[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 98 KB, 800x634, neurons.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6197497 No.6197497 [Reply] [Original]

Please disprove neurochemical determinism. How are we not just complex "machines", our observations and thoughts being just a direct result of the flow of neurochemistry in a specific manner? I know quantum mechanics are indeterministic but it's not like we can manipulate the QM happening in our brains, it just happens according to the laws of physics.

>> No.6197513

>but it's not like we can manipulate the QM happening in our brains

Says who?

>> No.6197516

>>6197497
There is no evidence for determinism at any level of reduction.

>> No.6197540

>How are we not just complex "machines"

We are, who says different? (inb4 gawd)

> I know quantum mechanics are indeterministic

You said your proof by yourself, if something is indeterministic, then it certainly isn't deterministic. Even though we don't control our QM they are still unpredictable to a degree, therefore making determinism wrong. The truth for now is somewhere in between our actions are governed by random events that are out of our control, making it kind of a indeterministic determinism.

Determinism will be proven right or wrong, when we are able (if ever) to make a 1on1 artifical humanoid robot and see how it behaves.

>> No.6197541

>>6197513

You can manipulate the actions of sub atomic particles in your brains?

>> No.6197550

How about u prove it first.

>> No.6197552

You can't prove or disprove any metaphysical idea.

>> No.6197599

>>6197552
It's not just metaphysical. Free will is obviously about having or not having control over what happens in the brain. Do we just act as virtually nonexistant passive observers for what our neurochemistry + QM happens to be spewing out?

Goddammit I hate how qualia is so mystifying.

>> No.6198098

>>6197541 Related talk, watched it a year ago, had some interesting stuff in it not sure if it's just full of bs though: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXFFbxoHp3s

>> No.6198122

>>6197599

>Do we just act as virtually nonexistant passive observers

But why would we as conscious observers even exist if we are simply passive observers. It makes no sense that our conscious even exists if we don't have a say in our actions.

>> No.6198142

>>6197516
Bullshit. Quantum Mechanics is clearly non-deterministic. No experiment has shown otherwise yet.

>> No.6198143

>>6198122
because quantum is determined by observation and therefore requires some form of awareness. consciousness is a component of our existential function

>> No.6198175

First of all, we dont KNOW that quantum mechanics are indeterminate. Yes, you are a complex machine, the fact that you are looking to validate your conscious being on this board should be enough for you. But in the end it doesn't really matter whether you are conscious or not does it?

>> No.6198185

>>6197540
/thread

>> No.6198201

>>6197599
Why does determinism in any way contradict free will?

I'm not really sure how being predictable (with a sufficiently insane, unrealistic level of measurement and data) has anything to do with the problem.

If I go to a bakery, I may choose between, say, rolls and a cookie. I happen to prefer rolls, but I also value variety, and depending on how I'm feeling that day I might choose a cookie, or maybe the smell of cookies will remind me of my childhood and I'll pick it instead. And if you knew me well enough, and knew the bakery well enough, you could probably predict that, and if you had an exact mathematical computer model of my brain and could perfectly replicate those sensory inputs then you could predict the exact neurons that would fire, the exact durations, everything - perfectly, and if you had an exact mathematical model of the whole universe (assuming that over short timescales, QM unpredictability isn't a major factor) you could probably predict it even before I was born. (Or maybe you couldn't; a lot of super-early development stuff probably depends on brownian motion.)

But that doesn't change the fact that I made the decision to buy a cookie.

>> No.6198217

>>6198201
The argument that the ultimately mechanical nature of human beings in any way disproves free will is exactly the same, fundamentally, as the argument (which I've actually heard from real people) that atheists can't feel love because "it's all just chemicals to them."

It's stupid, and obviously wrong, and it's stupid and wrong for the exact same reasons. It fundamentally stems from the fact that you're requiring something to be supernatural to be real. If you believe that the definition of love inherently requires it be something greater than "mere chemicals" , something spiritual, in order to be real - that love IS supernatural, a function of "soul" - then it seems obvious that a chemical definition of love is somehow "wrong" and "not real."

