tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6236454513076887514..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Rationally Speaking cartoon: Free WillUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39939659478627773542014-03-06T15:35:38.805-05:002014-03-06T15:35:38.805-05:00I do not see how this would show free willI do not see how this would show free willAnna Vromanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13528308771608400665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19243920132425782992014-02-03T23:28:09.857-05:002014-02-03T23:28:09.857-05:00Mr Massimo:
What's the problem with a marione...Mr Massimo:<br /><br />What's the problem with a marionette who argues because he can't do otherwise? It may sound inconceivable that the mind changing process is of the same kind of the change instantiated by a rock falling downhill, BUT that's what the evidence strongly suggests! Maybe you are underestimating what this process/change could generate when the system becomes extremely complex, like in the brain!<br /><br />- Free Will implies control at some point. Where? Where is the evidence? (quantum randomness is not a valid example, as far as I know)<br />- Determinism does not imply predictability <br />- Determinism doesn't make our lives less interesting, it doesn't matter! at the end we have the SENSATION of control/decision making, we are condemned to make decisions, determinism does not make our decision making less important. <br /><br />Where is the Control? If you were born in Nazi Germany you would be a Nazi (if you were not exposed to something else), If you were born in the Quechua Tribe you would behave as a Quechua. Your decisions are determined by the environment. The environment is what defines a person (also DNA). There's no such thing as a member of a tribe thinking that their traditions are ridiculous (unless he was exposed to something else). We are victims of our Culture, we don't have any control over the environment, we just react to it! just like the rock falling downhill. If not, where is the evidence? <br /><br />As someone (maybe Sam Harris) said "A puppet is "free" as long as he love his strings".. <br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15110231771470353066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-6386530345407116572014-02-03T22:56:54.106-05:002014-02-03T22:56:54.106-05:00Mr Massimo:
The key point here is Causality, Do ...Mr Massimo: <br /><br />The key point here is Causality, Do you have any example of a phenomena that violates causality?<br /><br />- As far as I know, There is no known phenomena that violates Cause - Effect. <br /><br />- Determinism doesn't imply predictability.<br /><br />- Free Will implies Control at some point, where? Where is the evidence? (Quantum randomness is not a valid example, as far as I know) <br /><br />- What's the problem with a Marionette who argues because he can't do otherwise?. It may sound ridiculous that the mind changing process is of the same kind of the change instantiated by a rock falling downhill, BUT that's what the evidence strongly suggests!... Maybe you're underestimating what this process/change could produce when the system becomes extremely complex! Like in the brain! <br /><br />Free Will is like the monster behind the wall, like the flying spaghetti monster or like a god in the sky; you cannot disprove it BUT there's no evidence supporting it (again, as far as I know). <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15110231771470353066noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-19014566060788879592014-01-11T19:37:56.019-05:002014-01-11T19:37:56.019-05:00In fairness to Massimo, it does mean predictable i...In fairness to Massimo, it does mean predictable in principle. For what it's worth, I think he's right when he says our minds were fixed from the moment of the big bang. I just don't see a problem with that.<br /><br />Although I do think it's perhaps not the best way to express the point. The way he says it, it seems like our minds cannot change. What he means is that all the thoughts we will ever think, including changes of mind, are fixed since the big bang.<br /><br />Having said that, of course I don't actually agree with the point of the cartoon.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-53515312610957352032014-01-11T17:57:14.734-05:002014-01-11T17:57:14.734-05:00“If determinism is true then all states of the uni...“If determinism is true then all states of the universe — at any time — were predictable from the initial condition, hence the “contortion of reasoning” you refer to.”<br /><br />Determinism doesn’t imply predictability.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-55048361752653062892014-01-03T23:03:58.428-05:002014-01-03T23:03:58.428-05:00Hi Gadfly,
You suspect there is free will, but it...Hi Gadfly,<br /><br />You suspect there is free will, but it's not libertarian and it's not compatibilist.<br /><br />What's left? Assuming you don't know, why even suspect there's an alternative? Libertarianism and compatibilism seem to me to be genuine opposites, like physical determinism (clockwork universe) and indeterminism (QM).<br /><br />We seem to agree that libertarian free will is a non-starter. What exactly is wrong with compatibilist free will?<br /><br />On Camus, I'll take your recommendation on board and give him a shot some day. Cheers!Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74065782298783124672014-01-03T14:18:37.368-05:002014-01-03T14:18:37.368-05:00You're probably right on libertarian free will...You're probably right on libertarian free will. That's why I continue to say "something like" when I talk about what the future would hold.<br /><br />That also why I posted that "of the gaps" link.<br /><br />===<br /><br />On absurdism in general, and Camus in particular, I strongly recommend reading him. He's certainly more readable than Sartre, except in Sartre's more literary moments, and a million times more readable than a Heidegger, Husserl, etc. <br /><br />Besides, Camus is a great humanist, not just a great philosopher.<br /><br />On other continental philosophy ... even with its shortcomings, logical positivism was quite influential, and even its detritus still is.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69899741189771995852014-01-02T20:06:32.056-05:002014-01-02T20:06:32.056-05:00Hi Gadfly,
