Thinkers May 10 2011: SCARY FREE WILL

Templeton Tigerpaw at Thinkers

Extropia DaSilva: Welcome to Thinkers!
[2011/05/10 15:30]  Extropia DaSilva: Not many people like to think they lack free will. But plenty of people claim their actions are not free. “I have to go to work” being one example. Sartre suggests we are frightened of total free will, since it leaves one totally responsible for one’s own life. To what extent is he correct?
[2011/05/10 15:30]  Ivy Sunkiller: haha Luh
[2011/05/10 15:31]  Zobeid Zuma: Is this about the Welfare State? :/
[2011/05/10 15:31]  Extropia DaSilva: No
[2011/05/10 15:31]  Ivy Sunkiller: welfare state is probably my last connection to the topic 😛
[2011/05/10 15:31]  NecklaceNo24_Emelald: ==== Necklase Size change script Ver1.0 by *Miroku* ====
[2011/05/10 15:32]  Ivy Sunkiller: heyo Gwyn
[2011/05/10 15:32]  Zobeid Zuma: Seems pretty straightforward to me. . .
[2011/05/10 15:33]  Scarp Godenot: Yes, he is right in that there are choices that we make and we are therefore responsible for, but sometimes circumstances make our ‘choices’ not actual choices.
[2011/05/10 15:33]  Zobeid Zuma: Do you want to be responsible for your own successes or failures, or do you want Big Nanny, i.e. The State, to look after you?
[2011/05/10 15:33]  Extropia DaSilva: Well for a start, it is true that people limit their free will. They speak of what the have ‘got to do’ even though, it is always something that you actually do not HAVE to do.
[2011/05/10 15:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: *plop*
[2011/05/10 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: We are limited partly by circumstance, and partly by lack of imagination.
[2011/05/10 15:34]  Extropia DaSilva: Like, I could say I HAVE to be here at 3:30 to chair thinkers. But is that true, strictly speaking?
[2011/05/10 15:34]  Scarp Godenot: Say we are born a woman in strict Islam society. We have a choice to have sex before marriage, but if we do, we will be killed, so we really don’t have a choice.
[2011/05/10 15:34]  Extropia DaSilva: but you do.
[2011/05/10 15:34]  Ivy Sunkiller: well, you don’t have to do thinkers to meet the basic physical needs of your existence, do you?
[2011/05/10 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Did you all do your homework and read that nice Wikipedia page I’ve sent you? 😉 Free will has been proved to be scientifically unsound since 1964.
[2011/05/10 15:35]  Zobeid Zuma: I knew a guy who studied law. He tried and tried to get a job, but he “couldn’t” find one. I told him they are hiring coal miners. 😛
[2011/05/10 15:35]  Scarp Godenot: You are NOT responsible for being killed in the above case if you have sex. You are victimized by others.
[2011/05/10 15:35]  Ivy Sunkiller: Gwyn: I’d love to read that 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sure! It’s an easy experiment, and has been repeated over and over again for the past 40+ years
[2011/05/10 15:36]  Khannea Suntzu: I am absoilutely sure that myself, and a considerable percentage of people will be unable to succeed, let alone prosper in the current macro-economic climate. And I fully intend to use whatever legal means to crowbar this system and the democratic features of the system to give me money, and a fair existence, even if ‘rich’ consider that extortion. It’s my life, fuck em. I need to eat. I will do whatever it takes.
[2011/05/10 15:36]  Zobeid Zuma: Haha! I love it when people try to argue that we don’t have free will. Also when they argue that black is white, up is down, and that 2+2=5.
[2011/05/10 15:36]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): burger flippers currently. millions applied. ask McBurgerFlippers for applications
[2011/05/10 15:36]  Ivy Sunkiller: well I understand that we are, in the end, very complicated indeed but still deterministic machines, yes?
[2011/05/10 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There is no *explanation* why we SEEm to have free will; that can continue to be discussed.
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: This discussion is not about whether or not we have free will, but why we seek to undermine our free will (which we shall assume we possess)
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: What we don’t have,m we cannot undermine.
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Ivy Sunkiller: how can you undermine that which doesn’t exist? 😀
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Zobeid Zuma: Free will is a given. It’s obvious. The question, I think, was whether-and-why people fear it.
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Ivy Sunkiller: hello AE
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Frederick Hansome: I seriously doubt any authority, especially Wickopedia, that questions the existence of free will.
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Khannea Suntzu: I dont have free will. I am a dangling puppet, conmpletely at the mercy of my subconscious, my emotions, my passions, I don’t know how I will feel tomorrow. Its like a rollercoaster.
[2011/05/10 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactky like Ivy says, Extie. I’m sorry. “This is not a discussion about if God exists or not; assume that it does, and please react accordingly” 😛
[2011/05/10 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Frederick: “independent scientific research, peer-reviewed” is good enough for you?
[2011/05/10 15:38]  Frederick Hansome: Not really, would have to examine in more detail.
[2011/05/10 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: … and I’ll try to find a publicly available research paper, if you “mistrust” Wikipedia. Grr. Takes just more time.
[2011/05/10 15:38]  Ivy Sunkiller: well we can redefine what free will is for the purpose of the discussion 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:39]  Scarp Godenot: I guess you could look at Sartre’s suggestion that a choice must be ‘owned’ with responsibility. But without context that is sort of a circular arguement. If X, then Y, by definition.
[2011/05/10 15:39]  Extropia DaSilva: Is that the one where the motor cortex drives a finegr to push a button, after the mind decides to push it?
[2011/05/10 15:39]  Ivy Sunkiller: free will is the decision process that happens in our brains – baM!
[2011/05/10 15:39]  GNE Greene: Doesn’t part of it depend on what definition of “free will” you accept?
[2011/05/10 15:39]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): Dear Zobeid, obectivism is an irational and completely stupid ideology: it hasn’t anything to do with philosophy. Ayn Rand wasn’t a real philosopher, she was just an anti-communist fanatic.
[2011/05/10 15:39]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): *objectivism
[2011/05/10 15:39]  Zobeid Zuma: Eh? Why are you telling me this? I haven’t even read Rand and don’t even know what objectivism is.
[2011/05/10 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Benjamin Libet, Anthony Freeman, and J. K. B. Sutherland, Editors, The volitional brain: Towards a neuroscience of free will. Imprint Academic, 1999. ISBN 0-907845-50-9.
 Benjamin Libet, Mind time: The temporal factor in consciousness, Perspectives in Cognitive Neuroscience. Harvard University Press, 2004. ISBN 0-674-01320-4.
