Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jefferson · 04-11-2002, 07:10 AM

Would you consider something threatening you with eternal damnation--or in our case, having a gun to your head, freewill? Or more philosophically, do humans instinctive nature allow humans to be self-destructive?

Jefferson · 04-11-2002, 07:11 AM

Would you consider something threatening you with eternal damnation--or in our case, having a gun to your head, freewill? Or more philosophically, do humans instinctive nature allow humans to be self-destructive?

DRFseven · 04-11-2002, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Jefferson: Would you consider something threatening you with eternal damnation--or in our case, having a gun to your head, freewill? Or more philosophically, do humans instinctive nature allow humans to be self-destructive?

Humans' instinctive nature just lies there in suspended animation without experience. Through benefit of experience, human nature allows both destructive and constructive behaviors. Our own thoughts control us as surely as the gun to the head, which is, after all, only a stimulus that evokes a similar decision to those who share a similar objective.

John Page · 04-11-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
There are more than the two kinds of organizations (hierarchical and network), of course, but assuming only two, how is your theory of abstraction both hierarchical, as you indicated previously, and network-based, as you indicated here?

Try and mesh two hierarchies and you can get a network. Eventually you arrive at n:n like structures that requires resolution of all relationship between all entities. I would call this structure a literal database or "reality". Structure, I argue, is an inference of the mind pruning the relationships to arrive at a summary of reality and its behavior patterns.

So, to try and answer your question. Hierarchies and networks are concepts of structure types, I expect the structure we will discover in the mind is whatever was functionally appropriate in handling reality.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
....Note that 'infinite regress' does not mean that the regress is a completed infinity. This, for Kant, is merely an idea of reason. It only means that any finite number to the chain of sub-species cannot represent the entire chain.

Infinity is a concept that can arise, for example, from the notion of recursion e.g. n=n+1. If n resolves to N, as Cantor suggests, we have N+1 and then N=N+1 (Omega). Why not go to Omega^N for parallel universes just for the hell of it? They're all just concepts and the notion of actual infinity is somewhat contradictory IMO. There is no basis to suppose that anything is actually infinite and the concept of an "incomplete infinity" is like saying "Stop, I can't take it any more..."

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
Kant....

Thanks, interesting.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
The mind, I believe, is infinite, principally because language is infinite. There is no limit to the number of different sentences that can be constructed. Those philosophers who have sought to physicalize the mind have come under severe criticism on this basis.

Please see above on the concept of infinity. Language is not infinite. The meanings one might be able to desribe in words might be infinite, but you would need an infinite amount of time to organize the infinite number of (instances of)words to describe them. Are you saying that we are actually infinite beings?

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
"The only formal system that I know of that can be reliably treated with extensionality is mathematics, a science in which each unit is of equal value by definition."

In any case, you need to define your use of 'extension' before you go further.... ....The extension of 'cat' to "this cat," for example...

Thanks for the perspective. My issue is as follows. In math the base entities (numbers) represent (by definition) homogenous quantities. All cats, however, are different (by experience) and you cannot reliably assume all cats have the same attributes. For example, all dogs have four legs - where does that leave the three-legged dog? The misleading assumption is that all cats have "catness" by necessity, it could also be a misleading assumption to say that all electrons conform to the concept electron (any physicists care to comment?).

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
....To even posit a unit may put you already into an "anti-formalist" position.

Agreed, but while formalism was conceived by mankind it is not a religion (not that you said it was), but its a powerful tool.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
...In its ordinary context, however, I would think '+' refers to a specific mathematical operation, known as 'addition' and for this reason, I think of it as a sign, and is subject to being tokenized.

Agreed, one may point to a process.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
"Obviously the brain contains some hard wiring. I don't know this to be the case. How is it obvious? Indeed, how is it true?

True by observation. But maybe I'm wrong. It struck me as obvious because if you take the physical characteristics of an individual's brain it can be very well correlated with other brains. Similar physical structure and component parts equate to similar "hard wiring".

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
...If we didn't have this initial capability, we would have no way to organize anything and it would be a total chaos...

I agree with "predisposition", which is where genetics come in...

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
Much more is needed, I think, to move from "concepts are interrelated" to "working hypothesis" to being "about the outside world", to "acting with foreknowledge" to "planning", and to "free will". Each of these steps is in itself a huge leap (or requires a lot of work to fill in before the linkage is made).

