Are you in control of your own thoughts, actions and decisions?

This forum is for anything not Reason related, if you just want to talk about other stuff. Please keep it friendly!
User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 728
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
Dude, first, fuck your antagonism.
Whew. Glad you got that out of the way first. We're keeping it civil I see. It's ok though, I don't hold you morally responsible for your outburst. Determinism and all.
Anyone who tells another person to "cram it up your patchouli-chute" has very little room to get snippy about things.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
You seem to think science has the functions of the brain all figured out.
No, actually, I don't. I explicitly say that elsewhere in the post, but you want to put words in my mouth so I guess you'll ignore the more inconvenient bits as you go.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
So because science isn't currently aware of this x-factor* that it surely doesn't exist. You leave no room for future advances in understanding.
The problem is that assuming that there is an "x-factor" - when there is currently no actual evidence to indicate there is one - is the "God of the gaps" problem, where God is presumed to exist simply because there are things we don't yet understand. How did the universe come into being? How precisely did life start on Earth? Don't fully know? Why, God did it, then!

Yes, of course it might come out that there is some sort of physics-defying thing that is part of consciousness. But until it is revealed, it makes no sense to assume it does exist simply to make people who don't like the idea of determinism feel better.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
*Since science already knows everything, tell me what science knows about the subconscious mind.
More than you do. But also, strawman.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If all this is true - and as yet there's no compelling evidence that it isn't - then the chemicals are always going to react in certain ways. They cannot react in ways not in accordance with their nature. Wherever two or more types of chemicals meet in the brain, they are going to react in a certain way and deliver a certain result in accordance with the physical laws of the world.
If you wish to define everything based on a limited set of criteria, then, within the confines of that criteria, you have a good argument.
Well, then, what criteria do you suggest, that is based on actual reality and not wishful thinking? I mean, you can say we have souls that carry on apart from our organic bodies, but then you need to provide some sort of evidence for that beyond you just feel it to be true, and that goes for any other quality or "x-factor" you want to postulate. The fact that we may not fully know something is not in and of itself evidence that something that fills in that gap exists.

If I can't "prove" determinism to you, you likewise can't prove free will without resorting to ignorance or inventing hypothetical states for which there is no evidence.

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 507
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

03 Aug 2017

platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If I can't "prove" determinism to you, you likewise can't prove free will
EXACTLY.

Between you and I, only one of us is determined to prove anything here. And it's not me. I never said I could prove free will. You are the one trying to convince us of the very absolute things you believe in but can't prove.

User avatar
jappe
Moderator
Posts: 2437
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
03 Aug 2017

2. There is nothing about human capability that requires new physics.
Consciousness is something that I'm not sure we're explored enough to rule out any new physics?

I remember this thread from some months ago when we tried to solve existential mysteries:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7498819

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 507
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

03 Aug 2017

platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
You seem to think science has the functions of the brain all figured out.
No, actually, I don't. I explicitly say that elsewhere in the post, but you want to put words in my mouth so I guess you'll ignore the more inconvenient bits as you go.
Then what the hell are you so sure of? You're the one making absolute statements. That is your logical fallacy. You don't leave room for possible explanations outside of what is currently known. Which means that in time it will be found to be wrong, at least in part.
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
Yes, of course it might come out that there is some sort of physics-defying thing that is part of consciousness. But until it is revealed, it makes no sense to assume it does exist simply to make people who don't like the idea of determinism feel better.
You're the one here who's being defensive and worked up and seems to cling to their belief in order to feel better. My only point is that until you can prove determinism then it makes no sense to cling to it so absolutely.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
*Since science already knows everything, tell me what science knows about the subconscious mind.
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
More than you do. But also, strawman.
You call it a strawman because it's not convenient for your argument of determinism?
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If you wish to define everything based on a limited set of criteria, then, within the confines of that criteria, you have a good argument.
Well, then, what criteria do you suggest, that is based on actual reality and not wishful thinking? I mean, you can say we have souls that carry on apart from our organic bodies, but then you need to provide some sort of evidence for that beyond you just feel it to be true, and that goes for any other quality or "x-factor" you want to postulate. The fact that we may not fully know something is not in and of itself evidence that something that fills in that gap exists.
EASY! The criteria I suggest is facts that we are currently unaware of to be discovered in a future time. Unless you don't believe we will ever learn new surprising facts in the future that shake up our understanding of things? Future discoveries is what I leave room for in my argument. I am not so close-minded as to speak in absolutes on much of anything, let alone unknown things. It is not wishful thinking to assume we will make advances in this area in the coming years. It is more an acknowledgement of our current limitations.

Did I ever once mention souls or such things? Who's putting words in whose mouth?

Some people engage in these conversations for entertainment and eye opening perspectives and they leave with new ideas and they become less convinced of anything but their own curiosity. "Other people" feel the need to take sides, dig in, have opponents and wage war. I prefer to appreciate the ideas inherent to both sides. I am 49% convinced of determinism, 49% convinced of free will with a 2% gap for unknown variables that won't be proven in our lifetimes. If you believe there's nothing more to us than pre-determined actions then you are certainly free to do so. But you haven't convinced me.

