The Truth (As I see it)

Ahem, conflating science and religion again. There is no "priesthood". Even arch-atheists like Richard Dawkins don't propose any system of values to live by, they only point out that religion is incorrect and also unhealthy for society.

That's another thing that religious people misunderstand. They mix up the theory with ethics, saying something like "Well, according to evolution, only the fittest survive, so according to your philosophy we should euthanise retarded people, you RAPIST." Which is as absurd as saying that the theory of gravity implies we should hurl ourselves off tall buildings.

P.S. My name is Smuel, and I approve this thread.

 

How is it relevant? Did you not mean that determinism as a whole is fallacious, rather than just my agreement with it?

 

I assumed from your previous statements that you only give something the go-ahead based on reason:

So I was interested in your reasons for thinking that what you think determinism is is true, since I'm sure you wouldn't accept something like a geometrical proof whose conclusion is true based on faulty reasoning, just because the 'conclusion' is true.

Aside from that altogether, taking determinism and the state of affairs it describes, and especially given your willingness to talk about it, and for you to act as if you had free will, there doesn't seem to be any differentia to distinguish it from something like free will at all, since a state of affairs that describes everything describes nothing, insofar as it can't be contrasted with its opposite (negated to describe a different physical state of things). Isaac Newton, for example, believed that celestial bodies followed laws of the same kind that we impose on people, which were imposed by God, and were not 'determined' in the way in which I think of them as being so, and this fact made no difference to him or his science, since they were just two different ways of describing the same thing (like describing something as becoming bigger, with respect to another thing, and describing that other thing as becoming smaller with respect to the first: they're both equally true, because there isn't just a single 'way' in which one is really becoming bigger or smaller, there is just the fact that what you see in front of you is happening, and it can be accurately described in more than one way; cf. a case where someone who appears to be shrinking from a certain point of view measures their height with a metre stick which is shrinking at the same rate; this is the opposite of the case of the expanding universe).

Aside from that altogether, if I were to give a reason why determinism 'itself' is fallacious, I'd point to the fact it reaches the general conclusion that everything is set in spacetime, since everything follows natural, predictable law, and say that this is weak induction, since it doesn't follow from the fact that we can describe certain (most) things (like gravity, &c.) mathematically, that something which we haven't described mathematically (human consciousness, for example) can be represented in this way, especially when it doesn't seem obvious that it can be done. I don't even need to point to things like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, or the whole random radiation degeneration thing to prove my point (which is simply that not everything can be predicted, not that this 'randomness' itself has much to do with the idea of free will, except, perhaps, to show that the general principle of determinism is weak induction, even if it turns out, in the end, to be 'right'), since it is completely out of order to assume that something follows certain, determined principles, just because most other things do (maybe even every other thing); and if what you believe is that AI (or something) could be created to follow the same procedures as humans, it won't necessarily prove your deterministic beliefs, since if it is rule-following, it can appear to be intelligent but 'not' be (Chinese room), and if it is not rule-following and learns the way we do, no conclusion about 'free will' can be drawn from that, except, perhaps, in the affirmative, if it can be proven that a robot (or whatever) of this type (which do exist, even now), even in its most primitive form, does not follow mathematically determined 'paths'.

 

I'm surprised how determined you are, Wayne. I'm a bit afraid what will you respond to this when your response to a single sentence was a monitor length of text.

How exactly would you expect a man aware of his lack of free will to act like?

That is what I expect, yes. If you'd ask me, the universe is 100% order, 0% chaos.

I expect such things to be possible to be "described mathematically" and "follow natural, predictable laws".

Why wouldn't I? I haven't heard about anything that was proven to not do so, only about things that we simply weren't capable of describing mathematically.

If I'm not capable of scratching my butt, does it mean that my butt cannot be scratched?

Seems less out of order to me than assuming something acts in a completely different way than the whole rest of the universe.

I could assume that something in this otherwise orderly universe acts randomly, or just follow Ockham's Razor and assume that there is no such thing.

I don't see what makes human consciousness unique enough to be even worth a mention. A conscious human is still just a bunch of particles and acts like a bunch of particles. Bunches of particles don't start defying laws of physics at any point, acquisition of conscious or otherwise.

Its whole point is that it's impossible to observe particles with 100% accuracy. I can see how that could possibly disprove the existence of Laplace's demon, but not determinism. It disproves the possibility of flawlessly observing particles and how they are affecting each other and such, not the fact that they are affecting each other in an orderly way.