Agreed, my ideas are just my working hypothesis. (At least I'm trying to be internally consistent in a formalistic kind of way).

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
"Agreed, I was supposing that the "migration" of nerve cell connections might be a part of the mapping of correlations found in reality."

....Indeed, it is not uncommon to have a "pinched nerve" in our lower lumbar region of the spine cause us to feel heat in one or another of our feet. How would you model this?

Internal correlations can become deceptions when reality changes and we haven't adapted.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
Our entire body is mapped in the brain.... Do you mean our visual or auditory field?

Mind is not necessarily just the brain, I was thinking of all our senses and how they contribute to our actions from the level of autonomous reflex to conscious reflection.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
"Just a note that I regard emotional activity as a kind of thought."

What kind of thought is it?

That which processes sense data and results in a response, much like any other thought.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
"I think its the other way round, consciousness requires a degree of deception!"

I personally don't think this makes sense, but since it does to you, what do you mean by deception? What is the deception?

Examples of deception involved in conscious processes, a) imagination requires the 'creation' of a non-existent, hypothetical, situation for our mind to process; b) all dogs have four legs, even those with three legs; c) time passes uniformly for all objects.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
What makes it possible for us to "know" that there is something fishy going on? Let me consider that this isn't even necessary to your point. Why can't this alleged compensation take place without our being aware of it? My claim would be that in order to be aware of it, to notice something "fishy", we need consciousness.

I just don't see this, what is it that brings it to the notice of our consciousness? Consciousness is a focused awareness, but its not everywhere all the time. I think we can learn without being consciously aware, also, if this is not true how could consciousness have evolved? Are you saying consciousness is first cause?

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
It is only through a reflection of our own perceptions that allows this thing to be an illusion. That is, since in order to make use of information derived from photons of light, it has to be transformed into visual data about objects in the world. What makes this compensation that you call it, any different than any other type of transformation?

Because it deals with the transition from physical to abstract. I'm starting in the middle (of the idealist and strict determinist) and trying to work outwards. For example, is there really a photon? What is it and how do we come to know it? How do we conceptualize our knowledge about the outside world?

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
The "famous" computer scientist Judea Pearl of UCLA, has made great strides in the area of causal reasoning. This may allow us to identify illusions of reasoning, though I feel confident that without consciousness, the bent stick in the water line would not be considered an illusion. It is a fact of consciousness, not of reasoning.

I hadn't heard of him. Illusions are a phenomenon of mind, not necessarily of consciousness.

Quote:

Originally posted by owleye:
Have you not been paying attention? Dogs and cats would act on the basis of conditioning. Humans can act on principles.... I think children and to a lesser degree adults are "trained" in this way. But because we learn to develop principles of action, or reasons for acting, we alone (or almost alone) are capable of acting on principles.

What are the principles that you have described but not a form of conditioning? We are human and can communicate about how we think we think. I'm not saying dogs think the same way, I just think such a conclusion is premature.

Cheers!

John Page · 04-11-2002, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Wyrdsmyth:
I don't see why acting altruistically is incompatible with determinism........Is 'indeterminacy' important or even relevant to free will?....But let's say certain interpretations of Quantum Mechanics are true, and reality is fundamentally indeterministic? Does that even help the case of free will at all? Or hurt it?

I didn't say altruism was incompatible with determinism. I think its true that some believe free will and "hard" determinism are incompatible - how can freedom exist when everything is pre-determined. Regarding QM, it seems to me that scienctific endeavor tries to distinguish between that which is predictable and reducible to rules and that which behaves in a way that is not understood (as yet indeterminate). At the extreme end we have the concept of pure randomness.

Yet we demonstrably have freedom to act - hence the conundrum (for me), is it pure illusion or is there some mechanism that neutralizes elements of determinism? What is the will and how does it work? Examples: How come some people deliberately sacrifice themselves when there is no external compulsion to do so? Is making a choice based on more objective information "freer" than a knee-jerk reaction? If so why and how?

Short answer. I don't know. Cheers!

John Page · 04-11-2002, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:

John Page: "As a consequence of this conclusion, freedom of choice requires hypothesizing about the future which in turn requires an imagination to analyze the past and project likely futures."