Objective collapse is certainly plausi...Hi Gadfly,<br /><br />Objective collapse is certainly plausible. I still think Schrodinger was right to propose the cat thought experiment, as without this kind of thinking there would be no reason to suspect there was any kind of threshold of different behaviour between the quantum and macro worlds. We just don't feel it is sensible to think that cats behave the same way as atoms and electrons. That's what the thought experiment illustrates, so it's a good thought experiment, and I think Schrodinger deserves respect for proposing it, whether or not he was influenced by mysticism.<br /><br />I agree it's early days on neurology, but if we are naturalists then we must assume there is some naturalistic, physical explanation for free will and all other empirical phenomena. Perhaps I'm wrong, but my intuition tells me that no matter what form it takes, any such explanation will be unsatisfying to the libertarian free-willers. Do you really think otherwise? If so, then our intuitions are just radically different.<br /><br />I had to google philosophical absurdism because I'm pretty new to philosophy. I really only got interested when I thought I had a novel idea about why the universe existed (it turned out to be equivalent to the MUH) and wanted to learn more about how to argue for the idea and what holes it might have.<br /><br />I'm not knocking it, but continental philosophy is just not for me. I can't make sense of it. For me, it's like abstract poetry. Words that sound impressive but have no meaning. I'm not saying the meaning isn't there but it just doesn't fit the way my brain works. It's just impenetrable to me. I'm much more interested in analytic philosophy.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50120731132250978922014-01-02T16:30:01.339-05:002014-01-02T16:30:01.339-05:00DM ... had to Google to look up philosophical absu...DM ... had to Google to look up philosophical absurdism? Arguably, the greatest philosopher of the 20th century would have turned 100 last year. From my second blog, here's my tribute to Albert Camus: http://wordsofsocraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/11/happy-100th-to-albert-camus.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26527740994762080592014-01-02T16:24:59.254-05:002014-01-02T16:24:59.254-05:00DM, per our discussion on my blog, and per this di...DM, per our discussion on my blog, and per this discussion, including, on the free will side, my saying that we're still in the Early Bronze Age on neuroscience, therefore, exactly what both "free will" — and "consciousness" — mean, without accepting determinism, is an issue, here I talk about free will as a "god of the gaps" issue. (The analogy is incomplete; as you know, I don't think **something like** free will is totally illusory.) http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2011/11/free-will-god-of-gaps-parallel.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-47735189980637696382014-01-02T16:20:21.050-05:002014-01-02T16:20:21.050-05:00Well, I did overstate a bit on the "much of.&...Well, I did overstate a bit on the "much of." <br /><br />On the background, I can't *prove* that Schrödinger's adult life-long interest in Hinduism, and specifically in Vedanta, formed part of the background to this thought experiment, but I am confident it's a very reasonable assumption; I think it's reasonable enough that I can't see why anybody would question it has at least some influence.<br /><br />As for that actual thought experiment? Per the Wiki piece, I would certainly fall into some sort of "objective collapse" stance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_catGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-61314728360465115632014-01-02T13:00:39.506-05:002014-01-02T13:00:39.506-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88764425869299602712014-01-02T11:59:38.913-05:002014-01-02T11:59:38.913-05:00Hi Gadfly,
My impression was always that Schrodin...Hi Gadfly,<br /><br />My impression was always that Schrodinger's cat was proposed to illustrate a problem with quantum physics interpretations. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I'd be interested to know where you got the idea that Schrodinger himself interpreted it along Eastern mystic lines.<br /><br />>on much of the statistical stuff of QM, it's all probabilities, whether at the macro or quantum level.<<br /><br />It's really not that simple. If it were all probabilities, then the electron goes through either one slit or the other. But it goes through both, as we can see from the interference pattern. At the micro level, two mutually contradictory states really can exist simultaneously. It's not just statistics. You might be right about the cat, but if so you need to account for the difference between the macro and micro scales.<br /><br />Your thought experiment is absurd, but so is the original. That's the point of it!Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-40400659612325320722014-01-02T10:37:19.322-05:002014-01-02T10:37:19.322-05:00Well, no, I don't think I miss the point of Sc...Well, no, I don't think I miss the point of Schrödinger's Cat. I do truly think that, for him at least, its focus was located in Eastern mysticism. <br /><br />Unfortunately, other physicists, let alone non-physicists, who touted it, wanted the cat to be half dead, half alive. For Bohr and his followers, it gave a boost to their view of QM.<br /><br />As for me, I'm a quasi-realist. I use quasi because I'm not quite where Einstein is. But, on much of the statistical stuff of QM, it's all probabilities, whether at the macro or quantum level.<br /><br />My thought experiment, per Massimo's use of the word "absurd," was primarily to show A: How absurd the original is, as well as B: How, per what I just said, it's nothing but statistics in the end.Gadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67861488686665687282013-12-31T13:34:33.873-05:002013-12-31T13:34:33.873-05:00Ok thanks I do need to read Dennetts work. I dont ...Ok thanks I do need to read Dennetts work. I dont think the compatibilists necessarily have it wrong - just that the words they choose to cling onto seems as a not good choice (I too feel that volition is a better choice but it has the same problem that it doesn't really address what determinist are saying)Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-82727949607792831652013-12-31T13:19:45.165-05:002013-12-31T13:19:45.165-05:00Hi Gadfly,
If you mean by this that it's not ...Hi Gadfly,<br /><br />If you mean by this that it's not certainly the correct interpretation, then I of course agree.<br /><br />If you mean there are strong reasons to suspect it is incorrect, then I disagree.<br /><br />>which "me" is actually "me" and which is the copy within each "forking event"? <<br /><br />Mu!<br /><br />Why do you think there is an "actual me" and a "copy"? Wouldn't both have equal claim to your identity? Maybe it's your concept of personal identity that is incorrect, and not the Many Worlds Interpretation?<br /><br />On Schrodinger, I think you miss the point of the thought experiment a little. Quantum Mechanics is profoundly weird. At the microscopic scale, it really is not good enough to say that we are merely uncertain which event has taken place until an observation is made. The double slit experiment shows that small particles can really be in two contradictory states at the same time.<br /><br />Schrodinger's cat is an effort to explain the problems with this interpretation by reductio ad absurdum. It's not a mystical interpretation, it's an argument that there's something missing from our understanding of QM.<br /><br />You may be right. Maybe the cat really is alive or dead. But if that's the case you need to account for the difference between microscopic and macroscopic systems. If an atom or small cluster of atoms can be in two states simultaneously, then why not a cat? Does it have something to do with mass (gravity), thermal interactions, or perhaps just the practical difficulty in isolating it completely from the world outside the box?<br /><br />Or maybe a cat really can be alive and dead at the same time. The point is the question is not as trivial as you make it out to be, as you should suspect since the interpretation you propose is actually pretty obvious. The fact that we're still talking about Schrodinger's cat should indicate to you that there's more to it.<br /><br />I don't see how your extension to the thought experiment proves anything. If the cat can be alive and dead at the same time, then the cat can also be alive, dead or mutilated at the same time. The Schrodinger's cat can have any number of distinct states, mixed in different proportions. I fail to see what this shows beyond the original thought experiment.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69039867318694893462013-12-31T11:42:08.559-05:002013-12-31T11:42:08.559-05:00DM: The Many Worlds theory of quantum mechanics is...DM: The Many Worlds theory of quantum mechanics is by no means an airtight, or even nearly airtight support for determinism within a quantum-mechanical framework.<br /><br />For example, to riff on the old Star Trek transporter model philosophical game, which "me" is actually "me" and which is the copy within each "forking event"? Then, add to that, the implied continual forkings to infinity.<br /><br />Beyond that, of course, QM applies to the universe, not just to humans. And, I reject an Eastern-mysticism, Schrödinger's Cat version of interpreting QM anyway. The cat's all dead. Or else all alive. We just don't know THAT it's all dead, or all alive, until looking. We don't CAUSE anything.<br /><br />I blogged long ago about this, extending his original idea to three tripwires, controlled by radioactive substances with convenient half-lives of X, 2X, and 4X, here: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-schroedinger-was-wrong-about-his.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-75371511402192378402013-12-31T11:17:27.024-05:002013-12-31T11:17:27.024-05:00Thanks, saved it for later reading!Thanks, saved it for later reading!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38714659922507487102013-12-31T11:14:42.148-05:002013-12-31T11:14:42.148-05:00Massimo, I've actually worked that and more in...Massimo, I've actually worked that and more into a long blog post on the subject, readable at your leisure, here: http://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2013/12/mu-to-free-will-vs-determinism-part-2.htmlGadflyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13075757287807731373noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-69422743480795971682013-12-30T19:00:37.196-05:002013-12-30T19:00:37.196-05:00Hi Deepak,
