Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:14pm PT
|
E.O. Wilson on "free will" - the latest...
http://harpers.org/archive/2014/09/on-free-will/
http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/08/20/e-o-wilson-on-free-will/
http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394,00.html
in general, the article adds little to the debate about free will, which to me seems largely semantic... -Coyne
Hm, "semantic"? Sounds familiar, lol!
The real issue—the one that could substantially affect society—is that of determinism, which most philosophers and scientists agree on (i.e., we can’t make choices outside of those already determined by the laws of physics). -Coyne
Has he talked to EdH? :)
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
|
Pretty broad brush. Such assessments don't really say much about the fundamental nature of free will.
The question is at what point in the neural hierarchy does a conscious decision become a database query or weighted scoring equation? At what point does free will, at the macro level, become a bio machine function at the micro? How, exactly, does that happen? How much does chaos or randomness play into this? What brain structures and neural pathways are involved? How do we arrive at whatever mechanisms we use to compare and select such decisions?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 20, 2014 - 03:36pm PT
|
I'm buried with work right now but the "threshold" questions raised by Tvash run through the entire subject of reality and are most evident in the case of before and after the big bang, compression and expansion, inorganic material becoming life, DNA becomeing self-replicating, bio life becoming sentient, mechanical brain processes becoming meta functions no longer beholden to the lower level stirrings - or however you may view it.
These thresholds are places where mechanical reductionism seems to "gap" out, while fundamentalist reductionists insist we need more data.
The fact is I am not at all convinced that a standard linear causal view can ever solve these threshold questions, especially when it is assumed that prior conditions created, in whole or in part, the later person, place, thingn or phenomenon - or that "God" is the only other option.
JL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 03:49pm PT
|
Or perhaps we're so advanced that we're now down to some of the really tough problems. Many of the problems we're talking about - the origin of life, the workings of the brain, the big bang, are so complex they require massive computational power to study. We're just getting started there, really.
What we can know has limits - we probably can't see beyond our light horizon. That reality doesn't require the addition of secret sauce, however.
That we project who we are to our external world - God, whatev, is normal. From ventriloquist dummies to dogs, we've evolved to do that.
That the universe really IS like what we intuit it to be seems less likely.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
Colorado
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 06:35pm PT
|
The fact is I am not at all convinced that a standard linear causal view can ever solve these threshold questions (JL)
I agree. It would have to be non-linear.
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 06:43pm PT
|
As often is the case, it may be good to look before you leap. When I Google for standard linear causality, it does not seem to rule out threshold effects. When you jump off a cliff there may be only one cause leading to the effect, but you could cross a threshold.
http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/smg/Website/UCP/pdfs/SixCausalPatterns.pdf
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 20, 2014 - 06:50pm PT
|
When I Google for standard linear causality, it does not seem to rule out threshold effects.
-
Nor does it tell you how they may be achieved via any of the listed causal modalities - cyclical, domino, etc.
My sense of it is that linear causality, while it is certainly a given in material reality, says as much about the nature of our discursive, conditioned minds as it does about things "out there."
JL
|
|
MH2
climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 07:02pm PT
|
I have stoned two birds with one kill. What kind of causality is that?
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 07:06pm PT
|
Damn you, Descartes!
|
|
MisterE
climber
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 07:21pm PT
|
I see you Tvash - long time...
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 07:24pm PT
|
We can equate linear causality to vegetation life.
Animals and humans in a big degree have linear causality instilled, but with our emotions we can put a halt to it at anytime.
i can raise or stop my heartbeat right now depending how i feel..
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 08:13pm PT
|
I am the Pope of Discursive Linearity!
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 20, 2014 - 08:18pm PT
|
I need to get invited to join the PubMed commons so I can read about neural murmurations. I was thinking about birds while running today and wondered if some of the same principles might apply to building enough signal strength to cross our attention threshold and other neural processes.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:09am PT
|
At what threshold does the inexplicable magic emerge?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 21, 2014 - 08:38am PT
|
At what threshold does the inexplicable magic emerge?
"Emerge" and "created" are two very different concepts. The later implies that some person, place, thing or phenomenon was the product of "A," for example. Another view is that there are inherent qualities that need only the right environment and they naturally show up. Someone should research Boehm's Implicate Order. I saw his talk at our school but that was long ago and I have largely forgotten the drift.
JL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 08:53am PT
|
Naturally show up?
From where?
Isn't that the definition of emergence?
I'm confused.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:33am PT
|
The fact is I am not at all convinced that a standard linear causal view can ever solve these threshold questions (JL)
I agree. It would have to be non-linear.
I've been ranting about this for months.
A person is an extremely complex thing. There are many systems within a person, and if you just want to carve out the brain and study that, well it is the billboard for non-linear, complex systems.
The brain is super complex. We know how many neuronal connections that are in the human brain, and then add chemical influences such as neurotransmitters, hormones, even enzymes and proteins. These all affect function and to some extent behavior.
There are so many of these non-linear systems that the idea of total determinism is bollocks. I again bring up turbulent systems, which I do have a little experience with. You can't determine the path of a single molecule passing through a turbulent system. You can understand the system quite well. That doesn't mean that you can predict the correct outcome.
I wish that we had a top notch neuroscientist here.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:39am PT
|
At what threshold does the inexplicable magic emerge?
Ed posted a link to a recent paper in which a worm was taught. That worm had only a few hundred neurons or something.
I'll try to look it up and re-post it. Its implications are significant.
My guess is that intelligence and sentience are far more common in the animal kingdom than most of this crowd would like to admit.
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
|
Aug 21, 2014 - 09:50am PT
|
The only analogy that presents a causality paradox I can see with regards to Bohm's implicit order idea is quantum entanglement.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 21, 2014 - 10:36am PT
|
Stuff that naturally arises was not created, so perhaps it was there all along.
For example, my friends often remind me that gravity did not slowly arise by mutation or natural selection. It was always present - "from the very beginning" as a fundamental force. But this doesn't stop our discursive minds from searching for a first or efficient cause, for some mechanical process by which gravity is seemingly produced by material - such as invisible particles ("gravitons"), that travel between objects. Cosmic strings and gravity waves have also been suggested.
JL
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!