Are we ourselves or just a reflection of our surroundings? - General

I've been thinking about this for quite some time. We see examples of it everyday, racists, sexists, and just "bad" people in general, but who is truly responsible for their behaviour and mindset? When we're born are we a blank canvas ready to be painted by our surroundings, or are our opinions and stimuli for future actions pre-determined?

Judging by how evolution so mercilessly created the predator next to its victims. How every cell in our entire body was forged by the remnants of a star. How the history of the entire universe can be calculated to be 13.7 billion years where from chaos it created order and life. It seems to me, that the pre-determination is as logical as an axiom. We simply experience time as a result of being conscious and having to make decisions that's really mathematically pre-determined.

While that could be deemed true to an extent, I want to think about examples we can relate to. Lets think of an influentual person, such as Adolf Hitler. If we put a completely different genetic person in his place, but gave him the exact same upbringing (same parents, same finacial situation, same geographic location) would he have thought the same things, and done the same things that Adolf Hitler did? This can also go on to ask if free will actually exists.

Free will is an illusion, there can only be one answer to an axiom.

We make choices, but these choices are wholly determined by the entire's universe's state, through the laws it obeys.

[QUOTE=Memnoth;45707070]Judging by how evolution so mercilessly created the predator next to its victims. How every cell in our entire body was forged by the remnants of a star. How the history of the entire universe can be calculated to be 13.7 billion years where from chaos it created order and life. It seems to me, that the pre-determination is as logical as an axiom. We simply experience time as a result of being conscious and having to make decisions that's really mathematically pre-determined.[/QUOTE] Doesn't non-determinism at a quantum scale invalidate that view? Also models such as the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics provide subjective non-determinism in that all possible futures exist, even though the entire system is deterministic from an external point of reference.

Offtopic, but are ratings disabled in this subforum?

[QUOTE=mochisushi;45708067]Offtopic, but are ratings disabled in this subforum?[/QUOTE] I believe so, and it makes sense since if ratings were enabled there could be biased responses.

[QUOTE=Memnoth;45707070]Judging by how evolution so mercilessly created the predator next to its victims. How every cell in our entire body was forged by the remnants of a star. How the history of the entire universe can be calculated to be 13.7 billion years where from chaos it created order and life. It seems to me, that the pre-determination is as logical as an axiom. We simply experience time as a result of being conscious and having to make decisions that's really mathematically pre-determined.[/QUOTE] We're not predetermined. If you were to start the universe again it would almost certainly evolve in a different way during inflation. These random quantum fluctuations should not be misinterpreted as free will, however. We definitely don't control randomness, so the essence of what you are saying is correct.

[QUOTE=Falubii;45708124]We're not predetermined. If you were to start the universe again it would almost certainly evolve in a different way during inflation. These random quantum fluctuations should not be misinterpreted as free will, however. We definitely don't control randomness, so the essence of what you are saying is correct.[/QUOTE] Although quantum fluctuations in of themselves do not constitute free will, it is their ability to cloud an event from prediction until after the fact which causes what we would refer to free will. Free will in essence is just a name for the function by which an independent agent or system can come to a result which is largely self dependent, and not predictable without knowlege of their entire system. Pre-determinacy conjures feelings of helplessness and the negation of free will but the reality is that there neednt be such a divide. The way I see it free will is a function of humans that is described largely socially. It is a manner by which we speak about eachother in order to place blame and praise. We isolate the system known as a person and then assume you do not have all given information about said person. Once that is done, regardless of what actions went into the formation of that person, the person can now be considered to have free will. The reason is because as we observe him we will find that he will make small gestures and decisions that were otherwise unpredictable by us. Furthermore, we judge him, his system, by actions produced by it. A common line of argument against this is that humans are inherently predictable as we can measure their brain patterns an nanosecond before they do something. This, I believe, is a cop-out. Just because you are able to associate an action or emotion with a electro-chemical state does not mean that you can therefore predict all future states. You simply do not have the correct information. Suppose for a second that free will exists, and so do mind readers. A person decides to pick up a cup, and of course he thinks about it microseconds before he goes to pick it up. The mindreader nearby notices this and calls out that the man will pick up the cup. Has the mind-reader really foiled his free-will? Or is it the case that even superior knowledge does not discount the existence of free will within the natural moment. Although knowledge was had about the action, the action itself was still guided by free will. Ultimately free will is the ability for a person(no matter how they were brought about to that moment) to make a decision unbeknownst to a scrutineer. This ability will likely exist as long as we are not able to accurately model quantum interactions, and thus accurately predict years ahead of time what one person will do. And then, even if we do such, will that really retrospectively remove the free will from us all? Regardless of whether someone predicts us, it is still US, our system, which is producing the result.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45708712]Ultimately free will is the ability for a person(no matter how they were brought about to that moment) to make a decision unbeknownst to a scrutineer. This ability will likely exist as long as we are not able to accurately model quantum interactions, and thus accurately predict years ahead of time what one person will do. [/QUOTE] This doesn't sound like a very objective definition, so would you agree that what defines free will is subjective?

