create new things that could never have been predicted by the simple rules governing our automata minds? You could say we are programmed with "change," or "make something new" as one of our purposes, but how do we implement that purpose without some sort of unpredictable creativity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 321
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Firstly, these 'new' instincts are often nothing more than the old ones reflected in a new world. There's no arguing that our brains are not complex things; we know (even subconsciously) what the concept of attracting a mate is. With this in mind, we can try other things that would accomplish this: changing the world means success and money, which means sex and food. Leaving your legacy could tentatively be thought of as looking after your offspring, or because we are social creatures, garnering appreciation (and favours, even if we wouldn't get them because we'd be dead) from the rest of the collective.

 

In addition, our minds have the ability to change. Neurones migrate around the brain if they're disused, which forms the basis of learning and perhaps memory (no-one's sure about the second one) So the phenomena of new things appearing as instincts is not surprising if the input we are receiving is so different.

 

 

 

@Spring:

 

Obviously we have to use our current knowledge to produce our theories - we can do no more. We can explain the appearance of choice quite simply. Even if there were true choice, it would make no difference at all since we can only take one path through life. For every choice we make we (obviously) can't make it again. As such, we only have the choice to choose one option, exactly the same whether or not we have non-automatic choice. What we experience precludes neither option.

 

You have to provide evidence for your theory - there is evidence that we work automatically - we are operating on chemistry and on physics, which all operate under rules and have no choice but to follow said rules. As such, it follows that we ourselves follow the rules that are made by our components following their own rules. There is no evidence to support the position that we do not work automatically.

 

Sure, we might discover that beneath all of this there is some 'consciousness particle' that alters everything. Similarly, we might discover that photons only move in straight lines (ignoring gravitational lensing and suchlike) because the idea to do otherwise never occurred to them. However, this theory is a pointless supposition, and as baseless as the idea of non-automatic people, as far as I can see.

--

Somethin' fishy's goin' on here... Come on out, you taffer!

 

~The Fishy Taffer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, so placed in a maze, a human comes to a fork with two identical passages. What do you think makes the decision to go one way or the other, if it is not our consciousness?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unconscious mind will have formed the decision before you are consciously aware of the decision. Studies have actually shown that faced with such forks, most people almost unerringly choose the same direction every time, especially if there is nothing to distinguish the left or right path in any other way. People carry an inherent bias towards either the left or right (which is usually related to handedness).

 

Interestingly, when you split someones brain down the middle by bisecting the hippocampus, the two halves can no longer communicate properly, and the two halves of the brain become two independent minds, and the right brain can only communicate with the left by making the left brain hear voices. But a person in such a state has effectively two separate minds with divergent personalities.

 

@ Ishtvan:

 

Humans have an instinct to explore, to investigate, to create and to modify, because these instincts are vital to an obligate tool using ecological generalist. We depend on making and using tools and shelter for survival, and being so dependant we are instinctively driven to create. When we have supplied our basic material needs without excercising these instincts fully, the urges remain, and are expressed in a variety of ways. And we have an instinct to impress our fellow humans with our mental skill and flexibility as a way of sorting out dominance hierarchies and attracting mates - just like a bower bird building an elaborate colourful nest, or a peacock with a ridiculous tail, or a moose with its antlers, we display to potential mates and rivals by flexing our brains.

 

That we have been able to harness this abilty to do things like build space shuttles and neurosurgery wards is an accident of history resulting from humans seeking ever more elaborate ways to display their brain power to impress the opposite sex and their rivals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it is our consciousness, but it depends what you define that as. When faced with such a decision, the brain decides which way is best. But there is no way for it do that other than by input from the eyes being processed by neurones, which then pass the information that we have to pick a direction to other bits of brain. All the factors are 'weighed up' in this automatic process until we move or just stay put.

 

If there were nothing to choose between them, then presumably the brain would freeze. In reality, there are many determining factors that could contribute, such as the lighting of each one, past experiences, the ascension of venus...

--

Somethin' fishy's goin' on here... Come on out, you taffer!

 

~The Fishy Taffer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, in the case of mazes and bifurcations in roads, humans beings have an innate tendency to go in one particular direction - without any information to weigh, most people will just take the right hand path for right handed people, or the left for left handed people (it can vary, but for any given individual they will have an innate bias that they are not consciously aware of which they follow nearly every time). They don't usually freeze, although some people do. Animals with no handedness will just choose at random, but most mammals (that have been tested extensively) have been shown to have some degree of left or right bias.

 

And yes, I guess consciouness can be a vague beast to define, but if a process occurs without your direct awareness, I would say it is not consciousness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't think anyone can argue that there are processes involved in our decision-making that we're not aware of. Does that mean that our entire decision-making process is unconscious, and our belief in our own consciousness is an illusion? I don't think so. But I see where you're coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, one shouldn't assume something is impossible just because we can't do it now, but the problem with bending space (which is essentially a warp drive) is that it requires a fantastic amount of energy, far more than any nuclear or antimatter power source could deliver, so while warping space is allowed by the laws of physics as we understand them, the energy required is unobtainable.  Same goes for wormholes.  So unless there is some massive breakthrough in energy generation, I am not going to consider space bending as a viable means of transport.