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

jappe wrote:
03 Aug 2017
avasopht wrote:
03 Aug 2017

2. There is nothing about human capability that requires new physics.
Consciousness is something that I'm not sure we're explored enough to rule out any new physics?

I remember this thread from some months ago when we tried to solve existential mysteries:
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7498819
Yes, that was a very colourful thread. I never did give normen a proper response in that thread.

I'm not sure if it's a quest for new physics as it is a search for something that cannot ever be explained.

I think the desire is for thought to be independent of physical processes. For consciousness to just be. For it to be the pure construction of its own existence, because that is what it "feels" like to us.

User avatar
4filegate
Posts: 922
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

We make models in science, but we also make them in everyday life.
Model-dependent realism applies not only to scientific models but also to the conscious and subconscious mental models we all create in order to interpret
and understand the everyday world. There is no way to remove the observer—us—from our perception of the world, which is created through our sensory processing
and through the way we think and reason. Our perception—and hence the observations upon which our theories are based—is not direct, but rather is shaped by a kind of lens, the interpretive structure of our human brains.

Model-dependent realism corresponds to the way we perceive objects. In vision, one’s brain receives a series of signals down the optic nerve. Those signals do not constitute the sort of image you would accept on your television. There is a blind spot where the optic nerve attaches to the retina, and the only part of your field of vision with good resolution is a narrow area of about 1 degree of visual angle around the retina’s center, an area the width of your thumb when held at arm’s length. And so the raw data sent to the brain are like a badly pixilated picture with a hole in it. Fortunately, the human brain processes that data, combining the input from both eyes, filling in gaps on the assumption that the visual properties of neighboring locations are similar and interpolating. Moreover, it reads a two-dimensional array of data from the retina and creates from it the impression of three-dimensional space. The brain, in other words, builds a mental picture or model.

stephen_hawking_the_grand_design

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

03 Aug 2017

sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If you believe there's nothing more to us than pre-determined actions then you are certainly free to do so. But you haven't convinced me.
I don't think that's the best way to look at determinism.

Look, right now you performed an action. It was not critical, but you performed it because according to your set of assumptions it was a suitable action. If your judgement is that red is better than blue, then unless further data is provided you will always consider red better than blue.

Should some random force of the universe play a role in making you prefer blue, then would that thought be your own? No it would have been created by the random element.

So on one hand determinism means the future can be determined from the present state, but that doesn't mean the decisions being made were not each person's own best decision at all. In fact it means it was.

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 507
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

03 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
03 Aug 2017
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If you believe there's nothing more to us than pre-determined actions then you are certainly free to do so. But you haven't convinced me.
I don't think that's the best way to look at determinism.
Then perhaps his previous comments weren't utilizing the best definition of determinism so as to lead me astray. I was taking issue directly with his words on the matter which were very absolute. Strict adherence to the principles of Determinism is what I reject outright. I prefer more liberal interpretations.

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 728
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

04 Aug 2017

sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
Then what the hell are you so sure of? You're the one making absolute statements.
But I'm not.

Look, you're running on your own assumptions about what I'm saying that are simply wrong, and either you're deliberately misrepresenting my argument in order to score rhetorical points or you're just not paying attention enough to have a meaningful conversation about the subject.

Note the word IF that I've used often. IF the things I claim are true, then it logically follows that other things are, as a result, also true. Perhaps the things I claim are not true. But nobody has put forward any kind of coherent case for them being otherwise.

sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
That is your logical fallacy.
I don't think you actually know what a logical fallacy is, at this point.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
You don't leave room for possible explanations outside of what is currently known. Which means that in time it will be found to be wrong, at least in part.
You can't possibly know that.

I'm fine with the idea of possible explanations outside of what is currently known - as long as there is some rational basis for them. I mean, it's possible that ghosts actually exist, I guess, but there is to date no hard evidence for their existence, nobody has caught a ghost, nobody has definitely recorded a ghost in any media, and aside from unverifiable stories, there's been no real interaction between ghosts and people. So given all that, I could say that ghosts might exist - but unless better evidence comes along I'm going to live my life as if they don't. Cf: Bertrand Russell's teapot.

In the case of free will, maybe there is some strange undiscovered thing out there. But there is as of yet not even a hint of what it might be, not a ripple in any known part of the universe to even give the slightest clue as to its nature. So sure, it's possible something exists, but until it is shown in some meaningful way, it might as well be a ghost. I'm willing to change my mind when something new is learned, but not before, and certainly not because of some nebulous might-be that has to be assumed on faith alone.

sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
You're the one here who's being defensive and worked up and seems to cling to their belief in order to feel better. My only point is that until you can prove determinism then it makes no sense to cling to it so absolutely.
Look, you're the one that opened up with "See this is what bugs me!" and "Cram it up a chute!" so don't bother playing it off like you're the one who doesn't care so much. Don't come out swinging and then complain if I swing back.

