Goldenages

I can only quote myself from an erlier post : regards Andi

In a deterministic universe, humans feel what they are determined to feel. It makes no sense to try to inject futility, or anything else, into a closed system. You might as well be shouting at a movie. Shure. Just because we do not want the situation, does not exclude that it could be true. Fortunately, as said, we know that the universe is not a deterministic clockwork. regards Andi

Because the "you" is misplaced in this statement. The free market would not have been created by someone, but by something, actually it would not have been created at all, it would just unwind. The very same way a certain time is shown on a watch. Its shown not because a creative, thinking and choosing mind prefers a certain pointer position, but because some gears make it inevitable. It is futile to be proud to be a pointer. regards Andi

So then we have to explain what "mind" and "freewill" is. Furthermore, we have to explain how something immaterial and not measurable and thus, according to the scientific method, non- existing, can influence those biomechanical representations. That makes no difference, because I can´t even measure my own free will. Yes that´s what is likely. Think of the chaos theory, "deterministic chaos". If I want to make a weather forecast, even when knowing literally all data down to oscillations of all atoms involved, nevertheless my forecast can only reach a certain probability. Law of physics does not allow more. The more complex the area and the longer the time, the more probability goes down. Likewise, if you know a person very well you can, within a certain probability, predict how she or he will behave. The more mind-controlled somebody is, the easier predictions can be made, because you "know" what he thinks. Pure chaos has nothing to do with freewill or predictions, its only chance. To act on freewill, only one cause is sufficient: To stay alive. This cause triggers an infinitely amount of possible actions - just look at the civilisation around us. And compare to societies where freewill is suppressed by religion or state. regards Andi

The experiments of Libet suggest that the conscious mind holds a controlling function about subconciousness. It was criticized that such simple actions like bending a finger hardly tells something about free will. A group of scientists claims that it works also the other way round (just a summary, but the best I could find) Willfully intentions establish networks in those areas of the brain that regulate unconscious information flow, at least for a certain time. This indicates that we are not slaves of the unconscious, more or less controlled by our willfull and conscious mind, but that willpower can influence the unconscious. regards Andi

Who says that free will does not follow rules? Free will defined as choice between alternatives does indeed follow rules - weighing pro and contra, experience, personal preference, feelings or logic and so on. Thats a whole bunch of rules. Free will defined as to do anything without cause does not make sense - because thats simply chance. regards Andi

The universe is not deterministic in the literally meaning of the word. The idea that a clockwork started with the Big Bang and - literally - everything is determined til the end is definitely wrong. This conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics and chaos theory. If our minds are not materialistic, then nothing can be said about free will, because we don´t even know what to to talk about. Gosts? Gods? If our minds are materialistic, free will must be between chance and clockwork. Chance does not require energy consuming brains and minds, and evolution would never have favored them. A clockwork does not need a mind at all. Benjamin Libet made some experiments regarding free will. From this link: regards Andi

What I mean is, wether your notion of God is bound to physical laws or not, in both omniscience and ominpotence. One could argue that it´s not a problem for him to foresee future in every detail, because he knows everything about those properties of this quantum particles, even when its not knowable for nature or anybody else. Furthermore, if all his actions were bound to physical laws, then obviously no miracles are possible. The guess that there are no miracles, only things yet not understood, was pretty much the most successfull and distinguished idea mankind ever had. I will depart from it when hell freezes over Well, all those ideas about multiverses etc. are reasonable speculations. Very interesting of course, but its by far too early to draw any conclusions regarding philosophy. ("Hi, boss, yea, I stay home today. But don´t worry, there are infinite "me´s" who work really hard, just have a look in the parallel universes"). To import God in this ideas is replacing reasonable speculations by wishfull thinking. regards Andi

So God in this context would be a God that is capable of knowing what can be known. No supernatural tricks allowed, intelligent forms of life could achieve the same knowing level. What about his ability to act? Does he has to stay within the limits of pyhiscal laws? Sounds a bit euphemistic to me, if I think about the medieval times and the power of the church, which killed everybody who dared to think otherwise. regards Andi

Define omniscient: Does God know literally anything, or just anything that is possible to know? Some happenings in quantum mechanics can not be known, such as speed and position of a certain particle beyond a certain accuracy. Not because of lack of understanding, but because those properties are not defined more accurately - even nature does not "know" whats going on. So is God outside of the laws of physics, and could tell us even more than those laws, or does he has to stick to this laws? Only if he were outside of physical laws the word "omniscient" can be taken literally. If he has to stick to physics, he could only be omniscient within this frame, thus his ability to foresee future would be limited. One word to your first post: If I had an important message I would like to make shure that everybody gets it right. So why does God not reveal himself? The way to tell his important message to just a few, replicating it from memory, and to write it down in different versions centuries later is a safe way for failure. regards Andi