 

I think the energy to do this exists in space. Black Holes. The major problem is to create a material that keeps the hole under control so that somthing can get through. :)

 

 

I hope you are including an ovum or two in this scheme, because sperm are pretty useless on their own.  The main problem with this is that you need a uterus for gestation (foetal gestation is extremely complex, and we are not even 0.5% of the way to developing an artificial uterus, if it is even possible), and  if you have a robot sophisticated and intelligent enough to raise a human child, why would you bother with the human?

 

Why should it not be possible to build an uterus? It was built once by evolution, which proves that it can be built. Everything else is just a question of time and money.

 

I think I read somewhere JPL/NASA actually has some conceptual plans to send a robotic probe to the Centauri system using nuclear propulsion and ion drives, which will see us getting data back about 30 - 50 years after it is launched.

 

If they launch it now, I might even see the results. Frustrating to know that.

 

My brother works in photonics and such, and he was on one of the first teams to teleport photons, and the stuff you can do with entangled photons is quite intersting, although most of it is over my head...  It doesn't seem to make any difference how far apart a pair of entangle atoms or photons are, as long as you can keep the entanglement stable, which is hard...

 

You can ask him how this should be possible. I think I mentioned it already, the only way I could think how that could work would be with an extra dimension.

 

 

Yes they do, and I want to work in a bit of mystery into it, so the reader starts to wonder what happened to the command structures, and how people forgot how to read and interect with the computer systems, when they are functioning perfectly (why did they stop teaching their children?).  I'm working it around one of the commanders going insane about 300 years into the journey, or maybe they picked up some kind of space borne organism that infects the crew, but that might be a bit clichéd.

 

The insane guy who screwes everything up is also quite a cliche. For such a journey there would be many failsafes I would expect, so a single man going insane should not be able to wreak such havoc. I usually prefer a more logical explanation which is more believable. Like that this loss was some natural process that couldn't be stopped for some reason. It requires more to think what process could this be. The insane person is to me like god or a deus ex. It's an easy, unimaginative way of explaining. Same as if you say. They were bewitched or it was done with magic. :)

 

It's like in WW2. Many people say the deeds of the Nazis were just a few crazy guys who happened to get control, but this is not the truth and an easy way out to not work out the details.

 

The comuter is programmed for the possibility of the human crew going berserk, and it attempts to re-establish order by communicating with the central character.

 

As I said above. So how could the insange guy achieve all these problems?

Gerhard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obscurus:

Humans are capable of fourth order intentionality, ie, we can think about thinking about thinking about a thought we have

 

Im referring to something a little different, though obviously related. According to Harry Frankfurt, what gives us freedom in forming our wills is the ability for us create actionable desires about our actionable desires. You can desire something, and if that desire is compelling enough you will act. But humans ( and perhaps some other creatures) can do more, we can form actionable desires about our desires. Not only do we want X, we can articulate complex arguments and rationales about why we desire those desires. Being able to conceptualize a "why" concerning ones desires is the crucial difference.

 

This is the known as the hierarchy of will. One has the first level of desires, and then the secondary level of desires concerning desires. All of these desires are determined, the opening for freedom (a degree of!) comes when we, our memories, dreams, whatever, play a role in determining some of the determinants that go into our desire forming process by virtue of the fact that we can hold our desires up for inspection, if you will.

 

obscurus: We are both really agreeing in a way, but arguing over semantics... :)

 

I know, but the semantics are the key to my point!*<:0)

 

When you argue that we are not capable of a free will because we are dictated to by unconcious chemical systems, you are implying that in order to create a free will there must be a point where you are free of these processes. But this is not possible, when could one be free of the processes that ARE you? So either free wills cannot exist, or there is another route to a free will, one that is compatible with a deterministic universe.

 

But how could a determined will be considered free, or to enjoy a degree of freedom? Only if at least some of those determinants are formed by you, only if you have a hand in generating some of the influences on your will. This is where the hierarchy comes in, we can desire X, but more importantly we can desires or not desire our desires about X. Whether this is a conscious decision or not does not really matter for the sake of this argument, your desires are formed by the unique process that is you, and crucially the desires about those desires are also formed by you, your memories, senses, ideas, whatever. All of those are determined, and determining, but they are all intimately yours and will generate actions that are uniquely yours.

 

This is what differentiates us from automata, automata can only "desire" what they are told to desire and they certainly cannot NOT desire what they are told. An insect desires food, as do humans. But an insect can merely seek food and satiate that desire to eat, humans can desire the desire to eat, or desire to eat but NOT desire the desire to eat, aka dieting! These second tier desires are determined, and determining, but it is the fact that they can play a role in forming what desires will become actionable that gives us a degree of freedom.

 

obscurus:

This raises the tricky question of the insanity defence in criminal cases -

 

Personally I think the insanity defence is one of the most abused loopholes in the criminal justice system, but then again there are people who's brains compel them to do things most people will agree are wrong or criminal, even though that individual might feel quite normal about it.

