I hope you are not winding me up with that question. I certainly am extraordinarily complex, but I am also certainly not a toy. Partly, its a question of attitude. We have a physical existence, so, in a way, the answer has to be yes. In fact regarding the body as a complex mechanism is very useful. (Medicine, for example.) More to the point, when that mechanism fails, we die. Yet that mechanism allows us to laugh and sing and fall in love, as well as destroying the planet and each other. Reconciling those two facts is, for me, the only game in town, or out of it. Notice that I have not answered your question which has presuppositions that require definition or at least explanation.Are we anything other than extraordinarily complex wind up toys? — Patterner
As I pointed out before, you are speaking from a position of ignorance. You simply don't know what LD knows. As I said, LD has a "Law of Everything". You do not, yet here you are arguing what would be impossible for LD.
— Harry Hindu
And as I pointed, Laplace never talked about and LD or a "Law of Everything" that we don't know, but assumed if some extremely well informed entity could make the extapolation from the present (or past), into the future. Laplace wasn't speaking of any divine power. As I said, what he was talking about is simple "Newtonian" physics extrapolation. That should be clear.
However coming back to your idea of LD having the "Law of Everything":
Let's first discuss this as this is one crucial factor here and should be discussed. Actually you aren't the first to make this argument.
Your argument (and please, do correct me if I'm wrong) is basically the "Black box" argument with LD: we don't know what logic, information and laws which LD is using (that we don't know, which is the Law of Everything. LoE) and hence for LD solving the problem is easy, even if it's not for us.
Ok,
The first question is then: If LD solves this problem using LoE, is then LoE equivalent to our logic that we use? Well, when one situation is that the correct forecast is a forecast that the LD doesn't give, obviously it isn't so, or then we really have understood very wrong basic logic. — ssu
We may regard the present state of the universe as the effect of its past and the cause of its future. An intellect which at a certain moment would know all forces that set nature in motion, and all positions of all items of which nature is composed, if this intellect were also vast enough to submit these data to analysis, it would embrace in a single formula the movements of the greatest bodies of the universe and those of the tiniest atom; for such an intellect nothing would be uncertain and the future just like the past could be present before its eyes. — Laplace
My question is, why did the NASA scientists not need to account for the solution to get to Pluto in the solution to get to Pluto and New Horizons still arrive at Pluto? Sure, it seems that if they tried to include the solution in the solution the New Horizons project would never moved past the planning stage, but it did by not accounting for it and the solution was a success. As I said before, some information is irrelevant to the forecast being made. NASA scientists also did not account for the speed at which the weeds in my yard grow to get to Pluto either. — Harry Hindu
It seems to logically follow that determinism and free will in the sense that most people think of it as being a decision that was not determined, are incompatible.I've never denied that determinism does not allow for free will. LD has no free will because it knows everything about everything in the present and can then extrapolate what it will do based on this understanding.
— Harry Hindu
Well, now you went ahead of me. Assuming that LD has no free will because it knows everything about everything and can extrapolate the future from the past with (LoE) is definately not something the Laplace had in mind. The point that LD would have no free will is quite a statement.
In fact, this is my point: One can say it that our free will limits this kind of simple extrapolation. Yet is this the correct way to state that theorem? Would it be perhaps better to say that simply there are limitations to what we can compute (or give a direct proof or), because we have free will? — ssu
Here's what I don't get about determinism. That process may determine my decision. But how does it force me to do anything? What sense does it make that I might be forced to do the right or rational thing, when the right or rational thing is what I want to do?your actual decision was made based on certain reasons and you filtered those other options based on certain reasons to eventually arrive at the last option standing. — Harry Hindu
Here's what I don't get about determinism. That process may determine my decision. But how does it force me to do anything? What sense does it make that I might be forced to do the right or rational thing, when the right or rational thing is what I want to do? — Ludwig V
Yes, of course. That's why, when I do something for those reasons, there is no compulsion, no restriction of freedom - except in the sense of opportunities voluntarily foregone.Why do you want to do the rational or right thing? Don't you have reasons? — Harry Hindu
Why do you want to do the rational or right thing? Don't you have reasons?
