Cape Cod Institute
 
Behavior OnLine Forums  
The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals.
 
Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine.

Go Back   Behavior OnLine Forums > BOL Forums > Evolutionary Psychology

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 12:44 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
This is a poor analogy . . . the solar system is vastly simpler than a human brain, and it is absolutely the case that consciousness is an emergent property. I agree with Wiki that the word emergent is often misused, but here it is appropriate: a collective has properties which would not have been anticipated (and cannot be deterministically modelled) by a looking at the individual behavior of its components alone. Just because consciousness is emergent doesn't mean that will is free, however.
It's a perfect analogy for my POV. If by "cannot be deterministically modeled" you mean that it could not EVER, then I'd have to disagree and I doubt you can prove me wrong; someday I think I'll prove you wrong. The whole is merely the sum of its parts.

If you mean could not now, then I'd agree we can't today and my analogy is perfectly valid.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 01:57 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
The whole is merely the sum of its parts.
I'm sorry Tom but I think there's more to the picture here . . . even ant colony behavior, which is way, way simpler than human brain behavior, cannot be deterministically modelled. Some wholes are effectively greater than the sums of their parts.

Last edited by Carey N; May 14th, 2006 at 12:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 02:42 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
I'm sorry Tom but you're out of the loop in this area of science . . . even ant colony behavior, which is way, way simpler than human brain behavior, cannot be deterministically modelled (due to the influence of stochasticity . . . but it can be simulated - very different). Some wholes are greater than the sums of their parts.
That's OK, I'm comfortable being out of the loop. And I still believe in determinism; any 'extra' behavior has to come from 'somewhere'. Spooky action from a distance is physics but we can not yet explain why. Possibly due to other dimensions but we just don't have all the facts yet, therefore I think it's very premature to rule determinism out.

Regardless, the regret module is enough evidence for me that there is no free will. And the repression module is enough evidence that even if we had 'free' will, it would not be reliable since it would often be based on invalid 'facts'.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 03:12 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
I still believe in determinism; any 'extra' behavior has to come from 'somewhere'. Spooky action from a distance is physics but we can not yet explain why.
There's no spooky action from a distance going on . . . emergent properties are just a consequence of multiple individuals interacting in mathematicaly intractible ways. Collective decision making is a great example. If you want, I can send you a recent paper on this topic - let me know your email address.

The strict determinism paradigm has been out-grown in many fields of biology (but it has NOT been replaced with super-naturalism). Guys like Robert May illustrated decades ago that even very simple ecological systems can show chaotic dynamics which rapidly lose tractability. Again, I can send you relevant papers.

And lastly, non-determinism doesnt mean that will is free . . . I never said that. As I've intimated before, I'm pretty neutral on this matter and consider it to be a philosophic mind game. But do keep in mind that emergent properties can still be utterly dependent on the interactions between lower-level units and the environment. Stochasticity doesn't mean we're free, just that it's harder to trace what's going on.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 04:11 PM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
emergent properties are just a consequence of multiple individuals interacting in mathematicaly intractible ways
Thanks for your patience. I also appreciate that you're not supporting free will.

But, "intractable" just means difficult to manage. If the papers say the math would be difficult, I'm not arguing that. Nor am I arguing that we'll ever be able to determine what will happen next. I am arguing, though, that what will happen next must happen next, based on current conditions; there's nothing more that could have any effect. So, we COULD know the future of the universe if we had a computer that we'll never have. If the papers argue that the math is impossible without giving evidence, then I would say the emporer has no clothes and bide my time...

I even go so far as saying that the Uncertainty Principle is just ignorance on our parts. That's where other dimensions might come into effect.

If the papers argue against my point with some vestige of common sense, then please send me the links through the personal message interface in this forum.

Thanks!
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 05:20 PM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
If the papers say the math would be difficult, I'm not arguing that. Nor am I arguing that we'll ever be able to determine what will happen next. I am arguing, though, that what will happen next must happen next, based on current conditions
The idea is not that the math would be difficult - if that were the case, someone would have figured it out - but rather that some (suprisingly simple) systems cannot, even in principle, be described by deterministic equations. I appreciate the distinction you make, however, between our ability to predict the future, and the fact that the future is already determined by current conditions, which may be so vast that we could not possibly compile and process all the information necessary to make the relevant forecast. In this sense, yours and my interpretation of emergence and determinism may be different, in which case there may not be any disagreement after all. This seems to happen frequently with you and me, for some reason.

Let me re-examine the material I have on hand and see whether or not it addresses your questions. This may take a while as I'm tied up with other work, but if it turns out that you would like to see some of it, I will need your real email address, as the papers will not be accessible outside of the network into which I'm currently connected (i.e., I'll need to send you .pdf files).