 Daniel C. Dennett, Freedom Evolves. Allen Lane, 2003. ISBN 0-14028-389-7.
[2011/05/10 15:40]  Ivy Sunkiller: oh good one, what is the difference between real philosophers and unreal ones?
[2011/05/10 15:40]  Zobeid Zuma: Not that I have much respect for “real philosophers” either. I put most of them in the same class with real alchemists and real astrologers.
[2011/05/10 15:40]  Extropia DaSilva: Never mind, Zo. Atlas Shrugged the movie is out very soon. Go see it. You will learn all about Objectivism.
[2011/05/10 15:40]  Templeton Tigerpaw: It would seem rather hard to understand where free will should come from, though.
[2011/05/10 15:40]  Frederick Hansome: I will examine any reference you offer on the non-existence of free will
[2011/05/10 15:40]  Ivy Sunkiller: haha Zo
[2011/05/10 15:40]  GNE Greene: Satre is a rather suspect philosopher, with his emphasis on struggle and conflict being supreme. Simone de Bevoir (sp?) seemed to make moe sense, even though she got rather strange on occasion.
[2011/05/10 15:40]  Scarp Godenot: Anybody showing up Ayn Rand’s airhead philosophy is aces in my book! ha ha ha
[2011/05/10 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (for the ones not mistrusting Wikipedia:
[2011/05/10 15:41]  Extropia DaSilva: I guess free will comes from choice? Where you have a choice, you have free will.
[2011/05/10 15:41]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Well, you can easily with a few thoughts show that free will can’t exist. You don’t need any learned references for that.
[2011/05/10 15:41]  Ivy Sunkiller: as in when the choice is left to the unit? yes 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:42]  Zobeid Zuma: “Libet’s experiments suggest to some[6] that unconscious processes in the brain are the true initiator of volitional acts, and free will therefore plays no part in their initiation.”
[2011/05/10 15:42]  GNE Greene: It is quite possible that the perception of choice is time delayed, which rather upsets the point of that “no free will” experiment.
[2011/05/10 15:42]  Frederick Hansome: plese give me a few thouhts that show that free will cannot ,exist
[2011/05/10 15:42]  Zobeid Zuma: Sorry, I don’t see how they got from point A to point B there. Why can’t free will reside in the subconscious?
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Ivy Sunkiller: because subconscious isn’t conscious?
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The issue about those experiments, Templeton, was asking: “can we identify the moment we make a conscious decision in our brain?” And the answer is, yes, we can, and that moment comes *after* the decision was made. We just have the conscience of a decision already made after-the-fact. Which is very interesting and in the past 40 years or so nobody has managed to find an alternative experiment
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Khannea Suntzu: What do we even mean when we say free will. The perfect ability to make sensibkle choices? That clearly we don’t have.
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Zobeid Zuma: I *knew* any attack on the concept of free will would require contortions like redifining “free will” into something bizarre.
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): by “real philosopher” I just meant someone who tries to understand the world… and tries to understand what other philosophers say.
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): arent unconscious processes ultimately free?
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Ivy Sunkiller: free from free will
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Ivy Sunkiller: 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Khannea Suntzu: The ability to be unaffected by external factiors? Dont make me lagh/.
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): not even hampered by consciousness
[2011/05/10 15:43]  Scarp Godenot: Now that I think of it, there are lots of genetically pre programmed things we do that have nothing to do with volition. But some of these things are called ‘choices’.
[2011/05/10 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, Zo — of course those experiments presume a positivist viewpoint of what the brain actually does 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:44]  Ivy Sunkiller: if you are unaffeced by external factors then you have zero data to base on to make choices in the first place:)
[2011/05/10 15:44]  GNE Greene: Very little of what we do involved active, conscious, hoice. That process is too slow for most situations. We are relying on the equivalent of reflexes, that, we hope, were laid-down on the basis of rationality.
[2011/05/10 15:44]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Luh: we can *measure* unconscious processes.
[2011/05/10 15:44]  Khannea Suntzu: Free will is just a legal construct used by authorities to be able to punish those who vreaki laws, to validate their power to enact vengeance, in their name in the name of the state, or in the name of angry constituents.
[2011/05/10 15:44]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Well, it’s easy to show that free will cannot exist. Free will means that you are the sole and single author of an act and that there is zero explanation for whatever made you choose it. If there was an explanation or reason, then your act would not be free. Now, since your act necessarily involves the change of some brain state, at a minimum the movement of some atoms in a neuron, it would seem to me that the defenders of free will would be unable to explain where the energy would come from, that causes that movement – unless you think it comes from outside the unverse.
[2011/05/10 15:45]  Zobeid Zuma: I’m a dumb ol hillbilly who doesn’t know anything about a “positivist viewpoint”. But I know that sometimes I take it in my haid to do things, and then I do ’em.
[2011/05/10 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Templeton: aye, very good approach.
[2011/05/10 15:45]  Khannea Suntzu: Yah well zobi, so does mud
[2011/05/10 15:45]  Scarp Godenot: How much responsibility do two naked teens have when their hormones take over and virtually require them to have sex?
[2011/05/10 15:46]  MaryBeth Kira: Panic is a reaction to a cause and has no freewill in it, or decision that is
[2011/05/10 15:46]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Zo: you’re definitely not dumb and not a hillbilly 🙂 Anyway, what I meant is that those experiments mostly presume that there is nothing else but matter in the universe, and abstract concepts like “thought” or “will” are just emergent properties that we conveniently label to describe things.
[2011/05/10 15:46]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Indeed, free will is even incompatible with any coherent concept god. Since, if god knew WHY you did something, it would not have been free. Now since that contradicts the idea of an almighty god, the Christian idea of free will is blown out of the water, too.
[2011/05/10 15:46]  Zobeid Zuma: And now Templeton proves free will can’t exist — once again, by defining “free will” in a bizarre way that no normal person would ever think of.
[2011/05/10 15:46]  Khannea Suntzu: Scarp they don’t, but it is sure i the interest of lawmakers and ourraged moralists to teach these damn uppity kids a lesson.
[2011/05/10 15:46]  Scarp Godenot: Good point Templeton!
[2011/05/10 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s incompatible with anomniscient God, Templeton 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:47]  Scarp Godenot: I notice that a lot of religious people carry that contradiction. Free will to act morally on one hand, and pre determined destiny on the other.
[2011/05/10 15:47]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (and I wished SL would stop eating characters lol )
[2011/05/10 15:48]  Templeton Tigerpaw: There is nothing bizarre about my definition. I define free will as exactly that, FREE. That means it cannot have any cause or explanation. If it did, it would not have been free.