We are a reflection of our surroundings, but our surroundings are a reflection of us.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45709419]This doesn't sound like a very objective definition, so would you agree that what defines free will is subjective?[/QUOTE] All definitions and language are made subjectively at some level. I cant think of what an objective definition would be if provided by a person.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45711952]All definitions and language are made subjectively at some level. I cant think of what an objective definition would be if provided by a person.[/QUOTE] Not all definitions, for instance mathematical definitions are not subjective as if they were mutable they would refer to different mathematical objects. But that's a bit tangential. It seems we agree that the concept of free will is a subjective human invention. It occurs to me that your personal definition for it, as it was described, would also apply to a computer that uses measurements taken from an internal non-deterministic source while operating. Would you permit that computer to have free will, or do you require extra functionality?

[QUOTE=Ziks;45715530]Not all definitions, for instance mathematical definitions are not subjective as if they were mutable they would refer to different mathematical objects. But that's a bit tangential. It seems we agree that the concept of free will is a subjective human invention. It occurs to me that your personal definition for it, as it was described, would also apply to a computer that uses measurements taken from an internal non-deterministic source while operating. Would you permit that computer to have free will, or do you require extra functionality?[/QUOTE] Free will can come in degrees I believe. Same as consciousness. You can be more or less conscious the same way you can be more or less free. A computer could theoretically have free will, but the range of it's expression is arguably much more limited than a person, and so thus is relatively less free in it's will. Ultimate free will would be something akin to lucid dreaming I would reckon.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45718329]Free will can come in degrees I believe. Same as consciousness. You can be more or less conscious the same way you can be more or less free.[/QUOTE] Totally agreeable. [QUOTE]A computer could theoretically have free will, but the range of it's expression is arguably much more limited than a person, and so thus is relatively less free in it's will.[/QUOTE] Wouldn't that depend on the sophistication of the software it was running? Or are computers inherently more limited than the human brain, no matter the hardware / software?

[QUOTE=Ziks;45718362]Totally agreeable. Wouldn't that depend on the sophistication of the software it was running? Or are computers inherently more limited than the human brain, no matter the hardware / software?[/QUOTE] A computer, if taken to be meant as something which can process, send, recieve and store information, is just a concept. A human brain is a complex system of information which processes and stores, sends and recieves. A brain is a very complicated example of a computer, so complicated infact that instead of refering to it as computer, we refer to it as a mind. My main line of reasoning regarding theism is that the highest level entity is another example of a highly advanced computer which we ought to refer to as a mind due to it's complexity. This I suppose leads into how epistemic properties transfer between groups. If we are in some way part and dependent upon the highest level entity's system, then we are a part of it. A computer within a computer. Now if the lower level mind is aware of itself, and perhaps even arguably of the higher level mind. Then could it be said that the higher level mind is aware of itself? [editline]17th August 2014[/editline] I am intentionally avoiding speculation about the higher level minds thoughts and intentions because I know there is not much I could say to argue for such matters. Ultimately I would break it down by consequences and derive reasonable conclusions about the highest level entity's will. An example of this is that pleasure clearly isn't being upheld as the an inalienable thing, so it seems clear that pleasure is not the goal.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45718445]A computer, if taken to be meant as something which can process, send, recieve and store information, is just a concept. A human brain is a complex system of information which processes and stores, sends and recieves. A brain is a very complicated example of a computer, so complicated infact that instead of refering to it as computer, we refer to it as a mind. My main line of reasoning regarding theism is that the highest level entity is another example of a highly advanced computer which we ought to refer to as a mind due to it's complexity.[/QUOTE] Could you remind me of your reasoning for assuming that the highest level entity is not only complex enough, but also has the correct configuration of that complexity to possess anything like a mind? [QUOTE]This I suppose leads into how epistemic properties transfer between groups. If we are in some way part and dependent upon the highest level entity's system, then we are a part of it. A computer within a computer. Now if the lower level mind is aware of itself, and perhaps even arguably of the higher level mind. Then could it be said that the higher level mind is aware of itself?[/QUOTE] I think we need to appreciate what the scope of awareness of each mind is. Our minds appear to only be aware of abstract representations of our physical environment as interpreted by our senses, an awareness that does not extend back to before our existence. While I agree that we can say the universe has become sentient (because it now contains minds), I don't think we can say it was sentient before any minds existed. [QUOTE]I am intentionally avoiding speculation about the higher level minds thoughts and intentions because I know there is not much I could say to argue for such matters.[/QUOTE] Although I disagree with your assumption that it is a mind, that stance seems rational when taking its sentience as an axiom.

