Well, we know how external stimuli come about - the photon connects with the retina, the retina’s connected to the optic nerve, the optic nerve’s connected to the brain. (Dem bones dem bones, dry bones! ) That’s pretty clearly fairly deterministic, at least with regard to the piping of information from our extremities to our brain; however it’s anyone’s guess whether the universe being observed has any significant random elements, and of course the occasional random element could be introduced via random errors in transmission (though presumably such errors would be almost too fleeting to notice).
I’m no brain specialist, but it’s my understanding that out thoughts are encoded in the electrochemical reactions of our brains, which run continuously from sometime before birth until we die, with the rare hiccup from accident or surgery for some people. Presumably the process by which throughts are encoded and evolved over time (via interaction with other thoughts, memories, and information) is largely deterministic, being a materialistic process that doesn’t seem too inundated with randomity, however there is a possibility that a certain amount of random error does occur in the process. (It might be largely corrected for, though.)
I’m not accounting for some magic ‘spark’ that pumps out nonrandom nondeterminism, since I don’t see any compelling reason to believe or pretend such a thing is possible.
Which means that your desire to avoid the consequence is stronger than your desire to enjoy the ice cream. Every seeming “choice” is really a clash of competing desires.
Right, but you don’t get to select between the two options. Both of those go into your decision, as well as many other things. But there is no way, given the same exact situation, that you would ever be able to decide differently. However many options you have, supported by however many wants, likes and dislikes, there will be one overall want - the thing you want most to do - and it will be that that you do.
Just because you’re choosing between two things that both have support doesn’t mean you actually get the choice. In order to do that, you would have to in some situations do the things you most do not want to do, and that’s impossible, thankfully.
We don’t actually know that there’s no nondeterminism-aka-randomity in the system; perhaps as part of every decision your brain ‘flips a coin’ (or more likely, flips a few hundred coins, as random misfires occur in your neurons) so that if your real interests are extremely ambivalent about something, with all the options being about evenly preferable, the small margin of random error might flip the decision to one side or the other. This wouldn’t happen if you actually cared about the issue, as a small variance in calculated option preference wouldn’t make any difference.
This doesn’t add up to a ‘magic’ willed-nondeterminism spark, though. It just means that if we’re existing in a universe where randomity can occur, then our decision-making processess might be slightly effected by this randomity as well.
Ah, but the setup of the brain and the neurons in it isn’t random in the first place. The prone to error-ness of neurons isn’t random, or so I thought. It may not be a cause we can follow all the way through, but I don’t think the brain can make any truly random decision, should it just be a piece of calculating meat, anyway.
How do we escape the conclusion that everything is just futile (do we escape it at all?) I’m not trying to argue an appeal to consequences, but if the choices we think we are making are ordained by mechanically inevitable interactions of stuff that just happens, and isn’t under our control, how does that not lead to a bleak fatalistic conclusion that we’re just dumb puppets in the universe’s automatic puppet show?
I think you misunderstand the distinction I was making between function and mapping (although the term relation is more accurate than mapping; more below).
I’m sorry that you feel like I “accused”; I had thought that I did a decent job at not doing so (for what else can “please note that I’m simply prompting exploration of this” mean?) Look, I’m pretty sure that I’m not gonna be the one who synthesizes an answer. While I’d like to believe I’m not stupid, it’s clear to me that I also have no place in the pantheon of great philosophers. With that whining out of the way, an argument from authority is still a fallacy. However, you’re right that some explanation is required and that you do not bear the burden of proof. As I’ve said, I’m in the mechanistic, illusory camp for the most part myself (and for just those reasons).
But let me try again…and here’s warning that this is probably going to be tedious (I think the tedium is necessary for clarity’s sake, so I hope you’ll bear with me). You say:
Let’s posit that an (apparent) choice is made. Each of the factors (inputs, from here on) may itself be internal or external, physical or mental, caused or uncaused. By using the term relation, I am explictly avoiding qualities of functions such as injection, surjection, and invertibility (aka bijection; definitions included below, or see Wikipedia).
In mathematical terms, if a relation is non-injective, there’s no way to determine what the inputs were. In other words, there’s no way to deterministically “backtrace” a decision’s causes. On the other hand, given that you’ve allowed the possibility of an “uncaused cause”, the relation may be non-surjective. In other words, we may very well only be able to determine partial causation (if that).
So let’s say that yes, there’s a regress. It’s not clear to me that it is necessarily an infinite regress, nor is it clear to me that it is necessarily deterministic. But again, I understand that this doesn’t rise to the burden of proof you desire. In actuality, I’m not sure that burden of proof is even possible, as once qualities like injection and surjection are thrown away, I don’t think the relation can be expressed via any sound and consistent system (hence the reason I said “But that’s something imposed on the system to satisfy mathematical rigor, not a guaranteed reflection of reality”).
One last thought for this post, as it has taken me a terribly long time to prepare: it is (theoretically) possible to define a relation as an exhaustive enumeration. Admittedly useless in this discussion, except as an objection to impossibility.
