OT: Memes Vs. Free Will

[Rich Grise]

The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Genome]

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:a2o5d.1352$dt2.275@trnddc09...
| The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
| memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
| switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)
|
| Cheers!
| Rich
|

The reason some people don't believe in free will is that they realise that
cultural memes deny that free will.

DNA

Not associated with Guy Macon

 

[Scott Stephens]

Rich Grise wrote:

The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Free will has not been overridden, it has been exercised in the choice
of the meme which denies free will.

Free will is the choice between motivations. Even if you flip a coin to
determine your action, free will was exercised in the choice to flip the
coin.

Now when actions and choices have become automatized, that is habit,
free will is no longer being exercised. Woe unto those that have made
denial of awareness of choices, and the free will to choose between them
a habit!

--
Scott

**********************************

DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!

http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

**********************************

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <a2o5d.1352$dt2.275@trnddc09>, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:

The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

So what you are saying is that the people who don't believe in free will
have no choice in the matter. Does this also mean that the political bias
of a person is determine by whether the left most of right most command
line parameter has priority?

I tend to make my programs give priority to the right most parameter as
one would expect for processing them from left to right. Which way does
that suggest my programs would vote?



--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Rich Grise]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 06:19 pm, Ken Smith did deign to grace us with
the following:

In article <a2o5d.1352$dt2.275@trnddc09>, Rich Grise <null@example.net
wrote:
The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

So what you are saying is that the people who don't believe in free will
have no choice in the matter. Does this also mean that the political bias
of a person is determine by whether the left most of right most command
line parameter has priority?

Oh, they have absolute choice - they've chosen to abrogate their free

will to _some_ script, be it command line parameter 1 or environment
variable. ;-)

But they generally run a pretty tight loop. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 05:57 pm, Genome did deign to grace us with
the following:

"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:a2o5d.1352$dt2.275@trnddc09...
| The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
| memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
| switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)
|
| Cheers!
| Rich
|

The reason some people don't believe in free will is that they realise
that cultural memes deny that free will.

I really don't see the difference between "not believe in" and "deny".

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Guy Macon]

Rich Grise <null@example.net> says...

The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

Good point. If you observe a command line switch overriding an
environment variable, would you then conclude that environment
variables never have any effect?

 

[Guy Macon]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> says...

If you believe that all behavior derives from the meat, then its
difficult to believe in such concepts as soul or free will. We are
physical beings, whose behavior, while astonishingly complex, is really
derived from the mechanical and electrical interactions of various proteins.

If you believe that all behavior derives from the meat, then it
is only difficult to believe in such concepts as free will if you
don't know about emergent behavior.

 

[Robert Monsen]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Saturday 25 September 2004 08:29 pm, Robert Monsen did deign to grace us
with the following:


Scott Stephens wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:


The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

If, on the other hand, you consider your brain to be a kind of receiver,
channeling data from a divine soul,


Actually, I do, in a way.


then its easy to believe in free
will. Its not the meat, its the 'ghost in the machine' that has the free
will.


Actually, this is one of the fundamental errors of all time. The body is
holding the free will - look at any living thing that doesn't have a brain
like a human's - there probably isn't a single one that does anything by
some rule or schedule.

Problem is, this Spirit sees that his apes have evolved highly enough to
have pretty bodies and big enough brains to resonate at _some_ level,
opens communication, and since he's "higher than the lower animals"
or "more cultured" or whatever - starts overriding the free will, to
"overcome his animal nature."

The two need to be in intimate communication. Just because you got an
intellect doesn't mean that the thing that got you through three
billion years of evolution is suddenly wrong! Or worse yet, non-
existent!

But another problem is that the intellect isn't developed quite
enough to hold _all_ of the knowledge/wisdom/whatever (in the
realm of spirit, you see, everything is one, everything is known,
etc, etc, yadda yadda), so the spirit forgets almost everything
except "LIVE!".

It figuratively holds its nose, takes the plunge, and arrives
at the crown chakra of a brand new screaming poop machine, whose
will and whose _own_ part of the mind (the brain and senses)
have just been violently rousted from a blissful slumber, forcibly
expelled from the safety, comfort, and love of his mother's womb,
through a tunnel that's too small, into -

*** BLAM! *** BRIGHTNOISYROUGHJERKINGPUSHING ***

*** ***
*** ***
*** ***
*** SMACK! ***
*** ***
*** ***
*** ***

"Welcome to the world, kid!"

It's no wonder some people have a less than rosy outlook on life.
These earliest memories get imprinted, which are even deeper than
memes - they're preverbal.

And that's part of the problem.

You see, when you look inside for your will, what you actually
encounter when you look back is the defenses you put up against
the pain of being born. Which present as terror and pain, and
whatever judgment/meme your brain was able to come up at the
time to get through it.

But it can be done - I know.

But in all my preaching, I forget, as it turns out, I've been
in intensive training pretty much all my life for _something_
big, which will probably be the day they put me in a rubber
room. ;-)

The next stage of evolution is to bridge that gap between spirit/
mind and will/body, and I swear, as fanatical doomsayer, when
Spirit and Will join and align in Heart, it will bring a new
understanding as fundamental as the planets orbiting the sun vs.
the big lamp above the flat earth, and others like that.