-Carey
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Unread May 2nd, 2006, 08:54 PM
Fred H. Fred H. is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 483
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
Carey: The strict determinism paradigm has been out-grown in many fields of biology (but it has NOT been replaced with super-naturalism). Guys like Robert May illustrated decades ago that even very simple ecological systems can show chaotic dynamics which rapidly lose tractability. Again, I can send you relevant papers.
Maybe those involved in various fields of biology are presumptuous enough to think they have “outgrown” determinism, but let’s face it Carey, biology isn’t a hard physical science, and biologist aren’t physicists—undoubtedly, the objective mathematical truth and actual hard physical science of physics will always trump whatever circular tautologies that the philosophers of biology conjure up in their attempt to explain what they don’t truly understand.

Contrary to what many believe, “chaos” is not randomness, nor is it a lack of determinism—it’s a result of complexity and non-linearity, and the result is that the behaviors of chaotic systems are, in practice, very difficult or impossible to predict—e.g., the weather.

All the known laws of nature/physics are deterministic, including the evolution of quantum wave function, although there is that annoying “measurement problem” (and the so-called uncertainty thing) whenever we attempt to measure the position/momentum of a quanta, at which point those pesky probabilities appear to come into play—it’s an odd thing that everything we actually “know” about the classical world is deterministic, and yet at the foundation of our classical world, the quantum world, there “appears” to be this randomness and probabilities, albeit only when we attempt to “measure” the position/momentum of the “wave-particle.”

However, since we know of nothing that is truly random at the classical level, and since probabilities are always, ultimately, only an attempted quantification of our ignorance; and since there are many unexplained things happening at the quantum level, we have to conclude that all the evidence strongly indicates that the apparent randomness and the resulting probabilities that emerge whenever “measurements” are attempted, are merely a measurement/quantification of our ignorance of what is actually happening at the quantum level . . . after all, that’s why they call it a measurement “problem.”

So anyway Carey, the actual real science and real evidence tells us that all the natural laws of our world are deterministic. Thus, Fred’s First Theorem: Randomness is an illusion; ignorance, however, is real.

OK Carey, pop quiz: What are the odds that TomJ will be pissing himself as he attempts to nail me on what he mistakenly perceives an inconsistency/contradiction in my conviction that we evolved humans have freewill on the one hand, and that the known natural laws of our universe are deterministic on the other?

Last edited by Fred H.; May 2nd, 2006 at 09:10 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Unread May 3rd, 2006, 05:39 AM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
OK Carey, pop quiz: What are the odds that TomJ will be pissing himself as he attempts to nail me on what he mistakenly perceives an inconsistency/contradiction in my conviction that we evolved humans have freewill on the one hand, and that the known natural laws of our universe are deterministic on the other?
It's either 0.999, or 0.001 . . . depending on how exasperated he feels at the moment. As you point out, one cannot obtain all of the information required to make a precise prediction.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Unread May 3rd, 2006, 06:11 AM
Carey N Carey N is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 138
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

I think we're talking about two different aspects of science: you're speaking of principles, and I'm speaking of practice. Yes, everything is determined, in the sense of which you're speaking. But practically, some processes cannot be modeled or understood deterministically . . . that's what I'm talking about. Eusocial insect colony behavior is a very concrete example of this, as is the weather.


Quote:
Fred: “chaos” is not randomness, nor is it a lack of determinism—it’s a result of complexity and non-linearity, and the result is that the behaviors of chaotic systems are, in practice, very difficult or impossible to predict—e.g., the weather.
I've expressed the same principle in a different post:


Quote:
Carey: Stochasticity doesn't mean we're free, just that it's harder to trace what's going on.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Unread May 3rd, 2006, 08:33 AM
TomJrzk TomJrzk is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Dallas
Posts: 257
Default Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carey N
It's either 0.999, or 0.001
It's the latter. I don't expect Fred to be consistent; his inconsistency is why he is wrong. So, I appreciate where his randomness agrees with my philosophy and roll my eyes in understanding when it doesn't.

His rudeness (implying that I have no control over my body, among many other things) indicates to me that he already knows he's wrong.

Oh, one of the reasons you and I probably confuse each other is that you have incorporated terms into your vocabulary to the point where you assume nuances that I don't get from literal translations. For instance "Stochasticity" seems to be just an antonym for 'determinism' and you used it in your description of determinism: "cannot be deterministically modelled (due to the influence of stochasticity . . . but it can be simulated - very different)". But this is a great conversation!
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.3
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.