There is nothing you have said that in any way contradicts the logical progression of my statement, which makes a case that all events in the universe are determined by the rules of physics, including human thought and volition. The closest you come to actually opposing that is to say "you don't know everything" - which is true, but irrelevant - and "there might be something we don't know yet!" - which might be true but is essentially meaningless until we actually have some kind of indication of what it is that we are currently unaware of.

This is not so much "clinging" as it is "standing on a platform while my opponent tries to push me off by waving a peacock feather fan in my direction".
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
You call it a strawman because it's not convenient for your argument of determinism?
No, I call it a strawman because it's you trying to contradict an argument I'm not making.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017

Did I ever once mention souls or such things? Who's putting words in whose mouth?
It was an example, of a thing that many people believe exists but for which there is no real evidence.
sublunar wrote:
03 Aug 2017
If you believe there's nothing more to us than pre-determined actions then you are certainly free to do so. But you haven't convinced me.
Nor do I expect to, since I believe you are far more "dug in" than perhaps you would admit to yourself. The thing is, all the things in my statements have been based on observable facts. The only counters you have are, at best, unobservable hypotheses.

User avatar
jappe
Moderator
Posts: 2437
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

04 Aug 2017

We may have different opinions but let's agree with this:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7500911

User avatar
stratatonic
Posts: 1507
Joined: 15 Jan 2015
Location: CANADA

04 Aug 2017

.
The chemicals made me post this...



avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

04 Aug 2017

stratatonic wrote:
04 Aug 2017
.
The chemicals made me post this...
You do realise neurologists aren't just saying "chemicals make you do things," right? ;)

siln
Posts: 349
Joined: 11 May 2015
Location: france

04 Aug 2017

Determinism can be motivational when you convince yourself you ve been designed to thrive , or at least you ve been designed to learn
the other species on this plan(ned)-net seems to claim their full potentials

deepndark
Posts: 1270
Joined: 16 Jan 2015
Location: Finland
Contact:

06 Aug 2017

Hah, I've been discussing about this on the Finnish science forums for many many times already.
Indeed, it seems like we clearly can't control our mind as much as we'd like to, just like a captain of the boat can't change the weather. Anyway, as a schizophrenic, I have even less control than avarage people have. I got ill in 2004 - I was 24 years old. As you might know, people with this diagnose may hear voices and sharing their mind with unknown sources - so NO, we can't be in control in many cases.

But, on the other hand - we are not living in 100% determinism either, and this is something I have been arguing with some people. They claim that the whole universe and it's physics-laws exclusively rule everything. I stated that biological units i.e. human beings and animals mess up the determinism, by free choice. If sun is shining on the grass and I cause a shadow, then the grass gets less light on it, right? Anyway, if we wouldn't need to act in this big treadmill for food, healthcare etc, we could be a lot less systematic/robotic.

I think we have a limited free will. We can make decisions, and act as we want - but our thoughts in a precent time are more like throwing dice. But that's part of the beauty/life, that our upcoming moments are not revealed for us in advance. Yeah, well, it's kind of true that we may actually live in a Matrix. There's few experiences, that make me think about it anyway. To sum it up, lots of the things on our planet are strongly following a deterministic sequencer, that most of us hate - as we mostly love and care about everything "human".

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

06 Aug 2017

If people weren't in control of their own thoughts all kinds of counseling would be rendered useless. Meditation would be a pointless endeavor. An addict would always be an addict. There would be no reform.

User avatar
jappe
Moderator
Posts: 2437
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

06 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
If people weren't in control of their own thoughts all kinds of counseling would be rendered useless. Meditation would be a pointless endeavor. An addict would always be an addict. There would be no reform.
Those thoughts come to mind.
Perhaps it's a bottle half-full or half-empty view.
Another way of looking at it is that everyone and everything fits perfectly in the puzzle.

User avatar
jappe
Moderator
Posts: 2437
Joined: 19 Jan 2015

06 Aug 2017

deepndark wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Hah, I've been discussing about this on the Finnish science forums for many many times already.
Indeed, it seems like we clearly can't control our mind as much as we'd like to, just like a captain of the boat can't change the weather. Anyway, as a schizophrenic, I have even less control than avarage people have. I got ill in 2004 - I was 24 years old. As you might know, people with this diagnose may hear voices and sharing their mind with unknown sources - so NO, we can't be in control in many cases.

But, on the other hand - we are not living in 100% determinism either, and this is something I have been arguing with some people. They claim that the whole universe and it's physics-laws exclusively rule everything. I stated that biological units i.e. human beings and animals mess up the determinism, by free choice. If sun is shining on the grass and I cause a shadow, then the grass gets less light on it, right? Anyway, if we wouldn't need to act in this big treadmill for food, healthcare etc, we could be a lot less systematic/robotic.

I think we have a limited free will. We can make decisions, and act as we want - but our thoughts in a precent time are more like throwing dice. But that's part of the beauty/life, that our upcoming moments are not revealed for us in advance. Yeah, well, it's kind of true that we may actually live in a Matrix. There's few experiences, that make me think about it anyway. To sum it up, lots of the things on our planet are strongly following a deterministic sequencer, that most of us hate - as we mostly love and care about everything "human".
Thanks for sharing you story and view.
I think there's a lot to learn from cases where people deviate from the average.