Never said that it can. I say there are laws, not that we will ever be able to know ever single one of them and use them to predict the future.

Google says: "<!> No results found for "random radiation degeneration"."

Are we talking about radiation half-life? It seems to work in an orderly fashion to me.

 

Actually, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is often misunderstood as being simply a limit on our observational powers. It's actually more fundamental than that - sub-atomic particles possess a "fuzziness" in and of themselves which causes a problem for determinism at that level.

I think Wayne was probably referring to how the radioactive decay of any given atom is unpredictable. Even though we can measure the half-life accurately, individual atoms appear to change at random. Another problem for sub-atomic determinism.

So, in other words:

He ain't determined at the sub-atomic level.

Zing!

Nah, but seriously, although these concepts might be intriguing from a philosophical masturbation viewpoint, personally I think the whole "determinsm vs free will" thing is a non-issue. Regardless of whatever definitions you might come up with, my "choices" are still "my" choices.

 

Yes, exactly; and on this, I notice that you didn't bother addressing any of the more fundamental points that I did my best to make.

Luckily, I didn't ask you; and if I had done, it would be only your opinion that you could give me.

That's a fallacy of faulty generalization. Citing certain 'conventions' like Ockham's Razor proves absolutely nothing, and doesn't further your point at all. It's even disproven by the results of certain experiments with sub-atomic particles, where an event is inherently unpredictable, since every possibility must be accounted for, which is no prediction at all. This whole quantum mechanics thing is beside the point, anyway; I could make the same argument if I knew absolutely nothing about it; as I said before, it's just an example of how your hasty generalization was incorrect, and of your (un)willingness to go with evidence which goes against your unfounded beliefs.

I didn't realize consciousness was a bunch of particles! Which particle would that be? Can't be the brain's, cause that's different! What particles are your emotions made out of? Seriously, though, nobody said anything about defying the laws of physics; nowhere does it state with legitimate reasons that for something to be physical is for something to be predictable. Human consciousness is simply an example which gives us no reason to assume it follows deterministic rules; you could substitute any other example, if you like. In fact, it could be argued that human consciousness (for example!) cannot be determined by rules, though I don't know a lot about this (rule-following paradox).

I'm talking more in terms of Laplace's demon than in terms of you or I.

 

I don't see how the fuzziness is problematic for determinism.

The half-life of a given isotope is a stable value. To me it's a sign that there is order in radioactive decay. Order that we simply haven't fully figured out yet.

I address that which I consider valid points. The rest seemed like talking about nothing to me.

If you would ask about my opinion, you would receive my opinion. Shocking, I know.

If it's proven to not follow known laws of physics? I'd most probably assume the laws we know are flawed, or incomplete. If, somehow, we would know for sure that our laws are complete and 100% correct and something still wouldn't follow them? I'd stop being a determinist.

One googleplex and one good apples would be more than enough for me to assume that the apples taken from this particular source(s), grown in these particular conditions are immune to rotting. You call me fallacious, I call you indecisive, everyone's happy.

A conscious human is. Consciousness itself is an abstract, a side effect - again, I don't see how it is worth mentioning. Same for emotions.

It follows the path determined by the brain's particles.

I could, if I knew of anything "which gives us no reason to assume it follows a determined path". I do not.

It may be possible, it may not. Honestly, I don't care.

 

I didn't say it was (though I didn't say it wasn't); I said that it's beside the main point; it's just an example of what I was talking about.

Take a more extreme example, like the breakdown of 'smooth' spacetime at the subatomic level; how can something be determined in that instance? If something isn't anywhere at any time in particular, what happens to its deterministic value for where its supposed to be at that time? Someone else who (for whatever reason) believed that nothing could be determined might have cited analogous reasons to your own, at the time of Newton; they'd be cheering the quantum physicists on, now, if they were alive. Both you and this person jumped to hasty generalizations, and I don't think either of your reasons were because of whatever process that they may find beneath quantum mechanics, or quantum physics itself, respectively, because neither of you knew about them at the time of your decision-making, and jumped to unfounded results instead of just maintaining an intellectual curiosity.

Clearly, you misunderstood.

Your opinion doesn't prove anything. I'm interested in the proof.

I edited my post above; but I'll still point out that the googleplex and second apple was rotten! I'm glad I counted them all before I jumped to conclusions!

And how does that happen? I assume you're not just assuming, with no evidence except that it might.

