You are nothing but a program

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by g0pher, Aug 15, 2015.

  1. do.you really not believe in spontaneity? Do you really believe everything is 100% predictable?

    To me its painfully obvious this is not the case.

    Its obvious not all reactions are always 100% equal and opposite. There is always a chance for a slightly different outcome regardless of having all the information becase its clear spontaneity does exist

    -Yuri
     
  2. #102 jayfoxpox, Aug 30, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2015
    There is always a chance for a slightly different outcome, because the parameters are different. It's not 100% predictable, because we don't know everything to a 100% certainty or anything for that matter. If we can have EEG data and some kind of advanced fMRI in really high contrast, I wouldn't be surprised if scientists could read minds and predict every movement the person will make.


    I don't think spontaneity pose a problem towards determinism nor does it support the case of freewill.For instance, an autistic person may spontaneously flap his/her hands or start rocking. It may seem random, but it's really just them coping with their dysfunctional sensory system.
    Additionally, drinking alcohol is also another factor that leads to an increase spontaniety , because of the impaired frontal lobe that is heavily involved in impulse control.


    spontaneous behavior can simply be viewed as glitches that reveals insight of the algorithm and architecture that exists in the black box.
     
  3. spontaneity is a direct contradiction to determinism

    This quote here shows yours misunderstanding

    <blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' >It's not 100% predictable, because we don't know everything to a 100% certainty
    </blockquote>
    Unknown is not the issue. While inherently we can't know if we know, that still doesn't justify existence.

    Existence itself in a deterministic world, required spontaneity, otherwise you'd have nothing forever. No first cause for the cause effect chain

    -Yuri
     
  4. I don't get how anyone determines a correct answer to this.


    What happens, happens. What is, is. It is what it is.


    You can't change what's already happened. You can't say, "if actions are determined, then that would have happened!" Equally, you can't say, "if actions are/can be spontaneous, then this would have happened!"


    To prove one, you have to prove the other was impossible.


    Right? Maybe I'm misunderstanding.

     
  5. Consider the mouse in my previous example, the adventurous/rebel gene would be the cause of it's seemingly spontaneous behaviour
     
  6. its not 100% tho. Existence itself process spontaneity.

    Its not "seemingly" spontaneous

    -Yuri
     
  7. #107 g0pher, Aug 30, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2015
    In pool If you knew all the natural conditions that would affect the motion of the cue balls once hit you would with 100% accuracy predict where all the balls would go. You could account for any "seemingly spontanious" results because they would of had causal origins
     
  8. Well the existence of the universe is open for debate, because the universe could had always existed, thus no spontaneity required.However, I do think this is out of the scope in terms of a free will vs determinism discussion, so what definition of spontaneous are you referring to? Is it spontaneous behavior,which is unplanned and impulsive, or something much broader?


     
  9. this is a claim based on an assumption

    The assumption is that every reaction is always 100% equal and opposite, which to my knowledge has not been experimentally proven

    Further more as I stated previously, logic dictates that if every reaction came from an equal and opposite action, the first action must have been spontaneous. How else could a chain based purely on reaction suddenly come to be?

    If spontaneous happened once, why can't it happen again? Or even allways?

    There is really no reason to believe that every action is always equal and opposite

    -Yuri
     
  10. So now you're refuting Newton's Third Law of motion?
    And want to argue about the Big bag?
     
  11. not refuting. Questioning.

    You can't just say "Newton's law" as though its set in stone

    How can you logically defend it? How can you experimentally determine that there is indeed 100% equal opposite reactions always?

    -Yuri
     
  12. Then that's a discussion for another thread
     
  13. I do believe mice have free will.. cause like I said, to me, our free will is a byproduct of our consciousness.. and our consciousness is a byproduct of evolution. It is there for creatures with a brain that controls numerous subconscious actions.. a necessity for life to evolve passed simple subconscious actions because without it, many of the subconscious actions would interfere with one another.

    With the mouse maze.. of course the mouse is going to avoid getting shocked. It is just like a child and a hot stove, only really takes once to learn that you don't touch it. I remember reading an experiment from years ago where they hooked a mouse up and were reading it's brain while doing a maze.. and when it came up to a spot where it could go left or right, there was brain activity showing that it was thinking about going left or right before it made a choice. Anyway, once the mouse learns which way to go, where the hazards are.. it's going to go the way it knows works. Now if you did the same experiment.. making left the safe route and right gives them a shock, but this time make the right have the scent of food.. the mouse is going to be more inclined to keep trying the right. Some will be more determined than others, some might never give up on trying the right path.

