Starboy

The degree is based on how long you have been dead. Do not get me wrong. Life is an incredible thing. More incredible than any Christian could ever imagine. Only a scientist could appreciate how amazing life is, because this thing called life is self-organizing matter.

Starboy

Starboy

When I use the word I mean a choice from a selection of possibilities, such as picking a number from one to six. From that point of view a die can be used to choose. In that case when a computer program comes to a branch such as an enumeration it does make a choice. That choice can be based on the value of some parameter or it can be selected randomly. So there is no doubt that computer programs choose in that sense.

I get the impression that when you use the word choice you are implying something more than just making a selection from the possibilities. I get the impression that you mean a rational choice. A choice based on maximizing a benefit or outcome. This kind of choice would require knowledge and the capacity to use it to make the selection of greatest benefit.

Again I don’t see a problem with a computer program or an ant making this type of choice. Computers are used in business all the time to make choices of maximum benefit since there are usually far too many variables for a human mind to grasp and ponder at the same time.

I agree the use of the word choice can be stretched to the point where it would appear that an electron makes choices. The word choice can have many shades of meaning. In the narrowest sense either the electron is making the choice or nature is making the choice for the electron, but I do think that this type of choice is the basis on which the choice of free will is based. But in the case of the electron I don’t think there is any intent so I would not say that an electron has free will.

Starboy

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ September 15, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Kent Stevens

I claim not to be a dogmatist. This is why I explore different possibilities, and I do not claim things like the world was created in six days, because my Bible tells me so. Not that I believe in the Bible.

What you mean by pure atheist might be better expressed by saying the pure materialist. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in one entity. It is hard to stretch atheism to mean much beyond this simple definition.

If you accept the idea that we have evolved from simpler predecessers then it seems that everything is a matter of degree. There are differences between say mammals and reptiles or between the conscious and the unconscious. But if you believe in evolution you see that things are fuzzier than what they first appear, because reptile like animals evolved into mammals. According to evolution non-conscious chemicals eventually evolved into conscious variations of life.

There is no real problem with using the words mind and brain as words with similar meanings.

In terms of the free will/causality difference, free will in one sense goes against common sense. For it is common sense to say that everything has a cause. By allowing systems to have free will you imply that they are uncaused in their actions.

There are differences between what is conscious and what is not. But it must come about through a developmental process where that which is not conscious gives rise to something that is conscious.

Laurentius

When do we have a pile of rice?
When there are at least 10 grains?
9? 8? 7? 6? 5? 4? 3? 2? 1? 0?

Everything is not a matter of degree.
One cannot treat the unit (1) and the infinite in the same manner, although they co-exist in this material universe.

Complexity adds new layers of rules and creates categories where matter tends to escape linear (blind) determination. It is as if matter were trying to free itself from its own automatism.

AVE

Starboy

Perhaps complexity is the key. However even a single electron can be very complex. Perhaps there is a threshold, but simply saying there is doesn't make it so. If you think there is a threshold present your argument. At the electron level it is easy to show how it can be free from automatism. However I would not say that an electron has intent, but the effects of quantum mechanics exist everywhere. I am sure it affects how all living organisms make choices.

Starboy

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

[ September 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]</p>

Kent Stevens

We are just getting into a version of the heap paradox. The heap paradox has been talked about for centuries.

One grain of rice does not make a heap. Two grains of rice do not make a heap and three do not and so on. If we wrongly use the principle of induction a heap never ends up existing, no matter how many grains of rice there are. The heap paradox shows there are limits to induction.

There are many examples of the heap paradox which include how do people become defined as tall as opposed to short, or how do they become defined as tall as opposed to short. Another two examples are the distinction between life and non-life, and the distinction between a developed person and a fetus.

You can use categories and also see that many things are just a matter of degree. You can use categories such as tall and short, and realise that there is just a matter of degree between someone who is short and someone who is tall. You can use categories such as life and non-life, but alos realise that eventually non-life evolves into life. The borderline between life and non-life is vague, just as the borderline between who is tall and who is short is vague.

Laurentius

Tall and short are a matter of relativity. Tallness exists in relation to shortness and they define each other. The heap is a concept in itself. The heap paradox demonstrates that describing the universe through solely its discreet aspect will prove unproductive since it will ignore boundaries between different levels of reality, equalizing phenomena apparently the same but actually opposite, such a person's personality and the weather.

AVE

Starboy

OK, how is a choice like a heap?

Kent Stevens

Choice is like a heap in that sometimes it is hard to define what constitutes whether choice or a heap of something exists. But just because a heap is hard to define does not mean that we throw out this concept altogether.

Personally, I think you can use the word choice to most life forms and many different types of machines. I think that it stops being choice when you are dealing with physical systems.

But you can look at what we do from the physical viewpoint as you do any physical system. From this perspective we just do certain things. We have alternatives out of which one of them is realised at any given time.

We can also look at a physical system from a decisional viewpoint if we want to. So if we look at evolution we can say there is choosing or selection of various traits in a species. We can talk about certain traits being weeded out. Or if you take Dawkins example you can personalise a physical system and say that we serve the best interests of our genes.

hinduwoman

What about computer simulations?
It seems to me the computer does choose, very much in the human manner. Also the parameters in the more complicated games are apparently fluid and not rigidly deterministic.
In some cases does it do things that was not anticipated by the designers?