[2011/05/10 15:48]  Khannea Suntzu: I agree with temleton’s analysis. It makes perfect sense and his defenition waslucid and insightful and it would make perfect sense to mnost educated people.
[2011/05/10 15:48]  Ivy Sunkiller: I’ll try to get on topic and discuss freedom of unit as such instead of free will: Yes we seems to naturally strive to give away (some of) our freedom for security
[2011/05/10 15:48]  Zobeid Zuma: That would be “inexplicable will”, i.e. chaos, madness.
[2011/05/10 15:48]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): I believe fre will and Destiny are not contradictory: they are just different perspectives
[2011/05/10 15:49]  Zobeid Zuma: Like Two Face, doing everything based on the flip of a coin.
[2011/05/10 15:49]  Extropia DaSilva: What is the difference between free will, and a determined future which you cannot forsee, or forsee only vaguely? If I do not know what the longterm consequences of this choice will be, is that not just like having free will?
[2011/05/10 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: How, Bela?
[2011/05/10 15:49]  Ivy Sunkiller: Bela: “I believe” is hardly something one can discuss with 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:49]  GNE Greene: You could claim that biology is “just” emergent from chemistry, or, chemistry is “just” emergent” from physics. Similarly, thought and will emergent from neurochemistry. I think few people would say that biology or chemisty are not worthwile approaches, just because they are emergent.
[2011/05/10 15:49]  Zobeid Zuma: There’s no contradiction between those two things, Extie.
[2011/05/10 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: GNE: of course, that’s why positivism is still very popular 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:49]  Scarp Godenot: I think the decision to act according to cultural mores, aka ‘morality’, is contingent on there NOT being such a thing as destiny. Kind of obvious seeing as how determinism and free will are defined by each other as opposite concepts.
[2011/05/10 15:50]  Extropia DaSilva: Emergent is a word people use to make it sound like they have explained something when, in fact, they still do not know how it works/ why it exists.
[2011/05/10 15:50]  Templeton Tigerpaw: But Zobeid, by definition, anything that is “explained” had a cause that made it happen in this way and no other. However, it is the definiiton of free will that you are FREE to act in any way you choose.
[2011/05/10 15:50]  Zobeid Zuma: The future is determined (or I strongly suspect it is, anyhow), and we cannot foresee it (or not very well), and yet we have free will. No contradiction.
[2011/05/10 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aha! Extie, that’s why I reject materialism 😉
[2011/05/10 15:50]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): If you saw the series “Lost”, it was all the time about free will and Destiny
[2011/05/10 15:50]  Extropia DaSilva: ‘Consciousness is an emergent property of the brain’..
[2011/05/10 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye…. “the anthropic principle is an emergent property of quantum mechanics”….
[2011/05/10 15:51]  Ivy Sunkiller: oh good thing I didn’t watch it then
[2011/05/10 15:51]  Ivy Sunkiller: /me chuckles
[2011/05/10 15:51]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “order in the universe is an emergent property on the way particles work” 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:51]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): consciousness is prior to the brain
[2011/05/10 15:51]  Zobeid Zuma: Free will just means that you can make decisions and act upon them.
[2011/05/10 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now, I’d like to see a proof of that 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:52]  GNE Greene: I thought logical positivism rather sht itself in the foot/metaphysics, some time ago? 🙂 Something to do with finding its logical basis was inconsistent…
[2011/05/10 15:52]  Scarp Godenot: I agree with Extie, that Emergent is a content free word in as much as it doesn’t refer to ‘changing’.
[2011/05/10 15:52]  Ivy Sunkiller: Bela: now that seems to be completely absurd to me, any proof?
[2011/05/10 15:52]  Frederick Hansome: How so, Bela?
[2011/05/10 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: GNE: not exactly, it still provides good results, that’s why it wasn’t thrown out of the window.
[2011/05/10 15:52]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): the proof is very simple: when we die, do we still have consciousness?
[2011/05/10 15:52]  Ivy Sunkiller: Bela: no we don’t?
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Zobeid Zuma: We have Second Life because of free will. Some people decided to create it, and then they did. They didn’t have to. Nobody forced them.
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: What’s that “we” that dies? 🙂 The body certainly dies.
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): if we do, that proofs that consciousness doesn’t come from the brain
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Khannea Suntzu: People are devices that have neurologies that compute utilities in their brains, strongly linked to emotion and value. These decissions are largely erratic and not reductionistic – but they arent random either. They make sense and feel impoirtant. Any externality that discredits the validity of your choice making mechanism as “mechanistic” or “stoopid’ or “prejusiced’ or batshit’ is a direct challenge to your sense of self. Free will in that context is just a statement of ahh.. ‘sovereignty’ of the human sense of self-determinacy.
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Well, of course we can make decisions and act on them. We do it all the time. But that’s the the problem. The problem is: Are those decisions freely made, or are they caused and inevitably determined by whatever.
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): we will have the proof the moment we die
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Ivy Sunkiller: Bela: yeah, except you can’t prove it 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Khannea: you’re right 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Templeton Tigerpaw: BTW, rejecting materialism does not mean you have free will. If god causes you to do something, or some spirit, it is just as unfree as if it was caused by material causality.
[2011/05/10 15:53]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t understand the problem you seem to see with that, Templeton.
[2011/05/10 15:54]  Ivy Sunkiller: oh great, I can build my philosophy around an idea that will become onvious to me when I die, amazing
[2011/05/10 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Agreed, Templeton; that’s why I reject both materialism AND theism 😉
[2011/05/10 15:54]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): you can’t prove it, but you can experience it
[2011/05/10 15:54]  Khannea Suntzu: Yah I so hate it when people see solutions in death,
[2011/05/10 15:54]  Ivy Sunkiller: you assume you can experience it
[2011/05/10 15:54]  Ivy Sunkiller: there is no proof you can experience ANYTHING when you die = cease to exist
[2011/05/10 15:55]  Khannea Suntzu: Yes there is Ivy, baby jesus
[2011/05/10 15:55]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): it is possible to experience it before actual physical deathh
[2011/05/10 15:55]  Ivy Sunkiller: considering I didn’t experience anything before I was born, I don’t expect to experience anything after I die
[2011/05/10 15:55]  Templeton Tigerpaw: I don’t have a problem Zobeid. I am perfectly happy not to have free will. I am very happy to have a brain that is constructed so it will determine, for my, in my best interest, the best course of action. It does that in completely deterministic ways. The outcome usually is the action I am most happy with.