 

Now thats a tricky question, of course because no matter what philo or science says about the human mind, the law is mostly a political creature that includes cultural standards of conduct, religious morality, and which of course ultimately is about defending the status quo. New research has indicated that the brains of adolescent humans work significantly differently from adult brains, in short they jump to conclusions far more often and faster than adults do. This is not just a function of wisdom, but an actual physical aspect of younger brains. But do you think the law is going to change anytime soon to accomodate that new information? Not here in Hang Em High Land, U.S.A., I can assure you.

 

FF:Namely, there's more weight given to instincts, less given to inputs that have to go through higher processing, hence lowered inhibitions.

 

 

The higher processes are exactly the regions of the brain where the freedom to shape ones will is to be found. Freedom of the will is an artifact of our higher brain functions, the ability to abstract ones desires and then form desires about those desires which in turn determine our actions. Drunkeness definitely impairs our reflective abilities along with a lot of other stuff, therefore it could be considered a state of less freedom.

 

FF:Unconsciously surely means doing it without thinking about it?

 

The definition of consciousness is hardly concrete, so heres a safe halfway point: thinking most probably consists of a mix of conscious and unconcious processes.

 

FF: When making a decision, either the brain does it quite quickly - weighs all our instincts and drives and determines what would be most beneficial, or it goes off to higher processing.

 

From what I have read, its a lot more complicated then that. Suffice it to say there

are a number of processes going on, probably some are simultaneous while others following a linear order. Which is why the "cognition gap" could conceivably be a trick of our perceptions, we were there making the decision at times 1, 2, and 3 but because of the process we are left remembering only 3. To paraphrase Dennett badly.

 

FF: There, we are aware of the decision taking place, and we consciously think of relevant situations and what would be better. Either way the process is automatic, in the sense that our 'Will' doesn't intervene.

 

The process IS our will. Automatically formed by our desires, where ever they may arise from, internally or externally. The trick is that our automatic process has a second layer, it can desire the desires formed by it or it can reject them for different desires through a comparative process. This second level is automatic as well, its the fact that a hierarchy exists that gives us a degree of freedom in our will formation.

 

FF: The process of choosing is automatic for a given set of inputs, and a given brain. There was no way YOU could stop yourself thinking of that second point - either you were going to, or you weren't.

 

Precisely so! But those inputs are uniquely yours, they ARE you, so whatever the output of such a process is will be shaped by things that are fundamentally you. Your memories, senses, needs, whatever. Then you get a second chance, because those outputs can be held up for consideration, even if only for a microsecond.

 

You desire to eat all of the ice cream in the fridge, and combined with hunger its a compelling desire, action forming. BUT you are also a 700 pound bed ridden man whose doctor has said lose weight or die. So your desire to gobble the ice cream is t-boned by the desire to live. All of these processes are determined, inflicted on you, the desire to eat, to eat a huge amount, and the desire to live. You have no choice in how those desires arrived in you but you do have the ability to hold all the desires in front of you and then act on the most compelling desire that fits with your wants/needs. The desires require no decision time, they ARE your desires, but one desire can trump another. The process can be smooth, hey I want to live!, or it can be bumpy, I want to live but I LOVE ice cream and....

 

FF:Putting it like that ignores quantum differences, but they don't really matter as far as we're concerned. You are no more free in your conscious decisions than an ant is in its unconscious ones.

 

Decisions are not free, nor are they freedom forming. They seem, to my thinking, to be the end of the process of desire formation. It is the process of forming the desires that give rise to what we call decisions that gives us a degree of freedom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can ask him how this should be possible. I think I mentioned it already, the only way I could think how that could work would be with an extra dimension.

 

While the entangled particles communicate instantly, there is no way of getting information from this process. You cannot measure what's going on, because a) it's all probability and B) you know everything about the particle at the same time. In retrospect, one of those may be wrong, but I'm not sure which.

 

Not only do we want X, we can articulate complex arguments and rationales about why we desire those desires. Being able to conceptualize a "why" concerning ones desires is the crucial difference.

 

While that's certainly true, I think other animals probably have the same ability. In addition, there's probably the ability to know why you want to want something, ad infinitum.

 

So either free wills cannot exist, or there is another route to a free will, one that is compatible with a deterministic universe.

 

Yes, which is why you're arguing semantics. A "free" will is classically where you have control over what you do, whereas what happens is that you.chemicalprocesses (which in a roundabout route == you) control what happens. If you redefine free will to be this, then of course you have free will. As I say, there's no quantifiable difference between the two, but I believe one is accurate!

 

What you then say is also important, something that I haven't really mentioned. While all that is us is automatic processes, those processes are unique to us and change with us, which is why it doesn't actually matter that this is the case. We still react in a way which is unique to us and is FROM us.

 

This is what differentiates us from automata, automata can only "desire" what they are told to desire and they certainly cannot NOT desire what they are told.

 

I disagree. We are an automata, where the most basic rules determine the rules which in turn determine the outcome. For example, considering the following useless algorithm, which takes input from two arbitrary sources. The first input has been taken in some time ago.