It's certainly as heretical an idea as that was.

Cheers!
Rich

Well, good luck with that philosophy. Baba Ram Das would say nice things
about it... and I would have to agree; it sounds like a pleasant world
to inhabit...

--
Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Guy Macon]

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> says...

So you are saying that our will is free if things are so complex that we
can't understand the biological processes that are making the decisions
for us?

I am saying that the question of free will is one upon which many
very intelligent and well-educated people disagree, and that anyone
who thinks that they have a proof for or against the existance of
free will almost certainly has a flawed proof.

 

[Clifford Heath]

Robert Monsen wrote:
.... beautifully. Well put Robert.

The question is not whether or not there's a ghost in the machine. The
question is whether the machine is merely a filter on the environmental
stimulus, or generates behaviour independently, or both. The two aspects
are referred to by names which imply dualism (spirit/mind, etc), and
some people believe the duality is "real", some don't. The correct
answer, and the one which even neo-Platonists (dualists) agree on,
including most modern Xians, is both, of course.

Every particle is affected by every other particle. Suppose we were to
attempt to predict the Newtonian motion of a single atom of air at room
temperature over the duration of 100ps. During this time it will undergo
an average of 50 collisions. If we neglect the gravitational attraction
(weakest of the fundamental forces) of a *single* electron (smallest
stable particle) at the far limit of the observable universe (say 15
billion light-years), then after 100ps, the exponential errors have
mounted so high that we have *no idea* where our atom is going.

So let's forget about the notion of *anything* in this universe being
"independent". Everything is contingent on (filters) everything else.

The difficulty for 19th century rationalists is to answer how a machine
can generate independent behaviour - hence the frenzied death-spasms of
post-Hegelian philosophy. Now that we can describe the outcomes of
quantum effects (not to say we "understand" them!), we know the answer.
Quantum mechanics appears to allow indeterminism, and that allows new
things (as opposed to mechanistic coincidences) to happen.

But despite the interconnectedness of all things, organisms are so
identified because each has sufficient integrity (separation from
outside interactions, continuity of internal ones) that we validly
describe them as *processes*. The particles are not the issue - they
change all the time - but the *process* of "life" continues. The
boundary of the "organism" may be blurry at the edges, but there *is*
a boundary - which means that "identity" is a valid concept independent
of particular particles.

What am I? A process in a succession of particles. If you want to call
that process a "spirit", go ahead. I won't argue - but spirit and body
can never be separated. Spirit cannot continue when the bodily processes
fail. And *that* was where I ceased to be Xian. Our only hope for
continuity is to have introduced some novelty - so "teach your children
well".

If, on the other hand, you consider your brain to be a kind of receiver,
channeling data from a divine soul,

I used to believe in the mind as "the control room of the spirit". But
then, by what kind of process, and within what milieu, does the spirit
get its independence? And if independent, how can it interact with a
spiritual world? If it interacts, it cannot be independent (free). If
it doesn't, it is a world to itself. If it's both, then it's just like
our bodies and doesn't solve the problem of free will. Either way the
notion of a disembodied spirit is an unnecessary nonsense.

If we are computers, running 'memes' as programs, is the world any less
interesting or mysterious?

In computers, each part is joined to a finite number of other parts.
Not so in organisms; every part is inextricable from every other part,
and from everything else. The notion of organisms "running" programs
is absurdly simplistic. Programs imply a logical sequence of discrete
steps, and that simply doesn't occur in organisms as a whole.

To me, its a far more wonderous and mysterious to contemplate the idea
that proteins, under pressure from natural selection, somehow managed to
invent God, than the other way around.

On the contrary, it's inescapable in any concept of the evolution of
sentience. Every alien organism will eventually evolve to invent gods.
What is unknown to me, is whether we can ever outgrow them. Because
until we do, we cannot stop trying to reconstruct an imaginary past,
and look forward to creating a possible future. And *that* is the goal
of my creed, Creativism. Novelty is the only universal dimension and
*only* it can be the goal of existence. The ethics which derive from
that statement can inform and transform the world.

Clifford Heath.

 

[Clifford Heath]

Guy Macon wrote:

anyone
who thinks that they have a proof for or against the existance of
free will almost certainly has a flawed proof.

More likely they have a lax definition of freedom.

 

[Robert Monsen]

Guy Macon wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> says...


So you are saying that our will is free if things are so complex that we
can't understand the biological processes that are making the decisions
for us?


I am saying that the question of free will is one upon which many
very intelligent and well-educated people disagree, and that anyone
who thinks that they have a proof for or against the existance of
free will almost certainly has a flawed proof.

I'll agree with that.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Clifford Heath wrote:

Robert Monsen wrote:
... beautifully. Well put Robert.

The question is not whether or not there's a ghost in the machine. The
question is whether the machine is merely a filter on the
environmental stimulus, or generates behaviour independently, or
both.

However, independently generated behaviour is not sufficient to conclude
that there is a true free will. Random generated behaviour, is by
definition, unpredictable. If it is unpredictable, we have no control
over it, thereby no free will to control it.