[2011/05/10 15:55]  Zobeid Zuma: Your decisions are “freely made” if nobody’s twisting your arm (literally or figuratively), and they are “caused and inevitably determined” by. . . the inner workings of your mind, plus the various inputs into it.
[2011/05/10 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not experience, or not remember? 😉 hehe
[2011/05/10 15:55]  Scarp Godenot: Templeton: Our individual bag of ‘reasons’ determines out choices, true. But at some point we choose A over B. And not with complete information. This point is ‘Free Will’ in my opinion.
[2011/05/10 15:55]  MaryBeth Kira: NDE’s report no change in identity
[2011/05/10 15:56]  Ivy Sunkiller: Gwyn: well, I didn’t have brain so I didn’t have how to remember it I guess? *chuckles*
[2011/05/10 15:56]  Zobeid Zuma: Keep in mind I think the whole universe is basically deterministic. But I don’t see a conflict between that and free will.
[2011/05/10 15:56]  Khannea Suntzu: I can give you an NDE. What’s your bodyweight? Let me calculate the required dose in Ketamine.
[2011/05/10 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Note that there is an alternative explanation to Libel’s experiments: that the brain just reflects the mind’s decision and not the other way round 😉 But, alas, that gets materialists a few heart attacks…
[2011/05/10 15:56]  GNE Greene: What are the consequences of assuming you do or do not have free will, I wonder? Is this something like Pascal’s Wager?’s_Wager
[2011/05/10 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ivy: that’s only true if you assume that “the thing which remembers” is a function of your brain 😉
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): how can you think the universe is deterministic after quantum mechanics?
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Zobeid Zuma: ??
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Zobeid Zuma: What’s the problem with quantum mechanics?
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Ivy Sunkiller: quantum physic is undeterministic
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Ivy Sunkiller: 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): quantum mechanics shows that the universe is not deterministic
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Zobeid Zuma: Example?
[2011/05/10 15:57]  Templeton Tigerpaw: The fact that you acted on incomplete information and input does not mean you acted freely. Your brain, quite deterministically, chose the action that seemed the best given the incomplete input. If there was anything “free” in there, you would have the problem I pointed out above, namely you would have to account for the energy that “caused” the free act. Where did it come from? It can’t have come from inside our universe.
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Khannea Suntzu: Quantum mechanics doesn’t preclude the universe being deterninistic. Dice rolls can still have a range of outcomes, same in quantum mechanics.
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: Ok so I decide ‘I am not going to click that link’. And I really feel like that was *my* decision. And, I suspect all people feel they make choices like this every second of their lives. So when you say nobody has free will, how do we reconcile that with the free choices we make all the time?
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Ivy Sunkiller: it behaves different when you don’t observe it
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): the famous example of the Schrödinger cat 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: that’s the fun bit, Ivy 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Zobeid Zuma: Not a valid experiment.
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Khannea Suntzu: We construct this ‘myth’ of free will, because we cant stand the idea that we or our fellow humans would not be accountable moral agents.
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: you didn’t read your homework!! That’s all pretty emuch explained in full detail on the Wiki page 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:58]  MaryBeth Kira: the brain fills in the blanks, with assumptions yes
[2011/05/10 15:58]  Ivy Sunkiller: well you can’t do an experiment to test what it does when you don’t observe it 🙂
[2011/05/10 15:59]  Zobeid Zuma: It presumes a perfect “box” that can isolate a region of space from the rest of the universe.
[2011/05/10 15:59]  Scarp Godenot: Templeton: Are you suggesting that when a choice is made that the alternate choice is not possible? Thin ice there.
[2011/05/10 15:59]  Ivy Sunkiller: or can you? my knowledge about it is rather shallow I must confess
[2011/05/10 15:59]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): good point Zobeid
[2011/05/10 15:59]  MaryBeth Kira: if you truly had freewill you would not feel afraid in a scary movie, it’s not real, you know it’s not real, and yet you experience fear
[2011/05/10 15:59]  GNE Greene: ?
[2011/05/10 15:59]  Templeton Tigerpaw: But that’s just the nice and happy thing about our deterministic brain. It makes us happy in all kinds of ways. One of them is that it gives us the illusion of freedom. It really makes no difference, but it is a nice touch.
[2011/05/10 15:59]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s no illusion, Templeton.
[2011/05/10 16:00]  MaryBeth Kira: the brain can not tell the difference between reality and fantasy
[2011/05/10 16:00]  Scarp Godenot: Illusion of freedon IS freedom, One cannot prove otherwise
[2011/05/10 16:00]  Khannea Suntzu: I see someone cling to a life preserver here, in desperate fear that free will doesn’t exist.
[2011/05/10 16:00]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): freedom is not an illusion, and not an objective truth: it’s a perspective
[2011/05/10 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Mary: the brain works in strange ways. From a RMI scan, for instance, it’s very hard to distinguish “I’m seeing an object” or “I’m remembering how that object looks like”. The same sets of neurons fire with similar intensities.
[2011/05/10 16:00]  GNE Greene: Typically fantasy doesn’t hurt your ankles when you stumble over it. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:00]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Scarp, that is exactly what I am saying. The alternative choice is NOT possible given the way the universe is constituted. You could not choose differently unless you could change the past or the entire setup of the universe.
[2011/05/10 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: Yes Marybeth. That is because subjective reality (the only kind you ever experience) IS a fantasy.
[2011/05/10 16:01]  Scarp Godenot: Your arguement is circular then, Templeton.
[2011/05/10 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: that’s a circular argument; nevertheless, it’s the best we have so far to describe our experience of “free wil”l, even though it contradicts the way the brain actually works.
[2011/05/10 16:01]  MaryBeth Kira: Gwyneth also a man is given site at age 40, yet he still can not see, because eyes require training, hours and hours of training to record shapes, etc which is why babies stare for hours and hours
[2011/05/10 16:01]  Zobeid Zuma: Free will doesn’t require you to change the future. Changing the future is a contradiction, it doesn’t even make sense. Free will only requires that we be able to *shape* the future.
[2011/05/10 16:01]  Scarp Godenot: ha ha Gwyn
[2011/05/10 16:01]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: 😉
[2011/05/10 16:01]  GNE Greene: I’m of the opinion that our current physics is not a complete description of how reality works…
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hear, hear, GNE 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Zobeid Zuma: Indeed, determinism *requires* us to shape the future with our decisions. You can’t avoid it.
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And according to Gödel, it will NEVER be a complete description.
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): I agree GNE
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: Templeton, David Deustch said that free will can exist so long as we posit a multiverse in which different outcomes happen.
