Determinism

[Oblongato]

All matter and energy follows what we refer to as physical laws. The behavior of matter and energy could therefore be accurately described as a rigid system of cause and effect. While we may not have discovered all of these physical laws (and may never discover them all - see Heisenberg's uncertainty principle), there has to my knowledge never been a point where it would be logical to assume that cause and effect do not apply all the way down to the basic building blocks (assuming such things exist) of the universe.

If this is the case, it would appear to me that a universe comprised of matter and energy and following these laws must be a deterministic one, meaning that from a hypothetical perspective outside of our universe it would have been possible to predict everything that has happened since the beginning of time (assuming there was one). Assuming this, even our thoughts must be determined, since they, too, are comprised of matter and energy.

Agree? Disagree? Why?

[Hasharin]

I disagree that thoughts and actions are predetermined. PLEASE NO ONE BRING GOD INTO THIS OR I WILL KICK YOUR ASS PROVING UR WRONG!!!!

Our brains are matter. Our brains function on energy. But are our thoughts energy? Who knows? We don't even know what reality and thoughts are, so we can't decide or try to prove this. And, foremore, who even said that there is Matter and Energy? Who said there aren't more aspects of reality and physics that we currently, if ever, cannot detect. It is said, and noted by many (including myself) that animals can seem to "detect"natural disasters elsewhere in the world? For example, the day of the earthquakes in sri lanka years ago, all the cats in my neighborhood were acting incredibly strange. Now, what does this fall into? Matter? certainly not. Energy? perhaps. but what kind of energy can travel around the world in such a way? It could be argued that animals are "in tune" with nature and we are not because we have grown away from our natural instincts and urges (well, not entirely.:P). if so, what is this "in tune" buisiness. I think there would be two choices:

1. The Butterfly Effect. Im sure you all know this theory; a butterfly flapping its wings in Peking can change the weather from sun to rain in New York, because weather and everything in the world are interlinked in some infinitely complex chain. All this ties into Chaos Theory, which disembowels this thread in itself, because the core of chaos theory is that nothing can be possibly predetermined.
2. The existence of Psychic abilites. As cheesy as this may sound, maybe Thought or a similar thing may be our "third" existence. Maybe everything in the world, or perhaps the universe itself, is interlinked in some way. because we humans have "grown away" from nature, perhaps we do not have this insight. there are those who claim to have these abilities; maybe they are those who were born in tune with such things.
I'd like to bring the Mind Body Self mantra into this. We could prove that Mind is energy; the brain fuctions off of energy. We know that Body is matter; the physical dimension. So what is Self, or Soul? I'd say a third reality that is created by the other two (the Brain itslef(matter) uses Mind (energy) to create thouhgt, and ultimately soul (??????).) this is the level that I believe thought takes place on, and as such in not predetermined.

thanks for this thread, i needed to let that out ^_^

[Oblongato]

I disagree that thoughts and actions are predetermined. PLEASE NO ONE BRING GOD INTO THIS OR I WILL KICK YOUR ASS PROVING UR WRONG!!!!

Our brains are matter. Our brains function on energy. But are our thoughts energy? Who knows? We don't even know what reality and thoughts are, so we can't decide or try to prove this. And, foremore, who even said that there is Matter and Energy? Who said there aren't more aspects of reality and physics that we currently, if ever, cannot detect. It is said, and noted by many (including myself) that animals can seem to "detect"natural disasters elsewhere in the world? For example, the day of the earthquakes in sri lanka years ago, all the cats in my neighborhood were acting incredibly strange. Now, what does this fall into? Matter? certainly not. Energy? perhaps. but what kind of energy can travel around the world in such a way? It could be argued that animals are "in tune" with nature and we are not because we have grown away from our natural instincts and urges (well, not entirely.:P). if so, what is this "in tune" buisiness. I think there would be two choices:

1. The Butterfly Effect. Im sure you all know this theory; a butterfly flapping its wings in Peking can change the weather from sun to rain in New York, because weather and everything in the world are interlinked in some infinitely complex chain. All this ties into Chaos Theory, which disembowels this thread in itself, because the core of chaos theory is that nothing can be possibly predetermined.
2. The existence of Psychic abilites. As cheesy as this may sound, maybe Thought or a similar thing may be our "third" existence. Maybe everything in the world, or perhaps the universe itself, is interlinked in some way. because we humans have "grown away" from nature, perhaps we do not have this insight. there are those who claim to have these abilities; maybe they are those who were born in tune with such things.
I'd like to bring the Mind Body Self mantra into this. We could prove that Mind is energy; the brain fuctions off of energy. We know that Body is matter; the physical dimension. So what is Self, or Soul? I'd say a third reality that is created by the other two (the Brain itslef(matter) uses Mind (energy) to create thouhgt, and ultimately soul (??????).) this is the level that I believe thought takes place on, and as such in not predetermined.

thanks for this thread, i needed to let that out ^_^

Wow, I was beginning to think everyone agreed with me. :)

We know that our thoughts are made up of matter and energy because we can influence them by manipulating the brain either physically or with energy. Most people would like to believe that our thoughts are something beyond matter and energy, but speak to any doctor familiar with the functioning of the brain to hear otherwise. We can take thoughts apart piece by piece by taking the brain apart; cause and effect.

Earthquakes do not happen suddenly and spontaneously. There are events that precede earthquakes that humans generally are unable to detect. Animals, since they often have superior senses in some areas, are able to detect these events, which can generally only be perceived by humans using specialized instruments.

Chaos is only the word we give to the behavior of matter and energy that we have not yet learned to predict. The realm of chaos gets a little smaller with every new scientific discovery. Chaos does not really exist except as a human concept.

The butterfly effect actually describes how in theory all matter and energy are linked. Everything that occurs influences the next thing that occurs and this chain carries on infinitely. The butterfly effect actually supports the concept of determinism.

We can safely say that psychic ability does not exist. Every person claiming psychic ability who has ever submitted to scientific observation has been shown not to have psychic ability.

Anyway, if psychic ability did exist, we would find out how it worked and it, too, would become a part of the universe that we understand. Of course, if we understand something, the laws of physics (and cause and effect) are at work. (The consistent behavior of matter and energy is a prerequisite to our understanding something.)

