Re: Free will and physics
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:19:43PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: As a useful fiction to persuade people, certainly (actually persuade assumes free will, If you say so. Of course, that is a meaningless statement. But, ought is rather meaningless without free will. That's okay. Free will is rather meaningless. Morality is about ought. This leads one to conclude that, since morality is meaningless without ought, morality is rather meaningless. I'll be happy to admit that the causal chain in people's actions includes hearing words. But, that doesn't seem all that critical to me. I see. So humans would behave the same as they do if they never learned to communicate with each other? No, just as a star would not be the same if the origional density in that part of space were a factor of 100 lower. What is critical to may arguement is that, as long as one is a naturalist, human behavior is determined by the actions of nuclei and electorns obeying the laws of QED. I think your argument relies on complexity changing the fundamentals. You think wrong. We've been through this before. I guess you forgot. No, you stating something is false doesn't make it false. Fundamentally, lighting and human interaction are simply QED at work with the exact same building blocks. So, unless complexity changes the fundamentals, they are inherently the same. It is absurd to compare a mind -- which is complex in a way that cannot be modeled by a few simple equations, is capable of abstraction, logic, and calculation -- to something like a star or a lightning bolt which can be modeled and predicted accurately by a few equations. No, it is not absurd. I chose lightning and stars for a reason, not just because I was grasping for metaphors. It is impossible to predict where lightning will strike at a given time on a given day. I'm rather surprised you claim that it is simple; the inability to ever predict popup thunderstorms is classic. It is one of the best examples of macroscopic indetermancy. Your exact words were: It makes no more sense saying a man ought not to kill another man in cold blood than would make sense to argue that a lightning bolt ought not to have killed that golfer. No, it IS absurd. Following your lead, I was not discussing predictions of WHERE a lightning bolt would strike. I was discussing how the lightning bolt behaves when it strikes a golfer. Oh, then I wasn't clear in defining my origional example. I was thinking of all the factors involved. Sorry for the lack of clarity. The point is that, in each case, all that is involved is the behavior of protons, neutrons, electrons, virtual photons and photons according to QED. I have a good chance of being able to make a difference in what the policeman will do by my actions (assuming I am nearby). I'm rather surprised that you didn't understand this simple concept, Dan. Have you ever thought that I'm not stupid and actually understood your points. There is the possibility that I'm trying to make a point that is not being communicated clearly. My point is that if all human behavior is reduced to QED, then anything that is true about QED is true about human behavior. Anything that is not true about QED is not true about human behavior. Just as the actions of a machine governened by simple mechanical laws may not be intuitive at a glance, the results of QED are not always intuitive. Indeed, the behavior of stars, humans, and lightning bolts are all dependant on gravity and the physics of the standard model. One could even argue that the star takes more physics to explain than humans, since one may have to consider QCD as well as the standard model. No, Dan, you are making a couple mistakes. First, it is not necessary to model the star so precisely to be able to make useful predictions of what it will do. A few equations give a lot of useful results. But the question wasn't is there a simple phenomenological model that allows us to bypass a full theoretical analysis? The question is what are the consequences of assuming that human behavior is simply a product of the physics underlying biochemistry? and, even if you do use QCD, you are still basically simulating a bunch of atomic (or sub-atomic) particles, each of which is obeying the same equations. So the number of lines of code is fairly small, even if you need a lot of memory and number crunching power. In contrast, to model a mind you will need millions or billions of lines of code. I thought we were talking about modeling a brain. In that case, we have simply protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. following QCD. One can ignore the strong force and probably ignore the weak force in modeling the brain. One cannot ignore the weak force and probably cannot ignore the strong force in modeling a star. That is one reason why we still don't have very smart programs, but we can describe stars much better. Or, it
Re: Free will and physics
On Sat, Jul 19, 2003 at 04:47:12PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: Morality is about ought. This leads one to conclude that, since morality is meaningless without ought, morality is rather meaningless. No, that does not follow. Rules govern a system. They have meaning in that system. Free will, as you use it, has no real meaning. I think your argument relies on complexity changing the fundamentals. You think wrong. We've been through this before. I guess you forgot. No, you stating something is false doesn't make it false. Whatever, Dan. I'm sure you know what my argument is better than I do (even though you have clearly forgotten what we discussed in the past). Why don't you just state what my argument is and then you can argue against it? Then I don't have to waste my time replying to you? You can just reply to yourself. Fundamentally, lighting and human interaction are simply QED at work with the exact same building blocks. So, unless complexity changes the fundamentals, they are inherently the same. This is obviously