 

setRule(input[0]);

...

doRule();

...

void doRule(void) {

if(rule == 0) {

move(input[1]);

} elseif(rule == 1) {

move(input[1]/2);

} elseif(rule == 2) {

move(input[1]*2);

} elseif(rule == 3) {

rest(input[1]);

} elseif(rule == 4) {

eat();

}

}

 

We are a similar, if more complex, setup. Our memory, past experiences and so on, in other words, our brain configuration, determines what we do now, when combined with other input. As such, there is no escaping the fundamentally automatic nature of the processes that we are based around, but we still have this degree of self.

 

Drunkeness definitely impairs our reflective abilities along with a lot of other stuff, therefore it could be considered a state of less freedom.

 

While some of the other stuff you said I disagree with, for reasons hopefully explained above, this, I think, is true. In essence, we are relieved of the previous inputs that have shaped us and our personality. If we go back to ignoring the automatic gubbins, then we have less control. While in actual fact we have no control either way, hopefully, you understand approximately what the hell I'm talking about...

 

The process IS our will. Automatically formed by our desires [etc]

 

It appears we understand each other - again, it's a question of your definition of freedom. We are completely controlled by our brains, which is completely controlled by other stuff, but with philosophy, you can technically still say we have freedom because of the second layer, as you put it. Well met!

 

In short, we have no freedom. But actually no one gives a toss because what we arrive at is us which can be an alright place to be. Freedom or none, we are still human and we have still done what we have done.

--

Somethin' fishy's goin' on here... Come on out, you taffer!

 

~The Fishy Taffer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the energy to do this exists in space. Black Holes. The major problem is to create a material that keeps the hole under control so that somthing can get through. :)

 

Can't remember where I read it, but I read a pretty convinving article saying that basically it would still require a stupendous amount of energy to even prevent yourself from being sucked into the thing, and that you could not get a net gain of energy from one. Maybe there is a way, but until someone finds it, it is not something I would consider to be a realistic option. I will only consider technologies that are available or feasible now, anything else becomes way too hypothetical. So Ion drives and nuclear propulsion are in, warp drives, FTL drives are out.

 

Why should it not be possible to build an uterus? It was built once by evolution, which proves that it can be built. Everything else is just a question of time and money.

 

Sure, but Ithink it is likely to be such a difficult and expensive task that you wouldn't bother - you have a machine capable of human thought (essential for raising a human), so why you would bother with the human being is beyond me. Just not worth the effort.

 

Actually, there was a Japanese engineering company that was commisioned to build a an experimental plant that performed all the functions of the human liver a while back, using no biotic processes. It had to be able to detoxify thouands of different blood poisons. The plant ended up being huge - took up something like a couple of hectares of space, was several stories high, and cost a fortune. Even factoring in some miniaturisation, you would still end up with something that was way too big and complex to risk on a long interstellar flight - and to have an artificial uterus, you will also need to replicate the function of the liver, kidneys (dialysis machines are not exactly very small) and so on. In other words, most of a human body. So it would really only be worthwhile either sending genetically modified humans, or sending a robot that is functionally as intelligent etc as a human. Making an artificial uterus would be a pointless excercise in reinventing the wheel.

 

 

If they launch it now, I might even see the results. Frustrating to know that.

 

I know... I am really curious to see what is there..

 

The insane guy who screwes everything up is also quite a cliche. For such a journey there would be many failsafes I would expect, so a single man going insane should not be able to wreak such havoc. I usually prefer a more logical explanation which is more believable. Like that this loss was some natural process that couldn't be stopped for some reason. It requires more to think what process could this be. The insane person is to me like god or a deus ex. It's an easy, unimaginative way of explaining. Same as if you say. They were bewitched or it was done with magic. :)

 

It's like in WW2. Many people say the deeds of the Nazis were just a few crazy guys who happened to get control, but this is not the truth and an easy way out to not work out the details.

As I said above. So how could the insange guy achieve all these problems?

 

Well, I was thinking more along the lines that this guy starts a cult that begins to regard the ships computers as evil, and over the course of a few generations it becomes entrenched, the people stop communicating with the ship, so their language naturally begins to change, until they could no longer understand the computer even if they wanted to...

 

But now that I think about it, maybe a temproary error in the ship's culling program that normally only keeps the animal populations in check occurs that kills all the adults over 20, leaving only children and teenagers to carry on, and then when the computer eventually resets itself and corrects it's software, the humans remaining have gone for several generations without contact from the computer system (I'll have to think of a reason why it took hudreds of years for the computer to fix itself - maybe it got stuck on a loop or something, until something major like a small asteroid impact caused it to reboot properly), leaving them speaking a different language, and stories regarding the ship's computer with fear and superstition...

 

Hmm so many ideas, so few of them good...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting article about other than human cultures:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4166756.stm

 

Chimpanzee culture 'confirmed'

By Helen Briggs

BBC News science reporter

 

Primate experts say they have proven that chimpanzees,

like humans, show social conformity.

 

By training captive chimps to use tools in different

ways, they have shown experimentally that primates

develop cultural traditions through imitation.

 

This has long been suspected from observations in the

wild, but has not been shown directly.

 

It suggests that culture has ancient origins,

scientists write in Nature.

 

The study was carried out by a team at the University

of St Andrews in the UK and the National Primate

Research Center of Emory University in Atlanta, US.