— Harry Hindu
Yes, of course. That's why, when I do something for those reasons, there is no compulsion, no restriction of freedom - except in the sense of opportunities voluntarily foregone — Ludwig V
I don't know. Does a decision that was determined based on prior circumstances necessarily have to feel like it was forced? It seems to me that if it was already determined based on existing circumstances that it would feel natural to reach the decision you made, and not feel forced.Yes, of course. That's why, when I do something for those reasons, there is no compulsion, no restriction of freedom - except in the sense of opportunities voluntarily foregone. — Ludwig V
I still believe that we should hold people responsible for their actions. Holding others responsible has an effect on theirs, and others, future behaviors, which is more of the point of punishment, not necessarily to take revenge on past behaviors but provide reasons to behave differently in the future.I agree with his claim that seeing ourselves determined in this reductive way by our past leads to more ethical, compassionate behavior toward those who commit acts of violence and other anti-social behaviors than religiously based notions of feee will, which tend to embrace harsh, retributive forms of justice. — Joshs
You may or may not be right about those empirical claims. I wouldn't know. But do they constitute an argument for believing that determinism is true?I agree with his claim that seeing ourselves determined in this reductive way by our past leads to more ethical, compassionate behavior toward those who commit acts of violence and other anti-social behaviors than religiously based notions of free will, which tend to embrace harsh, retributive forms of justice. — Joshs
That's certainly an advance on traditional forms of determinism.What is lacking is the concept of reciprocal, relational determinism, which puts the organism in dynamic touch with its environment on the basis of its moment to moment functioning. In this way of thinking, our present actions are still the result of a determined history, but they don’t simply regurgitate pre-assigned properties. — Joshs
If determinism is true, people's behaviour is not governed by reasons, but by causes. Similarly, holding people responsible is never possible if determinism is true.I still believe that we should hold people responsible for their actions. Holding others responsible has an effect on theirs, and others, future behaviors, which is more of the point of punishment, not necessarily to take revenge on past behaviors but provide reasons to behave differently in the future. — Harry Hindu
Have you never done something that you didn't want to do - sometimes something you had decided not to do?What would a decision that was forced feel like compared to one that was freely chosen? — Harry Hindu
If it felt like that, it was probably based on reason, as opposed to some causal chain.it would feel natural to reach the decision you made — Harry Hindu
Reasons are a type of cause.If determinism is true, people's behaviour is not governed by reasons, but by causes. — Ludwig V
Yes. I should rephrase. The likelihood of getting caught is a reason to not commit a crime.Similarly, holding people responsible is never possible if determinism is true.
BTW, the empirical evidence is that what deters people from committing crimes is not the severity of the punishment, but the likelihood of getting caught. — Ludwig V
Reasoning is a causal process. It takes time to reason. Your reasons determine your decision. I don't see a distinction between "physical" and "non-physical" causation so the act of reasoning is just a type of causal chain.Have you never done something that you didn't want to do - sometimes something you had decided not to do?
You may have felt that you did it without deciding to do it.
it would feel natural to reach the decision you made
— Harry Hindu
If it felt like that, it was probably based on reason, as opposed to some causal chain. — Ludwig V
Yes. But the difference is that a reasoning chain justifies its conclusion, whereas a normal, non-reasoning chain does not.Your reasons determine your decision. I don't see a distinction between "physical" and "non-physical" causation so the act of reasoning is just a type of causal chain. — Harry Hindu
This is pretty damning for Laplace, actually.The first sentence defines determinism.
The second sentence describes an intellect as having a Law of Everything. The Law of Everything is the law that defines all the forces that set nature in motion and all the positions of all items of which nature is composed...
The second part of the second sentence describes the intellect as being vast enough to submit these data to analysis, or logic.