true, as we discussed before. But it is not very useful. It is absurd to say that a star behaves similarly to a mind. They do not. Have you ever thought that I'm not stupid and actually understood your points. Have you? You seem to have missed that I was simply replying to you in kind. There is the possibility that I'm trying to make a point that is not being communicated clearly. My point is that if all human behavior is reduced to QED, then anything that is true about QED is true about human behavior. Anything that is not true about QED is not true about human behavior. You have communicated it numerous times, and I have caught it every single time. You can stop now. But the question wasn't is there a simple phenomenological model that allows us to bypass a full theoretical analysis? The question is what are the consequences of assuming that human behavior is simply a product of the physics underlying biochemistry? It seems we disagree on what questions are relevant. I mentioned at the beginning of the discussion that I didn't think we would get anywhere. How can I experimentally determine whether something possesses the phenonmena you call free will? Unless you can answer that, we won't get anywhere. Or, it could be that the actions of the mind is consistant with but not reducable to phenomenon. There is no emperical evidence against this, you know. There is no empirical evidence directly disproving a lot of things. That doesn't mean they aren't extremely unlikely. Do you claim that the human mind follows different physical rules of interaction than all other matter and energy in the universe? If so, I claim the opposite, and my claim is falsifiable -- show me the new physics. If you are the Eric Reuter at www.erikreuter.net No Eric Reuter there. then this is a very pedantic arguement, based on my saying you have a BA instead of BS. You apparently like pedantic arguments. I always thought it helpful to deal with the ideas that someone wishes to put forth insteads of watching for i's that are not dotted just so. We appear to differ on this. Nope, you totally missed the point. Proof by insult again? You started it. I'll stop when you stop. Since it makes no sense to argue that protons, electrons, etc. ought not to behave according to QED, it makes no sense to either say that lightning bolts or human beings should behave in a certain manner. Well, we disagree then. A lightning bolt should behave in a certain manner, it should not strike my house, so I'll put up a lightning rod and ground it. Likewise, humans should behave in a certain manner, so we should come up with rules that work towards our common goals. Right, but common usage assumes something you consider useless. If you don't accept free will; persuade is no more than a convenient fiction. Simply not true. Persuasion is a process which occurs. It is not fiction. Teaching is a process which occurs. Building is a process which occurs. These are not fiction. OK, that means that there is no reason to accept any internal experiences as more than convenient fictions, or at most, interpretations of theory. Sure. That's why we need repeatable experiments to verify or falsify our knowledge. -- Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Free will and physics
On Sat, Jul 05, 2003 at 11:02:26PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: From: Erik Reuter [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, Jun 23, 2003 at 07:46:46PM -0500, Dan Minette wrote: At some level, yes. But all moralities aren't created equal. Some are clearly better than others, in that some will almost surely lead to a society that almost no one would want to live in. It depends on what is desired from morality. Some are better than others for reaching particular goals, certainly. But, that naturally leads to the question what goals? It's easy to label your goals rational and another's goals as irrational. I did not label goals rational and irrational -- in fact, in this thread I specifically stated that my stated goal was subjective. Your reply does not address my comment...I was just watching the Godfather. If everyone behaved as the dons in that movie, almost no one would want to live in the resulting world. And sure enough, the crime bosses are largely gone now. Most people realized what would happen if such a system were allowed to expand. This is not rational or irrational, it is just that most people don't like to live in such a world. As I said previously, this is mostly an accident of evolution and environment, but it is certainly true that most people share some of these basic sensibilities about what is desirable and what is not. I'll agree if you show that the conflict between the goals of different people is an illusion (i.e. you show that rational self interest is served by considering the needs of others as just as important as one's own), then you will have reduced the question of morality to a question of accurately gauging one's own self interest. But, that premise really doesn't match observation. The question is complicated enough, so that it is probably not possible to actually falsify that hypothesis, but the overwhelming amount of evidence is against it. Actually, the overwhelming amount of evidence is for it. That is why humans have progressed from animal-like apes, to tribes, feudalism, and finally liberal democracy with the rule of law. And progress has accelerated, especially with the transition to liberal democracy and rule of law. Part of the reason for that is the fact that, by the nature of the premise, you have set yourself a very high standard for proof. The existence of win-win situations, where the predominant strategy for the individual benefits all is not sufficient. Rather, it is necessary to show that win-lose scenarios do not exist to any significant extent. No, you are thinking much too small. There are indeed many win-lose scenarios if you look at thing myopically. But if you consider both the long-term and the interaction of others if they all followed a