 

They presented two different groups of chimps with a

problem relevant to their wild cousins: how to

retrieve an item of food stuck behind a blockage in a

system of tubes.

 

One chimpanzee from each group was secretly taught a

novel way to solve the problem. Ericka was taught how

to use a stick to lift the blockage up so that the

food fell out.

 

Another female chimp, Georgia, was shown how to poke

at the blockage so that the ball of food rolled out of

the back of the pipes.

 

Each chimp was then reunited with its group, and the

scientists watched how they behaved.

 

They found that the chimps gathered around Ericka or

Georgia and soon copied their behaviour. By the end of

two months, the two different groups were still using

their own way of getting at the food and two distinct

cultural traditions had been established.

 

"This is the first time that any scientist has

experimentally created two different traditions in any

primate," Professor Andrew Whiten of the University of

St Andrews told the BBC News website.

 

"Moreover it is the first time anyone has ever done

this with tool use in any animal."

 

Ancient origins

 

The research adds weight to decades of field studies

on wild primates suggesting that they have rich

cultural traditions unmatched in species other than

our own.

 

Chimpanzees in West Africa, for example, use stones

and pieces of wood to crack open nuts for food; but

this has never been observed in chimps living in East

Africa.

 

It suggests that the common ancestor of chimps and

humans, living some four to six million years ago,

probably also had a desire to conform - the hallmark

of human culture.

 

"If both species have elements of culture, it is

highly likely the ancient ancestor had too," said

co-author Dr Victoria Horner, "so culture probably has

a deep-rooted ancient origin."

 

The research is published in the online edition of the

journal Nature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, only 20,000 years ago there were about 3 species of human, including a a hobbit sized variant, 80,000 ago there were at least four... Given the right set of circumstances, humanoids or something pretty close would evolve to fill the niche.

 

The prerequisites for human-like creatures evolving are:

 

1. Omnivorous diet (a dependence on a wide variety of food sources to meet nutritional requirements).

2. Ability to manipulate objects with a high degree of precision, with a total dependence on tool use for survival.

3. Ability to communicate large amounts of complex information efficiently, with a complex social order.

4. Adaptive intelligence with a tendency to be curious, to explore, and to tinker with things, and a high degree of creativity.

5. Bipedal, or a set of limbs free to carry and manipulate objects.

 

Since there are several creatures around with most of these already, it is only a matter of opportunty and time for this to happen...

Edited by obscurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think some of those can be knocked off. You don't need limbs to carry around objects if you have a prehensile tail or maneuverable mouth (dolphins, anyone?) And I don't think an omnivorous diet is necessary.

--

Somethin' fishy's goin' on here... Come on out, you taffer!

 

~The Fishy Taffer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You do need more than just a prehensile tail if you want to manipulate objects with any degree of precision - you cannot hold an object with sub-millimetre precision and rotatel it finely to make a delicate tool with a prehensile tail, at best you can grab hold an object with a coarse grip. An octopus has many sensitive, precise tentacles and can float through the water, is very smart and creative and could be a likely candiate for a civilisation if it aquires some of the other essentials during it's evolution. You need to develop an absolute dependence on sophisticated tools to develop human like societies and technology - without that dependence, selective processes have nothing to work on. And an omnivourous diet is a necessity - an animal that specialises in a narrow range of foods will not have the dependence on variety that compels us to be creative about sourcing food.

 

Dolphins can carry and manipulate objects crudely but lack any ability for fine precision grasping. Very few animals have prehensile tails, and none of them use them to manipulate objects, only to aid in climbing trees (because that is all they are good for).

Edited by obscurus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF:

Yes, which is why you're arguing semantics. A "free" will is classically where you have control over what you do, whereas what happens is that you.chemicalprocesses (which in a roundabout route == you) control what happens. If you redefine free will to be this, then of course you have free will. As I say, there's no quantifiable difference between the two, but I believe one is accurate!

 

Classically, there are four main axiis to the free will discussion. First off is the question, is the universe determined or not, more specifically are all of our mental functions determined or is there a point where we can do other than what our determinants have demanded of us. This is the determinancy/indeterminancy question.

 

Secondly is the compatibilist question: Is a free will compatible with a determined universe or not, or is a free will compatible with an indeterminant universe or not?

 

I am a determinism compatible libertarian, meaning I believe in a determined universe but I also believe a free will is compatible with said universe. Therefore, I am not "redefining" free will, I am supporting a position within the free will debate that is probably thousands of years old, definitely hundreds. My point to obscurus was that we were saying essentially the same thing, but that there is a version of free will that takes determinism into account. Our syntax was the roughly the same, but our semantics led us to two very different places. But this difference was the crux of the entire discussion, not merely "semantics" in its perjorative sense.

 

Lets go back to your description of the self. The chemical processes are a "roundabout" you, you say. I ask you what other self are you referring to that is NOT part and parcel of these processes and the hardware (neurons, etc.) involved? What is the "direct" you as opposed to the "roundabout" you that you are implying? The answer is of course that there is not distinction between the processes/hardware and YOU.

 

FF:I disagree. We are an automata, where the most basic rules determine the rules which in turn determine the outcome. For example, considering the following useless algorithm, which takes input from two arbitrary sources. The first input has been taken in some time ago....