Again, there has never been an area of scientific research where we have simply hit a wall. While Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle may prevent us from observing deeper into the building blocks of the universe, we have never encountered anything that would suggest to us that the laws of physics break down. It would be illogical to assume that something we have never observed is true. The logical assumption must be that the universe is determined, absolutely, even down to our thoughts.

[Hasharin]

again, determinism is, and will most likely be forever, undetermined, so we are both correct until further notice.

[Oblongato]

again, determinism is, and will most likely be forever, undetermined, so we are both correct until further notice.

Technically you are correct. But I still argue it is more logical to assume that everything is determined than it is to assume that somewhere, something we have never observed takes place, namely the breakdown of physical laws.

[Icarus]

Oblongato, the idea that thoughts are comprised of matter and energy because tampering with the brain changes them is confusing cause and effect (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/confusing-cause-and-effect.html).

You're assuming that activity in the brain causes thoughts, and you ignore the possibility that our thoughts could be causing activity in the brain, using it as a tool. So, if our thoughts are trying to utilize the brain to engage in certain actions to fulfill our thoughts, and our brain is malfunctioning, it would be obvious that we wouldn't accomplish our thoughts externally.

So, say johnny hit his head hard and now he can't talk. Who's to say he WANTS to talk, but since he has a faulty brain, he can't? Or if he has physical spasms, who's to say his thoughts aren't communicating "calm down, control yourself" yet his faulty brain misinterprets or ignores the "signal"?

That is why I disagree with part of your opening statement. Every action has a reason, or cause to it, no matter how intricate and complex. If we had the sufficient time, understanding, and technology, we could predict everything and anything.

But since conscience is prone to stupidity, or a faulty medium (i.e. brain) you cannot necessarily predict human action with 100% accuracy, as you could with other natural phenomena. You could get close, if the person is either extremely consistent, rational, or both.

Another thing, I don't understand why you call these observations "assumptions". Matter is not an assumption. We experience it, observe it, and work with it all the time. same with "building blocks",a lot of our functioning technology stems from research of atomic and subatomic particles.

[Oblongato]

I am not suggesting that the brain "causes thoughts". Actually, I would say that when discussing determinism, it is important to realize that every aspect of us is part of the system; we cannot escape it. I would go only as far as to say that thoughts belong to brain function.

As for your idea that the thoughts could be using the brain, do you have a logical, scientific basis for the idea that our thoughts could in some way exist independently of the brain? I personally don't know of one, and until I do, I would have to reject your argument.

Edit: By the way, I'm not quite sure what you are getting at with your last comments. Did I say matter was an assumption? What observations are you referring to?

[Icarus]

I was referring to this statement:

where it would be logical to assume that cause and effect do not apply all the way down to the basic building blocks (assuming such things exists) of the universe.

And thought exists outside the brain by definition:

1. The act or process of thinking; cogitation.
2. A product of thinking. See Synonyms at idea.
3. The faculty of thinking or reasoning.
4. The intellectual activity or production of a particular time or group: ancient Greek thought; deconstructionist thought.
5. Consideration; attention: didn't give much thought to what she said.
6.
1. Intention; purpose: There was no thought of coming home early.
2. Expectation or conception: She had no thought that anything was wrong.

[Oblongato]

Not sure what you mean about the statement, but the complete version looks like this:

there has to my knowledge never been a point where it would be logical to assume that cause and effect do not apply all the way down to the basic building blocks (assuming such things exists) of the universe.

Also not sure how you read from those definitions that thought exists outside of the brain. By definition? Where? Whose?

[hooded]

But since conscience is prone to stupidity, or a faulty medium (i.e. brain) you cannot necessarily predict human action with 100% accuracy, as you could with other natural phenomena. You could get close, if the person is either extremely consistent, rational, or both.

I don’t quite understand this, as the brain functions via natural phenomenon. The brain is made of neurons, cells which transmit electrical impulses, ie. inputs and outputs to the rest of the body. Neurons do this by creating a potential difference along the axon (long thin part) of the neuron. How does it do this? It transports various ions in and out of the cell. This is called an action potential. These action potentials can also be simulated (not as a signal from the brain) by means such as stressing the neuron (such as a reflex action, banging the knee thing) or passing an electrical current over the neuron. All actions that humans commit are therefore a result of natural physics: charges being stored and released, the flow of ions, etc.

But since conscience is prone to stupidity, or a faulty medium (i.e. brain) you cannot necessarily predict human action with 100% accuracy, as you could with other natural phenomena.

This is probably true. Although these neurons function in the natural world by natural means it is still incredibly complex. The human brain is made of approximately 100 billion neurons, each of which is connected to up to 10,000 other neurons. It is incredibly complex, and it would be extremely difficult to come to any conclusion about what a human’s actions would be even with more knowledge of the position of the ions and the already existing potential differences, not to mention how all the neurons are interconnected. But you make an assumption that predictability = determinism. We cannot predict it, much like we cannot predict which way a coin toss will go, however, the coin toss depends on specific variables, the atmospheric conditions, the force applied to the coin, the height, etc. and all these add up to a difficult to predict yet single outcome.

So, say johnny hit his head hard and now he can't talk. Who's to say he WANTS to talk, but since he has a faulty brain, he can't? Or if he has physical spasms, who's to say his thoughts aren't communicating "calm down, control yourself" yet his faulty brain misinterprets or ignores the "signal"?

----------------------------------------------

And thought exists outside the brain


You can have the philosophical definition of thought outside the brain, but if a person’s actions, and the results and consequences of those actions is predetermined, then I would call this a deterministic system, even if the intentions of the person’s thoughts were not deterministic. Think of it this way, if person A was in situation A, they make decision B. Now you take an exact copy of person A (their genetics, experiences, even the contents of their stomach) and put them in an exact replication of situation A (same large scale premise down to every tiny detail like the concentration of sulfer dioxide in the atmosphere of mars that day), will they respond with decision B?

If you think that they would, I would then say that if their reaction is merely a function of the situation, and then how can any other possible decisions be made? And if this changes the situation and more decisions are based off this, surely they are just as determined as the original decision. Again, it would be impossibly difficult to predict what the outcomes were (because of the level of complexity), but just because somthing is not predictable does not mean it is not determined.

