Blackfish documentary on CNN - anyone else watch it?

[Occhidiangela]

That's where your analogy breaks down.
Self coding code.
A self licking ice cream cone.

I'd suggest you try using another analogy than computer programming.

[Jester]

That's where your analogy breaks down.
Self coding code.
A self licking ice cream cone.

I'd suggest you try using another analogy than computer programming.

Complex systems can arise from simple rules under selective pressures. This is as true in programming as in biology. If there is replication, mutation, and selection, you have evolution. All that was necessary for the beginning of life was a single self-replicating chemical.

The result (after billions of generations) will be coded, in the sense that it replicates itself and contains the information necessary to construct the organism. But it emphatically does not require a coder.

-Jester

Afterthought: The key here is that this is not an analogy, or a metaphor. The genetic code is a literal code, one that is reprogrammed through changes in its chemistry.

[kandrathe]

The result (after billions of generations) will be coded, in the sense that it replicates itself and contains the information necessary to construct the organism. But it emphatically does not require a coder.

Having self-awareness, intelligence, etc. one can alter their choices against their programming. We are not simple creatures with merely a fight, or flight response -- however, our original programming might still induce adrenaline etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Guys_Finish_First

I think often Dawkins position on genetics is overly simplified to blame bad behavior, like sexual assault, on this innate programming. Society, as its cornerstone, holds people accountable for their actions.

[Jester]

Having self-awareness, intelligence, etc. one can alter their choices against their programming. We are not simple creatures with merely a fight, or flight response -- however, our original programming might still induce adrenaline etc.

I think often Dawkins position on genetics is overly simplified to blame bad behavior, like sexual assault, on this innate programming. Society, as its cornerstone, holds people accountable for their actions.

If by that you mean, "Richard Dawkins' position is frequently strawmanned to mean that," then yes. Or, to quote the man himself, from The Selfish Gene:

"Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have the chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do.”

Nevertheless, I would argue that our ability to act in non-instinctual ways, is itself a product of our genetic code. We did not lift ourselves up by our bootstraps. We evolved to be reflective, social, moral creatures.

-Jester

[eppie]

Nevertheless, I would argue that our ability to act in non-instinctual ways, is itself a product of our genetic code. We did not lift ourselves up by our bootstraps. We evolved to be reflective, social, moral creatures.

-Jester

As a chemist I would argue that also our genetic code and the chemistry behind it are just based on molecular interactions, which are then again meant to be because of quantummechanics.
In other words we don't have free will and the future of the universe is set already. Of course because of the uncertainty principle we would never be able to predict this future (even with an infinitely strong computer).

But saying this I have of course no idea how this really works....I can't imagine this because I really think I have a free will.

[kandrathe]

As a chemist I would argue that also our genetic code and the chemistry behind it are just based on molecular interactions, which are then again meant to be because of quantum mechanics.
In other words we don't have free will and the future of the universe is set already. Of course because of the uncertainty principle we would never be able to predict this future (even with an infinitely strong computer).

But saying this I have of course no idea how this really works....I can't imagine this because I really think I have a free will.

Yes, and no. Yes, in that we are bounded by the limitations of the reality of atoms, molecules, and subatomic particles. No, in that we can often arrange them through our actions, and not only those prescribed by random interactions. In other words, we can sometimes be in control of "nature" if we choose to be. In that then, there is not a pre-destiny on the scales within our influence. At the extremes, we are less in control, like say when our sun dies, or when the universe contracts.

For example, we chose(choose) to burn off the planets stored coal deposits, it's not pre-ordained that we do so. Our actions can have a profound effect for life on the planet, and the amount of different gases in the atmosphere. Over the eons of time, and the vast expanse of the universe, it is a non-event -- but relevant to us in our frame.

Nevertheless, I would argue that our ability to act in non-instinctual ways, is itself a product of our genetic code. We did not lift ourselves up by our bootstraps. We evolved to be reflective, social, moral creatures.

I agree. We shouldn't capture, torture, and enslave orcas (or other undomesticated animals) for our own amusement.