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Sure, Scarp, you can prove otherwise. I just did. In order to prove me wrong you would have to explain to me where the energy for the free act came from. You are c laiming that your brain, all the time, v iolates the most basic laws of the universe. Please prove that that is possible, and more importantly, prove that it DOES HAPPEN.
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Scarp Godenot: I have to agree with you GNE
[2011/05/10 16:02]  Zobeid Zuma: Extie, I said that free will can exist *without* a multiverse. It’s not needed.
[2011/05/10 16:03]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: “extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof” 🙂 Let me see Deutsch measuring brain activity in alternate universes, and theen we can see him disproving the Libet experiment.
[2011/05/10 16:03]  Khannea Suntzu: Well in that case the painful reality is that a tiny and inconsequential choice if one minute in june last year could have completely changed my life since then. One minute in a different place and I would be not even comparable to the person I am right now,
[2011/05/10 16:03]  GNE Greene: I may not be able to predict what I’m going to do next, but, I don’t necessarily claim that what I do next is the product of free will. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:03]  Khannea Suntzu: That isn’t free will. That’s chaos.
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Templeton: an alternative, of course, is that *mind* processes don’t expend energy, as opposed to *brain* processes. But I would also like to see an experiment validating *that* assumption 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Zobeid Zuma: That’s an extreme example, Khannea.
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But one that is very correct.
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Khannea Suntzu: You dont rtealize that this constantly happens for EVERY HUMAN all the time zobi
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Templeton Tigerpaw: David Deutsch misunderstands the reason multiverses were posited. They allow ALL outcomes, which means that they exactly, for each universe, posit STRICT DETERMINISM. Free will would, in that scheme, only be possible if you could do the SAME in two different universes – which, according to the math, is NOT possible.
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Imagine that the “inconsequential choice” is buying the winning lottery ticket… 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Scarp Godenot: Here is why your argument is circular: You are asserting that all is mechanistic, therefore choice is mechanistic. Not much there.
[2011/05/10 16:04]  Extropia DaSilva: But no Zo. Not if we are in an Einsteinian universe. In Einstein’s universe, spacetime just IS. All of it, THat means whatever is going to happen in your future is ALREADY THERE! It EXISTS once and for always. So there can be no free will because your life is already completely mapped out.
[2011/05/10 16:05]  GNE Greene: There are reasons why I run checks on my intended behaviour based on multiple criterion…
[2011/05/10 16:05]  Khannea Suntzu: Its just very obvious in my life because I am extremely impulsive and creatiev and lateral thining
[2011/05/10 16:05]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): I think the idea of the multiverse is a silly attempt to mantain the idea of determinism
[2011/05/10 16:05]  Zobeid Zuma: I have to strongly disagree, Extie. What I’ve been trying to explain is that there is NO CONFLICT between a fixed, deterministic future and free will.
[2011/05/10 16:05]  Khannea Suntzu: But I see it with everyone around me equally so
[2011/05/10 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Tch. That’s just neurons firing in your brain giving you that illusion, Khannea 😀
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Extropia DaSilva: No the multiverse is what you end up with if you follow our best cosmologies to their ultimate conclusion.
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Zobeid Zuma: This whole far-ranging argument about determinism ruling out free will is bogus.
[2011/05/10 16:06]  GNE Greene: I think the multiverse is fun! 🙂 (Sorry 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Khannea Suntzu: Glyrb aglu fnark tsu pepok gWynneth paru paru !!
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Khannea!
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Ivy Sunkiller: no orcish Khani
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me has no translator ready
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Ivy Sunkiller: zug zug
[2011/05/10 16:06]  Scarp Godenot: Speaking of the multiverse, doesn’t that violate ‘Occam’s Razor’ more than any other concept ever thought of?
[2011/05/10 16:07]  Zobeid Zuma: Zenga zenga! 😛
[2011/05/10 16:07]  Extropia DaSilva: Most of our best theories of the universe imply a multiverse, as do our best theories of reality, like quantum physics.
[2011/05/10 16:07]  GNE Greene: Hubba hubba zoot zoot? 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:07]  Extropia DaSilva: I am fed up with scarp saying that!
[2011/05/10 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, the multiverse as a way to explain everything, Extie, is another example of the “deus ex machina” used so much when positivist methods fail…
[2011/05/10 16:07]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Not so, Scrap, I pointed out above that spiritual things, even god, are NOT contradicting determinism. After all, the problem is if something, anything at all, made you decide the way you did (that includes spiritual entities) – or is your decision unaccountable – which is what free will means.
[2011/05/10 16:07]  Scarp Godenot: ha ha
[2011/05/10 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me smirks @ Scarp
[2011/05/10 16:08]  Zobeid Zuma: There could be multiple universes, but they might have nothing to do with ours. They might have completely different laws of physics, constant values, etc.
[2011/05/10 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: And be completely inaccessible.
[2011/05/10 16:08]  GNE Greene: Hmm. So, if there is a divine entity enforcing that you have free will… 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So, worthless to discuss them 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:08]  Zobeid Zuma: I’m very skeptical of this whole SF concept of. . . There’s one universe where I had oatmeal for breakfast and another where I had a sausage roll. 😛
[2011/05/10 16:08]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Well, I don’t believe in multiverses, since they are unneeded and, by definition, can never be proven. But even if you were to entertain the notion, it would not help you with the free will problem.
[2011/05/10 16:08]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol GNE! Surprisingly, that’s what some Christians believe that God has done to Adam & Eve….
[2011/05/10 16:08]  Khannea Suntzu: What is the consequence IF there are multiverses. None. What is the consequence if there are HO muktiverses. None. Who cares?
[2011/05/10 16:09]  Extropia DaSilva: If all our fundamental theories of reality, and most of our most important mathematical tools all logically imply a multiverse, then, surely, the simplest explanation has to be that a muliverse is what is ‘out there’?
[2011/05/10 16:09]  Templeton Tigerpaw: In a multiverse, indeed, there is ZERO choice – since all possible choices happen equally.
[2011/05/10 16:09]  MaryBeth Kira: if you had freewill you could shut your eyes off while keeping your eyes open
[2011/05/10 16:09]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Simplest, yes; most correct, not necessarily 😉
[2011/05/10 16:09]  GNE Greene: It might be fun if our consciousness wanders to and fro between universes… 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:09]  Ivy Sunkiller: Khani: it seems to be quite similar to the god dilema, yet, surprisingly, a whole bunch of people do care 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Zobeid Zuma: I think it would prove very hard to make that kind of SF branching-multiverse scenario work out, mathetmatically.
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: GNE: or is not even bound by any of those universes.
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Extropia DaSilva: But what if they do not happen equally? remember that some infinities are bigger than others.