[Oblongato]

@ hooded: I agree with everything you write here (excellent arguments and examples, as usual), but I am not quite sure what you meant by this:
even if the intentions of the person’s thoughts were not deterministic

[hooded]

Given 124167’s definition of thought, being externalized from matter and energy (which I do not agree with either), I cannot see how it could possibly be considered deterministic from the naturalist argument of cause and effect (as something disconnected from the universe may not necessarily require a cause in the same way that something would in the universe). However, even if he claims that true thought is separated from the brain, human actions are controlled by the brain and therefore are just as deterministic as any other natural interaction of matter and energy.

[Oblongato]

I think that's the paradox, though. He's not only making the (illogical, in my view) assumption that thought exists independent of the physical world, he is saying that this metaphysical thinking entity can influence the physical world, presumably using the brain as an interface. Using your example, therefore, he could argue that person A in situation A would not necessarily respond with decision B, but could under identical circumstances respond with decision C, or D.

I see this as the danger of being drawn into discussions of hypothetical topics with no logical / scientific basis. Once you acknowledge one unfounded premise, even hypothetically, you are in metaphysical territory where there are no rules and the discussion continues, pointlessly, ad infinitum (much like the discussion of whether an omnipotent being can make a rock so large he/she/it cannot lift it). In the realm of mysticism where such questions are posed, logic carries no weight.

[Icarus]

I don’t quite understand this, as the brain functions via natural phenomenon.

Yes, they function in a very predictable, observable manner, but what is it that causes this brain activity? What compels an organism to become locomotive, to pose, to breath, etc.? My theorem is based on the observation that all of our actions (without environmental influences, i.e. alcohol, disease) are in sync with your will and your thought, that you can think of doing an action before actually doing it, therefore that thoughts are the root cause of brain activity.

If thoughts were entirely deterministic, would you have the same thoughts each time you enter the same place? does the environment forcibly impose on your thoughts? I think we can all agree not, because while you could be at a rave, you may be thinking about that science question last night involving electromagnetic spectrum, whereas deterministically, you shouldn't really be thinking about anything other than dancing. Maybe that's a poor example...

We cannot predict it, much like we cannot predict which way a coin toss will go, however, the coin toss depends on specific variables, the atmospheric conditions, the force applied to the coin, the height, etc. and all these add up to a difficult to predict yet single outcome.

Which essentially is a prediction, right? Since it can be said that it is impossible to factor in every variable involved in an event, whatever you didn't account for could have changed the outcome.

If you think that they would, I would then say that if their reaction is merely a function of the situation, and then how can any other possible decisions be made?

The concentration of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere of mars.:D

Maybe I am confusing terms here. I'm not saying that thoughts and actions aren't predetermined (from an omniscient point of view), but that they are impossible to predict, which is what I thought was meant by determined. Thoughts themselves I hold to be a culmination of experience, and of some yet to be determined cause for the basis of thought, thus giving the same exact person with the same exact experience in the same exact situation over and over will yield the same results.

But do you seriously think thoughts take up space? That they have a chemical composition? That you can physically change thought?

And these my arguments are based on anecdotal evidence that everyone experiences, thus can be deemed universal.

[hooded]

Yes, they function in a very predictable, observable manner, but what is it that causes this brain activity? What compels an organism to become locomotive, to pose, to breath, etc.?

Natural selection. Beings with a will to live, to breath, to move about have a greater chance of propagating than the being which just sits there and lets itself be eaten/lit on fire/whatever. Therefore, beings nowadays, after millions of years of this process have a strong will to live.

If thoughts were entirely deterministic, would you have the same thoughts each time you enter the same place? does the environment forcibly impose on your thoughts? I think we can all agree not, because while you could be at a rave, you may be thinking about that science question last night involving electromagnetic spectrum, whereas deterministically, you shouldn't really be thinking about anything other than dancing. Maybe that's a poor example…

No, because the situation is different. Perhaps the atmospheric conditions on mars are different. Or possibly, the last time you entered the rave, you didn’t just flunk the past science test, but this time, you just studied for a few hours. What my point is that each time you enter the rave you have new experiences, and a different environment (even if only slightly) when you enter. We can distinguish between two distinct cases and act accordingly, otherwise it you might respond the same way to being on fire as watching that fake fire burn on TV during the holidays.

Which essentially is a prediction, right? Since it can be said that it is impossible to factor in every variable involved in an event, whatever you didn't account for could have changed the outcome.

Yes, the numerous unaccounted for variables do affect the coin toss, but they do affect it in a certain way, and thus give a certain result. I think again you are using chaos theory to discount determinism, whereas in reality, the two are far from mutually exclusive. Chaos theory claims that it is impossibly difficult to predict all the potential consequences of any action, ie. the butterfly effect. However, this does not mean that the results are not deterministic. You touch on this later, which is why I will not bring up the definition I would use.

Determinism, from the American Heritage Dictionary
The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

Everything is based on what the universe looks like at the time just before it happened. And because the universe looked a specific way, a specific (and singular) outcome is the result. If there is a singular result, the universe is therefore deterministic (by this definition anyway) even if the results are impossible to predict. Im sure there are more definitions, probably ones which fit your argument better, but this is my favorite, from the few I skimmed.

But do you seriously think thoughts take up space? That they have a chemical composition? That you can physically change thought?

Yes, memories are created by changing the ways these neurons connect to one another. Sensory inputs come into the brain from nerve cells all over the body. These signals are interpreted by the brain, the left side being responsible for the more logical aspects and the right side being responsible for more creative aspects. The interpretation is then compared to previous experience, in pattern recognition. Action is then taken based on the pattern developed. I don’t know too much about this but tried my best to explain it. If you want more detail, it would probably be best to find a good source or neurologist. But this is ALL extraneous because:

I'm not saying that thoughts and actions aren't predetermined (from an omniscient point of view), but that they are impossible to predict, which is what I thought was meant by determined.

I think this line neatly sums up this one. Once again a debate is plagued by different (yet equally valid) interpretations of a single meaning. You go for "the universe is not deterministic from a human perspective" whereas I go "the universe is deterministic (it has one possible, yet extremely difficult to predict outcome)".

