OT: Memes Vs. Free Will

[Clifford Heath]

Kevin Aylward wrote:

I didn't make a definition of "I".

No, but you relied on one, an incorrect one at that,
which led to erroneous assertions. Identity is a
broader concept than the ego. See my first post on
this thread if you want to know why I think that.

Nice site BTW, I like how it's organised. I've been
too busy plonking the flamewars to bother earlier.
Here's a meme: treat people gently and assume any error
was yours, and you'll find them more accepting of your
ideas. People choose memes that associate with behaviours
they admire.

Sorry everyone for this lapse, but I felt I should at
least tell Kevin why I'm not answering him.

 

[Clifford Heath]

Ken Smith wrote:

...Shannon...

Love it!

Actually QM is based on limits of knowledge not measurement. Even the
electon doesn't "know" its exact position. The value is not hidden it
does not exist.

A popular supposition, but still a supposition. We can't test it.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Clifford Heath
<no@spam.please.net> wrote (in <4156E986.9010006@spam.please.net&gt about
'OT: Memes Vs. Free Will', on Mon, 27 Sep 2004:

Hooray, I managed to relent from correcting Kev's definition of "I".

'Relent' or 'refrain'? Actually, 'I' is the square root of -1 after
it's been on a self-confidence course.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Clifford Heath]

John Woodgate wrote:

'Relent' or 'refrain'?

Same effect. I deleted a correction after typing it, so I said "relent".
But now I've re-relented, sort-of .

Actually, 'I' is the square root of -1 after
it's been on a self-confidence course.

I thought I was the result of a square root.

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4156fc4c$0$23896$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> wrote:
[...]

If there is indeterminism (and we may never know), it must express in
some limits to what's measureable, because whatever is measureable may
be predicted.

If there is a finite amount of energy in the universe Shannon would argue
that there is also a finite amount of energy. If a measurement will
result in enough bits to account for just over 1/2 the energy in the
universe, the prediction and the measurement can't both be done.

[...]

QM is *built* around the limits of measurement, so it
seems to fit.

Actually QM is based on limits of knowledge not measurement. Even the
electon doesn't "know" its exact position. The value is not hidden it
does not exist.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Ken Smith]

In article <4157007b$0$10346$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
Clifford Heath <no@spam.please.net> wrote:

Ken Smith wrote:
...Shannon...

Love it!

Actually QM is based on limits of knowledge not measurement. Even the
electon doesn't "know" its exact position. The value is not hidden it
does not exist.

A popular supposition, but still a supposition. We can't test it.

No, I think the hidden variable theory is now offically toast. I don't
remember the details of the experiment but I believe that someone came up
with a very crafty one. I think that part of it involved splitting the
question into two variations. In one, the hidden information can effect
the results of an experiment and in the other it is assumed the
information is barred from having an effect. The first version can be
easily tested by performing a simple experiement. The second version is
where the tricky bit came in.


--
--
kensmith@rahul.net forging knowledge

 

[Scott Stephens]

Robert Monsen wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:

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.

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?

It would sure make them more mysterious, therefore easier to attribute
to erroneous causes.

--
Scott

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

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

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

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

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

 

[Scott Stephens]

Rich Grise wrote:

I can't prove to you that I have free will, or anybody else. But I _can_
teach you how to demonstrate to your own self that _you_ have free will.

All you really have to do is feel it. That's how will expresses, after
all, through the feelings and emotions.

Feelings which often motivate you to act contrary to your reason are the
manifestation of free will?

--
Scott

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

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

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

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

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

 

[Scott Stephens]

Clifford Heath wrote:

Guy Macon wrote:


I used to hang onto the quantum loophole as a place where miracles
could occur, and though that's still possible, I see no need for
them now. If we hope for eternity, we need to seek a non-material
factor in the psyche - spirit - which can outlast material decay.

All the spirit's bits fade with the rotting RNA. I seek a motive, a
pulse of momentum, and forget about all the ugly details of past lives,
last night's dream. To the future...

Then again, something really awful might happen. Imagine a
super-intelligent life form which evolved from the human race. With its
extreme technology, it begins researching its past. With a reverse-time
scanner, it "resurrects" the past-history light cone (provided its
possible) and "pays back" everybody that has been naughty and nice.

