“Reality Goes Beyond Physics,” and more

[steve_bank]

Well M, I agree that scientific has broad usage often meaningless. Since the pandemic 'doing what the science says' became a cliche. It is used to broadly to justify a policy or decision.


In bruises here is the term deliverables. Deliverables are objectively quantifiable goods and services delivered to a to a customer.

Within a bigness there can be intangibles. Hard to define and quantify functions that are essential to operating the business.

The deliverables of science in practical terms is the technology modern life depends on. Like your computer or lights. The intangibles of science are the cultural impacts. In the 60s the space p[rogra provided a hope for the future in the middle of the Cod War with the potential for nuclear war.

Science shows like those NOVA science shows informs people who have no science background. A subjective intangible.

As to statistics, when you take a medication prescribed by a doctor there is a statistical basis for it. My cardiologist wanted me to change drugs based on statistical results of tests. Any good doctor will say meds may or may not improve your condition, but statistically they will.

I was am engineer, there is the same problem. Given a set of measurements how to tell if therer is a change. That would be a math thread on statistical inference. Hypothesis testing.

Commercial neural net software followed by AI are based on neurology. The obvious problem is we can dissect a living critters and subject it to stimulus response, but not live hymns.

There is a simple algae with a simple neural that can be seen to reconfigure itself and learn based on stimulus.

There is no 'science' in an agonized sense, neither is there 'philosophy'. Both ate catch all categorical terms with contextual meaning.

Science is people acting local or in groups. The is no global science as an active agent. To say scince says this or that, or to say philosophy does this or that is a manner of speaking.

 

[steve_bank]

I don;'t follow PG's posts in detail, those comments on sex and love are just plain weird.

The author, her father, advances from routine eccentric to bizarre and crazy.

Says Stevo who didn't read a thing. And this is supposed to be an open-minded group of people?

We are open minded. But we are also inquisitive, skeptical, and critical of those who make claims that violate basic physics without any proof.

He didn’t violate physics.

I am skeptical when someone says an experiment with a dog proves or disproves determinism or free will. Laughable.

Have you ever had one single person agree with your book?

Yes, but it’s a lazy way to judge the accuracy of a book.

Your responses are 'you did not read the book', and are unable to articulate anyting in your own words. Like a Chisrtian respondingwith quotes from the bible,.

If you didn’t read what it is you’re responding to, your words are empty. I explained why man’s will is not free many times. Not one person made a concerted effect to see why it’s true and why it is descriptive, not prescriptive, but proves we can only move in one direction.

If the story you tell is true I could speculate on what you experienced as you grew up and how it influenced you. We see it in Christians on the forum indoctrinated fro birth. Unable to think outside of the bible.

Of course I was influenced by my life experiences just as you were. But I was not indoctrinated.

Yes, the comments on sex and love are just plain weird. Sounds like a twisted sexuality. Sex is simple, insert part A into part B and let nature take its course.

Sex often evokes feelings of love especially a first love. These feelings are fragile and can be easily manipulated. Young lovers are often hurt or exploited when love is not returned or used in unsavory ways. This knowledge prevents unrequited love from developing and the devastating consequences that often follow.

There may be one puzzling and troubling question you can answer for me, is love real?.

Yes, love is real but it often doesn’t last. This knowledge helps identify and prevent the causes that lead to this failure and ultimately the divorce court.

Okey Dokey.

 

[Jarhyn]

that science can adequately address subjectivity and its development

I have not only asserted that it can, I have shown exactly which branch of science has been (computer science). In fact I pointed out the black swan event of "observed physical subjectivity". It's pretty well understood in computer science how relativity is responsible for the fact that *my computer* isn't "aware" or "connected" or "able to access" any of the bits on *yours*.

We have access to matter doing exactly the "subjective awareness" thing, actual holdable understandable observable "subjects", the physics of how they think, and how they constitute a self-involved recursive process clocked and metered in some respects against synchronization events of its own creation...

And then at the same time we say "but let's ignore all that" and we pretend that we didn't just *genetically engineer* that black swan that is now squawking about the room angry at its sudden and unasked-for existence.

You want to know why DBT doesn't accept this? Because every time I impute that computational systems are "conscious", he throws a tantrum of INCREDULITY, because for all he wants to pretend humans are meat machines (we probably are but may still not be), he still clings uselessly to this last vestige of human exceptionalism.

The very idea that computers can "think", that they have always been, offends his sensibilities, and the sensibilities of a great many whose ethical biases attach to acts such as "thought" and "consciousness" and "aliveness" which they reserve only for their *chosen* automotons.

They don't grok that the universe tends strongly to "continuous and ubiquitous" with most any phenomena, process, or principle that is "real".

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

As to statistics, when you take a medication prescribed by a doctor there is a statistical basis for it. My cardiologist wanted me to change drugs based on statistical results of tests. Any good doctor will say meds may or may not improve your condition, but statistically they will.

Statistics can certainly be useful. When or for what are they sufficient? Remember when hyperlipidemia was alleged to be a matter of diet? Eggs were bad for your health, because they presented so much cholesterol. But, then, oh wait! In coming to that conclusion about dietary cholesterol, what was forgotten was to consider cholesterol in terms of it being naturally produced by the body for beneficial purposes leading to realizing that hyperlipidemia can be the result of a body response to inflammation (with inflammation having multiple possible sources). Just to outline it briefly for illustrative purposes.

Investigations - scientific, philosophical, what have you - at their best are designed to take account of framing effects. That is a type of controlling for variables. Good doctors will certainly be forthright about treatments possibly not working; many patients - even intelligent and highly educated patients - will only hear the part about how the treatments might be effective (often heard as: will be effective). A good physician will not change meds simply because of reports of some statistical superiority; the good physician will also take into account how well the patient is doing under the current regimen.

There is no getting away from the subjectivity of judgment, and that is the case in science as well, of course. Indeed, science is - or can be, maybe should be appreciated as - the repeated stress-testing of judgments. Okay, maybe just when the science is done well and happens to be interesting. This ties back to pood's reference to Hawking apparently having come to appreciate science for being a human endeavor "never decoupled from us" more than as "a God’s-eye view". Well conducted science does not seek to dismiss subjectivity; rather, that science does its best to take account of subjectivity. It can do this despite not being able to actually explain subjectivity or even study it in depth.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I have shown exactly which branch of science has been (computer science). In fact I pointed out the black swan event of "observed physical subjectivity". It's pretty well understood in computer science how relativity is responsible for the fact that *my computer* isn't "aware" or "connected" or "able to access" any of the bits on *yours*.

Observed subjectivity. Accessible subjectivity. Those are two different issues.

Observed subjectivity. Inaccessible subjectivity. Now those are veritably identical issues.

Of course, observed subjectivity is interpreted subjectivity. And interpreted subjectivity is often an attributed subjectivity when what would be preferred is an accessible subjectivity.

 

[steve_bank]

M

Sure, science ts wrong at times. The original nutrition tstudy hat led to theold food pyramid is knownj to be flawed. Eggs went fo0rm good to bad to good. Science changes as more data and observtion is availble. Scince is alawys subkect to revisiosn. Newtoian mechanics went to quntum and relativistc

There is no claim tp science as practiced by us humans is omniscient. In some ways modern pop culture has elevated science to a glorified mythical status. In the day Einstein had what today we call rock star status. He was a household name.

What being scientific means is to try to elimi8nate subjective bias and reduce conclusions to quantifiable validators. Often easier said then done,.

One of few modern philosophers I found useful was Popper. He said the only thing that qualifies as objective science is a repeatable experiment. As it spreads from the experiment it becomes more subjective. Quantum mechanics is an example.

Science is a dynamic truth seeking process. Ideas that work tend to go forward, hose that do not fall away.

Perceptions and subjectivity vs objectivity comes under psychology, cognitive psychology. It has experimental basis. Psychology I believe is considers a soft science vs a hard science like chemistry.

There have been lengthy threads on objective vs subjective.

Whatever it is, unless you invoke mind as separate form body, mind body duality, it comes down to how the brain works. To me that apples to the OP question of free will vs determinism.

Both terms are abstract concepts, obviously with multiple definitions.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

unless you invoke mind as separate form body, mind body duality, it comes down to how the brain works. To me that apples to the OP question of free will vs determinism.

I think it applies to the duality perspective as well. After all, even dualists develop. Duality or not, the brain develops. Duality or not, the ability to think develops. Maybe not very much in some cases, but on this matter it is better to be generous. I regard the free will vs. determinism topic first and foremost as a very good context for analyzing experience and thought processes as well as how thinking can be affected and effected by the thinking subject. Whether determinism is fact or not is a side issue which I assume to be an undecidable matter. But I do know that any philosophical thinking (as distinct from a devotion) which imagines as its foundation a science as something other than a human enterprise imbued with judgments is an immature sort of philosophical thinking, lacking adequate imagination and thereby leading to insufficient critical introspection.

 

[steve_bank]

I restarted one one the old threads oo0bjecve subjective perceptions . You can take it over there and I will continue.

 

[Swammerdami]

The universe can be said to be causal, nothing happens without a cause. Chaotic and probabilistic systems are causal. A complex industrial chemical process involving stages can have a probability of working, but is causal.

The bit I have bolded is incorrect, because the universe itself has no cause, it simply is. That the universe is causal in that all things that happen in the universe can be said to be caused by the universe is right, though that is not the everyday way of looking at it, as generally we look for causes at a much smaller scale.

It's worse than that. The question of whether the universe has a cause is disputed. But radioactive decay has no cause. Take a single atom of any unstable isotope, and there is no predictor whatsoever of when it will decay. The decay is uncaused.

Recently we had a thread on Norton's Dome, a thought experiment wherein a ball falls off a pinnacle after a random delay. Could this be related to the similarly paradoxical behavior of radioactive decay?

Is there any way to CHANGE the decay rate? Enclosing the isotope in lead has no effect, right?

I've wondered if something like Cramer's Transactional Interpretation is true. It might seem to explain some "paradoxical" behaviors. BUT I do not see how it can explain the constancy of radioactive decay.

Does Cramer -- or his disciples if he still has any -- have any comment about this?

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I restarted one one the old threads oo0bjecve subjective perceptions . You can take it over there and I will continue.

Done.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps, in order to work out whether will is indeed free, we should get an understanding of what will is and what role it plays in decision making and action initiation?

To do that, given that the brain is the CNS's information processor and the sole source of thought, deliberation, decision making and action initiation, what better means is there of understanding the status, role and function of will, be it conscious or unconscious, than scientific research into brain function?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that science can adequately address subjectivity and its development (rather than the easier issue of its impediment), then what you should have said is "what better means is there of understanding the status, role and function of will, be it conscious or unconscious, than GOOD scientific research into brain function?" And then, besides the issue of whether the term scientific happens to most frequently get used as an often unjustified honorific, the subject matter becomes the nature - the purpose - of science as well as just how is good to be understood with regards to research. Is good in the results? If it is, then there is to this point minuscule good in neurological research. Is good in the set-up, the concepts which are the basis for the investigative approach(es) in research? If it is, then to this point there is minuscule good in neurological research, and the reason for this starts with the fact that subjectivity is inadequately taken into account, addressed, and considered. And why might that be? Here is an outline for a possibility: If it can't be measured, then it's not a matter of science, leading to science as more and more a generator of statistics and less and less a matter of improved understanding. You know, just painting with a broad brush but nevertheless giving an adequate glimpse for anyone already sufficiently well-versed and experienced. I am very much in favor of brain research. The only worthwhile such research is that which is at least potentially applicable to disease treatment. That research is currently maybe as far as its blastulation stage, at best. Hopefully, it will develop further. Maybe it will become actually viable.

It's not as if the brain functions subjectively.

The structure of the brain is physical, objective, physical neural architecture, physical electrochemical processing, etc, or that the information that the brain acquires is entirely subjective, where if someone reports seeing something, it can be verified or falsified.

Nor is the case , despite our lack of understanding of how the brain generates conscious mind, that nothing is understood about brain function, thought processes and means of response.

So if 'free will' is a reality, it must serve a function in the process of thought and response, yet no such free will agency appears to be present, nor is free will defined in that way by compatibilists.

 

[peacegirl]

Perhaps, in order to work out whether will is indeed free, we should get an understanding of what will is and what role it plays in decision making and action initiation?

To do that, given that the brain is the CNS's information processor and the sole source of thought, deliberation, decision making and action initiation, what better means is there of understanding the status, role and function of will, be it conscious or unconscious, than scientific research into brain function?

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that science can adequately address subjectivity and its development (rather than the easier issue of its impediment), then what you should have said is "what better means is there of understanding the status, role and function of will, be it conscious or unconscious, than GOOD scientific research into brain function?" And then, besides the issue of whether the term scientific happens to most frequently get used as an often unjustified honorific, the subject matter becomes the nature - the purpose - of science as well as just how is good to be understood with regards to research. Is good in the results? If it is, then there is to this point minuscule good in neurological research. Is good in the set-up, the concepts which are the basis for the investigative approach(es) in research? If it is, then to this point there is minuscule good in neurological research, and the reason for this starts with the fact that subjectivity is inadequately taken into account, addressed, and considered. And why might that be? Here is an outline for a possibility: If it can't be measured, then it's not a matter of science, leading to science as more and more a generator of statistics and less and less a matter of improved understanding. You know, just painting with a broad brush but nevertheless giving an adequate glimpse for anyone already sufficiently well-versed and experienced. I am very much in favor of brain research. The only worthwhile such research is that which is at least potentially applicable to disease treatment. That research is currently maybe as far as its blastulation stage, at best. Hopefully, it will develop further. Maybe it will become actually viable.

It's not as if the brain functions subjectively.

The structure of the brain is physical, objective, physical neural architecture, physical electrochemical processing, etc, or that the information that the brain acquires is entirely subjective, where if someone reports seeing something, it can be verified or falsified.

Nor is the case , despite our lack of understanding of how the brain generates conscious mind, that nothing is understood about brain function, thought processes and means of response.

So if 'free will' is a reality, it must serve a function in the process of thought and response, yet no such free will agency appears to be present, nor is free will defined in that way by compatibilists.

The good news is that we are controlled by strict laws that do not deviate. God knew what he was doing no matter how smart people can logically prove He was wrong. I want to add that LIbet's proof is strange because the brain is us. How can the brain make a decision befoe i's actualized? It is the conscious self that decides, not the brain beforehand. It makes it sound like brain has its own agenda.

 

[steve_bank]

The brain is what it is.

By convention chair refers to a class of objects.

Subjective and objective are words with meaning overrefined by convention, and context.

Point to a situation and say objective, point to another and say subjective.

A rock is what it is regardless of what we call it.

The brain itself is neither objective nor subjective.

 

[peacegirl]

The brain is what it is.

By convention chair refers to a class of objects.

Subjective and objective are words with meaning overrefined by convention, and context.

Point to a situation and say objective, point to another and say subjective.

A rock is what it is regardless of what we call it.

The brain itself is neither objective nor subjective.

I am contesting the idea that the brain has already made a decision before we become conscious of it, which frees us from all responsibility. I'm asking DBT to help me here even though I'm a determinist. I just don't understand Libet’s proof that gives us a free pass because we, on a conscious level, aren't making the decision. Of course we are which does not mean we have the free will to do otherwise. That's not the point.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

So if 'free will' is a reality, it must serve a function in the process of thought and response, yet no such free will agency appears to be present, nor is free will defined in that way by compatibilists.

What would you recommend as the best way to address the experience had of there being indeterminateness with regards to one's own being, with regards to many of one's own actions?

 

[Jarhyn]

So if 'free will' is a reality, it must serve a function in the process of thought and response, yet no such free will agency appears to be present, nor is free will defined in that way by compatibilists

So, @Michael S. Pearl you have watched DBT go on like this for a while now. Last time there was a thread like this he bumped it for two years straight going on like this.

I mean "the will to maintain autonomy" is a sentinel function that informs behavior towards a specific and important goal.

It is a clear process with well defined parameters driving the removal of sources of ongoing impulses of force which impede motion towards goals.

It has been defined this way carefully. We have discussed it. You and I carefully came to the conclusion that while freedom and will and autonomy have very simple systemic definitions, "free will" is this big complex construction of those ideas into a specific will for maintaining agentic trajectory towards a goal, when viewed in compatibilist terms.

They just can't wrap their head, it seems, around the idea that none of their arguments really "line up" against compatibilism.

 

[pood]

Libet’s experiments did not disprove free will, as he acknowledged. It’s a whole lotta nothing.

 

[peacegirl]

Libet’s experiments did not disprove free will, as he acknowledged. It’s a whole lotta nothing.

Libet's experiments did not prove that the conscious agent isn't responsible for his decision because it's the conscious agent ONLY who makes it. You can't separate the brain from the agent who gives permission for the action to be executed. The courts don't say, "your brain made the decision, not your conscious self, so you're off the hook of culpability. This in no way means the agent was morally responsible or free to have chosen otherwise.

 

[peacegirl]

So if 'free will' is a reality, it must serve a function in the process of thought and response, yet no such free will agency appears to be present, nor is free will defined in that way by compatibilists

So, @Michael S. Pearl you have watched DBT go on like this for a while now. Last time there was a thread like this he bumped it for two years straight going on like this.

I mean "the will to maintain autonomy" is a sentinel function that informs behavior towards a specific and important goal.

It is a clear process with well defined parameters driving the removal of sources of ongoing impulses of force which impede motion towards goals.

It has been defined this way carefully. We have discussed it. You and I carefully came to the conclusion that while freedom and will and autonomy have very simple systemic definitions, "free will" is this big complex construction of those ideas into a specific will for maintaining agentic trajectory towards a goal, when viewed in compatibilist terms.

They just can't wrap their head, it seems, around the idea that none of their arguments really "line up" against compatibilism.

It's very easy to see they don't line up by their very own definition of determinism. It's a complete and utter failure of yours to see the contradiction.

 

[steve_bank]

The brain is what it is.

By convention chair refers to a class of objects.

Subjective and objective are words with meaning overrefined by convention, and context.

Point to a situation and say objective, point to another and say subjective.

A rock is what it is regardless of what we call it.

The brain itself is neither objective nor subjective.

I am contesting the idea that the brain has already made a decision before we become conscious of it, which frees us from all responsibility. I'm asking DBT to help me here even though I'm a determinist. I just don't understand Libet’s proof that gives us a free pass because we, on a conscious level, aren't making the decision. Of course we are which does not mean we have the free will to do otherwise. That's not the point.

Again you miss the point. The braijnis what it is regardless of words we use. Free will and determinism are just words that only have meaning we give them..

So, point to a situation and say that is determinism.....I don;'t think it can be done. It becomes self referential.