Red may be green from the point of view from a color blind person (so for them saying that red=green is not incorrect), and its just a matter of how the color blind person and a normal person interpret red and green.

[Kellanved]

In an undergrad physics class, I wrote a program for an oscillating charge. It was a simple program, really; we just use the differential equations for its motion to simulate its position along the horizontal axis with time (which of course generates a perfectly predictable determined sine wave). It's determined because we see the pattern, but also we have to say that it's determined because the program goes through a sequence of commands to simulate the situation, so it is as the ideal pendulum goes. (Ideal as in no friction loss, no extra force, etc.)

Then, naturally, we add all the elements that make it a realistic simulation. There is friction (if it's a macroscopic charge, for example, a charged sphere hanging on a string or something; not needed if we're considering oscillating electrons or something), and then there's a driving force. The driving force is oscillating as well (for example, any sort of E-M wave that passes through it; we could consider radio waves in the macroscopic case, or something like visible light in the microscopic case).

I have a point to all this, I promise.

We don't set the driving force as the same frequency of the charge. We make it some random force that oscillates and add it to the differential equation of the charge. Its trajectory is then determined in part by the driving force. And it's completely chaotic (this was meant to give us a demonstration of a truly chaotic system). It went about completely random directions, and it would never repeat its pattern more than once. That's an example of a chaotic system come to life. So does that mean it's no longer determined? You can't determine it, but the computer is still simulating it. Computers go by mechanical forms, and I gave it the exact functions to account for both the charge and driving force. It will do the same thing every time I run it, even though it's a perfect simulation of an actual chaotic situation.

The point is, things are only chaotic because we can't predict their outcomes. Human thoughts is the best example of a chaotic system. All our actions are triggered by electric events, and electric events are reactions to other electric events. We can, with confidence, say that the actions of lifeforms with brains are just physical reactions to other physical reactions, and not to an outside disconnected thought, otherwise our thoughts would be creating energy, and all our energy problems would be over (because we could just hook people up to devices and command them to think in order to generate power for a city). So they're chaotic, but when a particle (note everything is particles, including E-M waves because our universe is quantized as realized by Einstein) is under any influence, there's only one possible trajectory it can take.

Theoretically (and purely philosophically) as the opening poster suggested, if something outside our universe could 'freeze-frame' it 10^-50 seconds after the big bang and take note of the dimensions and energy of all particles, it could calculate everything that's going to happen, including what Jesus will eat for breakfast on Oct 19, 7. And on the same note, if we had some theoretical mega-computer with infinite processing capacity and memory, and all the laws of physics programmed into it, if we set up the position just after the big bang in the same way, it would simulate our universe completely. (In fact, life inside that computer would be just as intricately complex, and thus just as real as our life... isn't that freaky?)

[SolidSamurai]

Yah, that's pretty freaky. Anyway, like 10 years from now, we'll probably be merging with computers to live in a virtual universe similar to the matrix and thus the loser population of geeks and losers will ascend to new heights in society, and thus finally be cool forever.

[GrassDragon]

I haven't read the entire discussion because it doesn't really matter what thoughts are made of or anything else you're talking about. Quantum theory states that not all information can be known at one time, so it's simply impossible to take a snapshot of the universe like you're suggesting. Without knowing everything all at one time, determinism becomes pretty difficult.

[Anoiktos]

I agree with GlassDragon, save one thing: I also agree with Kellanved.

The universe is difficult enough to model or predict that making a model capable of predicting it would take infinitely more processing power and infinitely more precise measurements than we are capable of, and furthermore it would require a flawless copy of the laws of the universe, which humans don't appear to be close to achieving.

As an example, we cannot even predict where an electron is at any given point in time, nor in fact does common theory state that it is possible to predict where that electron will be: electron clouds are described by probability rather than specific location. Light, as described by quantum dynamics, can go backwards in time. For destiny to be proven possible to predetermine, we must first figure out how these sorts of things function, and/or whether it is possible to figure out how these things function. Thus far, predicting even the movement of minuscule pieces of our environment, say, helium nuclei in the sun, is so chaotic as to be essentially unthinkable. Each individual proton of these nuclei takes 100,000 to 200,000 years to reach the surface, due to the countless billions of ricochets and reactions within the core.

Thus, regardless of whether this sort of destiny can be proven a reality, it is essentially a meaningless argument until computing power advances to the level at which reality is unnecessary.

[Oblongato]

I haven't read the entire discussion because it doesn't really matter what thoughts are made of or anything else you're talking about. Quantum theory states that not all information can be known at one time, so it's simply impossible to take a snapshot of the universe like you're suggesting. Without knowing everything all at one time, determinism becomes pretty difficult.

I didn't realize that quantum theory was so cut and dried that it stated anything absolutely (as you claim it does). What I have managed to gather from what I have read so far indicates that the experiments and observations leave us facing unanswered questions where the only solutions are mathematical (and therefore abstract) or metaphysical - based on little more than Gedankenexperimente.

Not all information can be known at one time? How can that be anything but a metaphysical statement? I am hopeful that a satisfactory explanation will eventually be found for the single photon's apparently interfering with itself, but I find it absolutely inconceivable that there is a scientific basis for that statement. (It sounds very much like the metaphysical arguments designed to preserve the possibility of free will.)

Of course, I could be wrong, and if I am, I'd be much obliged if you could explain or at least give me a source to chew on.

Edit: And besides that, as has already been pointed out, the definition of determinism being used here does not depend on anyone's ability to know or predict; it's based on the so-far valid assumption that physical laws do not break down.

P.S. I thought you didn't want to be condescending?

[GrassDragon]

Maybe I am making an incorrect assumption about what determinism actually is then. As I understand it, determinism is the idea that if we could take a snapshot of the universe and note every single variable, such that we could completely describe the universe with this information, we would be able to predict all future actions in the universe. What I'm saying is that this is impossible, no matter how much computing power we have. It's not a matter of the resources we would need to capture this information, it's that the laws of physics specifically do not allow such a collection of information.