[eppie]

No, in that we can often arrange them through our actions, and not only those prescribed by random interactions. In other words, we can sometimes be in control of "nature" if we choose to be. In that then, there is not a pre-destiny on the scales within our influence. At the extremes, we are less in control, like say when our sun dies, or when the universe contracts.

I mean a different thing. You deciding to type something on your keyboard is just molecules in your body moving and reacting with each other.
The most energetically favorable thing will happen. You don't influence that, it just happens.
At least that is what I believe, and I didn't hear a good argument against that yet.
Again, it also puzzles me.....how would our earth with all the different living things be an energetically favorable situation? I guess there is a lot of uncertainty playing a big role.

[LennyLen]

I mean a different thing. You deciding to type something on your keyboard is just molecules in your body moving and reacting with each other.
The most energetically favorable thing will happen. You don't influence that, it just happens.

If you follow the premise that the universe is a collection of particles that must follow prescribed laws and that everything in the universe is caused by the interaction of those atoms following those laws, then we ourselves are also just a collection of particles following those laws. While it would appear to us that we have free will, our very thought processes are just a by-product of the interactions and our free will is just an illusion.

It's a very interesting philosophical subject which can neither be proved or disproved scientifically at the moment. It's a big part of a philosophy paper I took at university on AI and the nature of consciousness. For anyone who is interested in the idea, the textbook for the course (which was written by our lecturer) is a good introduction.

[kandrathe]

The most energetically favorable thing will happen. You don't influence that, it just happens.
At least that is what I believe, and I didn't hear a good argument against that yet.

Evidence would be nice. I'm just not convinced the invisible hand of pre-destiny intervened tonight to have me awaken to my son playing on his iPhone at 2am, me getting up to take it away, then decide to read and reply to your message.

Rather, I believe that chaos is bounded by nature which imposes the rules of order. The molecules in a hot cup of tea are free to jostle about, but gravity holds it into the cup, and its radiation means it will eventually cool. We living things are free to jostle about on the surface of the planet, consuming each other (or involved in various cataclysms), in cyclical systems of birth, death, and decomposition. Mostly the atoms that are here, will still be here in a million years, but organized differently. If a system is unstable, fragile, unlucky, or unsustainable it crashes, and something else arises (e.g. dinosaurs). This balance of chaos seems a universal thing that describes the vast universe, a solar scale, an ecosystem, plate tectonics, the biologic, the atomic and subatomic.

I just don't buy it that is was inevitable that I wrote this santance, or that I just mistyped that word "sentence" on purpose just to screw with the hands of destiny.


Edit... It reminded me of a story about pre-destiny... A group of philosophers were at a symposium discussing predestination and free will. The debate grew so heated that the two groups broke up into two fiercely-prejudiced factions. But one philosopher remained undecided and wanted to hear more, not knowing to which camp he belonged, stood for a moment trying to decide. At last, he made up his mind to join in with the predestination crowd. When he tried to push his way in, they asked, “Who sent you here?” “Nobody sent me,” he replied, “I came of my own free will.” "Free will!” they screamed back at him. “You can’t come in here of your own free will. You belong with the other group.” So he went over to the free will group. When he tried to join them, someone asked, “When did you decide to join us?” "I haven't decided, I was sent here,” he answered. "You were sent here!” “You can’t join us unless you choose to by your own free will.” And so he was excluded from both companies.

[eppie]

I mean a different thing. You deciding to type something on your keyboard is just molecules in your body moving and reacting with each other.
The most energetically favorable thing will happen. You don't influence that, it just happens.

If you follow the premise that the universe is a collection of particles that must follow prescribed laws and that everything in the universe is caused by the interaction of those atoms following those laws, then we ourselves are also just a collection of particles following those laws. While it would appear to us that we have free will, our very thought processes are just a by-product of the interactions and our free will is just an illusion.

It's a very interesting philosophical subject which can neither be proved or disproved scientifically at the moment. It's a big part of a philosophy paper I took at university on AI and the nature of consciousness. For anyone who is interested in the idea, the textbook for the course (which was written by our lecturer) is a good introduction.