The two aspects are referred to by names which imply dualism
(spirit/mind, etc), and some people believe the duality is "real",
some don't. The correct answer, and the one which even neo-Platonists
(dualists) agree on, including most modern Xians, is both, of course.

Every particle is affected by every other particle. Suppose we were to
attempt to predict the Newtonian motion of a single atom of air at
room temperature over the duration of 100ps. During this time it will
undergo an average of 50 collisions. If we neglect the gravitational
attraction (weakest of the fundamental forces) of a *single* electron
(smallest stable particle) at the far limit of the observable
universe (say 15 billion light-years), then after 100ps, the
exponential errors have mounted so high that we have *no idea* where
our atom is going.
So let's forget about the notion of *anything* in this universe being
"independent". Everything is contingent on (filters) everything else.

The difficulty for 19th century rationalists is to answer how a
machine can generate independent behaviour - hence the frenzied
death-spasms of post-Hegelian philosophy. Now that we can describe
the outcomes of quantum effects (not to say we "understand" them!),
we know the answer. Quantum mechanics appears to allow indeterminism,
and that allows new things (as opposed to mechanistic coincidences)
to happen.

Yes.



Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Rich Grise wrote:
The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

Free will has not been overridden, it has been exercised in the choice
of the meme which denies free will.

Not at all. And what made that choice..dah..? This is the same sloppy
thinking that Dawkins's used in The selfish gene when he coined the
term. It has been criticized ever since. *All* of our thinking is based
on memes and genes.

Free will is the choice between motivations. Even if you flip a coin
to determine your action, free will was exercised in the choice to
flip the coin.

Nonsense. That's precisely what is determined from prior inputs. Like
dude, why did you decide to flip the coin in the first place?

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Guy Macon wrote:

Robert Monsen <rcsurname@comcast.net> says...

So you are saying that our will is free if things are so complex
that we can't understand the biological processes that are making
the decisions for us?

I am saying that the question of free will is one upon which many
very intelligent and well-educated people disagree, and that anyone
who thinks that they have a proof for or against the existance of
free will almost certainly has a flawed proof.

Not with any rational concept of what "proof" means in the real world
they don't.

*All* "proof" is based on axioms. That is, proof is relative. If we
accept the axiom that all physical observations are the result of
mass-energy physics then true free will is easily "proven" to be
impossible.

True Free will *requires* something outside physics. To date, there is
no evidence to suggest that this is the case. All "free will"
observations can be explained by postulating an inherent random trait
generator of a Darwinian Brain.

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Rich Grise wrote:

On Saturday 25 September 2004 05:57 pm, Genome did deign to grace us
with the following:


"Rich Grise" <null@example.net> wrote in message
news:a2o5d.1352$dt2.275@trnddc09...
The reason "some people" don't believe in free will is that their
memes have overridden their freewill, much like a command line
switch overrides an environment variable. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich


The reason some people don't believe in free will is that they
realise that cultural memes deny that free will.

I really don't see the difference between "not believe in" and "deny".

"Deny" as in a "deny by logical consequence of".

Kevin Aylward
salesEXTRACT@anasoft.co.uk
http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

 

[Clifford Heath]

Feisty little fellow aren't we. I just picked up a linguistic slip.
No need to get your knickers in a knot about it, we all do it.
You said:

If it is unpredictable, we have no
control over it, thereby no free will to control it

You fell back to a paradox "we have no..." therefore... there is no we.
It's a valid point, but you said it in a confusing way, that's all.

Now you pinched my phrase.

Oh, I see. Bertrand Russell told the story about you did he?

I don't agree with all your arguments, but at least I know how to be
civil, and don't need to resort to profanity when someone picks up
a slip I made. No point me talking with someone who never makes
mistakes. Either they're wrong and won't admit it, or they're right
and can learn nothing from you. I'll still read what you write, but
won't answer any more, for the sake of everyone else here.

 

[Guy Macon]

Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> says...

Kevin Aylward wrote:

(Nothing worth quoting)

You are better off just ignoring him, Clifford. There are several
people here who are willing to have a reasonable conversation on
the topic at hand, but Aylward is only here to pick fights. He
feeds on attention - even negative attention, so the best way to
deal with him is to deny him the attention that he so desperately
craves. Killfiles are your friend.

'''
(0 0)
+------oOO----(_)-------------+
| Please don't feed the Troll |
+--------------------oOO------+
|__|__|
|| ||
ooO Ooo

 

[Guy Macon]

Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> says...

No point me talking with someone who never makes
mistakes. Either they're wrong and won't admit it, or they're right
and can learn nothing from you. I'll still read what you write, but
won't answer any more, for the sake of everyone else here.

*Excellent* choice! Ignore him long enough and he will grow tired of
shouting into an empty hall and will go away.

Getting back to the topic at hand rather than talking about trolls,
you recently wrote:

The independently generated behaviour *is* the free will.
Just because it's random doesn't mean we can't *ascribe*
meaning and value to it.

I am wodering on what basis you have concluded that it is random.
It seems to lack certain basic characteritics of randomness, such
as being completely unpredictable.