To simplify my argument, take the case of a single proton. According to the idea of determinism, if you could exactly measure it's mass, charge, momentum, and position, you should be able to predict where it will be at any later time, if it were traveling in empty space. If it were traveling somewhere where it would be affected by outside forces, you could predict exactly where it would be as long as you knew everything about those forces.

Now I don't disagree with this, and if it were possible then it might make sense to argue about the existence of free will. But there's just no way to collect that kind of information, regardless of the tools used to measure it. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you cannot measure both the position and momentum of any particle to exact accuracy. If you measure the position exactly (which is basically impossible, at least with current technology), the momentum is completely unknown, even if you just measured the momentum exactly a moment before. There is always an inherent level of ignorance involved in a measurement of either of these variables with respect to the other.

This may seem completely ridiculous, but this is really how things work. And since it does, there is no way that you could collect the data necessary to be able to determine the course of future events.

[hooded]

The philosophical doctrine that every state of affairs, including every human event, act, and decision is the inevitable consequence of antecedent states of affairs.

from the American history dictionary. As I have said before, predictability and determinism are not the same.

To simplify my argument, take the case of a single proton. According to the idea of determinism, if you could exactly measure it's mass, charge, momentum, and position, you should be able to predict where it will be at any later time, if it were traveling in empty space. If it were traveling somewhere where it would be affected by outside forces, you could predict exactly where it would be as long as you knew everything about those forces.

Now I don't disagree with this, and if it were possible then it might make sense to argue about the existence of free will. But there's just no way to collect that kind of information, regardless of the tools used to measure it. According to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, you cannot measure both the position and momentum of any particle to exact accuracy. If you measure the position exactly (which is basically impossible, at least with current technology), the momentum is completely unknown, even if you just measured the momentum exactly a moment before. There is always an inherent level of ignorance involved in a measurement of either of these variables with respect to the other.

But the proton does have a specific and exact mass, charge, angular momentum, and position, even though we cannot determine these things to a perfect degree of accuracy. The forces acting on the proton are also the result of similar naturalistic interaction (changing magnetic fields, gravity), and are equally precise (but not measurable).

You do not need to be able to predict the result of something for the result to be deterministic. I just checked on dictionary.com, and my own personal dictionary at my house (although that one is almost 30 years old), and in no definition I have found is predictability required for determinism.

In otherwords, determinism is if you could determine the future to a 100% degree of acuracy, given ALL the information about the present (and a perfect understanding of nature), hypothetically of course.

[GrassDragon]

I don't understand the difference between predicting the future and determining the future; if it hasn't happened yet, aren't they both the same?

But the proton does have a specific and exact mass, charge, angular momentum, and position, even though we cannot determine these things to a perfect degree of accuracy.
The point I'm making is that this is not true. It may have an exact mass and charge, but it's position and momentum exist only as a probability, not as one exact value. Consequently, there is no way to know these values no matter how advanced or ideal our technology could become because they don't actually exist as definite values.

[Oblongato]

I don't understand the difference between predicting the future and determining the future; if it hasn't happened yet, aren't they both the same?

I would not say that there is a force at work actively determining (directing) the future; rather, the future is determined. (This is not the definition of determine meaning "find out".) We simply lack the information and knowledge that would be necessary to predict it. The snapshot, by the way, is a purely hypothetical case that assumes a) that we have complete knowledge of the universe at that moment and b) that the behavior of matter and energy is not random (at any level of existence).

Edit: Sorry for basically restating, hooded.

The point I'm making is that this is not true. It may have an exact mass and charge, but it's position and momentum exist only as a probability, not as one exact value. Consequently, there is no way to know these values no matter how advanced or ideal our technology could become because they don't actually exist as definite values.

It seems you are assuming that we are now fully aware of the nature of, for example, a proton, and that its behavior is to some extent random. We may with the current state of our knowledge refer to its state as a probability, but I still see no reason to assume, based on our lack of knowledge of what is causing its behavior, that it actually exists as a probability. This is merely an assumption that allows us to continue to work on the problem until, one would hope, more information comes to light to improve our theories.

Your statements seem to indicate that you are firmly convinced that unmeasured electrons have no single state at any given time. Yet it seems clear that we really don't know what the state of an unmeasured electron is. It's fine to assume for the sake of argument or for a gedankenexperiment that the electron is neither nor, but this is far from an established truth.

In my view, it would be more logical to assume that there are still aspects of the behavior of electrons and other subatomic particles of which we are not aware, and that it is these aspects causing what seems to us to be paradoxical behavior.

[GrassDragon]

I realize that you want to believe there is an underlying state that we just can't measure, but it's just not how things work. There is no state, the particle is in a superposition of states, and this has been experimentally proven. An experiment called the GHZ experiment expressly tested whether what you're saying (local hidden variables) or what I'm saying (quantum theory) is right, and it turns out quantum theory is. This is widely accepted as true.

When people talk about "electron clouds", what they're talking about is the probability cloud of an individual electron; all the places that it could possibly be. When you actually look at an atom there is no cloud, it's just a nucleus with a few electrons spinning around it, but when you're not looking it's far more accurate to describe each particle as a cloud of possible locations. Perhaps more interesting is that while we cannot predict exactly where that electron will be when we look at it, we can usually exactly quantify the probability cloud; that is, we can know with incredible accuracy what the probability of it showing up in each location is.

It's not logical, it doesn't make sense, it seems completely backwards – but the theory makes extremely accurate predictions and it works. I can't say with 100% certainty that it's right, because that would require nothing less than faith, but it is the best thing we've got so far.

[Oblongato]

Please note that I am not challenging the results of the experiments. You say the theories are not logical, don't make sense (for the benefit of my layman's understanding?), but for me, the experiments clearly demonstrate that the behavior is real. Therefore the theories are logical, even if we don't yet have all of the answers. You are not correct that I want to believe that there is an underlying state. It is simply that this would be the first time that an underlying state has not discovered, and I have been unable to find the name of an expert on quantum physics who claims that we have all of the answers. The question as I understand it, therefore, is whether the probability cloud is something real or just an abstract mathematical object that we use until more information is available.

Who out there (apart from yourself) is saying with certainty that the probability cloud is the underlying state? On what basis? It seems according to what I have been able to find anything but clear what the actual nature of the electron cloud is, yet you seem to consider it to be a "real" object (in the sense that there is no other state underlying it).

