free will and gibbersih

... and the fancy thing is that both science and religion sometimes come to analogous findings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Religion doesn't come upon any findings. It is dogma/doctrine which simply claims it as fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I didn't say I can do it. I just said it can be done (theoretically). Memories are just electrical charge so if u happen to get the charge exactly the same then u will have the same memories

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Most of Quantum Mechanics still makes no sense!

What I was talking about earlier: that there could be an effect without cause (true randonmess).

I'll try, but as u know, this is not mainstream theory. Could take a while!

Not if natural laws do not follow cause and effect!

I still think determinists like to think they can predict things!

Forces are not physical, they are immaterial. They are entirely different from physical objects.

I can't believe I had to resort yet again to the dictionary for u!

"physical":

http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn]

hs.onysd.wednet.edu/clubs/astroweb/ecology/vocab/glossary/

This is the context I am using "physical" for!

Forces and energy ARE physical! They are not material, thats all!

There is nothing inconsistent inside ones mind IMO.

Thanks for bringing this problem up. What if the mind itself IS physical? I am starting to believe this (as in my definition earlier).

Like I said, no theories tell us that matter can choose its own destiny in this universe can they?

Well I believe free will is supernatural.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alpha, you are such a creationist -- and you don't even know it!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

As if a religion was invented and jotted down over night!

 

I didn't mean to imply you could.

And I'm saying the opposite.

No shit. But how one reacts to those memories, and one's subjective opinions and beliefs about things, including those memories are not there.

You realize that's not part of QM? And that QM is just another false theory? It has it's merits of course, but it also has it's flaws, which are some of the major questions in theoretical physics right now.

Random-mess indeed.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

An effect requires a cause. As we discussed earlier, even if there is an inherent randomness to the universe it is caused by some randomness law, thus even random events have a cause, and given knowledge of the law, it would be predictable. That is to say, it's predetermined.

You make no sense. A natural law is something which must be obeyed, this it has a constant effect on the universe, and the law itself is the cause.

Only given sufficient knowledge, ie., omniscience. After all, if everything is predetermined...

I was using physical in the sense of material things.

Exactly, and that's the most common sense in which the term physical is used.

Oh really? According to you some of my beliefs are inconsistent. How can things be essentially deterministic, and yet allow for free will? I believe your beliefs are inconsistent, and you believe mine are, so you're contradicting yourself are you not?
Seriously, think about it for a minute. There are many many people with inconsistent beliefs. I'd name fundamentalists among them. They maintain that the bible is complete, consistent, and absolutely true. Clearly that's an inconsistent belief.

It is not. It has material components, but it is the interactions in said components that make up the mind.

Consciousness is not completely understood. No theories exclude it.
//---

Uh, OK.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Where'd that come from?

 

This:

For one, it took centuries and centuries for a certain set of ideas, values etc. etc. to become a belief system. (Unless, of course, you wish to insist that religion is a matter of divine revelation, and therefore can happen "over night".)

For two, of course religions have written scriptures. Of course they say it is fact. But most, if not all religions are about how to *act*, how to *live*. Religion is to be *recognized*, not *stated*. As such, it is about finding.

It is only the rigidly religious who insist of the stiff dogma. But those rigid people you can find anywhere, among the religious as well as among the non-religious. Rigidly following some dogma or some standard or law is not restricted to religion, not by far.

Look at avid supporters of a political party, racists, fashion slaves, "the everyman" -- it is rigid mentality.
Religion is just another field where this rigidity can take place and form, and to blame religion as such to be rigid is just too narrow IMO.

 

Yes I know

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course they are there. Everything is there if u provide the right code for it (i.e. electrical patterns).

Im just saying that it doesn't have to be wrong because it makes no sense.

But true randomness cannot be predicted. U don't believe in a truly random universe then do u?!

Does it really? What if the law was that a certain thing can only happen within these constraints but that within them anything can happen. That is what i believe MIGHT be the law!

Exaclty. I don't believe that. I believe true randomness cannot be predicted but I believe there is a set of events that just happen and cannot change. The universe itself doesn't have a choice just as we don't.

I wasn't

OK, i meant it is not inconsistent with the laws of the universe. Electricity is generated in the brain, we think of images that may not be able to happen in reality (but they are only images). This can be done on computers now as well. Nothing inconsistent about beliefs.

Yeah I was just thinking that what if the mind was an electromagnetic field! Simply an electromagnetic field and just that.

Again, I seperate free will and consciousness. Of course it is not excluded. It is obvious that consciousness exists!

 

Yes, in fact Christianity has decided now, I think, never to question anything which science may be able to answer (even remotely) in the future! they do this becasue of past embarrassments to their institution when they laid out rigid interpretations of the natural world.

 

In that case, I don't see the relevance.

So the dogma/doctrine evolved and changed. It's still dogma/doctrine being claimed as fact.

Dogma & doctrine have to have a subject.