Now if you were a super-intelligent, fair-minded, highly-evolved
creature, would you go back and right histories wrongs, and fix things
up, so when you went to the bar a few galaxies over to party with your
fellow galactic entities, you wouldn't be ashamed of all the bodies of
those poor hairless primates that built you and were buried in your past?

But observing that the issue of free will isn't solved by that
supposition (as I argued before), there is still no eternal basis
for valuing choices and outcomes.

Wrong - unless you do not value your life, the life which enables your
consciousness to despise it! That is, if by eternal you mean objective,
non-subjective. You are using reason to deduce that statement. You can
only use your reason because you are alive. Science is a tool of
systematic knowledge that only works in the context of reason. Science
and reason are tools of your mind, which your emotions (through the
agencies of parents and teachers) caused you to learn and develop. And
now your taking that tool out of the context of your will (motivations)?

Kind of like unplugging a computer from the context of electricity and
saying "it doesn't do anything useful, maybe its junk so I should toss it"?

--
Scott

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

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

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

Those who sow excuses shall reap excuses

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

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 01:54 pm, Scott Stephens did deign to grace us
with the following:

Rich Grise wrote:

I can't prove to you that I have free will, or anybody else. But I _can_
teach you how to demonstrate to your own self that _you_ have free will.

All you really have to do is feel it. That's how will expresses, after
all, through the feelings and emotions.

Feelings which often motivate you to act contrary to your reason are the
manifestation of free will?

The feelings simply provide the motivation - fear, anger, happiness,

whatever - they're part of the sensory system, so at its most basic, yes,
it's your "animal nature", but there needs to be a balance. Letting reason
dominate and dismiss the input of the Will, which comes in the form of
feelings, is just as out of balance as acting like a beast.

Although, you gotta admit, most wild animals are generally more peaceful
than humans are, except when they need to eat. But that's the evolutionary
result of the imbalance that got set in place at the Big Bang.

You don't expect your eyesight or hearing to know how to drive a bus,
do you? Then why expect your fear or anger to? They're simply messengers.
Their goal is your survival. They only get out of line when they're
repressed - they do need to express - and break loose, or when the
interpretation of their message is wrong because of prejudgements,
which Kevin covers as memes.

The decision you make as to your actions comes from the partnership between
your spirit/mind/thoughts and will/body/feelings.

And the mind _needs_ the will, because without feeling, you can't tell right
from wrong. (never mind that society has been teaching the opposite for
millennia!)

Hope This Helps
Rich

 

[Guy Macon]

steve <bungalow_steve@yahoo.com> says...

Free will is a religious concept

No it isn't. Many non-religious philosophers have written about
the concept.

 

[Guy Macon]

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

Guy Macon wrote:

How did you arrive at the conclusion that quantum noise is the
source? Is this an attempt to escape determinism without
invoking the supernatural?

Read "The emperor's new mind" by Penrose. I'm not buying his
conclusions, but the book is worthwhile anyway. Penrose is
a very smart guy.

I am well aware of Penrose, and have read _The emperor's new
mind_. For a good explanation of why I don't buy his ideas,
please see http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/penrose.htm,
especciall the part that starts at the 13th paragraph (the
one that starts with "The argument Penrose unfolds...").

Have you read Marvin Minsky’s _The Society of Mind_?

 

[Guy Macon]

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

Actually, there is very good experimental evidence to suggest that
consiousness is an illusion we generate after the fact. It has nothing
to do with choice, because it happens moments after the fact. We make a
choice, then our brain creates the sensation of our conscious mind
having made the choice.

So what made the choice? The liver?

 

[Guy Macon]

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

Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com> did deign to grace us with the following:

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

Oddly enough, I have no problem at all with the metaphysical bit,
but I reject the idea that people emit empathic transmissions and
that we contain receivers. The latter theory is testable with a
double blind test, and thus I cannot accept t without evidence.

It'd be a little hard to do a double-blind test of your empathic
sense, since it's inherently subjective.

Not at all. Doing double-blind tests of inherently subjective
senses is quite easy to do.