Do you really believe that the question of the nature of the probability cloud has been answered sufficiently to dismiss the concept of the consistency of physical laws (and therefore rendering the snapshot of the universe invalid, even as a hypothetical)? What experts in the field make statements with such certainty? (Most seem to emphasize how much we do not understand.)

I am not challenging your statements because I think I know and want to defend my idea. I accept the results of the experiments, and they are fascinating. What I am unable to accept so far is the relative certainty with which you describe the nature of things I would rate as still relatively unknown.

[GenocideAlive]

I don't find your argument convincing, Oblongato. You claim that there are underlying factors that predict outcomes without qualifying or quantifying those factors. There is no precedent of logic that makes it reasonable to assume that if we can't predict it, we will be able to predict it in the future given some super-state of information.

You are somewhat relying on the credibility of science to sort of borrow out some credibility to your huckster idea, insinuating that knowledge removes the random aspects of the universe. However, you are cheating to the same side as Creationists when you do this, because you are making claims based upon a ridiculous assertion of fantasy-levels of information.

Find the difference between these two arguments:

A:
God is somewhere.
You aren't everywhere and can't see everywhere, so that's why you haven't seen God.

B:
Every random event of the universe can be predicted with enough information.
You don't have all the information of the universe, that's why it seems random.

This is basically a loaded question with a little bit of Negative Proof sprinkled on top. You first assume that you can prove that every random event in the universe has a predictability. You can't, because you don't have all the information in the universe, either. You are assuming. Second, you are deriving your conclusion on the faulty basis of your initial statement and claiming that unless someone can falsify this (which they obviously cannot), that it is by default a true statement.

Whether or not the universe is predictable is easily answered: it is not, on the basis of our knowledge.

[Oblongato]

My, such strong language. (When was the last time someone called me a cheating huckster?)

But I think you are missing my point. I am not challenging anything that has been conclusively demonstrated through experimentation. (GrassDragon has provided a great deal of useful information for me here.) However, the concept of the existence of something that only exists as a probability is something unprecedented in science, as far as I know (but correct me if I am wrong). Combined with the current limits of our technology, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle etc., the very fact that it is unprecedented makes it suspect. I'm not making any absolute claims, not drawing any conclusions, I'm just trying to find out just how much information we have and how much we don't have. I did suggest the idea of underlying states perhaps causing the behavior we have observed, but thanks to GrassDragon's mention of the GHZ experiment, I'm pretty convinced now that that is not the case - I found the results of the experiment surprising, and thought-provoking.

Actually, I think the debate is going pretty well. I wasn't looking for people to come and express their support for my thinking; instead, I had hoped to find out what ideas of substance are out there that might contradict it. That's exactly what is happening.

I am still not ready to side with those who claim that probability clouds are more than mathematical constructs, and I am still convinced that a hypothetical snapshot of the universe coupled with complete knowledge of physical laws and sufficient computing power could predict any event in the future. The only thing that can contradict this idea would be proof that physical laws break down at some point.

I think that perhaps what GrassDragon is getting at is that physical laws do break down in a way at the subatomic level. There is a certain amount of evidence to support such a conclusion. I still side with those who say that there are likely different physical laws at the subatomic level, but that they are by nature different from those we are used to. Again, on the subatomic level there is still much we do not know. That's why I have suggested that GrassDragon's statements in some areas are too strong for my taste. It'll be interesting to see what else he comes up with.

Whether or not the universe is predictable is easily answered: it is not, on the basis of our knowledge.
I agree. But you apparently missed the posts by myself, hooded, Kellanved and Anoiktos. We are not talking about actual predictability, but rather hypothetical predictability. In other words, the issue is the consistency of physical laws. That's a much tougher question.

And finally, a question for you, GA: How many instances have there been in the past of phenomena that have simply defied our ability to order, predict and draw physical laws from them?

[GenocideAlive]

My, such strong language. (When was the last time someone called me a cheating huckster?)
Your remark or sarcasm here, as applicable, is lame at best.
And finally, a question for you, GA: How many instances have there been in the past of phenomena that have simply defied our ability to order, predict and draw physical laws from them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spurious_relationship

The implication here is that because there have been simplistic events in our observable world in which we discovered scientific causes with advancement of knowledge, that prediction of all random events is possible. But again, this is assuming a number of things, including that learning about all things is possible. Of course, you can immediately state some version of what I claim you implied, then show me how this nuance doesn't apply then redirect. Because, in effect you are stating nothing, but you are asking loaded questions that you use to conceal your opinions and argument behind a facade of "I hope to find ideas that might contradict mine".

You can stop hoping, a precedent is no guarantee and even implying that extending our scientific knowledge to the extent that we can understand the universe is based on an unproven premise. You are using perverted logic to falsify opposing arguments.

[Oblongato]

Was I being sarcastic? I apologize.

I don't understand your comment about a spurious relationship. Do you believe it is wise to readily accept something unprecedented without skepticism? I don't. That's my point. I am neither rejecting nor accepting, I am exploring.

I'm not concealing any opinions because I don't have opinions on such matters. I always side with the facts. Note how many times I have accepted facts presented here - even if they contradicted my premises.

Anyone who's honest is here at the intellectual roundtable hoping to discuss and / or debate, I assume. For debate we need opposing viewpoints. So what's all this about facades and concealment? I can assure you you are making all this up.

I'm a pretty honest discusser and debater. Yet I get the impression that you are searching for some sort of ulterior motive in my posts. There isn't one. Prove me wrong on a topic and I will adopt your perspective. But I have to say I think your past couple of posts have been pretty far off the mark. Why not try commenting on my actual arguments instead of trying to look behind them?

[GenocideAlive]

Why not try commenting on my actual arguments instead of trying to look behind them?
Why don't you take your own advice. The entirety of your post save for the "I don't understand spurious relationships" was dedicated to your claim of complete lack of motives. A simpler form:

Point 1. In a local capacity, we can understand events in the universe.
Point 2. We do not know if it's possible to understand everything in the universe.
Point 3. We do not know to what extent information is required to predict all occurances and outcomes to successfully predict otherwise random events.
Point 4. The factors that express or lead to free will are not understoond.