In this sense, the LoE and logic are different things. — Harry Hindu
Exactly.It seems to logically follow that determinism and free will in the sense that most people think of it as being a decision that was not determined, are incompatible. — Harry Hindu
That's a good way to put it. Let me continue from this: How would you model this procedure? How do we get that "option" that entails "freedom"? How could you logically or mathematically model free will?But decisions are made based on some reason and it is our reasons that determine a decision, or else we would say that we made an unreasonable decision.
To me, freedom entails options. — Harry Hindu
Non-algorithmic math, also known as non-computable math, is a branch of mathematics that deals with problems that cannot be solved by an algorithm or computer program. These problems involve complex and unstructured data that cannot be easily broken down into a set of rules or steps.
For example in the case that I mentioned Raatikainen mentions in the philosophical implications of the incompleteness results the debate about if "Gödel’s theorems demonstrate that the powers of the human mind outrun any mechanism or formal system" etc.Of course interpretations of what Gödel's theorem actually shows vary.I read an article long time ago about how Gödel's theorem proves God's existence!(wtf?!!!?).People still debate for less complex things than that.So I guess this isn't a surprise. — dimosthenis9
In 1961, J.R. Lucas published “Minds, Machines and Gödel,” in which he formulated a controversial anti-mechanism argument. The argument claims that Gödel’s first incompleteness theorem shows that the human mind is not a Turing machine, that is, a computer.
The point is simply this: at the point we make a decision, there is a set of determining factors: beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. — Relativist
Importantly, thermodynamics did more than merely establish that mean kinetic energy correlated with temperature—it proposed that this is what temperature actually is. — Seth
Relativist: "The point is simply this: at the point we make a decision, there is a set of determining factors: beliefs, genetic dispositions, environmentally introduced dispositions, one's desires and aversions, the presence or absence of empathy, jealousy, anger, passion, love, and hatred. These factors are processed by the computer that is our mind to make a choice."
So there is no convincing, no reasoning, no weighing different alternatives, no initiating action – it’s all billiard ball cause-and-effect. — Thales
That's not what I'm saying. — Relativist
There are an uncountable number of air molecules in my living room. They are all flying about in various directions, at various speeds. We have nothing resembling the slightest hint of hope of tracking them all. But we can measure the temperature of the room. — Patterner
I guess the idea is common enough. In How to Create a Mind, Ray Kurzweil writes:Thank you for bringing this idea to my attention, Patterner. I really like how a seemingly hopeless situation like uncountable air molecules can – by their motion – actually bear fruit by giving us definitive information… namely temperature. And expanding this idea to “firing neurons” and “thought” is interesting. — Thales
Of course, there is much debate over whether or not consciousness is explained by this physical system.Although chemistry is theoretically based on physics and could be derived entirely from physics, this would be unwieldy and infeasible in practice, so chemistry has established its own rules and models. Similarly, we should be able to deduce the laws of thermodynamics from physics, but once we have a sufficient number of particles to call them a gas rather than simply a bunch of particles, solving equations for the physics of each particle interaction becomes hopeless, whereas the laws of thermodynamics work quite well. Biology likewise has its own rules and models. A single pancreatic islet cell is enormously complicated, especially if we model it at the level of molecules; modeling what a pancreas actually does in terms of regulating levels of insulin and digestive enzymes is considerably less complex. — Kurzweil
We can take that a step further. Knowing what we know about gravity, we cannot fully explain the motion of stars and galaxies. it has been determined that there must be something that we cannot detect in any way, but which has a gravitational effect. It is called dark matter, and the amount of it that exists has been calculated.For some reason, this brings to my mind the principle of “Operationalism,” which gained some popularity among certain logical positivists in the 1920s-30s. It goes something like this: Scientific concepts that lack direct, empirical evidence can be “saved” by linking them to experimental procedures. “Gravitation,” for example, can not be seen, heard, smelled, tasted or touched, but it can nevertheless be determined “operationally” by observing phenomena such as planetary orbits. — Thales