Likewise with free will, you're still retaining the supernatural, soul-based elements of the definition. "Do we just act as virtually nonexistant passive observers for what our neurochemistry + QM happens to be spewing out?"

"Observer" , in this case, again comes from the misguided - and unconscious - fusion of the "soul" with scientific ideas. There is no little man in the skull, no soul in the heart, no "observer" - we ARE what our "neurochemistry + QM spews out" , not an "observer" of it. We are not helpless puppets, trapped in a body - we ARE a body.

Free will IS real. You just have unrealistic expectations of what "real" means.

>> No.6198221

Whether or not its chemicals in your head or your "soul" - if a chemical reaction occurs in your brain and you feel love what does it matter where it came from?

>> No.6198246

>>6198175
>First of all, we dont KNOW that quantum mechanics are indeterminate.
Actually, we are in fact quite sure that quantum mechanics is deterministic, yet fundamentally unpredictable to any being inside the universe.

>> No.6198311

ITT Nigawats can't into ideas.

Quantum mechanics "is" "indeterminable" to us. That doesn't mean that at the smallest level it doesn't follow strick, deterministic rules. We can't just know what those rules are.

It's highly improbable that a god exists. Similarly it's highly improbable that things happen without a reason.

>> No.6198328

>>6198311
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

Technically there could still be non-local hidden variables, I guess.

>> No.6198334

>>6197497
>neurochemical determinism

Nobody cares how you sugarcoat your philosophy questions. Now fuck off.

>> No.6198578

Good luck reconciling your free will with neurochemical determinism.

>> No.6198630

>>6198578
See Above.

>> No.6198659

The thing that goes by the name "consciousness", only one of it exists in the universe. For any vision wherein which more than one exists, unsolvable problems quickly become apparent.

>> No.6198848
File: 240 KB, 648x1214, 20130815.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6198848

>>6197497

>> No.6198859

A functionalist theory of mind does not account for qualia and intentionality. Where does the itchiness of an itch come from? It's impossible to describe qualia in terms of functional states as they are inherently subjective and private, while functional states are inherently objective and public.

inb4 Wittgenstein

>> No.6198877

>>6198859
>A functionalist theory of mind does not account for qualia and intentionality.

Qualia. No.

As for intentionality, textbooks on the paleomammalian brain cover than.
Experiments involving deep brain stimulation and data acquired by a combination of MRi and PET support that assertion.

>> No.6198905

>>6198859
>>6198877

There’s this spot about two inches into the back of your head, if you drill into it you lose your “Qualia.”

>> No.6198910

>>6198859
>functionalist theory of mind does not account for qualia

Why can't it? I don't really understand this either. Are you telling me I should be able to understand what "int" feels like to my computer? Human brain has a bunch of complicated internal states, and is able to examine its own thought processes. This is a situation where "qualia" obviously arise.

>> No.6198920

>>6198859
You're saying a lot of words, but I don't see any reason why they're actually true.

"A functionalist theory of mind can totally account for qualia and intentionality. That's where the itchiness of an itch come from? It's quite possible to describe qualia in terms of functional states; although they seem inherently subjective and private, while functional states are inherently objective and public, this is really just a function of the "Black Box" nature of the brain to ordinary human senses, and internal states arise logically from the way the brain applies sensations to internal as well as external states"

See? I can boldly assert intuitive-seeming proclamations without evidence too!

>> No.6198931

>>6198920
>Evidence

It's a rationalist, not empiricist, claim. Qualia is subjective and private by definition, while brain states/functional states are objective and public by definition. As per the identity of indiscernibles, qualia cannot be a physical state.

>> No.6198937

Qualia?

You are ALL philosophical zombies (p-zombie)

>> No.6198940

>>6198931
I thereby assert that your definition of "qualia" is faulty and not particularly useful. I could just as easily use that argument to assert that the "gravitational theory of matter" is false, because matter by definition is pushed down by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, and so if there was gravity things would have to fall twice as fast.

>> No.6198951

>>6198940
>there are no true definitions of words

I called it, go to sleep Wittgenstein.

>> No.6198961

>>6197497
>russell's teapot

>> No.6198964

>>6198951
I'm not sure where I implied that. I stated that your definition did not apply to any real object or state.