Conclusion: With our current knowledge, we are unable to predict the future of anything. We are also unable to determine with any conclusiveness if such is even possible. We only know that we are a far way from even understanding our own physical world. Thus, Determinism as proposed cannot exist without at least one faulty premise.

[Oblongato]

All of my post was devoted to addressing your points / accusations.

This discussion does not assume that a question of scientific fact can thus be resolved. As has been stated previously several times, we are talking about a hypothetical situation. No one has claimed that it is actually possible for us to predict the future, or even to test the theory of determinism. Just for the record, I agree that it is not possible for us to predict the future or to confirm that the universe is deterministic. It is unlikely that we will ever be able to do these things.

As I've indicated before, we are talking about which of two assumptions is more logical based the current state of our knowledge.

To recap:

My argument is that we have never been stumped, never encountered a point where science has had to shrug its shoulders in despair and give up trying to explain observed phenomena. We have always been able to draw physical laws from our observations that work. This is (powerful) evidence for the consistency of physical laws. If physical laws (known or unknown) remain 100% consistent in all matter and energy, then the universe would be deterministic and the hypothetical snapshot of the universe combined with complete knowledge of the behavior of matter and energy could, given sufficient computing power, be used to predict all future events.

The argument against the position described above (if I have understood GrassDragon's point correctly) is that we may indeed have arrived at a point where physical laws cannot be drawn from our observations, i.e. where prediction is not possible. If we should manage to confirm this point, i.e. demonstrate that physical laws are not 100% consistent in all matter and energy, we could effectively demonstrate that the universe is not deterministic.

While the latter is a fascinating proposition, I do not consider it proven that physical laws are not consistent on the subatomic level. There are a number of factors (i.e. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle) that prevent us from making this confirmation.

Since we are dealing with hypotheticals on both sides, the real question is which argument makes the more logical assumption.

[Icarus]

Last night I was reading Aristotle and found his refutation for the proposition that the mind/thoughts have spatial magnitude, and immediately thought about this thread.

Mind is continuous with it's process of thinking, and thinking is identical with the thoughts which are it's parts.

There are two approaches in considering mind being comprised of matter: one, as having parts of spatial magnitude, two, parts consisting of a point(if you accept a point as taking matter, in which there would be an infinite amount).

If the latter, the mind couldn't possibly think using any sum of it's parts, for it couldn't travel across them. If the former, the mind would think the same thing over again an infinite number of times. What could it be? All processes of thinking are limited, and they are all for the sake of something outside the mind, external of the body, and every thought comes to a close somehow, as reaching a conclusion. Since the mind is stuck in a cyclical and eternal motion, this is impossible.

The attitude of thinking is a means of coming to a stop, or rest, in thought, creating an inference or arriving at a conclusion. This doesn't reflect the suggestion of the mind and thoughts comprising of matter.

EDIT: Upon review, your argument that the mind is spatial is not determinist. You seem to be skewing it into a sort of positivism. Virtually, it is only this issue that the two differ on.

[Oblongato]

I'm not completely able to follow what you are getting at here - I suspect more context is needed to develop your points.

As for the physical nature of mind and thoughts, it's been demonstrated scientifically that thoughts can be influenced by physically influencing the brain. The concept that thoughts are not physical is purely metaphysical and thus purely unsupported, unproven and unprovable. It is equally likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster puts all thoughts into our heads.

The argument for determinism is based solely on the idea that physical laws are always 100% consistent (whether they are physical laws we know of or not) and that the universe is comprised entirely of matter and energy that follows physical laws. The idea is also untestable, but it is suggested by the fact that we have always been able to draw consistent physical laws from observed phenomena (the debate here has been largely about whether physical laws will allow us to make predictions on the subatomic level).

Not sure where you see the connection between the spatial (physical?) existence of mind and determinism. Therefore also not sure what you mean with skewing into positivism.

[Icarus]

I'm not completely able to follow what you are getting at here - I suspect more context is needed to develop your points.

Context? I'm debating your suggestion that the mind and thoughts are material. Otherwise, simply read it.

As for the physical nature of mind and thoughts, it's been demonstrated scientifically that thoughts can be influenced by physically influencing the brain.

Citation please. I challenge you, that no thoughts have been recorded in any credible form.

The concept that thoughts are not physical is purely metaphysical and thus purely unsupported, unproven and unprovable. It is equally likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster puts all thoughts into our heads.

In case you didn't notice, I didn't just suggest something unprovable. I'm refuting your suggestion, using logic.

Not sure where you see the connection between the spatial (physical?) existence of mind and determinism.

You made the connection in your first post.

[hammocksleeper]

The concept that thoughts are not physical is purely metaphysical and thus purely unsupported, unproven and unprovable. It is equally likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster puts all thoughts into our heads. It is equally likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster puts all thoughts into our heads.

They are not necessarily equally likely, since the likelihood of either possibility is indeterminable. ;) A technicality but an important one when applied to other shit.

[Oblongato]

Context? I'm debating your suggestion that the mind and thoughts are material. Otherwise, simply read it.

What I mean is, please clarify, restate, elaborate. I do not understand how your comments are connected to this discussion.

Citation please. I challenge you, that no thoughts have been recorded in any credible form.

Consider the function of psychopharmaceuticals. Also the emotional changes / personality changes observed in tumor patients and those suffering brain injuries. I suspect it is not the individual thoughts, but the thought patterns that are measured.

Me: The concept that thoughts are not physical is purely metaphysical and thus purely unsupported, unproven and unprovable. It is equally likely that the Flying Spaghetti Monster puts all thoughts into our heads.
In case you didn't notice, I didn't just suggest something unprovable. I'm refuting your suggestion, using logic.

Sorry, completely lost here. What did you refute, and how?

You made the connection in your first post.

My starting post assumes that brain, mind and thoughts (and everything else, for that matter) are all composed solely of matter and energy.

Since there is no scientific support for the concept of a non-physical element of mind, I excluded it.

And what was that about skewing into positivism?

They are not necessarily equally likely, since the likelihood of either possibility is indeterminable. ;) A technicality but an important one when applied to other shit.