What about the scope of free will? Perhaps personal free will and group free will is the R and G of RGB, or rather some X dimensional set of parameters.
Can we learn something about that by studying autism?

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
If people weren't in control of their own thoughts all kinds of counseling would be rendered useless. Meditation would be a pointless endeavor. An addict would always be an addict. There would be no reform.
That's a bit of a non sequitur. Firstly nobody is saying zero control over thoughts. And even if it was, that wouldn't imply counseling is useless. I don't get how the two would be linked. But again, nobody is saying absolutely zero control over thoughts anywhere. And nothing implies a person's disposition could not change so I don't see why that conclusion would be presumed.



Most people have zero awareness of their unconscious biases. That means they don't have any control of them.

Most people have zero control over racing thoughts, anxiety, depression and a whole other aspects of their behaviour - thus another significant area of a lack of control.

Most people cannot alter their sexual or cullinary preferences at will - further lack of control.

People with phobias to harmless things cannot remove that phobia at will. Another lack of control.

Most people struggle to stick to their diets or discipline themselves to study or work out (even at times where their life depends on it). So clearly we're not in complete control of our mind. We barely have awareness of what's truly going on in our minds.

Most people cannot stop their thoughts completely or concentrate on a single thought for a prolonged time without a lot of practice. Give it a minute or so and they're already thinking about all the things they've got to do the following week and which bills they might not have paid yet. This is the most common experience people have a meditation and prayer.



I practice meditation. I am well aware of its benefits and capabilities, but it takes years of dedicated practice for most people to tame their minds.

Maybe you belong to the small percentage of people with a different neurological structure that does not respond to a lot of social forces and emotional biases most people have and think everyone else thinks like you (but that still doesn't mean you lack any unconscious biases). It's an error I see often in people like that. Also some people don't have internal dialogue (such as some on the autism spectrum), their brains just don't work like that.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

06 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Most people have zero awareness of their unconscious biases. That means they don't have any control of them.
Sure thing about unconscious biases but even then people can try to be aware of such biases.
avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Most people have zero control over racing thoughts, anxiety, depression and a whole other aspects of their behaviour - thus another significant area of a lack of control.
Mental illness spread like wildfire along with the pharmaceutical industry. Is that just a coincidence or excuse me is that not pertinent to the topic we are discussing? I bet a lot of people would straighten out their minds if you told them they were going to receive a lobotomy or shock therapy if they don't straighten out their minds. What happened to the good old days? This modern special snowflake society encourages individuality but people can't handle the recoil because of our design as tribal. If I ever have children, I will be whooping my kids' asses with my belt if they misbehave before I shove attention deficit meds down their throats.
avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Most people cannot alter their sexual or cullinary preferences at will - further lack of control.
What are we going to do with child molestors? Should we just shoot them in the head or send them to prison and then counseling with hopes of altering their sexual preference?
avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
People with phobias to harmless things cannot remove that phobia at will. Another lack of control.
I can't speak on this because I don't have any experience nor have I looked into forcing people to face their pointless fears.
avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Most people struggle to stick to their diets or discipline themselves to study or work out (even at times where their life depends on it).
I'm not quite liking this "most people" business of yours but this comes down to the reasons and motives behind the issues at hand. If somebody told me I was facing liver failure as an alcoholic I would just keep drinking if I didn't have much to live for anyways while somebody who wants to meet their next grandchild would have a good reason to quit drinking.

Why are people afraid of death if death is inevitable?
avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Most people cannot stop their thoughts completely or concentrate on a single thought for a prolonged time without a lot of practice.
Practice is the keyword there that I embrace.

Anyways, I am aware that my input is shot from the sideline so to speak but my belief is that people can be in as much control as they choose to be.

Have you ever played poker? A lot of people think poker is a game of bluffing and stealing while it is actually a game of making the best possible decisions and profiting from your opponents' mistakes. It can also be an emotional and mental rollercoaster because most decisions aren't absolute. I once heard a poker coach tell his students to imagine somebody holding a gun to their heads telling them they better make the best possible decisions. I believe this can be applied to many areas of life. It is dramatic but is a fine, very specific example of how you can gain control of your mind instead of mindlessly splashing chips into the pot of life.
avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Also some people don't have internal dialogue (such as some on the autism spectrum), their brains just don't work like that.
Yeah I know my brain is wired differently for sure and I suppose I might be a little autistic or something else. My parents told me I was reading before anybody taught me how to read and I do display some odd characteristics along with plenty of internal dialogue. Hey maybe that's how I can drink by myself at nine o' clock in the morning. :lol:

avasopht
Competition Winner
Posts: 3931
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Aug 2017

CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Sure thing about unconscious biases but even then people can try to be aware of such biases.
Yes there are methods to tackle one's biases (almost eliminating them in effect), but a person must be aware of and acknowledge it first.
CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Mental illness spread like wildfire along with the pharmaceutical industry. Is that just a coincidence or excuse me is that not pertinent to the topic we are discussing? I bet a lot of people would straighten out their minds if you told them they were going to receive a lobotomy or shock therapy if they don't straighten out their minds. What happened to the good old days? This modern special snowflake society encourages individuality but people can't handle the recoil because of our design as tribal. If I ever have children, I will be whooping my kids' asses with my belt if they misbehave before I shove attention deficit meds down their throats.
Well in terms of depression, anxiety and phobias; they have all the motivation they need. The most extreme cases would just have been the end of them in the past, though it's likely that changes in society have increased the occurrences of depression. One early treatment for the most severe cases of depression was to have people walk barefoot in the grass (a practice depicted in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility (written when she was barely 16 believe it or not)).