 

I am willing to cede the point that we are automata given that our actions are the products of determined inputs, but we are very unique automata. No other automata can generate the finely tuned desires that we can, no others can abstract their desires to as fine a degree as we can. What robot can be determined by the concept of beauty? We can. What robot can be determined by a cloudy day? The various shades of the meaning of a word? A cherished or reviled memory? We can. And chimps too apparently, according to Goodall she has observed chimps staring for hours at waterfalls and sunsets. Also, recently researchers claimed that a Macaw, those really big ass parrots, had demonstrated an understanding of the concept of "zero." So these lines hardly end with humanity, but no where else do we see them expressed to the degree as in humans.

 

This goes back to Dennett again and his points about small changes in design yielding major changes in behaviour. We are in no doubt the product of the processes that make us up, but those processes have a complexity found no where else. And the coup de grace: We have a feedback loop of reflection that allows us to desire/not desire our will forming desires to a degree found no where else. Even as we form our wills from our desires, that will is "passed back through" our reflective mechanism, that weird place in our heads where internal influences meet external influences, and we get a chance to desire or not desire our desires.

 

FF: We are a similar, if more complex, setup.

 

Right, refer back to the notion of small changes in design yielding vast differences in behaviour.

 

FF: Our memory, past experiences and so on, in other words, our brain configuration, determines what we do now, when combined with other input. As such, there is no escaping the fundamentally automatic nature of the processes that we are based around, but we still have this degree of self.

 

Those processes ARE our selves, there is no "degree" of self. All those factors coalesce into YOU, they are not piggy-backing on you.

 

FF: While some of the other stuff you said I disagree with, for reasons hopefully explained above, this, I think, is true. In essence, we are relieved of the previous inputs that have shaped us and our personality. If we go back to ignoring the automatic gubbins, then we have less control. While in actual fact we have no control either way, hopefully, you understand approximately what the hell I'm talking about...

 

The fact is we do have a degree of control, we can desire our desires or not desire them, and those second tier desires can be action forming, thus freeing us of the "tyranny" of our initial desires.

 

 

FF: It appears we understand each other - again, it's a question of your definition of freedom. We are completely controlled by our brains, which is completely controlled by other stuff, but with philosophy, you can technically still say we have freedom because of the second layer, as you put it. Well met!

 

Yes, exactly, it is a question of definition. But consider your definition again, or rather your implied definition, if we are unfree because we are controlled by our brains, then to be free we would NOT have to be controlled by our brains! Is this really the formulation of freedom you advance, even if only to deny its exisitence? Doesnt really sound like freedom, to NOT be shaped by our memories, our sensory inputs, our wants/needs. Any living organism that hopes to survive in the world had better damned well BE determined by its senses and intellect. Its a question of the degree of intricacy of our determining factors and the existence of a reflective hierarchy that allows us to fine tune our desires.

 

We ARE our brains, we are not controlled by them, who or what is this other thing that resides in your skull along with your brain/mind? God? You soul? Elvis' ghost? Freedom comes because our brains can form actionable desires, very complex and finely detailed ones, and can also form desires about our desires and make them actionable, or action-forming, too. Philosophy is not providing some sort of "out" to allow for freedom, it points out that what may be thought to be freedom forming is not really so (indeterminancy), and what what may be thought to be freedom denying is not necessarily so (determinancy.) At least from my philosophical perspective, others take the opposite view. (But they are wrong!)

 

FF:In short, we have no freedom.

 

No, we dont have/not have the kind of freedom you have described. But we do have/not have the kind of freedom I have described. And we have it, to boot.*<:o)

 

FF:But actually no one gives a toss because what we arrive at is us which can be an alright place to be. Freedom or none, we are still human and we have still done what we have done.

 

Its not simply a matter of settling for the best of a bad lot. Given a determined universe, there is no coherent concept of an indeterminant freedom. So is there a degree of freedom to be found in a determined universe? Yes, when the organism in question gets to generate some of those determining factors, and not just generate them willy - nilly but to generate influences that dovetail precisely with our needs and wants, or to generate ones that change our needs and wants to accomodate other needs and wants or form new ones.

 

Let me ask you this, do you feel free or unfree right at this second? You are being determined, but its the special, private, unique complex of determinants that flow only from you, FishFace, and no one else. you are sitting at the computer right now, did you arrive there freely? No, you say, I was determined, controlled to be here by my desire to read what that idiot Maximius has been scrawling. But where does that desire flow from? Is there a mad scientist forcing you to read this, no. Is there an alien controlling your thoughts, no. that desire to engage in this discussion IS you, its a determining desire but its YOUR desire. But suddenly you remember another desires, the desire not to be fired for reading B.S. emails at work, suddenly your one desire counteracts your other desire, changing your will and therefore your actions. this is freedom, the ability to conceive of desires that can alter the will which is composed of other desires.

Edited by Maximius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So these lines hardly end with humanity, but no where else do we see them expressed to the degree as in humans.