True.

"Code"? Heh.
Certain conditions cannot be reproduced.

What gave you that idea?
Note: a lack of understanding doesn't mean something makes no sense.

Did you not read what I wrote? I said it's predetermined, not necessarily predictable. It would only be predictable if one had knowledge of the law which was causing the randomness. By that I don't mean simple awareness of the law, but rather how it works.

Perhaps I'm not understanding clearly what you mean here, but as far as I can tell that is the case. Anything is allowed which isn't forbidden...

As I said, it may not be predictable but it is still predetermined. But if one had complete knowledge of the initial state of the system (the Universe), then one could predict it. This is not possible though.

Obviously.

I know that. And I've consistently distinguished between internal (subjective) consistency and external consistency. I haven't claimed that an internal inconsistency makes anything in reality somehow inconsistent. I've consistently made this distinction, but somehow you seem to have missed that.

Nothing externally inconsistent, but internally is another matter.

Still has interactions and processes, etc. While the mind has an electric field, it is not solely composed by an electric field. The power of the field is too weak for any given part of the brain which generates such a field to encompass the entire brain. The field which encompasses the brain requires the whole brain to produce some of the rather weak electric field. This field barely extends more than a few millimeters beyond the skull, which is why EEG electrodes must be placed directly on the scalp.

It is just as obvious that free will exists.
On what grounds do you claim that free will is not a direct consequence of consciousness? The ability to be aware of things gives the ability to make choices.

 

If something can be produced once it can be reproduced again.

I have read some interpretations of QM which were described as making no sense ("sense" in the context of the world WE live in). Things happen in QM which can be considered weird and I think u are saying the same thing about my theory. Doesn't mean its wrong though.

Did u not read what I have been saying all this time? If there was a law which controlled randomness then it is not true randomness because it can theoretically be predicted. This is what seperates the 'inherent' randomness I speak of from the randomness u speak of.

Something like that, execpt that not everything happens with equal chance. Quantum probability etc.

Again, I am talking theoretically predictable. U said yourself above, that it can be predictable theoretically but I am saying it can't.

No, I just don't see internal inconsistency as being very important in this discussion!

Doesn't break the laws of nature so I am happy

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Yeah, this was just a side-topic anyway. Probably is NOT just an EM field.

Its very obvious it CAN'T exist IMO!

I can't see how YOU drew that logical conclusion!!!

 

"If something can be produced once it can be reproduced again."

Elementary causal physics. Think of it on the simplest level. If an observed event cannot be reproduced (reliably) a 2nd time, the entire scienftic method is junk. Come on gents, Johns point there is inarguable.

"I have read some interpretations of QM which were described as making no sense ("sense" in the context of the world WE live in). Things happen in QM which can be considered weird and I think u are saying the same thing about my theory. Doesn't mean its wrong though."

Here is where things get curious. Quantom Mechanics is a curious, and inherently noncausal physical system. So how do we justify its existence? With distinctions, and here, John, is where I think you screw up. QM exists only at the microscopic level. If QM was capable of affecting our world at the macroscopic level, then the universe as we know it would cease to make sense one day because I disappeared and reappeared over there, without physically moving in the Newtonian or classical sense. Quantum probability says it may be an extremely small chance that such a senseless event occured, but it still could, and this is unacceptable according to EVERY law of classical science on the books. Therefore, via GUT, we say: QM is cool, if your talking quarks. Once you start talking atomic particles, however, QM sucks and Newton rules.

Quantum randomness (or true randomness, by definition unpredictable) does not exist at the observable level. If you accept that as truth, then QM can coexist with CP (classical physics, acronyms rule!).

P.S. The best part about GUT is it complies with Quines web of belief, in that rather than disregard two centuries of classical physics to make way for quantum mechanics, we draw a few distinctions and insert a few conditions that allow both to exist peaceably.

 

I disagree, QM is only noticable at the microscopic level.

Again, this is wrong. For the 10¹⁵ atoms in your body to dissappear and reappear somewhere else would be incredibly unlikely. In fact it would be impossible in any theoretically predicted finite lifetime of our universe.

Yes, but classical science is an incomplete theory and it is wrong to keep looking at the universe through classical eyes.

I'm afraid it exists at all levels!

 

"I disagree, QM is only noticable at the microscopic level."

Well thats true enough. But insofar as we define what is noticeable as that which effects our observable physical universe, my original point still stands.

"Again, this is wrong. For the 10¹⁵ atoms in your body to dissappear and reappear somewhere else would be incredibly unlikely. In fact it would be impossible in any theoretically predicted finite lifetime of our universe."

Addressed further on. Extremely unlikerly, but possible, and therefore unacceptable.

"Yes, but classical science is an incomplete theory and it is wrong to keep looking at the universe through classical eyes."

Hence our use of GUT and QM to expand upon CP.

"I'm afraid it exists at all levels!"