OK, fair enough. How about equally absurd? (Or is there a mathematical formula to calculate degrees of absurdity? ;))

[GenocideAlive]

OK, we're going to have to take a hiatus on the quotefests, here, guys. If you want to debate a position, do so by stating your position in response to someone else's. Simply quote-reply quote-reply over a huge block of text is obnoxious and poor form for debate. It can easily slide into witticisms and repartee, which are both far from good arguing skills.

[Icarus]

Consider the function of psychopharmaceuticals. Also the emotional changes / personality changes observed in tumor patients and those suffering brain injuries. I suspect it is not the individual thoughts, but the thought patterns that are measured.

Personality changes? How can anyone be sure of anyone's personality changing? Any physical observations you can make concerning thought can only determine changes in the approach the individual takes to fulfill their thoughts, and never can be a credible way to determine thoughts themselves.
Acting different is not the same as thinking different.

I showed how the mind and thoughts COULDN'T be comprised of matter, by theoretically assuming they were. Therefore, if they aren't made of matter, they are intangible, which is proven by the definition.

And I really can't just go on "clarify, restate" etc. If there's a specific thing you are confused about, point it out. I feel it'd be pointless to just type the whole thing out again.

[Oblongato]

I think the differences in what people say and changes in their behavior provide a sufficient indication of changes in thought. The fact that psychopharmaceuticals may be sold is based on the fact that multiple studies have shown them to be effective in altering emotional states and even thinking patters.

I'm afraid you haven't shown how mind and thoughts couldn't be composed of matter. Modern neuroscience can say a great deal about the nature of thoughts, what comprises them and where they are located in the brain. Aristotle did not have the benefit of this knowledge when he developed his arguments. As a brilliant man, had he had the benefit of our knowledge of the functioning of the human body, I suspect he would have come to far different conclusions about some things.

@GA: I agree with your point about the quote fests. I'm just not quite sure how to solve the problem of replying to posts with 37 points and to keep them all straight without the quote blocks. Perhaps the length of posts should be limited somehow? Suggestions?

[Icarus]

I've been searching the internet for the past 20 minutes, using encyclopedias and various search engines, sifting through dozens of pages, and I haven't come across an article even suggesting thoughts are made of matter, let alone pinpointing their locations in a brain.

And since now you just repeat yourself, I'll have to give the discourse.

Firstly, I must make it clear that actions are distinct from thoughts. Thoughts can be produced, amplified, and expanded, in entire subtlety. You can stay prone, staring at a wall for 3 hours and ponder intensely on various things.

Thoughts, as I said before, are for the sake of something external. A result of the fact you exist inside reality. They may yearn to learn from it, act upon it, and grow from it.

When your thoughts compel you to manipulate your surroundings, producing an action, there are various ways to go about doing the same thing. Say, the nerd in middle school wants to exact revenge on his bullies by growing up a miserable and tyrannic business executive. Another person may exact revenge in similar circumstances by murdering people. Same overall thoughts, different actions.

An example more relevant would be sorrow. If someone felt extremely sad, and wished to feel better, he could take drugs (Which he would be told make him, and anyone who takes it, feel better), and act accordingly. He could externally express he is very happy, while actually harboring opposite emotions, but hiding them (for various possible reasons). Another perfect example is the entire concept of placebo.

What are "Thinking patterns"?


I'm afraid you haven't shown how mind and thoughts couldn't be composed of matter.

Hey, I can do that too.

You're wrong. You simply haven't provided ample evidence for your argument. Regarding your specific points, I'm just going to ignore them and pass over them and assume all credibility for the topic.

[Oblongato]

My guess is that you are decoupling subjective perception from the physical functioning of the brain. Read about an example of the subjective nature of such perceived "non-physical" experience here:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12531-outofbody-experiences-are-all-in-the-mind.html

We can see the changes in brain waves and electrical currents in the brain when thinking is taking place. Different kinds of thoughts produce different patterns in different sections of the brain. This is what I mean when I say that we know where thoughts are located in the brain.

We also know that when the brain ceases to function the characteristic patterns associated with thought also cease. There is no evidence to indicate that the thoughts have done anything but cease either.

When I refer to analyzing thought patterns, I mean, for example, when a psychiatrist interviews a patient before and after psychoactive drugs. Answers to questions such as "how often do you think about suicide" could, for example, show changes before and after. All of the psychoactive drugs on the market today have been scientifically tested and proven not only to be safe but also effective in altering behavior by altering neurochemistry. Effectiveness is always tested against a placebo.

[Icarus]

There is no evidence showing that electromagnetic waves, or electrical current, are thoughts. So "thoughts located in the brain" is a semantical play entirely on your part. Like I suggested before, It's entirely possible that the brain is simply a medium between thought and the physical world.

Does psychoanalysis over time factor in events occurring outside therapy? From my limited experience with psychologists, no.

what was the link for? It was totally irrelevant to the topic.

And you've still yet to address my points.

[Oblongato]

The purpose of the example was to show that we can have the experience of our thoughts crossing distances and experiencing things outside the body under controlled circumstances under which it can be shown how the effect was produced. We can have the feeling that our thoughts are not inside our brains but are free to move about in real space. The experiment strongly suggests that this is a mere illusion. It is my impression that several of your points are based on our subjective experience of the intangibility of thought.

Outside events in psychotherapy that could affect the individual can take place before or after starting medication. Using a large enough study group, countable or measurable events even out to produce statistics that can easily show differences in trends after medication begins. The results are always compared to a control group that receives a placebo. The placebo effect can therefore be eliminated.

It is not provable that thoughts on another plane of existence are not using our brains as an interface to interact with this world. The problem is that there is no reason to believe that this is the case. There are, however, a number of factors that suggest that thoughts belong to brain function. We have never encountered thoughts that were not accompanied by a brain, for starters. People with brain damage often have thinking disturbances. Certain types of thinking are influenced by injuries to certain parts of the brain. This strongly suggests, but does not prove absolutely, that thoughts are solely a function of the brain. Nothing strongly suggests, or even slightly suggests, that thoughts exist on another plane of existence. Such claims are pure metaphysics.

Paragraphs 3 - 5 in post #41 are for me subjective in nature, i.e. I do not see how you can provide evidence that they are true.

By the way, how about if we try to be more polite?