The gathering place for Mental Health and
Applied Behavior Science Professionals. Become a charter member of Behavior OnLine. |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
If you mean could not now, then I'd agree we can't today and my analogy is perfectly valid. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
Last edited by Carey N; May 14th, 2006 at 12:52 PM.. |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
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'. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
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. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
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! |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
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 |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
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.. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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:
Quote:
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Evolved Psychology - Brain Region Tied to Regret Identified
Quote:
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! |
|
|