 

Critically, "do we see..." We can obviously not see the finer points of chimp or parrot civilisation, because we are not chimps, nor parrots. This is (one of) my point(s). We cannot state here nor there whether other animals express this to the same degree we do, because we are incapable of knowing whether we understand their behaviour enough. The very fact that when we previously thought we were supreme beings, but have discovered that chimps have some behaviour remarkably similar to artistic appreciation, should drop the hint that we're still discovering things about animal behaviour.

 

The fact is we do have a degree of control, we can desire our desires or not desire them, and those second tier desires can be action forming, thus freeing us of the "tyranny" of our initial desires.

 

Allow me to address this and the "chemicalprocesses == you" bit at the same time. The problem is, when people say "control" they usually are not thinking about the chemical processes that comprise us, they are thinking of some fuzzy "self" that is separate and supernatural - mostly without thinking about it. Now, you are absolutely right that we cannot be controlled by anything other than our brains, which is a determined object. However, you must realise that in general terms, "free will" DOES refer to us being free from a determined brain, governed automatically by chemicals.

 

Said degree of control, however, does not (in my view) change anything. It is still automatic, and does not create this classical view of free will. Nor does it really create a nonclassical one, as you are still determined, automatically by the brain - you had a nonclassical free will without this "second tier." However, it obviously does change the way we operate, allowing us this reflection. What is important is that it is the reflection that allows people to latch onto a will free from the very thing that in fact makes us us.

 

Given a determined universe, there is no coherent concept of an indeterminant freedom.

 

This is what the "great unwashed" fail to grasp. We could argue all day over whether a second tier of will gives us any degree of freedom, but we're certainly not arguing over indeterminant freedom, which is what it appears most people have somehow grasped hold of.

 

[what that idiot Maximius has been scrawling] is freedom

 

This is where it gets semantical - no, not perjoratively - it depends on ones one perception of the concept of freedom. It's certainly not the indeterminant freedom that most will come up with - and the general use of the term in such a way is enough for me to not use it in that way. Nonetheless, I see where you're coming from when you use it... I'd just use something more flowery ;)

 

In short(ish) yes, I do feel free - I am governed by myself and nothing else. Said self is determinant, but it is still free. But not Free. Well, actually I do feel Free, but I am pretty sure I am not.

--

Somethin' fishy's goin' on here... Come on out, you taffer!

 

~The Fishy Taffer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have much to add, though I wish I had been reading this thread earlier.

 

Anyway, Ish:

 

We're also living way past our "natural" life spans (I put natural in quotes because maybe the development of better medical tools is natural too, who knows).

 

Actually, biologically, our genetical potential lifespan is more like 120 to 140. There are some cultures even today to which this is the norm, and they do not have the medical "advancements" we have in a fully modern society. The common denominator of long-life within all of these societies is simply nutrients.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite... The genetically determined mean lifespan is aprroximately 85 years. The proportion of people living to over 85 makes up less than 1% of the population (and I have taken mortality under the age of 20, and mortality due to accidents/violence out of the equation here - put them in and it gets much lower - less than 0.01%). I don't know of any culture where living to 140 is the norm, in fact there are no verifiable records of anyone living much beyond 120 in any society. Even in the demographic with the greatest life expectancy, the people in the island of Okinawa, Japan, life average life expectancy is about 88 for women, 86 for men, and that could be genetic, not diet related. People living to 120 are extreme outliers in the distribution of human lifespans, and make up less than 0.0001% of people in societies with high life expectancies, and in most societies your chances of living to 120 or more are less than 1 in several billion.

 

There is no statistical evidence to suggest that people who live beyond 85 have had any special nutrition - in fact there is no pattern that can explain it, except genetic variation - some people have mutations in genes that code for scenescence that give them a bit longer than the rest of us.

 

A healthy diet and regular excercise and medical technology can increase your chances of getting to your mid eighties, but anything beyond that is a bonus, because no type of diet, medical technology or excercise has been shown to make any difference to post 90 year longevity - it is pure luck if you make it to 90 or beyond.

 

It has been demonstrated in mice that are given a restricted calorie diet will live significantly longer than mice who are allowed to eat normally, but they show signs of stress and psychotic behaviour - they are driven insane with hunger essentially.

 

Me, I like food to much, and I value quality over quantity, so I would rather have 50 years of gluttony than 100 years of suffering a boring diet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FF:

Critically, "do we see..." We can obviously not see the finer points of chimp or parrot civilisation, because we are not chimps, nor parrots. This is (one of) my point(s). We cannot state here nor there whether other animals express this to the same degree we do, because we are incapable of knowing whether we understand their behaviour enough.

 

How many libraries have you visited that were founded by chimps or macaws? Ever hear of archeologists unearthing the Parrot Empire. These creatures may have culture, shared knowledge, history, customs, but they do NOT have anything like a civilization. Their technology is too crude and their language is not abstract enough.

 

FF:

The very fact that when we previously thought we were supreme beings, but have discovered that chimps have some behaviour remarkably similar to artistic appreciation, should drop the hint that we're still discovering things about animal behaviour.

 

I have no doubts that we have more to discover about animal behaviour, but there are still crucial differences between our intelligences and theirs. Its important to remember that we are related to them but its equally important to remember how we are very very different.