Always and only? How do you know?

Other animals, maybe?

That's a whole lotta writing for someone who doesn't care!

 

Just a quick question, as you seem to be around the neighbourhood: Has Higgs Boson been found yet?

 

Nope, not as far as I know!

 

Smuel did, which is why I asked him in particular here. Also, you did as well by answering my previous point with his quote.

I do not know for I know nothing about the breakdown you talk about. I wrote it down for a future read.

I take it maintaining an intellectual curiosity excludes having an opinion? Boring way of perceiving things, that.

Clearly, you failed at making your points clear enough.

I gave you what I consider the support of my opinion in other responses, then.

See, that's what you get for silent editing.

You say it doesn't, I say it does. Sure was worth saying that, huh?

Good to know that it was and that you successfully pointed it out.

Must have missed the evidence.

My dictionary says "unfounded" means "lacking basis". That's just rude. You can disagree with my basis but saying it's not there insults the time I waste here describing it to you.

Well, it's either the assumption about the immunity of apples, or being an agnostic about every damn thing ever, which is lame.

You will have to forgive me for having an approach which is actually useful in applied sciences.

Electrical activity of neurons. Magic makes sense too, hurr.

Being a mere side effect, I don't see how it woudn't.

Exchanging one bunch of particles for another.

Yep, eleven words total. Not to mention the whole few seconds it took to write it down. Insane.

 

Well, he can talk about that all he wants; it's not something I know a lot about.

Maintaining an intellectual curiosity could be saying, 'I don't know; but I hope to find out (and won't conjecture for little to no reason)'.

Apologies; I'd be happy to do my best at a better explanation, if you point out what I failed to make clear enough.

That wasn't proof.

Sure was, because I'm right and you're wrong; both about applying this particular principle and the conclusion which it lead to, and I can point either to the fact that your conclusion is weakly induced and that it was reached by this principle, or to any basic description of a fallacy, online, to prove my point, whereas this seems, as before, to be your own opinion.

If you actually intend to read up on what you said you are going to, then you'll come across it.

Perhaps we're using the word differently: if I tried to support a building on twigs, I wouldn't call it a foundation; this is the sense in which I'm using it.

Yes, it's not believing something until you have evidence, correct. I think this is something like what they call the scientific method.

I think you're an engineer (and I know nothing about engineering), and I don't suppose that you just assume things, and then not check them out, before claiming/believing that they're true. To jump to such a hasty generalization in science would be to assume something which you possibly later find to be false (not by your own experiment, unfortunately, since you're not just assuming a hypothesis to be tested) , which is a shame, when its unnecessary. Why you have to go for one or the other is beyond me; I don't have an opinion about the existence of God, or the proper way to run the economy, or who should invade whom, &c., and I don't see why I should need to form any based on possibly erroneous grounds, if I can simply read and learn, and further my positive knowledge of a subject instead of just assuming.

I don't suppose that's to say that all electrical activity is consciousness (if you actually have a proper explanation, I'd be more than excited to hear it).

Yes, exactly.

Given that the idea of Laplace's demon is one of the key concepts of determinism, and given the fact that it's possible that something with infinite intelligence that could know everything that can be known about the universe in a particular instant couldn't predict the future (if it knew all the laws of nature), and given that you're arguing quite vehemently in favour of determinism, I'd say that the possibility of determinism and of Laplace's demon are basically the same thing, which totals your writing at quite a substantial amount above eleven words.

Edit:

Awh man... I wish ytzk had left his post that was below this! He wasn't very flattering towards Smuel and got quite upset about Richard Dawkins being or not being Jesus, some sort of surgery performed by psychologists, and cult-scientists observed by alien anthropologists!

 

All isn't (just like not every set of ink stains is a book), but appropriately organised electrical and biochemical activity apparently is.

Therefore, still not something "which gives me no reason to assume it follows a determined path".

I would disagree. There's a long way between determinism and Laplace's demon. About the demon in particular I do not care. Firstly, because if there were one (or more, no matter), it would still be part of the deterministic universe - whatever action it would perform to change the fate of the universe would be determined as well. Secondly, because I take the liberty of assuming such a being is impossible for practical reasons, therefore not worth the consideration.

Which is why I said "support" rather than "proof".

I don't have proof that determinism is true, just like you don't have proof that it isn't. I thought that to be pretty clear, there would be no need for a discussion if any of the sides were in possession of proof. You said you were interested in the reasons why I think determinism is true and I believe I gave you that much.