(This has nothing to do with truth or falsity - words like "gryphon" , "mithril" , and "Russel's Teapot" all have fairly well-agreed-upon definitions, despite none of those definitions being definitions for real things.)

Pulling from Wikipedia,
"Qualia (/ˈkwɑːliə/ or /ˈkweJliə/; singular form: quale (Latin pronunciation: [ˈkwaːle]) is a term used in philosophy to refer to individual instances of subjective, conscious experience. The term derives from a Latin word meaning for "what sort" or "what kind". Examples of qualia are the pain of a headache, the taste of wine, or the perceived redness of an evening sky."

I am perfectly willing to go with this definition. However, I do not understand why "subjective" experiences cannot stem from objective reality, and I suspect this is because you and I disagree on the definition of one of the words in the above copy-pasted paragraph. When I examine my thinking, I find no contradiction between the above definition and a purely-physical brain-is-the-mind; but you do find a contradiction there. Assuming that we are both sane, then we must be reasoning from different premises, which means that if you also agree on the above sequence of words defining qualia, then we disagree on the definition of one of those words.

>> No.6198977

>>6197516
There is no evidence for anything other than determinism you religious twat.

>> No.6198981

>>6198977
Why does determinism imply religion?

>> No.6198984

>>6198848
> pain
> chemical reaction
> not a physical reaction

Not to imply that I didn't expect a webcomic writer to have an IQ above 50

>> No.6198991

>>6198984
Pain's a chemical reaction. So's reproduction.

>> No.6198995

>>6198977
>>6198981
Determinism is rooted in religion. Religitards want to deny their free will and believe that everything is determined. A free thinking scientist and atheist knows that his free will is the only thing that matters.

>> No.6199000

>>6198977
You experience and use your free will every day. Don't deny it.

>> No.6199002

>>6199000
Why are determinism and free will contradictory?

>>6198201

>> No.6199003

>>6198991
What chemicals do I have to mix in my Erlenmeyer flask in order to make it experience pain?

>> No.6199005
File: 104 KB, 600x849, determinism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6199005

>>6198981
Determinism states everything is caused by its parent action, and it's the cause & effect that keeps things in motion. So we're living a short segment of a very long chain reaction that originated long ago. That's how we determine the trajectory of the planets, thats how we determine the weather forecast and thats how we determine peoples actions and behaviours. You are made of your past experiences and genetics, nothing more. Your actions are entirely based on your history.
But if you reject determinism, then you simply suggest there's a 3rd party that can influence things other than what science can put on the table. A 3rd party that lives in your imagination...

>> No.6199010

>>6199002
Because they are mutually exclusive opposites.

>> No.6199013

>>6199003
Too damn many, and in a very specific order.

>> No.6199015

>>6198991
> electrical signals transmitted to a spesific part of your brain caused by a physical interaction
> chemical reaction

Maybe you should start your own webcomic blog

>> No.6199016

>>6198995
> A free thinking scientist and atheist knows that his free will is the only thing that matters.
Sam Harris would like to have a word with you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk

>> No.6199017

>>6199005
Ah. Sorry, I'm used to computer modeling, where "non-deterministic" just means that the future behavior of an algorithm cannot be predicted from its past, but doesn't imply any need for external input - it just means you hooked up a random number generator.

>> No.6199022

>>6199016
This is a science board, not a philosophy board. Poorly assembled sophistry isn't science. Keep your philosotard worship on /lit/.

>> No.6199025

>>6199017
As a note, what is the word, if not "non-deterministic" for a world where there exists true randomness, but there is not some kind of third party?

>> No.6199026

>>6199013
You made the claim. It is your burden of proof. You claimed an Erlenmeyer flask can experience pain, if we mix the right chemicals in it. Please show us empirical evidence.

>> No.6199030

>>6199027
/b/

>> No.6199027

>>6199017
>>6199025
Define random.

>> No.6199039

>>6199027
An infinite binary sequence is said to be random if, for some constant c, for all n, the Kolmogorov complexity of the initial segment of length n of the sequence is at least n − c.