It's for the reasons you mention t...Hi Deepak,<br /><br />It's for the reasons you mention that I do not consider myself a compatibilist.<br /><br />You are certainly not free to choose how your brain has developed - in any way.<br /><br />But given the brain that you have, that brain is "free" insofar as its choices are unconstrained by contemporaneous external factors.<br /><br />But yeah, in general I agree with your points, and those points are why I would not consider myself a compatibilist.<br /><br />I do think there is a sense in which you are more free than either a prisoner or a rock, so I'm not sure I would call the compatibilist definition of freedom "weird". This is what Dan Dennett would describe as "free will worth wanting". I think the compatibilist position is pretty reasonable but also that it confuses the issue.<br /><br />If you want to get a good insight into compatibilism I'd say Dan Dennett should be your first stop, in particular his books "Elbow Room" and "Freedom Evolves".Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-39403005246012974922013-12-30T17:52:57.962-05:002013-12-30T17:52:57.962-05:00You are free in that you are not constrained by an...<i>You are free in that you are not constrained by anything outside yourself</i><br />That's a weird definition of free :) - I have not chosen how my brain developed or why my brain reacts in a particular way to some data - it is funny to use the word free to represent that. And it also contrasts with Im free to choose to lift my left and right hand and I could lift either at any given point of time and I can switch that choice anytime I want. it doesnt make sense to use free to represent both these cases. I'm not free however to like bitter tasting stuff (or become religious)<br />Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-88411566046217906852013-12-30T15:54:51.662-05:002013-12-30T15:54:51.662-05:00Hi Deepak,
I think Massimo pretty much admitted t...Hi Deepak,<br /><br />I think Massimo pretty much admitted this in a reply to me downthread.<br /><br />"I think this might have been a matter of my sloppy writing. Of course change is compatible with determinism."<br /><br />Massimo's position seems to be that only "willful" change is impossible in a deterministic world, which of course is true by definition if we take "willful" to imply libertarian free will.<br /><br />But, to be honest, I find it hard to understand Massimo's point with this. <br /><br />I'll try to explain what he's saying as I understand it, both to help clarify my own understanding and perhaps to elicit any correction that Massimo may care to make.<br /><br />The determinist position (and determinism in general) seems to make the universe absurd to Massimo. He regards people in a deterministic universe as marionettes, so any task they might undertake is pointless and futile because the universe is going to do what it's going to do.<br /><br />He regards the attempt to advocate determinism as a particularly ironic and amusing example of such a futile undertaking, but I imagine all effort is in much the same category.<br /><br />Naturally, I don't agree with this view, and indeed I find it hard to make sense of it.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46601527589306542622013-12-30T15:44:25.627-05:002013-12-30T15:44:25.627-05:00Hi Deepak,
Like you I am an incompatibilist, but ...Hi Deepak,<br /><br />Like you I am an incompatibilist, but I think compatibilism is reasonably tenable. I think it's metaphysically the same as incompatibilism and simply uses different semantics. I prefer incompatibilism because I think compatibilism is just a way to sidestep the debate and cling to some of our old intuitions though they're not really justified.<br /><br />That said, I think there is a good compatibilist answer to your questions.<br /><br />> If you are a compatibilist then in what sense is your will "free" ?<<br /><br />You are free in that you are not constrained by anything outside yourself. There is nothing outside of your mind which compels your mind to take one course of action or another. In other words, if your mind were otherwise constituted you could make a different decision.<br /><br />This is in contrast to being compelled to do something under duress. Even had you almost any other mind, in the same circumstances you would have no choice but to take the same actions.<br /><br />But you are free to believe or disbelieve in God. If you cannot believe in God it is only because your mind is such that this belief is impossible for you. This limitation comes from within yourself.<br /><br />There is nothing that is forcing you to be an atheist other than you yourself. If your mind were magically replaced with that of a theist version of yourself, but everything else about your circumstances remained the same, you would be free to believe in God.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-91832560290618263732013-12-30T14:59:14.457-05:002013-12-30T14:59:14.457-05:00The problem is the word "free" - If you ...The problem is the word "free" - If you are a compatibilist then in what sense is your will "free" ? Are you "free" to undo any of your choices that are limited solely to your brains/beliefs? Are you free for e.g. to choose to believe in a God (Assuming you are an atheist or agnostic?) - I can't no matter how hard I try.Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-54083909398736781442013-12-30T14:56:25.749-05:002013-12-30T14:56:25.749-05:00which makes the insistence of determinists that th...<i>which makes the insistence of determinists that they can *change* other people’s minds a joke</i><br />You seem to be using the word "change" in a different way then - The weather changes, comets change their path etc etc is a perfectly valid use of the word change but probably you disagree.Deepak Shettyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04324456947895848248noreply@blogger.com