Yes, true, but the effects of which are noticeable only at certain levels. That is to say, if an atom jumped a solid barrier that it could not otherwise pass through (say, a photon passing through a layer of solid cork), it could have an observable effect on our macroscopic universe which could be explained according to the rules of classical physics (such as a radiation burst from the penetrating photon... speaking entirely theoretically here). This is why we can say with some degree of certainty that QM exists at all! What is not observable, however, is the actual penetration of the solid cork by the single photon, as QM allows, because such things are impossible according to CP. So the effects of QM's existence are observable, but if QM itself were observable at the macroscopic level then our universe AS WE KNOW IT would necesarrily cease to exist.

EDIT: imagine if you will that we were attempting to observe the QM effect known as quantum tunneling, wherein, as described above, a photon (or particle of light) passed through an obstacle it could not normally or classically penetrate, such as a solid cork barrier. We set up our camera, which captures 1000fps, at point A on one side of the cork and another at point B on the opposite side of the cork. We then beam a flashlight onto point A and assume an infinite time scale, such that the quantum probability is irreleveant and the phenomenon will happen, regardless of how small the chance may be. When the photon finally did pass, inexplicably, throuhh the cork barrier we would, with our cameras, capture only a frame where the photon was at point A, and a follow up frame where the photon was no longer present. The opposite would be true at point B. The actual tunneling effect - how the photon ended up shifting - would not be captured on film. In the CP sense, the photon would not have moved. No exersion of force, no acceleration, etc. Call it what you will - blinking, teleporting, or whatever. The fact is, it does not involve movement, and it cannot be observed in the macroscopic universe, only its effects (that the photon changed states from existing at point A to existing at point B) can be observed. Hope that makes sense.

 

And how do you come to that conclusion?

I'm not saying it makes no sense as in being weird, I'm saying it makes no sense as in, illogical/inconsistent.

Then there can be no "true randomness" as you intend the phrase. What you speak of would break the law of causality. Every effect has a cause, and every cause, an effect. They may be random, but within the bounds of causality. If "true randomness" requires that it can't be even theoretically be predicted, then the universe is indeterministic, and causality is violated. There would be no order to the universe, no laws would apply, and everything breaks down into a steaming pile of nonsense.

I've repeatedly pointed out that internally inconsistent beliefs demonstrate that free will is unpredictable (even theoretically), thus determinism is false.

If you drop what you know or think you know for a minute, and verify for yourself, you can experience free will, thus it is self evident. So it is not obvious it can't exist. Your claim that it can't is counterintuitive, and unfounded as there's no scientific evidence that contradicts free will.

It's another one of those self evident things you can see for yourself. You are aware of choices/alternatives, and the criteria you use to evaluate them. This gives you the ability to choose between them.

If it was inarguable I wouldn't be arguing it. If you know elementary physics, perhaps you are aware of the laws of thermodynamics, specifically that entropy increases with time. Certain aspects of the system can never be completely reproduced, thus any smaller scale reproduction of the local system would be flawed and/or incomplete.

Not impossible, since it can be induced. For it to happen by chance is virtually impossible, but controlled teleportation is real.

QM is an incomplete theory and it is wrong to keep looking at the universe through the eyes of QM.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

"Yes, but classical science is an incomplete theory and it is wrong to keep looking at the universe through classical eyes."

True enough. Why then wouldn't you extend that line of thinking to free will? You can't say one way or another, because theory is incomplete... yet you've been vigilantly asserting the contrary. For instance, since there is no "complete theory", how can you claim "consciousness is deterministic"? Obviously there is no complete theory to back that up.

 

Quineans, holists, prototypists -- unite!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

So long as the reproduction does not necesitate the universe moving towards a more orderly state (that is, so long is work must be done in order to reproduce the observed phenomena) then entropy has not been violated. For example, if I shove a glass off a table and observe that it shatters, I may postulate that shoving glasses off tables is bad for the glass. To test this theory, someone may take an identical glass and shove it off an identical table (using identity as in common language, rather than as an absolute), or even reassemble the original glass and shove it off the original table. This would be a controlled reproduction of the observed phenomena, and the effect (the shattering of the glass) would hopefully be the same, or we'd have to toss out our original conclusion.

I challenge you to name an observable event which cannot be reproduced assumeing sameness of causes.

 

How about a photon taking the same path twice through a split mirror?

Perhaps the problem is that you can't ever really recreate a real event, as time moves forward. As such, things change and can't be the same at the core. Surely electrons are a different places and interact slightly differently if nothing else. Then you can talk about reproducing observable events at the macro level I guess, but is it really the same? Maybe so? I dunno. I tend to think not.

 

It does.

The mind is a system which is too chaotic, and too chaotically influenced to reproduce. The slightest difference in initial conditions would produce a different outcome. The only way to completely reproduce someone's mind and the decisions they'd make would be to "rewind" the universe itself.

That's my point.