Thanks for the link. This has always been some personal theory I think about once in a while but it would be good to read some scientific literature about this.

---

I just don't buy it that is was inevitable that I wrote this santance, or that I just mistyped that word "sentence" on purpose just to screw with the hands of destiny.

I also find it hard to grasp, but which other reason would there be?
What is free will according to you? Something not bound by the laws of nature?

[kandrathe]

I also find it hard to grasp, but which other reason would there be?
What is free will according to you? Something not bound by the laws of nature?

I'm more of a student of the mind, so as I understand it, our thoughts are a form of organized chaos. Or, in other words -- nonlinear dynamical systems theory or this book, Principles of Brain Dynamics

Any particle (atomic or subatomic) can spin off into a random direction, with a random velocity determined by the energetic system it left -- but what happens during the journey, and when it hits something else is governed by natures laws. I believe free will therefore is predicated upon indeterminate states in molecules, and therefore at higher order construct of synapses, thus resulting in free will, and also spontaneous creativity. The evolutionary biological organization of this molecular indeterminacy has resulted in what we call thinking, and creating.

[Jester]

I'm more of a student of the mind, so as I understand it, our thoughts are a form of organized chaos. Or, in other words -- nonlinear dynamical systems theory

But ... nonlinear dynamical systems are deterministic, no? They may be messy in all sorts of fun ways involving topology, sensitivity to initial conditions, periodicity and so on, but in the end they yield fixed outputs per input just the same as 2+2=4.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

But ... nonlinear dynamical systems are deterministic, no? They may be messy in all sorts of fun ways involving topology, sensitivity to initial conditions, periodicity and so on, but in the end they yield fixed outputs per input just the same as 2+2=4.

First, I believe we have thousands of years of understanding of linear systems, and linear equations. Only a slim number of mathematicians work in non-linear systems. It's really hard. Real work in non-linear mathematics only started in the past hundred years or so, namely work by Euler, Lagrange, and Poincaré. Then only recently with work on chaos, by people like Lorenz.

If all the variables are deterministic, the topology is predictable. Life, being comprised of self organized nonlinear dynamical systems, is non-deterministic due to the inherent chaos of the universe. Like the butterfly effect (which is negligible), but I think of the asteroid event 55 million years ago, or the comet explosion over Canada 12,900 years ago. We've survived and adapted to deal with this unpredictability, and in so doing we've become unpredictable ourselves. I'd like to think that because life is short, and dangerous, we've evolved to rise to a level at least where we can comprehend the bigger challenges for life, like rogue asteroids, dying suns, colliding galaxies and super novas.

[FireIceTalon]

If you follow the premise that the universe is a collection of particles that must follow prescribed laws and that everything in the universe is caused by the interaction of those atoms following those laws, then we ourselves are also just a collection of particles following those laws. While it would appear to us that we have free will, our very thought processes are just a by-product of the interactions and our free will is just an illusion.

As a Dialectical Materialist, I generally agree with this. We often hear the expression "mind over matter", but the way the world really works is the opposite - its "matter over mind". The physical must exist before consciousness itself can. The Hegelian Dialect formula was brilliant in that it was able to create a framework for understanding how change came about from interaction between two opposites - but his starting point was in the mind rather than the material world, and that is when Marx came and turned Hegel "right side up" by putting the dialectic at the starting point of Materialism instead of Idealism. Our ideas are merely the expression or interpretation of the material world we live in.

Individual free will is largely an illusion - it exists only in a trivial sense (for instance, one can choose to eat chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla - but one cannot just opt out of living under capitalism). All people in the world, even those with great power or social status, are constrained by the material forces and processes that the world dictates upon them. This is why religion has persisted for so long, because people use it as a way of trying to escape from harsh material realities of the world, and in doing so they construct an artificial world that ostensibly is a haven for them. Solipsism however, is hardly adequate (whether it is trying to escape the real world, or explain it) - there is no other world except the physical world we live in, no matter how creative or imaginative a place that one can muster up in their mind. This is also why Marx/Engels rejected the utopian socialists like Robert Owen, who were largely a product of the French Revolution in 1789. But humans can, at times, take matters into their own hands and alter the course of history, though even in revolutionary situations there are still constraints upon them, nor can any single individual do it.