ADHD isn't just about kids bouncing around the walls. That is how big pharma market it because it sells, but that is not how real psychologists view it. You can have ADHD and be well behaved and perform well.

I have adult friends with ADHD who are incredibly successful, but their attention jumps about without their awareness. They have no idea when it happens. There are multi-millionaires with ADHD who use the way their brain is wired to their advantage - for example they can multi-task in ways normal people couldn't even imagine.

There are other conditions like dyslexia that are treated as learning difficulties, but 50% of successful rags to riches entrepreneurs are dyslexic. Given only 5-10% of the population have dyslexia it seems to suggest that the way they think has some real world benefits.
CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
I can't speak on this because I don't have any experience nor have I looked into forcing people to face their pointless fears.
You can't force away phobias; they are irrational fears by definition. People can develop phobias to anything, from pavements to clumps of hair. They know there's no threat, but their brain responds to it like a severe and imminent threat. Studies show it's due to the flight/fight response forming faulty associations and are formed in the amagdala (the primitive brain).
CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
I'm not quite liking this "most people" business of yours but this comes down to the reasons and motives behind the issues at hand. If somebody told me I was facing liver failure as an alcoholic I would just keep drinking if I didn't have much to live for anyways while somebody who wants to meet their next grandchild would have a good reason to quit drinking.
Which was my point. You likely deviate from what the vast majority of neurotypical people experience.

You see it time and time again, from people who know they need to pass an exam not studying, then crying their eyes out when they fail, to people continuing to smoke after a cancer scare.

Students being taught directly by Warren Buffet (and these are the best of the best of the very best) are told by Buffet himself that all they need to do to become a multi-millionaire investor is to read a set of booklets he prepares for them for 8 hours every day.

He tells this to all of his students and if my memory serves, only a few have ever gone through (and are still working with him today).

Bill Gates also has said that if you've gone through the first 4 volumes of Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming he'd like to sit down with you.

The torrents of emotions and the sway of its momentum throws a majority of people off.
CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Practice is the keyword there that I embrace.
I'm with you there.
CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Have you ever played poker? A lot of people think poker is a game of bluffing and stealing while it is actually a game of making the best possible decisions and profiting from your opponents' mistakes. It can also be an emotional and mental rollercoaster because most decisions aren't absolute. I once heard a poker coach tell his students to imagine somebody holding a gun to their heads telling them they better make the best possible decisions. I believe this can be applied to many areas of life. It is dramatic but is a fine, very specific example of how you can gain control of your mind instead of mindlessly splashing chips into the pot of life.
It's the method David Blaine uses to condition his mind. Even for a simple card trick he imagines that if he fails he dies.
CaliforniaBurrito wrote:
06 Aug 2017
Yeah I know my brain is wired differently for sure and I suppose I might be a little autistic or something else. My parents told me I was reading before anybody taught me how to read and I do display some odd characteristics along with plenty of internal dialogue. Hey maybe that's how I can drink by myself at nine o' clock in the morning. :lol:
Well there you go.

One man at the humble age of approx 50 said to me in a conversation, "so you mean to say that most people don't remember everything they have said to another person?"

At at moment I understood all of a sudden just how frustrating life must have been for him and why he took minor misgivings seriously. He honestly thought in his head that everyone had the same automatic memorisation of conversations that he had. He remembers pretty much everything you say to him. So if you say, "I'm going to look at those papers on Wednesday," and forget, his brain just can't understand what it means because he's never experienced forgetting like that.

All in all psychology is complicated because in it are contained behaviours, emotions, perceptions and ways of thinking that you may have no experience to relate it to, which makes these sorts of discussions that much more intriguing.

User avatar
4filegate
Posts: 922
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Aug 2017

think-green It is not just by chance if a plant established herself at a certain place, because every plant is looking for the location which needs, for growing up.

User avatar
platzangst
Posts: 728
Joined: 16 Jan 2015

06 Aug 2017

deepndark wrote:
06 Aug 2017
But, on the other hand - we are not living in 100% determinism either, and this is something I have been arguing with some people. They claim that the whole universe and it's physics-laws exclusively rule everything. I stated that biological units i.e. human beings and animals mess up the determinism, by free choice. If sun is shining on the grass and I cause a shadow, then the grass gets less light on it, right?
I'm going to take this as a springboard to try and clarify some of the things I've been saying, and I don't want you to think I'm making some kind of specific attack on your viewpoint, this is more being directed at the general audience.