And where does the imagination come from? Experience, which is "replayed" with other associated replays. And all experience depends upon prior experience. People just don't seem to get that we can't form thoughts out of nothing.

Did I say anything that was contrary to your statement?

I think of the imagination as the process creating the "scenarios".

DRFseven · 04-11-2002, 12:36 PM

Quote:

John Page: Did I say anything that was contrary to your statement? I think of the imagination as the process creating the "scenarios".

You said "freedom of choice" requires hypothesizing about the future and that requires imagination. Weren't you implying that imagination is evidence of the free will that we have and that other animals lack? I'm asking how it can be described as "free" or "freedom" when it's entirely dependent upon experience. That is the opposite of free.

John Page · 04-11-2002, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
You said "freedom of choice" requires hypothesizing about the future and that requires imagination. Weren't you implying that imagination is evidence of the free will that we have and that other animals lack? I'm asking how it can be described as "free" or "freedom" when it's entirely dependent upon experience. That is the opposite of free.

No. Apparent free will. "Freedom of choice" in the sense that they are available to us to select from. If we have no choice then not once ounce of objectivity could be had.

I don't entirely agree with your post, though. Outcome is dependent upon experience and process. If the decision making process is performed such that it equally "weights" or counterbalances the outcomes, effectively cancelling out any internal bias, what then decides?

For fun, let's compare the 'will' of an accountant and the 'will' of a lion tamer. Let's say they are both imbued with my theoretical "process of objectification" that cancels out decision making bias. Now the choices: a) change career to being an actuary, thereby ensuring a regular existence with an assured pension and b) change career and go diving for treasure at some personal risk but with the prospect of great riches.

Now, how do these guys decide? I'm guessing that we take a longer time over important decisions because our minds need time to create multiple scenarios and review what our feelings, financial aspects, health etc might be. When we're not projecting forward we're analyzing past information to help us in the next decision. The ability to evaluate and select from the options creates the perceived "freedom".

That's why I said "Freedom of choice requires hypothesizing about the future and that requires imagination." Didn't intend to imply complete freedom or free will - that would seem to require "random choice" which is an oxymoron.

Cheers!

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

DRFseven · 04-11-2002, 04:04 PM

Quote:

John Page: Outcome is dependent upon experience and process. If the decision making process is performed such that it equally "weights" or counterbalances the outcomes, effectively cancelling out any internal bias, what then decides?

What do you mean by "cancelling out any internal bias?" All decision-making capabilities (our mental scaffolding that provides the blueprint for any kind of concept) ARE personal biases. We have no way of categorizing information as "true" and incorporating it into knowledge schema without relying on concepts we already learned, which got there the same way. I've tried looking at your examples, but I can't until you explain the "cancelling out" part.

John Page · 04-11-2002, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
What do you mean by "cancelling out any internal bias?"

The following are given to communicate my "internal objectification" concept in general, not actual proposals of how our mind operates internally.

The kind of thing I have in mind can be illustrated by a mathematical weighting calculation for one characteristic:
Choice a - scored 10
Choice b - scored 5
To eliminate the bias, multiply choice b by 2.
Now reperform the decision model - there is no mathematical choice.

Second example, imagining removal of an influence. This seems to happen consciously when you say to yourself things like "Well, how would I feel if X is not at the party?"

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:
We have no way of categorizing information as "true" and incorporating it into knowledge schema without relying on concepts we already learned....

I think you're wrong, a simple comparison process is enough to yield a truth value. Are you saying the faculty of the imagination does not allow us to arrive at new concepts? Are we born with these concepts and if not how do we learn them? Perhaps if you could refer me to a source or explain in your theory of mind the definitions and relations between information, knowledge, knowledge schema and concepts.

Cheers!

[ April 11, 2002: Message edited by: John Page ]

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-11-2002, 07:10 AM	#81
Jefferson Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 11	Would you consider something threatening you with eternal damnation--or in our case, having a gun to your head, freewill? Or more philosophically, do humans instinctive nature allow humans to be self-destructive?

04-11-2002, 07:11 AM	#82
Jefferson Junior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: California Posts: 11	Would you consider something threatening you with eternal damnation--or in our case, having a gun to your head, freewill? Or more philosophically, do humans instinctive nature allow humans to be self-destructive?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.