    There is another interesting experiment they did.. where they subjected mice to shocks while spraying a floral smell, think lilac. They did this and then bred the mice and experimented on their offspring. They found out that when they subjected them to the floral scent without a shock, they were fearful. So I can see why one would think we are just a ball of subconscious activity with the illusion of free will.. but my counter to that is that just because they feel the fear doesn't mean they're controlled by it. If they get sprayed with some lilac, they might get scared and should be determined to run away.. but just like us, they can consciously override that. Might not be instantly.. usually when a strong subconscious action takes place, it is so strong that your consciousness just goes with it.. but as the subconscious action is taking place, one can consciously think about it and then interrupt and override it if one deems it so.

    Anyway, so I know I'm not going to change what you think.. I knew that from the start cause that is how this topic is. As bleak as it sounds, we will probably be old people or dead by the time they have the brain completely cracked. In order to know more, we are going to have to observe the action itself and not so much the activity from the action. We can learn a ton from reading the activity, just not everything. Til that day.. this will always be a debatable topic.. but I have one last question. What are your thoughts on suicide? Cause to me, if there was only one thing that would be proof of free will.. it is that. If we are just a program, we are a program that has been programmed for a few billion years to live and spread life. It is only recently in the full timeline of life that suicide has become a thing.. and I personally can't see a rather recent addition to our programming override the programming that has been there for 3 billion years.
     
  14. #114 g0pher, Aug 31, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 31, 2015
    I dont see how a genetic movitavion to feed or avoid harm is a free choice and not a determined one


    Consider the AI in the video below, do these have free will?





     
  15. Can't even see videos posted when I'm on mobile.. but I'll check them out when I get home.

    It's not one or the other though.. life is a mix of determinism and free will. Sure.. you might be driven to eat and to avoid harm, but you can always do the opposite. Just like how most people learn to not touch a hot stovetop.. there is a good chance once you get burnt, you'll never do it again, but if you wanted to, you could touch the stovetop every single time it is hot. Same with eating, most of the time your stomach grumbles.. you know it is time to eat.. but you can choose to not eat. Life is a mix of determined behavior and free choice.. like 80-90% of our lives is subconscious thoughts/actions (determinism) and the rest is conscious thoughts/actions (free will).

    But about suicide.. does that not seem like the ultimate act of free will? I have a hard time getting behind the idea that a program would ever evolve to terminate itself. I can see it developing traits that aren't actually beneficial to it.. but to terminate itself entirely is a stretch.
     
  16. Their incompatible Mantikore, contradictory


    Touching the stove can be likened to the mouse with the rebel gene, again behaviour < determinism, choosing to eat or not to eat is about desires and motivations, i'll paste my previous post just to clarrify:


    "suppose the rat had a gene variable that caused an adventurous/rebel spirit, it may try the shock path once again at some later tries, but if it gets shocked again it most like wont consciously exercise it's freedom to go that route again

    Now suppose one mouse didn't have that gene, I'm certain we could agree that the pro-survival gene would override and discourage that adventurous behavior and suppress the instinct to explore



    Suicide can be likened to the pool table, knowing all the natural conditions that would affect the motion of the balls once hit would allow you to determine where all the balls would go"


    If you spoke to him minutes before he commited suicide, and found out his whole background and everything that lead up to that moment, you would be able to see how all the causal factors in his life caused him to commit suicide


     
  17. no its not. This is the topic.

    The thread iis literally about whether or not determinism is real. My argument is that its not

    -Yuri
     
  18. I'm arguing free will vs determism you're arguing against physical laws
     
  19. I suggest looking at some neural networks in action, their behaviour may seem like free-will but we know it's just an algorithm


     
  20. its the same argument.

    Your conclusion is that we don't have free will. Your premise is that everything is predetermined. And your reasoning for this premise is that everything always results in an absolute 100% perfect equal opposite reaction.

    But this premise is based on the assumption that all reactions must have had an equal and opposite preaction, which is demonstrably false. There mere existence of reality necessitates that there must have been one first action that had no equal opposite preaction. It happened spontaneously.

    And if you accept that, then there is absolutely no reason to believe all reactions are always 100% equal and opposite.

    -Yuri
     

Share This Page