Drat! On preview:
Might I ask why that’s the case? At some point in the regression, isn’t it possible that the cause is not a “want”, but some other set of causes? The fact that the causes further back in the chain are not “wants” themselves doesn’t eradicate the autonomy of the “want” at the top of the heap. Does it?
Definitions used above:
[ul]
[li]Invertible: there is a unique set of inputs that yields the specified output[/li][li]Injection: every output is the result of a unique input[/li][li]Surjection: every output is the result of at least one input (although the mapping may be non-unique)[/li][/ul]
I’m a smart puppet, thank-you-very-much. My meat-machine brain processes data at least as well as the average slab of steak.
But let me turn your question around and ask, what’s so fatalistic about the idea that you’re a calculating machine? You’re a calculating machine with wants, needs, and desires, and by satisfying those you can increase your quality of life. That’s how the game is played, see. If you’re happy, you’re winning. Content counts for that too. If you’re unhappy, you need to work on your strategy some.
I’m not sure how the determinism effects any of that, really. Do you have some other problem? With the meat-machine’s tendency not to suggest an afterlife, maybe? That would just mean it’s more important to think about the immidiate and near future, than far-away times in a fictional fantasyland, is all.
Ah but will we ever be given the same exact situation? Isn’t each moment a slightly different situation, and, because of that, each choice, illusion or not, is built upon the results and consequences of previous choices.
You’re right, the thing we most want at each moment. That can vary based on the consequences of previous choices and how we view them.
That’s a lot of what spiritual teachings are based on. Interesting? relevant? To me, yes.
Because it doesn’t feel like that’s what it’s like. We feel as though we do get to make decisions. I certainly believe that everything is determined, that the universe is set on one course and that we’re just along for the ride. But i’m still happy when I get to see my friends. Because of the very automatic Universe Show itself I can’t say “Oh, well, it’s all pointless. Meh to everything”, because i’m absorbed in the role, to continue the analogy.
Besides, pretty much no-one would say that how you feel is up to you, free will or no. We don’t get to decide that because things are inevitable, we don’t have to feel unhappiness when someone dies or bad things happen. We just feel them.
Oh yes, certainly. The passage of time alone pretty much means that’s out.
But those previous choices were also affected by this. And those choices in turn were affected by choices and so on and so forth up until the point at which we made our first choices, which were probably dictated to us as “hey, food over here, please”.
Right. In fact, it can change based on the mere churning of the electricity in your brain as time passes; even if you weren’t actively trying to think about the question at that time, the playing field is still different when the decision is actually made.
I’ve never seen a spiritual teaching that’s based on this, that I recognized as being so, though.
Function ConsciousDecision(Topic as String, Variables as Array)
DecisionConfidence as Double
Dim iVarOne as Integer
Dim Urgency as Double
Dim TimeStamp as Date
Dim Result as Array
Result = Random * Mood 'Modifying
Urgency = Random * (Boss’sBloodPressure/Projects) * (CupsofCoffee/HoursSleep)
DecisionConfidence = 0
TimeStamp = DateTime
Do Until DecisionConfidence * Urgency = .97
Result (iVarOne,1) = Result + (Variables (iVarOne,1) * Variables(iVarTwo,2))
DecisionConfidence=DecisionConfidence+ Variables (iVarOne,3)
iVarOne = iVarOne + 1
Call GutCheck(Result, DecisionConfidence, iVarOne)
If (DateTime – TimeStamp) * Urgency = 200 then
DecisionConfidence = 1
End If
Loop
Return Result
End Function
Function GutCheck(Result as Array, DecisionConfidence as Double, iVarOne as Integer)
Call WriteBodyState(Result, DecisionConfidence, iVarOne)
Result(iVarOne,1) = Result(iVarOne,1) * (RelevantMemory/time) * EmotionalWeight
End Function
Function WriteBodyState(Result as Array, DecisionConfidence as Double, iVarOne as Integer)
Okay; I think I get the gist of what you are saying. I guess my question to you would be, in a non-surjective relation, what determines the value of the output?
But if we can deliberate, and make our own lives (and those of others better) through our choices, then the fact that these deliberations and their outcome are predetermined doesn’t detract overmuch from their value, IMO.
For one thing, it doesn’t feel mechanical, for another pleasurable experiences and feelings are still pleasurable and for a third thing, there’s always curiosity. We can keep playing and watching just to see what happens next.
They’re cloaked in so much religious jargon it’s easy to miss. It’s the whole thing of becoming enlightened or more conscious so our choices in the moment are not so influenced by subconscious motives. Also the thing Rev said about
is a lot of what Jesus was talking about. He taught that rather than thinking a superficial obedience to rules was good enough we must be proactive in observing and changing what we most want.
) That’s pretty clearly fairly deterministic, at least with regard to the piping of information from our extremities to our brain; however it’s anyone’s guess whether the universe being observed has any significant random elements, and of course the occasional random element could be introduced via random errors in transmission (though presumably such errors would be almost too fleeting to notice).