>> No.6199043

>>6197497
Here's a good one: neuroscience provides correlations between experience and physical processes.
Any claim to more than (such as causation) is greatly over-stepping the evidence provided.

>> No.6199049

>>6199043
>Here's a good one: neuroscience provides correlations between experience and physical processes.
>Any claim to more than (such as causation) is greatly over-stepping the evidence provided.

Here's a good one: A gunshot wound provides correlations between experience and injury
Any claim to more than (such as causation) is greatly over-stepping the evidence provided.

>> No.6199052

>>6199039
> i have no idea what im talking about
sooo if you apply the same input, will it always be a random result ?

>> No.6199055

>>6199003
If you will ingest it, I will provide the recipe for pain.

>> No.6199059

>>6199052
>Claims someone doesn't know what they are talking about.


Do you even algorithmic information theory?

>> No.6199063

>>6199049
Yes, you're correct. A gunshot wound and an experience of injury (pain, I assume you meant) can be correlated...
How does that show a causal relationship?

>> No.6199070

>>6199063
I wouldn't know, how would you formulate that in terms of Inductive inference?

>> No.6199075

>>6199043
Correlation does not logically imply causation, it's true. Correlated things are not necessarily causally related.

But by the English definition of randomness, which is "strongly suggest the truth or existence of something not expressly stated"

then correlation really does imply causation.

Correlation doesn't mean there MUST be a causative relationship, it just waggles its eyebrows and mouths "look over there."

>> No.6199079
File: 3 KB, 437x220, ind_inf_rules.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6199079

>>6199070
I'm glad you asked.

>> No.6199090

>>6199075
>randomness

I meant "imply" obviously.

>> No.6199096

>>6199075
>it just waggles its eyebrows and mouths "look over there."

*my sides*

>> No.6199115

>>6199070
That there is a strong relationship between A (gunshot wound) and B (pain).

>> No.6199120

>>6199075
By the definition of imply wouldn't that then mean that the statement 'correlation does not imply causation'= 'correlation does not strongly suggest the truth or existence of causation'?
Correlation strongly suggests a itself, a relationship, which may or may not be causal.

>> No.6199124

hOLY SHIT TAKE YOUR FUCKING PICK

YOU CANT PROVE THE SHIT EITHER WAY

FUCK OFF TO /X/ OR /LIT/

>> No.6199126

>>6199120
The "imply" in correlation-does-not-imply-causation was intended to mean the logical, formal definition of "imply" , which basically is "IF A, THEN B" and is expressed in propositional calculus as the symbol ==>.

It is absolutely not true that IF correlation, THEN causation, but this is a common misconception (and a basic element of magical thinking), which is why the statement was made in the first place.

Correlation does, however, strongly suggest causation.

>> No.6199127

>>6199124
> you can't prove cause and effect
autism on the rise

>> No.6199131

>>6199115
when you are shot their is actual supporting evidence that the bullet causes the pain

Correlation never implies cause even when correlation are strong.

>> No.6199133

>>6199127
Muh strawmens

>> No.6199145

>>6199133
> doesnt know what strawman means
cooz buzzwords kid. go back to finishing off your highschool homework

>> No.6199215

>>6199145
No one cares about your retarded blithering, this has nothing to do with physics

Kill yourself.

>> No.6199238

>>6199003
acetilcholine.

>> No.6199270

>>6199215
> cause and effect has nothing to do with physics
full retard

>> No.6199275
File: 118 KB, 619x423, 1385050335501.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6199275

>>6199238
>acetilcholine

It's nice to get actuall answers.

>> No.6199282

>>6199215
You went full retard, man. Never go full retard.

>> No.6199317

>>6199270
You continue to put words in my mouth, I never said physics had nothings to do with causality,

The thread topic has nothing to do with physics because there's absolutely no way of knowing what has been determined. This is just a bunch of retarded speculation.

>> No.6199340
File: 14 KB, 300x300, oh god i retard.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6199340

>>6199317
> there's absolutely no way of knowing what has been determined
it's not even funny anymore

>> No.6199359

>>6199340

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_lapidem

>> No.6199476

>>6199359
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autism