Imagine you (the universal "you", all of you) have a box of dominoes. Now, you could stand the dominoes up and make a pattern with them, so that when you tip one over on one end of a line, they all get tipped over in a chain-reaction. Or, you could flip the box over and let all the dominoes fall in a jumble onto the floor.

One action may appear to be more random than the other, but it isn't, from a viewpoint of causality. One is just easier to track. In the orderly line of dominoes, one can see the progression - this domino hits that domino, which hits the next domino, and so on. However, just dumping the box has its own progression, it's just harder for humans to keep track of. Each falling domino has its own mass and shape and trajectory, which will determine whether it hits any other domino in mid-air (and therefore rebounding and changing direction), and there may be a large number of interactions before the group of dominoes hits the ground and spreads out in a messy, random-seeming spread. The human mind can't keep track of or predict every little bump of every last domino, and so it seems chaotic, but every motion involved is a result of the rules of physics, and so long as the initial conditions are exactly the same, the end result will also be exactly the same, because the rules of physics don't change. (Or, for the more persnickety, we have not yet witnessed them changing, and are unlikely to.)

Which brings us to free will. People like to think of free will as being completely untethered from any sort of causality, but if one seriously considers the matter, there's no real reason to assume that. Our brains are meaty organic computers that take in various inputs and judge situations and make decisions based on all the info that we've absorbed up to that point. But there is so far no indication that there is anything to human consciousness that is outside of the bounds of accepted physical laws. We don't fully comprehend the brain's workings, to be sure, but without even the slightest hint of some other factor, science has to operate as if the laws we know are the laws that work, which is why neurological study is pretty much bounded within accepted physical science.

For you to be where you are right now, this very instant, a chain of causality, like a row of dominoes, had to occur. Your parents had to meet at a certain time and place to eventually produce you. You had to grow and learn and develop your individual personality, your likes and dislikes. You had to take an interest in making music, making music with computers, and specifically using the program Reason in order to bring you here to this forum where you could read a discussion on determinism. All along the path to this point, your brain was making constant decisions, some more conscious than others.

Now, if an equation is entered into a calculator, it's only going to give one answer no matter how many times you enter it - and if it changes its answer it's probably malfunctioning. It's a little trickier extending this analogy to a human brain, because being an organic computer there are many things that can affect its functioning. Are you well-fed? Rested? Are you suffering from any illness at the time? Taking drugs? Drinking? All these things and more can affect the chemical balances in your body, and so also your brain, and can influence your brain's effectiveness at making any given decision.

All these things are factors that the human mind can't fully track or predict, and yet they are there, and subject to the same laws of the universe and causality as anything else. So were you blocking the sun? Well, your brain decided that you wanted to be there at that moment. It may have been a deliberate conscious decision, or a mere subconscious whim, but your brain guided you there.

And that guidance was one domino in a chain of events that stretches all the way back to the beginning of the universe.

Suppose you are standing there, by the grass blocking the sun, and an out-of-control drunk driver runs off the road and is coming directly for you. His chain of dominos led him to that point. He might have not gotten drunk if circumstances had been different, but they weren't - he felt the way he did, his feelings (a biochemical state inside his brain) influenced his decision to pick up that alcohol, he drank, and then, affected by the chemical reaction of the alcohol in his brain, he went driving. Now he's coming at you.

Your brain was not thinking about this possibility until this very moment. From your point of perception, you do not see the other person's chain of dominos, and you're not considering how your own chain of dominos put you in this other person's path. Your brain has to decide what to do next.

You might panic, and freeze in indecision. Or you might give all your effort to leaping to one side, out of the way of the car. Or perhaps your attention was caught by a particularly interesting flower and you don't even notice the guy coming. It seems like there are many possibilities. In reality, only one outcome will occur. Which one? That depends on your surrounding conditions. If you are well-fed and rested, you may be more alert and ready to act if you see the car coming. If you are emotionally distressed for some reason, you may be less likely to dodge. If you are also drunk, you may be oblivious to the danger. But in the end, all the circumstances will come into play at that exact moment, your brain will do its work, and you will do whatever it is the situation allows you to do. Since the laws of physics don't change, the decision you make at that moment is the only one you could have made under those exact circumstances. Do you think it could have been different? If the conditions don't change, then what factor could make your brain come up with any different decision? And if you think there is some such factor, what is its nature and how do you prove it exists?

If the brain is subject to the laws of physics, and if the laws of physics don't spontaneously change, then it logically follows that at any given instant the brain makes the only decision it can make under those exact circumstances. The domino is pushed down by the domino that precedes it, and in turn it pushes down the domino after it. Your brain has done its job - it has actively worked to make a decision based on everything it's learned and the current info it has. It could not have predicted that move until it happened, but that move depended on everything that occurred before that instant. If one tiny thing had been different, the decision might have been different. But nothing was different, nor could it be.