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Khannea Suntzu: Yet it has no consequences. The whole idea of multiverses then is just as vain and self-serving and oetic a mantal edifice as the idea of free will.
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): the concepts of “multiverses” seems to be funny inside the storybooks
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I tend to agree, Khannea 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Indeed, Luisa hehe
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Scarp Godenot: How does time enter into ‘The Free Will Problem’. If every decision is inevitable, why can’t decisions be predicted? Or even known about until viewed in hindsight?
[2011/05/10 16:10]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well… science is really just stories we tell.
[2011/05/10 16:11]  Khannea Suntzu: Oh yah. I had free will when I strangled that baby.
[2011/05/10 16:11]  Zobeid Zuma: I find it far more interesting to explore how free will works in a single deterministic universe. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Apparently, not very well.
[2011/05/10 16:11]  Ivy Sunkiller: Scarp: it seems you actually did listen to my simulation theory 😛
[2011/05/10 16:11]  GNE Greene: I blame Michael Moorcock for popularising “multiverse”…
[2011/05/10 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Nevertheless (and this is the fun bit), we still have the illusion that we can make choices
[2011/05/10 16:12]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s all about entropy and thermodynamics, Scarp. Our universe is a heat engine. . . I giant computer cranking out vast amounts of raw data.
[2011/05/10 16:12]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): free will implies choice. two things you could do
[2011/05/10 16:12]  Zobeid Zuma: And since the amount of information is constantly increasing, obviously we’re in the dark (relatively) about the future. We don’t have access to the much greater amounts of information that exist there.
[2011/05/10 16:12]  Ivy Sunkiller: heyo Viotari
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): /me waves
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Extropia DaSilva: You can A) Throw away inflationary cosmology or B) throw out quantum physics or C) accept the multiverse. So which is it?
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Scarp Godenot: The bottom line is seeming to me to be that we act ‘as though’ it were true. And this is all that really is applicable to our lives. All the rest is hot air.
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: haha Extie 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Zobeid Zuma: Jettisoning A would be my first choice, Extie.
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: Yes!
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): I would love to get rid of Quantums
[2011/05/10 16:13]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Me too, Luisa!
[2011/05/10 16:13]  MaryBeth Kira: no matter how long I keep my eyes open, I can not shut off seeing
[2011/05/10 16:13]  GNE Greene: Can I keep my science fiction books, please? 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:14]  Extropia DaSilva: You know of a cosmology that is a better model, Zoe?
[2011/05/10 16:14]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: To be discovered Any Time Real Soon Now ㋡
[2011/05/10 16:14]  Extropia DaSilva: One that fits the data more accurately?
[2011/05/10 16:14]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t think we have a really good cosmology theory yet. . . but the one where the universe starts with one dimension and then periodically adds more, it sounds promising. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:15]  Khannea Suntzu: The idea of free will is in essence nothing more than saying ‘the strategies and choices of these simians carry weight!’. That’s like saying to the extent that there cant be another explanation than that they create branching universes (drumroll!)”once these simians stop beig alive, their neurological p;athways are so relevant in the cosmic scale of things, certain multiversal and metaphycal processes conspire to record their psychology for a future recovery moment, to be judged by something that created gamma ray bursts and galaxies.
[2011/05/10 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Sadly, Einstein was amazingly good with his equations… a non-inflationary model that fits data better is hardly going to appear soon.
[2011/05/10 16:15]  GNE Greene: It is interesting how the “standar =d model” seems to have stood up so far to all attempts to discredit it…
[2011/05/10 16:15]  Khannea Suntzu: Damn we monkeys are important
[2011/05/10 16:15]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t remember Einstein introducing inflation. . .
[2011/05/10 16:15]  GNE Greene: I did quite like Hoyle’s “Steady State” universe. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: There are a few non sequiturs there, Khannea 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:16]  Scarp Godenot: I don’t think that with recent discovery of measurement of ‘dark energy’ it is clear that our physics is nowhere near complete, and that todays understandings are at the end of their useful life. Maybe the concept of multiverse is another nail in the coffin of Big Bang Theory……
[2011/05/10 16:16]  Khannea Suntzu: I can rephrase it
[2011/05/10 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok!
[2011/05/10 16:16]  Extropia DaSilva: Rejecting the multiverse is a bit like rejecting the idea of the grand common ancestor. You can do that but only of you throw out evolution. And you can do that, but only if you ignore its phenomenal success. Occams razor would suggest you just accept there was a common ancestor. Does the same for the multiverse.
[2011/05/10 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: our physics will NEVER be complete. Ever. If someone claims otherwise, they’ll be expressing a religious thought, not a scientific one 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:16]  Zobeid Zuma: Maybe you are way ahead of me on this subject, Extie. It’s not my area of expertise.
[2011/05/10 16:17]  Khannea Suntzu: There may be a multiverse. But it is inconsequential untill I can go there, have vacations and bring back a cute young lover called luigi.
[2011/05/10 16:17]  MaryBeth Kira: Einstein got all his information out of a bible
[2011/05/10 16:17]  Zobeid Zuma: But in a field where the “conventional wisdom” seems to change every six months, I think I’ll just stay on the sidelines and wait.
[2011/05/10 16:17]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): I want to recommend you this link, about a new cosmology based on consciousness:
[2011/05/10 16:18]  Scarp Godenot: Which multiverse theory are you referring to? Infinite multiverses created at every infinitely divisible unit of time? or some other one?
[2011/05/10 16:18]  Ivy Sunkiller: Zo: the tendency in the world is that things continue to change in more rapid iterations, so standing by and waiting for them to settle might not be the best thing to do 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:18]  Khannea Suntzu: Better than stand on the sidelines as some pundits do and hysterically rant.
[2011/05/10 16:18]  GNE Greene: So, looking for a D.I.Y. Luigi building kit, Khannea? 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:18]  Extropia DaSilva: I just think people reject the multiverse because, for whatever reason, they just do not like it. It jas nothing to do with how it fits in with the best scientific understanding of reality. It is like…like why some people reject evolution. They just do not like it on an emotional level.
[2011/05/10 16:18]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie is *slightly* distorting the issue: there are many alternatives to the “many worlds” interpretation.
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Templeton Tigerpaw: You are confusing two things. One is the Many-Worlds-Interpretation of Hugh Everett that tries to make sense of the Quantum Collapse – the measurement problem . You are confusing it with parallel universe of dark matter, branes, and other such things. They have, by definition nothing to do with each other. In principle, everythin that can be seen or felt in our reality, like dark matter, is a part of ONE universe that can be, in principle, seen as one, even if it exists in many universes.