[QUOTE=Ziks;45719382]Could you remind me of your reasoning for assuming that the highest level entity is not only complex enough, but also has the correct configuration of that complexity to possess anything like a mind? [/quote] Well for starters, all of existence must be processed and maintained by this entity. Thus any complexity which exists is only but part of this entity, which leads me to believe that this entity is highly complex. Furthermore, seeings as the definition of mind is not something mathematically objective, then there is no good grounds to draw the line between a computer and a mind, and a mind and a supermind. Ultimately, the reasoning for why this is a mind is because it is a highly complex information processing, storing, inputing and outputing system. Although, depending on how you draw object boundaries, this entity may infact just be processing, instead of 'inputing and outputting'. This mind is aware of all things as it must neccesarily interact with them to maintain their existence. [quote] I think we need to appreciate what the scope of awareness of each mind is. Our minds appear to only be aware of abstract representations of our physical environment as interpreted by our senses, an awareness that does not extend back to before our existence. While I agree that we can say the universe has become sentient (because it now contains minds), I don't think we can say it was sentient before any minds existed. [/quote] I do not see it as radically unreasonable that the highest level entity too would have abstract representations of the things it interacts with, as a part of the way it interacts with them. We are but simple processing beings, yet we have these experiences to accompany what many people argue is just dead interactions of molecules. If we are but dead complex interactions and we have experience, why would an even more complex system (which is 'dead') not too have some sort of abstract representation contained therein? Also, suppose that the information required for describing all aspects of a person's sentience was able to be recorded upon an unchanging thing. A flashdrive for example. Would sentience exist by nature of it functioning mathematically within the description? Or would it just be a false description of sentience? If something implies all informational states of something else, then can it not be substituted as such? [quote] Although I disagree with your assumption that it is a mind, that stance seems rational when taking its sentience as an axiom.[/QUOTE] It seems to me we have just as much grounds to call eachother a mind as we do to call the highest level entity a mind. We both process information in such a way that produces complex internal simulation.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45719554]Well for starters, all of existence must be processed and maintained by this entity. Thus any complexity which exists is only but part of this entity, which leads me to believe that this entity is highly complex. [/QUOTE] this is highly circular and as the base of the rest of your argument I feel like your entire argument is then circular.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45719562]this is highly circular and as the base of the rest of your argument I feel like your entire argument is then circular.[/QUOTE] This entity processes all of existence Something which processes all of existence must neccesarily contain the complexity of all existence. Something which contains the complexity of all existence is complex. Therefore this entity is complex. I don't think so.

But the assumption that entity exists is based on the assumption something has to process it. I see this as highly circular

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45719596]But the assumption that entity exists is based on the assumption something has to process it. I see this as highly circular[/QUOTE] You still haven't established that; Existence is true If existence is true then there must be an entity which allows existence to be true. Something which allows existence to be true must be aware of all existence (process/output all existence) Something which processes all existence must contain the complexity of all existence (in order for it to process it, although perhaps there are some temporal features to this) Something which contains the complexity of all existence must be highly complex. Therefore there is an entity which is highly complex.

[QUOTE=Zenreon117;45719630]You still haven't established that; Existence is true If existence is true then there must be an entity which allows existence to be true. Something which allows existence to be true must be aware of all existence (process/output all existence) Something which processes all existence must contain the complexity of all existence (in order for it to process it, although perhaps there are some temporal features to this) Something which contains the complexity of all existence must be highly complex. Therefore there is an entity which is highly complex.[/QUOTE] How is your second point in that NOT a circular assumption?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45719643]How is your second point I that NOT a circular assumption?[/QUOTE] If there is a boot in my yard there must be a reason there is a boot in my yard..... [editline]17th August 2014[/editline] That seems like simple logical inference to me, maybe I am wrong.

So you've clearly solved a problem many serious philosophers have been dealing with for decades and centuries in an unarguable way then? You'll just go with the watchmakers argument as the best one? Okay, but you not acknowledging it's circular doesn't make it not circular

I suppose I could rephrase the second one to; If existence is true then there must be an entity that is neccesary, and is inherently interlinked with existence as such.

But that's a circular assumption still.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;45719663]So you've clearly solved a problem many serious philosophers have been dealing with for decades and centuries in an unarguable way then? You'll just go with the watchmakers argument as the best one? Okay, but you not acknowledging it's circular doesn't make it not circular[/QUOTE] I did not use watchmakers, I used simple deduction. If an apple falls off a tree, there must be a reason the apple falls off the tree. I cannot fathom how you can disagree with that sort of reasoning.

Because "the apple fell off the tree therefore god exists because he made the apple fall" is purely circular