Your actions, your will, feels free. You don't actively perceive the constraints of causality, you don't usually think about the long chain of dominoes that brings you to any given moment, and you don't have the ability to track and account for every single factor that may influence any given decision you make. In a practical sense, you may as well say you have free will for all the effect it has in your life. But is it really free, in an ultimate sense, if each decision is determined directly by all the events that precede it, and if all those events dictate that an event could have happened no other way?

In the end, this is not a moral judgement on my part. I do not say that determinism is a good or bad state of being. What I say is that, with what evidence science has, determinism is the logical result. If you believe in the science, there is no really sensible alternate explanation that doesn't rely on hypotheses or "what-if"s for which there is, at least at the moment, no serious evidence.

User avatar
CaliforniaBurrito
Posts: 574
Joined: 11 Nov 2015
Location: San Diego, CA
Contact:

06 Aug 2017

avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
ADHD isn't just about kids bouncing around the walls. That is how big pharma market it because it sells, but that is not how real psychologists view it. You can have ADHD and be well behaved and perform well.

I have adult friends with ADHD who are incredibly successful, but their attention jumps about without their awareness. They have no idea when it happens. There are multi-millionaires with ADHD who use the way their brain is wired to their advantage - for example they can multi-task in ways normal people couldn't even imagine.

There are other conditions like dyslexia that are treated as learning difficulties, but 50% of successful rags to riches entrepreneurs are dyslexic. Given only 5-10% of the population have dyslexia it seems to suggest that the way they think has some real world benefits.
First off, I would like to apologize for being insensitive with my comments about mental illness. I acknowledge the fact that there is mental illness out there that can't be treated physically or with the thought of physical treatment. Of course the latter comment was being silly and I wouldn't take such a psychopathic stance if I had the power to do so. That said, my girlfriend suffers from severe ADHD with a prescription drug treatment. She is textbook bad - can't do anything around the house and is unemployed. I don't just talk the talk and I truly believe she can improve her lifestyle with enough love and guidance. I am patient, but being the gambler that I am, I realize the odds that I am facing. On a lighter note, there are plenty of ADHD wannabe's in Silicon Valley who are using ADHD meds to get ahead but that is a fine example of how you can manipulate your mind of course. Smart drugs are on the rise.
avasopht wrote:
06 Aug 2017
One man at the humble age of approx 50 said to me in a conversation, "so you mean to say that most people don't remember everything they have said to another person?"
Maybe in a couple decades I will be asking why people still don't think they control their own thoughts, actions and decisions. I doubt it though because we are in constant evolution. People probably wonder how advanced technology can go from here. It's not flying cars or virtual reality anymore. The future is in your mind so better start embracing it now.

User avatar
gak
Posts: 2840
Joined: 05 Feb 2015

08 Aug 2017

Man. This is nuts.

Regardless of facts, people just make all their own shit up. Why?

We all know people are different, not everyone is the same ( looking at you, you know who ;) ) Different tastes, moods, dna, colors, backgrounds, what part of different do you not understand?

But many bungwipes want to put everything into one big neat bow.

"Alex, I'll take idiots for $1000"

Image

I don't know why people that don't know what they are talking about think they can monopolize (er, actually they do) every conversation, but it's embarrassing how wrong popular people are.

Anyways, I wish I wasn't in control of anything, or that I understood the big picture. I'd like to be one of these blissful morons that get to talk shit 24/7 and be popular.

User avatar
sublunar
Posts: 507
Joined: 27 Apr 2017

10 Aug 2017

I am way too busy for spending the time necessary on a tired old debate that has no practical purpose in my life but I can't just let this guy/gal's arrogance go unchecked.

I don't want to waste time on a pissing match or resort to petty personal attacks so I will keep it brief and to the point. This just about concludes my contribution to this debate.
platzangst wrote:
03 Aug 2017
We are assuming, in my argument, that nothing supernatural exists. That everything happens as a result of natural processes with no magical interventions. (If you want to believe in some higher power then you can disregard the rest of the argument entirely, but then you have far less evidence for your position than a determinist.)
The problem I, and others, have, as I explained in my original quotation of yours, is that the strict version of Determinism which you champion makes much more significant assumptions than simply not believing in fairy tale-esque magical interventions. You play it off and gloss over some important details to reach your conclusion of determinism-as-fact. I have quoted only two of your egregious conclusions below.
platzangst wrote:
06 Aug 2017
If one tiny thing had been different, the decision might have been different. But nothing was different, nor could it be.
platzangst wrote:
06 Aug 2017
everything we do is the result of electro-chemical reactions inside the brain that are very complex, while at the same time being finite in possibility and fully subject to the laws of physics. Given the various inputs one's brain receives, each of us was always going to do what each of us has just done because the things that prompted us to do those things likewise were always going to happen. Thus, determinism. What each of us does right after reading this is pre-ordained by our chemistries. We feel as if we are making a choice, and we are, but that choice is the only one we were ever going to make under those specific conditions at that specific time.
Throughout this discussion, you have placed your foundation upon agreeable and well documented set of scientific facts (which I won't bother quoting here simply to save text space). This is all well and good. But you then try reaching through the dark expanses of the unknown to blindly grasp a definitive conclusion on the other end. The difference between us is that you seem to need there to be a conclusion to cling to on the other end, whereas I do not. My problem with joining you on this journey from observable facts to your deterministic conclusion lies in those dark expanses. I can clearly see where you made the jump across the gap but I'm not willing to make the jump myself. Your conclusions ignore the darkness altogether. I will, therefore, not be joining you on the other side.
platzangst wrote:
06 Aug 2017
there is so far no indication that there is anything to human consciousness that is outside of the bounds of accepted physical laws. We don't fully comprehend the brain's workings, to be sure
Some bold claims and some rather important disclaimers there. You speak of consciousness as if science has dissected and identified its constituent parts. But it has not. Find a scientific definition of Consciousness. Explain in detail the role of the claustrum, especially as it pertains to its interactivity with the cerebral cortex. You speak on these matters as if you are an expert; as if you would know that there is no indication of anything unusual/extraordinary about consciousness and we're just supposed to take your word for it. The research I've done indicates that you're glossing over the topic quite considerably.