 

[Robert Monsen]

Guy Macon wrote:

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

Guy Macon wrote:


How did you arrive at the conclusion that quantum noise is the
source? Is this an attempt to escape determinism without
invoking the supernatural?

Read "The emperor's new mind" by Penrose. I'm not buying his
conclusions, but the book is worthwhile anyway. Penrose is
a very smart guy.


I am well aware of Penrose, and have read _The emperor's new
mind_. For a good explanation of why I don't buy his ideas,
please see http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/penrose.htm,
especciall the part that starts at the 13th paragraph (the
one that starts with "The argument Penrose unfolds...").

Have you read Marvin Minsky’s _The Society of Mind_?

I suspect that that review was written by Dennett, who teaches at Tufts.

I have not read "The Society of Mind".

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sunday 26 September 2004 06:28 pm, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com>
did deign to grace us with the following:

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

Guy Macon wrote:

How did you arrive at the conclusion that quantum noise is the
source? Is this an attempt to escape determinism without
invoking the supernatural?

Read "The emperor's new mind" by Penrose. I'm not buying his
conclusions, but the book is worthwhile anyway. Penrose is
a very smart guy.

I am well aware of Penrose, and have read _The emperor's new
mind_. For a good explanation of why I don't buy his ideas,
please see http://ase.tufts.edu/cogstud/papers/penrose.htm,
especciall the part that starts at the 13th paragraph (the
one that starts with "The argument Penrose unfolds...").

Have you read Marvin Minsky’s _The Society of Mind_?

"inscrutable but talismanic..." Heh.

I think I'm going to enjoy this read.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Scott Stephens
<scottxs@comcast.net> wrote (in <v0G5d.122673$D%.33489@attbi_s51&gt about
'[OT]: Memes Vs. Free Will', on Sun, 26 Sep 2004:

Feelings which often motivate you to act contrary to your reason are the
manifestation of free will?

It would apply to the act of starting a flame war.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Clifford Heath]

Scott Stephens wrote:

Are you sure its the single most?

It seems likely. Delusion of the kind you mention dies rapidly
with hunger, so it can only ever affect a portion of a society.
One person may imagine food, but someone else must supply it.

But the certainty that we exist to recreate some mythical earlier
or ideal "good" state flows into every choice and poisons it, makes
it a retrograde choice. At the same time, it admits defeat before
even attempting the goal, because it sees entropic processes as
degradation instead of opportunity for further enrichment. The goal
of perfection creates the certainty of failure, which often then
prevents the achievement of good, let alone perfection.

Clifford.

 

[Clifford Heath]

Guy Macon wrote:

So what made the choice? The liver?

The habits, the activation states of which are refered to as emotion.
Man is not a rational being, but a rationalising one.

Emotion occurs in all mammals BTW, but most don't have the need or
ability to explain it. I've graphically observed grief in rabbits,
for example. Emotions are related to a section of the brain which
developed with mammals over the reptilian core, and which provides
nurturing behaviour and many other adaptive traits necessary to
mammalian survival.

The more rapid and automatic a response is, the more likely it has
sprung from a lower level in the brain - though the higher levels
can train the lower ones to create rational but pre-conscious
behaviour - like playing the piano, riding a bike, etc. Afterwards,
we provide a reason for the behaviour "I steered left to dodge that
rock" - but try to ride with your arms crossed to the opposite
handlebar! You just can't do it under conscious control.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Clifford Heath wrote:

Kevin Aylward wrote:
I didn't make a definition of "I".

No, but you relied on one, an incorrect one at that,

Not at all.

which led to erroneous assertions.

And what incorrect assertion would that have been?

Identity is a
broader concept than the ego. See my first post on
this thread if you want to know why I think that.

Nice site BTW, I like how it's organised.

Much appreciated.

I've been
too busy plonking the flamewars to bother earlier.
Here's a meme: treat people gently and assume any error
was yours, and you'll find them more accepting of your
ideas. People choose memes that associate with behaviours
they admire.

Indeed.

Sorry everyone for this lapse, but I felt I should at
least tell Kevin why I'm not answering him.

You haven't yet.

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.