Turn it around: can you then point to the event that didn't have any reason or cause to happen?So there is no convincing, no reasoning, no weighing different alternatives, no initiating action – it’s all billiard ball cause-and-effect. — Thales
The problem is that people don't distinguish between different ideas about determinism. Saying "there are certain days next year when it will rain" and saying "It isn't possible to identify which days will have rain for next year" are very different claims. Both are true. Both can be described as determined or not determined. Though actually, in a case like that, we would retreat to probabilities.That doesn't help now an outdoors event planner that is looking arranging something for summer 2026. — ssu
That's true. But I think that's because everyone is treating it as an empirical hypothesis, forgetting that not all propositions are empirical hypotheses. Effectively, determinism defines what a complete and final explanation of an event (past, present or future) would be. It's a "regulative ideal", to steal a phrase.Determinism doesn't say much. — ssu
It seems to me that the idea of choices in a deterministic reality is a sham. Sure, it is possible for a human to choose cake over ice cream. But when one of us is actually presented with the two options, if we pick one up because the billion bouncing billiard balls landed that way, and we could not have picked up the other because the balls landed in the only way they could, then how is such a "choice" is of no greater value or interest than is the final arrangement of the rocks and dirt when an avalanche settles?Determinism doesn't say much. It also doesn't limit our choices. — ssu
You are missing a trick here. Sure, the final arrangement rocks and dirt is not of any interest. But the outcome of the causal sequence of events in a calculating machine is of interest, because it instantiates a calculation, because we arranged it that way. Again, there is a causal sequence from the keys you press to my reading what you write, and that is extremely interesting. In their various ways all causal sequences are of some interest, but some are more interesting than others. The causal sequences in my brain are much more like those in a computer than they are like the final outcomes of an avalanche.how is such a "choice" is ofnoany greater value or interest than is the final arrangement of the rocks and dirt when an avalanche settles? — Patterner
Your Fork-in-the-Road argument may illustrate the notion of Free Will choices. But as a philosophical proof, it may or may not be convincing to determinists. Nevertheless, I agree that world Causation is both Deterministic and Indeterminate (undecided, uncertain). Which leaves gaps (junctions?) in the chain of causation for the exercise of personal willpower to choose (decide) the next step. Yet the unconstrained choice itself is not random (chaotic)*1, but determined by future-aimed intention.To conclude, I have proven I can change the future indirectly by interrupting the flow of the present. I also assert that at junctions we can change the future directly. This is my argument that life is both determined and has free will, but neither purely. — Barkon
What is the sham here is thinking that determinism limits your actions or you don't have the ability to choose... because it's somehow preordained, because there is the deterministic future.It seems to me that the idea of choices in a deterministic reality is a sham. Sure, it is possible for a human to choose cake over ice cream. But when one of us is actually presented with the two options, if we pick one up because the billion bouncing billiard balls landed that way, and we could not have picked up the other because the balls landed in the only way they could, then how is such a "choice" is of no greater value or interest than is the final arrangement of the rocks and dirt when an avalanche settles? — Patterner
If I knock a glass off of a table, I do not think it is preordained that it will then fall to the floor and break into pieces. But it will fall to the floor and break into pieces. And, given all the factors, it can only break in one specific way, with x pieces of various sizes and shapes. What I mean is, exactly how it falls determines what part of it hits the floor first, at what angle, at what speed, etc. If it falls without spinning and lands on its base, it will break in one way. (I support it might not break at all in the scenario.) If it spins at a rapid rate, it might land not quite horizontal, with its rim hitting first, and shatter spectacularly. No matter how it hits, even though we don't have the ability to calculate everything the instant before it hits the floor and know how it will break, once it hits, there is only one possible outcome.What is the sham here is thinking that determinism limits your actions or you don't have the ability to choose... because it's somehow preordained, because there is the deterministic future. — ssu
Turn it around: can you then point to the event that didn't have any reason or cause to happen? — ssu
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.