I don't have proof. I don't have 100% certainty. But I analyse the information about the universe I'm able to gather and the way I see it, it all neatly arranges into a deterministic universe, enough for me to call it true.

It's similar to my (lack of) belief in god(s), my opinion about Ms. Muro's feeling towards me, as well as everything else that I cannot have 100% certainty about, which is pretty much everything in life. I agree with the option with the highest probability of being true and openly call the option true if the probability is high enough for me.

A different example of such an approach: wayne-scales openly expressing his conviction that Xyle is an idiot even though there is a possibility that he's an intelligent troll with too much free time.

 

Aye, well, I try not to let my temper get to the keyboard if I can.

Still, I have a genius level IQ and more education on the synthesis of religion and science than anyone I've known, excepting my old mentor who is now dead.

Being patronised sure boils my blood.

 

You forgot to mention your massive cock.

 

Yes, yes, and my cock is massive.

Seriously though, I'll eat some humble pie before I post again. I'm not so autistic as to think I'm making friends with that attitude.

Peace, everyone.

 

'Apparently'? If, for example, you read the rule-following paradox thing, and understood and agreed with it, you'd be using this same consciousness you're talking about as an example of the opposite of what you're now advocating; so you're just assuming certain things (about the construction of consciousness) because of what you believe, and not producing much evidence from this for your own beliefs (though I do realize that you're actually just attempting to describe how this phenomenon might fit in with your beliefs).

No, not as I see it. If human beings or animals (down to the smallest insect, maybe!) give you any reason to suppose that they're just the equivalent of rule-following automatons, in and of themselves, I don't seem to be observing these reasons myself. The point I'm trying to make is that there's no reason to match up the behaviour of animals with, say, the behaviour of plants, just because they're both made of particles (which aren't absolutely determined, either, not that that proves much). Imagine that determinism weren't true, and what things would be like; ignoring, for a second, that they'd be exactly the same, it's obvious to me that this is not logically impossible.

I'm not sure if I'm confusing it with something else, or if you're confusing it with Maxwell's demon; but, either, way, I'm talking about something more along the lines of an omniscient God, or something.

I'm simply interested in the fact that it doesn't make sense. I'm more than willing to change my view, if I'm actually presented with a compelling argument; but your "support" doesn't seem so, to me at least.

Not only does it not all definitely neatly arrange into a deterministic universe from what we can observe, it's pretty much accepted that absolute determinism is false, due to the quantum magic stuff that I mentioned earlier.

I dispute that there is nothing in life which you can have absolute certainty about; but that's not what I'm arguing. The only relevant thing I have to say here, is that I'm not quite sure how you calculated the probability of a deterministic universe, nor, if you did, if it could've come out as the most likely to be true. Even if you had somehow calculated that a deterministic universe is more likely than one otherwise, I don't see why you'd adopt such a radical, impractical (useless), but important outlook, just based on 'probably', since I'd say that one of the only reasons to do so would be if you had to.

Man, I will be so delighted if that's true! I hope it is! It would be a great thing! It's a little different, though, since, if you asked me, I'd just say that I'm responding to him as if he's genuine because it's something to do; I'm arguing with the persona, rather than definitely with the person, for interest's sake; I'm not jumping to opinions and conclusions!

I always love this, and I don't know why! I'm mad interested in it, especially the fact that I wouldn't have picked you out to be that sort of person! Not that I'm intending to offend you; I's just sayin'! I actually love all this IQ business, even though I know lots of people don't, but I'd never find out my own, since I know it'd get me down if it wasn't high! I posted a while ago about how they do the scores, but nobody responded!

 

That's another interesting thing. People can have high IQ's and not be considered "smart", though I'm not suggesting such in your case, ytzk. Mine's around 130, on a scale that goes to 160.
I've filled my mind with an encyclopedia's worth of knowledge, and try to squeeze it out bit by bit, making me seem "smart". For this reason I hardly have to study anything, but those things I do study are items of intrigue, such as blacksmithing or sculpting or physics. I took a world religions course last year and had a wonderful professor that gave out ten dollars every time he said fuck. I still have some of those quarters today.

 

I don't know why people say that, what they mean by it, or what they consider 'smart' to be; it seems, to me anyway, to be one of those things that people just say and kinda shrug their shoulders if you ask them about it.

 

Man, I wish I'd deleted that post in time as well.