similar strategy, then the world is a big win-win scenario. I mentioned this previously, but again you failed to address it. Surely you don't think we could have made as much progress as we did in the 20th century with everyone acting myopically in their own self interest? How do you explain the huge growth in GDP per capita in the Western world in the last 150 years? Let me give just one counter example now. (Only one for space limitation, not for lack of examples.) Tonight, on the local news, there was an apartment fire. One man was taken to the hospital for smoke inhalation. He was at risk because, instead of just yelling fire and getting out of the complex, he went door to door knocking on the doors telling people to get out. He is up for a hero's award, which I think is reasonable. From a Christian standpoint, his actions are an example of the greatest form of love possible. But, from the standpoint of enlightened self-interest, his actions were irrational. On a cost/benefits basis, it was the wrong decision to make. Not necessarily. If I thought my neighbor(s) would be likely to take the same risks for me in the future, I would do it, and it would be in my self-interest, unless I could trick my neighbors (or they could trick me) into thinking I (they) would do it but really would not. Of course, then honesty and trustworthiness comes into it. If I didn't think my neighbors were honest and trustworthy in these matters, then I would be less likely to do it since it would be much less in my own self-interest. Sure, there are actions that can be identified as beneficial for the whole community if everyone does this. But, this begs the question why worry about what benefits others? Because if you don't (and enough others don't), they won't, and everyone loses. This can make for an interesting game theory problem, but in general the golden rule strategy is frequently the best game theory tactic. I looked up game theory, and found what seems to be a pretty decent source for it at: http://william-king.www.drexel.edu/top/eco/game/game.html That site is incomplete. Here are some key words for you: repeated Prisoner's Dilemma Robert Axelrod Tit-for-Tat
Free will and physics
We've had this discussion before -- the concept of free-will as you use it is just as useless a concept as god. But morality, as I've argued above, is quite useful in progressing towards goals. As a useful fiction to persuade people, certainly (actually persuade assumes free will, the uttering of the word morality has been correlated with behavior changes consistent with other words that were uttered...that might do.)But, ought is rather meaningless without free will. I'll be happy to admit that the causal chain in people's actions includes hearing words. But, that doesn't seem all that critical to me. It happens to be a complex reaction the evolution of which is predictable in only a statistical sense. The inherent difference between this and less complicated systems that can only be predicted in a statistical sense is not apparent. I think your argument relies on complexity changing the fundamentals. I've yet to see a real example of this. Indeed, if it were to exist, it would spark an overwhelming scientific revolution. The falsification of reductionism would be a remarkable occurrence. It is absurd to compare a mind -- which is complex in a way that cannot be modeled by a few simple equations, is capable of abstraction, logic, and calculation -- to something like a star or a lightning bolt which can be modeled and predicted accurately by a few equations. No, it is not absurd. I chose lightning and stars for a reason, not just because I was grasping for metaphors. It is impossible to predict where lightning will strike at a given time on a given day. I'm rather surprised you claim that it is simple; the inability to ever predict popup thunderstorms is classic. It is one of the best examples of macroscopic indetermancy. Indeed, the behavior of stars, humans, and lightning bolts are all dependant on gravity and the physics of the standard model. One could even argue that the star takes more physics to explain than humans, since one may have to consider QCD as well as the standard model. I really expected you to know this, since you have a BA in physics. Complexity doesn't add anything; it just makes it harder to calculate. A very complex perpetual motion machine is no more likely to work than a simple one. There are occasions, indeed, where complexity results in counter-intuitive results. There has never been a verified case where complexity introduces something truly new. accurately predict what a mind will do with a simple model: you need to simulate it in its full complexity, essentially creating another copy of the mind. Furthermore, you can persuade a person not to do something; but you cannot persuade a lightning-bolt not to strike. That is a convenient fiction. You do what you are forced to do, they do what they are forced to do. Persuade is a convenient shorthand You are allowing yourself to be afflicted by the dreaded physics-cyst spherical-cow disease (modelitis), thinking that a simplistic model is an accurate representation of a complex phenomenon. I know you like to try out models until they stick (you tried equating a mind to a star last time, now you are trying a lightning bolt) but the last time this came up I mentioned about as useful a model as you're likely to get: humans have free will in the same sense as Chamlis Amalk-ney (or Mawhrin-Skel) has free will. No doubt you will complain that that is not a very useful model. No, I'd complain that stars and lightning bolts and people are real, Chamlis Amalk-ney is a fictional creation. Yes! That is the point! Free will as you bandy the term around is a poor concept and mostly useless. So, you are willing to give up any description of human beings that is not directly reducable to QED? Anything that is added on is no more than a convenient fiction, like reduced mass? Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