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Extropia DaSilva: No Gwyn
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Thanks, Templeton.
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Extropia DaSilva: This has nothing to do with many worlds
[2011/05/10 16:19]  MaryBeth Kira: my thoughts are not your thoughts, therefore my world is not your world
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me points Extie to Templeton
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Khannea Suntzu: I don’t reject multiverses. It’s likebellbottoms, they may exist, but holy shit why?
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Zobeid Zuma: Evolution has been proven hundreds of times over. Multiple universes are highly speculative. And honestly, I think presenting those two issues as being analogous is intellectually dishonest.
[2011/05/10 16:19]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): multiple worlds acting along their own physic model. confusing … I still struggle with RL vs. SL
[2011/05/10 16:20]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Intuitively, I love the idea of a multiverse. I’m not sure that it really fits reality, though.
[2011/05/10 16:20]  GNE Greene: P-zombies, lurching around, saying “Branes”. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Mary: but both worlds share a lot of common things, thus: conventional reality ()the reality we can all agree to, in spite of differently thinking about it)
[2011/05/10 16:20]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): If you accept the primacy of consciousness, the idea of multiverses (I mean the many-worlds interpretation) isn’t needed anymore
[2011/05/10 16:20]  Ivy Sunkiller: Viotari: multiverse doesn’t fit reality, reality fits into multiverse 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:20]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Bela: yes, that’s another interpretation of quantum mechanics: consciousness causing collapse
[2011/05/10 16:20]  Zobeid Zuma: It definitely isn’t needed from a free-will standpoint, and (as others have already pointed out) is very irrelevant to today’s topic anyhow.
[2011/05/10 16:20]  MaryBeth Kira: Gwyneth – Two stages going by the same name of WORLD
[2011/05/10 16:21]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods* @ Mary
[2011/05/10 16:21]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): Zob, we are allowed to abandom Toppic … by our free will
[2011/05/10 16:21]  Scarp Godenot: ha ha Luh
[2011/05/10 16:21]  Zobeid Zuma: Well played, Luh. 😛
[2011/05/10 16:21]  Extropia DaSilva: OK short version. The inflaton field looses its negative energy, and where that happens the energy is converted to heat and you get a ‘universe’. But quantum uncedrtainty means the field does not decay everywhere. There is always places where the inflaton field keeps inflating. So you get a multiverse.
[2011/05/10 16:21]  Khannea Suntzu: If there’s one thing that’ll cause collapse it is a sense if inflated self-imnportance. *lights a cigarette with a 100 dollar bill*
[2011/05/10 16:21]  GNE Greene: What is so special about consciousness, then? Do amoebas have it?
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): of course amebas have it
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): plant have consciousness too
[2011/05/10 16:22]  MaryBeth Kira: Without community you have a warped opinion of yourself.
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Templeton Tigerpaw: The Quantum Many-Worlds by definition cannot be connected in any way. The underlying quantum problem is that things propagatge by probability, but all we see are definite outcomes. This conundrum has never been explained, and one attempt to explain it is to say that all outcomes happen at the same time. But, for that, these universes must be totally separate after they split. In fact, the commen fancy of moving between them is expressly ruled out by the underlying math. Basically, if you move between universes, you are still in ONE universe, and your trip would necessitate then the splitting off of all the universes involved into more every time you make a decision on your trip.
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): stars too
[2011/05/10 16:22]  GNE Greene: Do amoebas have free will?
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): evem stones
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Frederick Hansome: Anythng living has consciousness
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): free will is a human perspective
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Ivy Sunkiller: Amebas are single cell, doesn’t have nervious system, can’t have conciousness
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Khannea Suntzu: Maybe they ‘conclude’ they have it. Like humans think there is an objective thing such as the color blue.
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: That’s a hard question to answer 🙂 You can only make assumptions but never prove them.
[2011/05/10 16:22]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): consciousness is porior to matter
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Very likely, but it’s impossible to prove mathematically 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Ivy Sunkiller: yeah yeah, when ameba dies it goes to heaven
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: The so-called “random” quantum events can’t be truly random, because you have to also be able to follow the timeline in reverse.
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Extropia DaSilva: Templeton, the multiverse is the invevitable result of ANY quantum physics combined with inflationary cosmology. Debunking ‘many worlds’ does not debunk the multiverse.
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hint: anthropic principle…
[2011/05/10 16:23]  GNE Greene: When someone says “choose one of”, I may say “what if I choose ‘all of the above’?”.
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: And when you do that, the randomness disappears.
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Violette McMinnar: I don’t think presence of consciousness requires the presence of e nervous system
[2011/05/10 16:23]  Extropia DaSilva: No?
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Extropia DaSilva: Basedc on what evidence?
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Again, it’s hard to prove.
[2011/05/10 16:24]  MaryBeth Kira: GNE but you did not create the choices to choose from
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Ivy Sunkiller: “conciousness is prior to matter” is like “software is prior to hardware”
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Ivy Sunkiller: can you run windows vista on a brick?
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Ivy Sunkiller: I don’t think so
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, but you can run Windows Vista in your mind
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: e.g. Turing
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Scarp Godenot: You got it in a nutshell there Ivy
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Not quite.
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): usually new scientific theories aren’t based on proof
[2011/05/10 16:24]  Extropia DaSilva: Congrats, Ivy
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: You can run software in minds; you don’t need hardware.
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Scarp Godenot: mind is hardware
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Bela: hardly 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Uhhhh the brain?
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): for example Einstein’s relativity theory
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oooh Scarp
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Ivy Sunkiller: Scarp: brain is hardware, mind is… well… if you get to know please share 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:25]  GNE Greene: What if Berkley, Einstein and Bell were all right?
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: No, running a turing machine doesn’t need a *brain* 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s not a *requirement*
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Scarp Godenot: show me any evidence of mind without brain. I defy you.
[2011/05/10 16:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Actually how do you know you have a brain? I mean, how many people opened their heads to check?