[Jester]

First, I believe we have thousands of years of understanding of linear systems, and linear equations. Only a slim number of mathematicians work in non-linear systems. It's really hard. Real work in non-linear mathematics only started in the past hundred years or so, namely work by Euler, Lagrange, and Poincaré. Then only recently with work on chaos, by people like Lorenz.

True, except for the bit about only a slim number of mathematicians working on non-linear systems. But lots of fields of mathematics are new. Their determinism and their novelty are not, as far as I know, related.

If all the variables are deterministic, the topology is predictable. Life, being comprised of self organized nonlinear dynamical systems, is non-deterministic due to the inherent chaos of the universe.

If that's the way you're looking at it, then the point about nonlinear dynamics is just a red herring, no? If you think the universe is *inherently* non-deterministic, then it shouldn't matter what math you use.

But being mathematically complex/chaotic is not enough by itself to be non-deterministic. Inputs lead outputs in a mechanical way.

Like the butterfly effect (which is negligible), but I think of the asteroid event 55 million years ago, or the comet explosion over Canada 12,900 years ago. We've survived and adapted to deal with this unpredictability, and in so doing we've become unpredictable ourselves. I'd like to think that because life is short, and dangerous, we've evolved to rise to a level at least where we can comprehend the bigger challenges for life, like rogue asteroids, dying suns, colliding galaxies and super novas.

Human prediction power and philosophical determinism are not the same thing. Just because a system's outcome is not predictable to us with our information, doesn't mean its outcome is malleable to anything we control at a fundamental level.

-Jester

---

Individual free will is largely an illusion - it exists only in a trivial sense (for instance, one can choose to eat chocolate ice cream instead of vanilla - but one cannot just opt out of living under capitalism). All people in the world, even those with great power or social status, are constrained by the material forces and processes that the world dictates upon them.

We, alone in the universe, can escape the cosmic clockwork and *choose* our ice cream, but our social constraints bind harder than the physical world? This seems ... unlikely.

-Jester

[FireIceTalon]

We, alone in the universe, can escape the cosmic clockwork and *choose* our ice cream, but our social constraints bind harder than the physical world? This seems ... unlikely.

-Jester

By physical do you mean the laws of actual physics? If so, then no, our social constraints do not bind us more than the physical world. Humans have a better chance of overthrowing capitalism than they do of being able to jump into outer space (Michael Jordan being the one exception - I kid ).

But this is also why the 'soft' sciences are in a way more complicated than the hard sciences. The latter have less variables and thus can be tested in a controlled lab, but you can't put history in a lab and test it, and even if you could, there would still likely be too many variables to be able to predetermine an outcome. Yet paradigms are observable. DM is pretty useful in that sense.

[kandrathe]

Human prediction power and philosophical determinism are not the same thing. Just because a system's outcome is not predictable to us with our information, doesn't mean its outcome is malleable to anything we control at a fundamental level.

Right. How do you tell if an unexpected, unpredicted result was at odds with the cosmic karma? We are again at unmeasurable, and unprovable -- which tends towards faith, and not science.

[eppie]

I still don't get what you think is free will. Is it something which is not governed by the laws of nature? That would be pretty strange wouldn't it? I mean we are all pretty comfortable when we say a tree is just growing because the way it is 'designed'. In other words, everything goes automatically under the right circumstances. So why is it strange that it works the same with us?

[Jester]

How do you tell if an unexpected, unpredicted result was at odds with the cosmic karma? We are again at unmeasurable, and unprovable -- which tends towards faith, and not science.

I'm not understanding. There are results which we cannot predict, therefore, free will? I guess if you want to see it that way. Certainly, if the universe is deterministic, there is no reason in particular we are able (fated?) to determine it.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

So why is it strange that it works the same with us?

Trees don't invent chainsaws, make them, then go postal on other trees, or themselves. Show me a reasoning tree, or one that makes decisions.