Causal determinism?

[bumab]

Right... human behavior, then, is not random- knowing everything about somebody and their environment, we could predict the future. Hypothetically, then, we could predict the future of everything. Hence no free will, so causal determinism seems to hold, if the current scientific worldview is valid.

[TINNY]

thus determinism will be achieved at some point by larger brained animals with better communication tools than we have (such as ultrasonic telepathy like i mentioned in another thread), than by computers running numbers for weeks at a time (the data will become stale before anything of value comes out.

that assumes that the universe is deterministic.and you seem to think that determinism is 'the ability to know everything'. actually, determinism is more like everything is determined by something else systematically.

[TINNY]

And just a thought, even if all our actions are already programmed by our molecules (and the ones of the universe) we still have personal responsibility, as we are the programmed molecules that executed the program..... yes I know it doesn't really hold, but...

but 'we' are also determined you see. 'we' cannot freely choose to execute that program because we are part of the wholistic cosmic program.

[TINNY]

It just seems to be a verbal conundrum of turning science into mysticism to support determinism.

you got it upside down.

While hypothetically yes, if we knew EVERY factor leading up to an action we could predict it. The problem is that we do not even have a a small fraction of the factors understood. It is paramount to combining thousands of butterfly effect events to devine the future. One unthought of variable could alter the whole equation if this is what you believe. Even at that, you could only predict the next event, because all following events would be dependent on the previous outcomes.

you cannot predict anything, because you are part of the prediction.

It seems a little too much like pre-determination of a few of the christian sects for me to really look at this seriously. I do not mean to slight anyones thoughts or opinions, these are just mine..

truly yours.

[TINNY]

We are machine with a basic program, but we can choose to not follow a lot of it. My body may be hungry and produces an urge to eat.

i thought your brain is made up of neurochemicals. they determine what you choose. So you don't freely choose.

At a base level I would go and get some food, yet I may be getting a bit hefty and decide to go on a diet, and deny the biological urge to eat. If we were truly just biological machines, we would not do detrimental things to our bodies. I think it is a bit absurd to assume that the laws of nature mandate that the homeless guy on the corner be a junkie.

i'm confused. which side are you on?

Yes genetics provide a framework that each individual must work inside of, but aside from various range limitations we truly have free-will to do as we wish. We cannot live without air, but you can train your body to go extended periods of time holding your breath (such as free divers) beyond what the average human can do.

so superficial. again, 'we' are determined because our brains are part of the cosmic deterministic universe.

[TINNY]

Are you implying then that the edge of science is stating that the random junkie had no choice and was destined or fated to be so? I thought we had debunked astrology a while ago. Maybe you have a new deck of tarot cards?[]quote]i'm beginning to that you should read up a bit on Laplace's Demon and materialism.

[TINNY]

Hmm... I'm not being clear... I was refering to the fact that nothing really is random in the physics that governs our daily lives. We know how molocules interact, or at least we believe we will know at some point, and so, given enough computational power, we can predict the state of that in the future (not that it's actually possible, but that its hypothetically possible).

yes.

 

Do you think the randomness in QM is enough to influence our macroscopic existance? :cup:

enough to invalidate determinist-materialism.

[TINNY]

As for the basic physics, absolutly they can be determined if all the factors can be accounted for. The problem in that is that you have living organisms that put random(or nearly random depending on the organism) inputs into the system. Pehaps I misunderstood to what level this concept was being extrapolated to.

Nooo. no such notions as randomness exist in the materialists' world. everything is determined.

[TINNY]

I think the question then becomes how much of an action is a biologically driven (extrapolateded up from chemical need, physics of molecules, etc) and how much of the action is self determined. I think something like plant tropisms are completely predictable and uniform. Even many animal actions are driven solely by biology (Food, reproduction, etc). Yet there aspects in some animals (humans for one) that the individual actions have little to do with necessity of the natural world.

Even on the microscopic level there could be some debate. DNA normally produces exact copies, but we have mutations, which are aberations of normal molecular function.

fish, you're still implying free-will...

[TINNY]

by studying every grain of sand can you understand the beach? no. why would you anyway if you can just study the beach?

ahh.. that's more like it. reductionism doesn't apply.

[TINNY]

what's wrong with me today?

[pgrmdave]

I look at free will as the effect of the interaction of a large number of neurons. There are no intelligent neurons, but a person can be intelligent. No atom has free will, but a large group of them can interact in such a way as to produce free will. I cannot back up my statements with evidence, merely that it makes sense to me logically.

[TINNY]

I look at free will as the effect of the interaction of a large number of neurons. There are no intelligent neurons, but a person can be intelligent. No atom has free will, but a large group of them can interact in such a way as to produce free will.

hmm... sounds like what i wrote in the free-will vs determinism thread. go figure! The main point is that reductionism does not apply and that complex arrangements of matter produce manifest different and more advanced characteristic.

 

I cannot back up my statements with evidence, merely that it makes sense to me logically.

well, as i mentioned in the freewill thread (which i can't find) about the sodium chloride example.