 

FF:

However, you must realise that in general terms, "free will" DOES refer to us being free from a determined brain, governed automatically by chemicals.

 

No, Im sorry but this is incorrect, I have been reading and writing on the topic of free will for about five years now and I can assure that is not the only definition. I agree with you that it may be the popular conception, but it is not the case with people who have dealt with the topic seriously.

 

FF:

Said degree of control, however, does not (in my view) change anything. It is still automatic,

 

So you agree we do have a degree of control, but that doesnt change anything about your view of our ability to control our wills?

 

FF: However, it obviously does change the way we operate, allowing us this reflection. What is important is that it is the reflection that allows people to latch onto a will free from the very thing that in fact makes us us.

 

That will is *never* free from us, it IS us, or a part of us. As Bishop Bramhall of Derry, a staunch defender of the notion that the only coherent vision of free will is an incompatiblist one, put it famously: "Freedom of the will is freedom FROM (added emphasis) the will." And he was dead wrong. Our reflective abilities allows us to form a will made up of the influences we are experiencing, in real time, but it never allows us to escape ourselves. How could one not will what one is willing at any given moment? Its a logical impossibility as well as a real world impossiblity. But there is freedom to be found in determinism.

 

 

 

FF:This is what the "great unwashed" fail to grasp. We could argue all day over whether a second tier of will gives us any degree of freedom, but we're certainly not arguing over indeterminant freedom, which is what it appears most people have somehow grasped hold of.

 

Agreed, which is why we still need philosophers, oddity and obscurus. B)

 

FF:This is where it gets semantical - no, not perjoratively - it depends on ones one perception of the concept of freedom. It's certainly not the indeterminant freedom that most will come up with - and the general use of the term in such a way is enough for me to not use it in that way. Nonetheless, I see where you're coming from when you use it... I'd just use something more flowery ;)

 

 

The term indeterminant is the correct language, I assure you. It may seem technical but then philsophers are the technicians of ideas... :rolleyes:

 

FF:

In short(ish) yes, I do feel free - I am governed by myself and nothing else. Said self is determinant, but it is still free. But not Free. Well, actually I do feel Free, but I am pretty sure I am not.

 

 

Agreed, except remember there is no Free, only free. Notions of indeterminant freedom are incoherent despite what seems to be going on in our heads, i.e. "I chose one thing, then went against my will and did another." You never go against your will, you can however form a new will, and lickety split if need be.

 

Allow me to make some reading suggestions:

 

daniel dennett "Freedom Evolves", "Elbow Room, the Varieties of Free Will Worth Wanting" (read first)

 

Harry Frankfurt "On the Freedom of the Will" this is a journal article, may be hard to find, if so Ill send a copy anywhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their technology is too crude and their language is not abstract enough.

 

Technologically, they're only as crude as we were quite a while ago. Language-wise, we have no idea what their language is like. Looking at chimp society is probably something like looking at human society with Autism. Just because it's impossible or difficult to perceive does not mean it is not complex.

 

No, Im sorry but this is incorrect, I have been reading and writing on the topic of free will for about five years now and I can assure that is not the only definition.

 

Your reading and writing means you have a correct view, not a normal one. When using a term that has more than one meaning, you have to specify which. In classical terms, freedom of the will IS freedom from the will - not in correct terms, but that's not what whatsisface was using.

 

So you agree we do have a degree of control, but that doesnt change anything about your view of our ability to control our wills?

 

Basically, we have the same amount of control as an amoeba has, because there is still no Freedom going on. An amoeba is free to be controlled by itself, as we are free to be controlled by ourselves. We control how we control ourselves, but that is still only free, so where is the change in control/freedom?

--

Somethin' fishy's goin' on here... Come on out, you taffer!

 

~The Fishy Taffer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recent Status Updates

    • Ansome

      Finally got my PC back from the shop after my SSD got corrupted a week ago and damaged my motherboard. Scary stuff, but thank goodness it happened right after two months of FM development instead of wiping all my work before I could release it. New SSD, repaired Motherboard and BIOS, and we're ready to start working on my second FM with some added version control in the cloud just to be safe!
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer  »  DeTeEff

      I've updated the articles for your FMs and your author category at the wiki. Your newer nickname (DeTeEff) now comes first, and the one in parentheses is your older nickname (Fieldmedic). Just to avoid confusing people who played your FMs years ago and remember your older nickname. I've added a wiki article for your latest FM, Who Watches the Watcher?, as part of my current updating efforts. Unless I overlooked something, you have five different FMs so far.
      · 0 replies
    • Petike the Taffer

      I've finally managed to log in to The Dark Mod Wiki. I'm back in the saddle and before the holidays start in full, I'll be adding a few new FM articles and doing other updates. Written in Stone is already done.
      · 4 replies
    • nbohr1more

      TDM 15th Anniversary Contest is now active! Please declare your participation: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22413-the-dark-mod-15th-anniversary-contest-entry-thread/
       
      · 0 replies
    • JackFarmer

      @TheUnbeholden
      You cannot receive PMs. Could you please be so kind and check your mailbox if it is full (or maybe you switched off the function)?
      · 1 reply
×
×
  • Create New...