Back to those disclaimers, these little bits of acknowledgement expose the errors in reasoning which undermine the logic of your conclusions. This is where I found fault with your wild claims initially and quoted you for the first time. And they are really the crux of the matter. You are making very certain conclusions in no uncertain terms based on incomplete information where there exist large gaps of missing knowledge.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism wrote:Objective collapse theories, which involve a dynamic (and non-deterministic) collapse of the wave function (e.g. Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber theory, Penrose interpretation, or causal fermion systems) avoid these absurdities. The theory of causal fermion systems for example, is able to unify quantum mechanics, general relativity and quantum field theory, via a more fundamental theory which is non-linear, but gives rise to the linear behaviour of the wave function and also gives rise to the non-linear, non-deterministic, wave-function collapse. These theories suggest that a deeper understanding of the theory underlying quantum mechanics shows the universe is indeed non-deterministic at a fundamental level.
Not only are there large gaps of missing information for our human understanding of consciousness, there are gaps of our understanding of the universe itself. You claim that "The matter of the universe, given the conditions it was in at such-and-such a time, was always going to result in the formation of planet Earth, upon which life appeared in such a fashion, to multiply and die off and multiply in just such a way as to bring everyone to this exact moment in this exact fashion." but what do you know about quantum mechanics, general relativity or quantum field theory? Because these fields seem to have concluded that "the universe is indeed non-deterministic at a fundamental level".

But here you are trying to tells us that Determinism is not just a theory but a matter of fact rule which governs everything*.

*if we accept a few certain little caveats.
platzangst wrote:
02 Aug 2017
If one accepts that physics is immutable..
platzangst wrote:
02 Aug 2017
If you accept that we are purely biological beings*, with no true evidence of any "spirit" or "soul" or other consciousness existing apart from the body...
You seem to think that scientific knowledge itself is immutable! But everything we "know" is really just the best model we have currently. And there's a lot we don't know. But neither the vast expanse of the unknown, nor these little caveats we need to accept in order to play in your tidy walled sandbox, will stop you from believing in the one true god whose name is Determinism.

I, for one, do not accept the terms of your sandbox and I do not share your conclusions. And it makes exactly zero difference to anything.

-

Lastly, if one wanted to prove or disprove determinism they would have to have access to alternate universes in order to observe the same exact things happening in each. Well, the next best thing in our universe would be clones or twins, right? Fortunately, the study of twins is not a new concept.

If things were as simple and biological as Determinists like yourself claim they are, if that's all there really was to it, then wouldn't we see the evidence play out in the Nature vs Nurture debate, specifically in the study of twins? Wouldn't it be easy to prove that Nature is a supremely more significant contributing factor to one's development than (what had been classically referred to as) Nurture?

I'm not saying this is definitive proof one way or the other, but if Determinism was as obvious and real as you claim it to be, then wouldn't the outcome of such a study at least have some evidence to support your absolute claims? I do realize it's not an exact comparison. So what other fields of scientific research parallel this discussion close enough to provide useful data? I believe the Nature vs Nurture debate and its resulting data is close enough to warrant consideration.

The below referenced study, ".. published in Nature Genetics, reviewed almost every twin study done in the last 50 years and found that 49% of the average variation for human traits and diseases were down to genetics, and the other 51% were due to environmental factors." and "Working with researchers at VU University of Amsterdam, Benyamin and his team studied 2,748 classical twin studies—involving 14.5 million pairs of twins—published between 1958 and 2012. These twin studies compared identical twins, which have the same genetic makeup, to non-identical twins, who only share half of their genes. The study looked at a variety of traits—17,804 to be precise—including depression and tobacco use. Traits that were linked with non-identical twins are thought to have more influence from the environment, and vice versa. "

https://www.theguardian.com/science/201 ... d-question

I'm not trying to prove one thing or the other. I'll take 49% of each. I appreciate concepts in both of these schools of thought. And as I said in a previous post, Nature vs Nurture eventually met in the middle. As will Free will vs Determinism.

Post Reply
  • Information
  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests