This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Brain biochemistry may directly disprove religion (as we know it).

#61hunter_gohanPosted 7/14/2013 10:47:30 AM
Thuggernautz posted...
You can't use free will to overcome your necessary biology. Hold your breath to pass out without assistance. Go. No matter how much you will it, your unconscious biology always takes precedence to functions necessary to your survival.


That's only because breathing is an automatic thing done on the subconscious level for the most part already. You can override it for a bit, but it'll revert back to how it normally operates. People have driven cars while sleeping, so complex motor control isn't out of the question while unconscious. Tape a plastic bag around your head and see if that unconscious biology kicks in to save you after you pass out. Removing tape or simply poking a hole through the bag seems like it would be a lot easier than driving a car. I mean if this were true suicide would be impossible wouldn't it?

TheBlackCat13 posted...
The complication comes if, for example, you are the sort of person who would always do the opposite of what the predictor suggests. Of course anyone with any experience in software programming knows how to handle such situations: the predictor returns an error. Again, this is not a problem with determinism, because the predictor itself is part of the universe and thus can alter the behavior of even fully deterministic systems.


This seems to be the big problem with this as far as I can see. No matter what, it is evidence that minds are fully deterministic. If there's a million reactions I can have to situation X, then every single one of those no matter which one I do will "back" up this theory. It seems completely unfalsifiable.

It's not like it's even that difficult to code a non-deterministic program.

The reverser, despite being fully deterministic, will nevertheless foil the predictor no matter what answer it gives. If the predictor predicts "True", the reverser would say "False", and vice versus. This, again, is because the predictor is influencing the fully deterministic reverser.


But humans can say screw this and take option E instead of the options A and B you present. We're not limited to just 0 or 1, true or false. But no matter what option is ever taken it will just be assumed that is the one that must deterministically be choosen.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#62OrangeWizardPosted 7/14/2013 1:06:55 PM
From: rick alverado | #059
See in determinism every input has an effect on the output. That would include being told what an output would be. Which is why this hypothetical machine would only work for an outside observer and not for a person trying to predict their own behaviour.

And this is the best I can explain it, so if it still doesn't make sense to you then I apologize for my failed attempt at explanation.


No. I get it. That makes sense.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive
#63TheBlackCat13Posted 7/14/2013 1:11:09 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
This seems to be the big problem with this as far as I can see. No matter what, it is evidence that minds are fully deterministic. If there's a million reactions I can have to situation X, then every single one of those no matter which one I do will "back" up this theory. It seems completely unfalsifiable.

I don't disagree, but this wasn't my thought experiment, I was just answering a question. As far as I can tell the thought experiment can only have one outcome, and I have pointed that fact out several times now.

hunter_gohan posted...
It's not like it's even that difficult to code a non-deterministic program.

Have you ever tried? I mean really tried? Because most computers can't do it. The "random" algorithms in a computer are not really random, they are pseudo-random. They create a number that is extremely difficult to predict in practice, but if you had absolute knowledge about the computer they would be predictable, because the "random" algorithm is, in reality, fully deterministic. The number is generated either through an algorithm that produces a number that is very hard to predict and/or base it on some physical stimulus, like temperature or time. In fact it fou initialize your "random" number generator with the same starting value (called a "seed"), it will always produce the same sequence of values, so it is, by definition, deterministic.

It is possible to make a truly random system if you base it on radioactive decay, but last I heard that was rare in anything other than extremely high-end systems with specialized hardware designed for the task. But even that case it is still really a fully deterministic computer program being fed random data.
---
Man Is The Lowest Cost, 150 Pound, Nonlinear, All-purpose Computer System Which Can Be Mass Produced By Unskilled Labor
-- NASA
#64ThuggernautzPosted 7/14/2013 1:51:21 PM
hunter_gohan posted...
That's only because breathing is an automatic thing done on the subconscious level for the most part already. You can override it for a bit, but it'll revert back to how it normally operates. People have driven cars while sleeping, so complex motor control isn't out of the question while unconscious. Tape a plastic bag around your head and see if that unconscious biology kicks in to save you after you pass out. Removing tape or simply poking a hole through the bag seems like it would be a lot easier than driving a car. I mean if this were true suicide would be impossible wouldn't it?


Hence why I specifically wrote 'without assistance'. The point being, there are many different constraints, physical, biological and chemical, which always supercede our free will. As such, we don't really have all that much freedom; though technology affords us more and more in that regard as time goes on. All in all, human behaviour is generally quite predictable; hence the many fields across many disciplines which take advantage of that fact.
#65hunter_gohanPosted 7/14/2013 2:24:15 PM
TheBlackCat13 posted...
Have you ever tried? I mean really tried? Because most computers can't do it. The "random" algorithms in a computer are not really random, they are pseudo-random. They create a number that is extremely difficult to predict in practice, but if you had absolute knowledge about the computer they would be predictable, because the "random" algorithm is, in reality, fully deterministic.


Hmm, yeah a random number was exactly what I was thinking about :/

Thuggernautz posted...
Hence why I specifically wrote 'without assistance'.


I thought you meant from other people :p My bad.
---
The food that stands on his [Odin's] table he gives to two wolves of his called Geri and Freki. He himself needs no food; wine is for him both drink and meat.
#66DonIcyPosted 7/24/2013 2:40:16 PM
TheBlackCat13 posted...
It is possible to make a truly random system if you base it on radioactive decay, but last I heard that was rare in anything other than extremely high-end systems with specialized hardware designed for the task. But even that case it is still really a fully deterministic computer program being fed random data.


Huh? What makes radioactive decay fully random?
---
IcyGuy ~Syndicate~
http://i.imgur.com/BI2H9dx.gif
#67kozlo100Posted 7/24/2013 2:58:31 PM
DonIcy posted...
Huh? What makes radioactive decay fully random?


The short answer: Quantum mechanics. It is impossible to predict when a single unstable atom will decay.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.
#68DonIcyPosted 7/26/2013 12:15:44 AM
kozlo100 posted...
DonIcy posted...
Huh? What makes radioactive decay fully random?


The short answer: Quantum mechanics. It is impossible to predict when a single unstable atom will decay.


Does that really mean true randomness though?

I always thought that if you recreate the exact same circumstances that began the universe, the exact same sequence of events would happen a second time, which in turn means randomness doesn't really exist. Maybe that hypothesis is wrong then? I'm really interested in this.

BTW I'm the TC.
---
IcyGuy ~Syndicate~
http://i.imgur.com/BI2H9dx.gif
#69kozlo100Posted 7/26/2013 9:38:30 AM
DonIcy posted...
Does that really mean true randomness though?

I always thought that if you recreate the exact same circumstances that began the universe, the exact same sequence of events would happen a second time, which in turn means randomness doesn't really exist. Maybe that hypothesis is wrong then? I'm really interested in this.


Current theory says yes. There's a couple 'hidden variable' type theories that say the action isn't really random, but they're not as well supported as established QM.

It's very probabilistic though, so while the decay of one atom is random and unpredictable, the Law of Large Numbers means that the decay of lots of atoms is very predictable.

So you restart the universe with the same conditions, individual atoms will decay at different times than the first version, but on larger scales than that, things will look the same.
---
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.