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Extie
[2011/05/10 16:26]  MaryBeth Kira: scarp brain dead people remember what was happening while their brain was dead, true science
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Ivy Sunkiller: Scarp: void argument really
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): /me lookks into Requirements list of Turing package
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): a flower: there you have the evidence: mind without brain
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Violette McMinnar: Mind is not a part of a brain, it exists even after the brain is dead
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Scarp Godenot: Then they weren’t dead were they Marybeth
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Extropia DaSilva: At least I know I do not. I just borrow someone elses;)
[2011/05/10 16:26]  MaryBeth Kira: memory is in the blood, evidence is in transplant patients
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I certainly have none, Scarp 🙂 Nevertheless, that was not my point; my point is that you can postulate things — even algorithms — that don’t assume they need hardware to run, just a “thought processor”
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): if you think that plants don’t feel anything, you must be blind
[2011/05/10 16:26]  Templeton Tigerpaw: In a way, going back to Feuerbach, you could draw an analogy with religion. Feuerbach introduced the idea that our ideas about god were not about any gods, but about us. Gods are a projection of us onto a larger canvas, and, at least in some past times, it was beneficial. In the same way, I think, our ideas about free will are less about some physical phenomenon, but about our social situation. We base on it our concepts of what we deserve, what we should be punished for, the whole idea complex of responsibility, ethics, and morals. In a way thinking we have free will was quite beneficial for past times. I do think, though, we need to overcome it.
[2011/05/10 16:27]  Ivy Sunkiller: this discussion makes me want to go out (out of my own free will ofcourse) and stomp flowers, die you useless minds!
[2011/05/10 16:27]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): poor flowers lol
[2011/05/10 16:27]  Zobeid Zuma: That’s funny, Templeton. 😀
[2011/05/10 16:27]  Frederick Hansome: lol! LOve it, Ivy!
[2011/05/10 16:27]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): for example, do dogs have consciousness?
[2011/05/10 16:27]  GNE Greene: /me imagines flowers stomping back. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:28]  MaryBeth Kira: Templeton when you can cause a infant to be born with knowledge, let us know
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh yes, Bela 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Zobeid Zuma: In a way, thinking that gravity exists was quite beneficial for past times. I do think, though, that we need to over come it.
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: heh Zo
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: dogs have nervous system with quite complex brain, so yeah
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Scarp Godenot: The opposite of gravity is comedy
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): if dogs are conscious, where do you put the frontier between conscious and unconscious?
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Extropia DaSilva: That is person permanance. We innately uinderstand that, just because you cannot see or hear someone, does not mean they do not exist. They are somewhere doing something. But when someone dies, theu really do not exist but person permanence makes us believe they are somewhere doing something. Hence the ‘mind exists without a body’ nonsense.
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol Scarp! That sounded almost like Lem!
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): so is it a matter of complexity of the nervous system?
[2011/05/10 16:28]  Ivy Sunkiller: yes
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Ivy Sunkiller: that’s precisely what it is
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Violette McMinnar: We do have a free will, it is applied in HOW we do things not IF or What we do, some things like goals are predetermined in our life but how we get from one goal to the next depends on our free will
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): for example: are ants or beesw conscious?
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): *bees
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Ivy Sunkiller: setting the border wihin that is rather blurry though
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, not so fast; that question is actually undecided, Ivy
[2011/05/10 16:29]  GNE Greene: It is important to not take your own self importance too seriously. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): their nervous system is quite simple
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hear, hear, GNE!
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Extropia DaSilva: It is not an all or nothing.
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Ivy Sunkiller: Bela: I’d like to tell you but I don’t know
[2011/05/10 16:29]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I don’t think the idea that consciousness is primary is incompatible with the idea that our minds are inseparable from our brains, acutally; it just needs a subtler and more exact definition of consciousness
[2011/05/10 16:30]  MaryBeth Kira: humans are born to live, without any knowledge how to live
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): learning by doing
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Ivy Sunkiller: correction: humans are born to die
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The truth is that we cannot answer the question “how many neurons does it take to create a self-aware mind” because earlier assumptions have been rendered obsolete by medical examples of patients with far less neurons that were considered to be necessary for a “mind” gto develop.
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Extropia DaSilva: The world is not divided up into that which has consciousness and that which does not. There is a spectrum of consciousness.
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): “we are born dead!”
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Violet: indeed
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Templeton Tigerpaw: I think my cats feel just as strongly that we are the authors of our actions as we are.
[2011/05/10 16:30]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): I think my mind is pretty much dependent on my brain, but reality would be pretty pointless with nothing there to observe it.
[2011/05/10 16:30]  GNE Greene: I think we get fear of falling free with the wetware. 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Templeton: so do I
[2011/05/10 16:31]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): I only want to make the point that the idea of consciousness as the primary constituent of reality, prior to space and time and matter, solves many philosophical questions
[2011/05/10 16:31]  Frederick Hansome: we learn from experience, which gives us a set of basic beliefs. These determine our behaviour.
[2011/05/10 16:31]  Bela Beltz (belabeltz): including the question of free will
[2011/05/10 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Violet: I would say that my sense of self is pretty much tied to my brain and its attached body, yes.
[2011/05/10 16:31]  MaryBeth Kira: Violet, yes like Helen Keller
[2011/05/10 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: But that says little about the “mind” 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:31]  Frederick Hansome: But wew have ther free will to act contrary to our breliefs, if we so choose.
[2011/05/10 16:32]  Violette McMinnar: Gwyneth, yes it is your truth, I have a different view
[2011/05/10 16:32]  Templeton Tigerpaw: Indeed, we ARE the authors of our actions. We ARE our brains. In a way, I think, this discussion is about the fear of losing control. But who(m) would you lose that control to? To your own brain? Why would you be afraid of your brain and what it does? Our brains are our friends (unless they are sick or injured)
[2011/05/10 16:32]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Bela: it actually solves *all* questions; the problem is that from a technological point of view, it has little to offer in terms of technological advancement.
[2011/05/10 16:32]  Extropia DaSilva: OK well my time is nearly up so can we get back to the original question…are we afraid of complete free will?
[2011/05/10 16:32]  Ivy Sunkiller: Bela: philosophical questions are usually the ones that you can’t answer with facts, so they fall outside of my interests I’m afraid
[2011/05/10 16:32]  Luh (luisa.bourgoin): no, we are afraid of unforseen consequences
[2011/05/10 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Violette: I wasn’t saying it was a truth at all; just saying that I trick myself into believing it
[2011/05/10 16:33]  GNE Greene: I blame the rogue s 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:33]  MaryBeth Kira: Extropia – our fear is we have no freewill
[2011/05/10 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Being afraid of free will is silly lol
[2011/05/10 16:33]  Violet (ataraxia.azemus): Hiyo Caio 🙂
[2011/05/10 16:33]  Violette McMinnar: Templeton,I don’t think we are our brains, I never say” I brain”, I say “my brain”
[2011/05/10 16:33]  Ivy Sunkiller: hello ciaomhin
[2011/05/10 16:33]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods* @ Violette
[2011/05/10 16:33]  Extropia DaSilva: OK my time is up!
This entry was posted in after thinkers. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s