I agree (continuing my naive view ) that only the present exists. Past does not exist any more, future not yet. But all the presences passing by have to be connected by causality and, generally, by the laws of physics. If they were not connected, nothing could exist, cause the matter representing my body would be here in one moment and somewhere else in the next. I would aim and throw a ball in one moment, but in the next the ball would literally do anything - disintegrate, or fly somewhere in outer space, etc. So to have a present I need the past - bought the ball yesterday - and I need the future, i.e. I throw the ball into the basket. To make valid predictions of the future (to aim with the ball) I need causality. So I am afraid without a connected flow of presents - in other words, time - also the one present is not possible. regards Andi

Yes, our brains are also very large instinct deposits. As research indicates our instincts and feelings set the goal, and consciousness is used to justify it. Of course it is also possible to go the scientific or philosophical way: Watch reality and derive objective conclusions (or at least try as good as possible). Proof of intelligence is to act intelligent. (In reversal of Forrest Gump: "Stupid is as stupid does") I do know that I have consciousness, and while there is no proof that somewhere else also has, I have good reason to assume that this is the case when I watch other people behave in a rational and intelligent way. Further research in brainwaves will sooner or later figure out which patterns are necessary to verify consciousness. It would be no surprise for me if most higher animals do have several levels of consciousness, but I would be amazed if ants have. Ants do not have much of a cerebrum, if any. regards Andi

Shure, ants have brains, also instincts have to be stored somewhere. And since every matter consisting of more than a few atoms differ from another, there are slightly differences in behaviour. In order to control fire ants, we could swarm, search and kill them personally. Thats the way we would do it using our instincts. Using natural enemies is just a clever and economic way to do it. Contrary, fire ants could never do that, most probably their brains do not even know they exist at all. Depends on how we define compromised. Its the way nature goes - animals migrate and replace other animals. Nature does not care. We care, because either we want to preserve fauna for whatever reason, or we are compromised, e.g. if we set free some lions in Western Europe (wolves are already back. What a glorious idea of the green party. I would opt for some more venomous snakes and for swamps. Also malaria has a right for life.) regards Andi

Actually there is little that science knows about time. Most theorems in physics have no preferred direction, means they are time reversible. Einsteins general relativistic theory does not tell us about a flow of time, spacetime exists as a whole. Einstein himself said that time is a tenacious illusion. The only theorem that tells us about a non-reversible flow of time is entropy. Everything goes from order into a mess. (Even cleaning up your desk does not help. The energy you loose, thus the increase in entropy when your desk is tidy again, is greater than the order you achieved on your desk). Since our understanding of time is so restricted it comes as no surprise that some kinds of paradoxons arise. So usually its said that time travel is not possible at all. Sounds convincing, I have not seen any tourists from the future yet. Or its said paradoxons can not exist since there are infinite universes who solve all problems like killing your father etc. So obviously we live in the only one where still no son killed his own father back in his youth and a whole universe doubled to continue in two ways. I can only offer you my somewhat pragmatic, or call it naive, opinion: There must be something like time. There must be a stage where changes can take place - without such a stage nothing could happen. I witness happenings all the time (sic!). Maybe time is an emergent phenomenon. Some weird insights in quantum theory indicate that - for particles in superposition there seem to be no such thing as time or a fixed position, although they exist already, they still have no information about how to behave. They get this information only after contact with other particles, usually we call this measurement. So if there is no time, yes than obviously there is no past, no now and no future, and no god can be blamed for not knowing the non existing. But thats the point: Nothing would exist without time. regards Andi

Ants and monkeys follow their instincts. Those instincts have been proven true for them, so ants and monkeys can not act as their own destroyers. Man can not survive on his instincts alone, he has to think and act reasonably. If he refuses to do that, or is influencend by propaganda (state, religion, any form of altruism) and act foolish against his own interests, he can act as his own destroyer. Thats what the west is doing now. As Ayn Rand described very convincingly, this was the case for most of the human history. Man is far superior to ants. State power makes man behave more foolish than monkeys. regards Andi

I don´t know Nobody says that mind (or eyes or legs) should exist. All I do is to assert the fact that they do exist. The first steps for any of these qualities by random changes of genes - as we know, randomness is a quality of physical laws-, thereafter evolution kicks in and preserves and enhances all that improves survival. Its the minds who deserves for a "should". Not the evolutionary principle. regards Andi

Evolution selects individuals which behave in a certain way. This behaviour is driven by mind. So evolution selects certain minds. regards Andi

Shure. Cosmology, physics - thats all "interior design". We can not know for shure wether there is something beyond that influences our world, such as e.g. Lisa Randall suggests in her work about multiple universes. Nevertheless this something has to be sensed over here in one way or another. Shure we could assume that certain properties are literally coming from beyond this world. But if those properties do not happen by chance, they have to follow some rules. So we can find out those rules. And how likely is it that just mental properties come from somewhere else? Why not the lever principle? I would say that all those supernatural claims about brain and mind are the last retreat of the "God of the gaps" (Richard Dawkins). Exactly as much as other inherent property of matter such as walking, flying, transporting energy .... Up to you For me, life, and generally, the world becomes more and more interesting and astonishing, the more I know. Does science know 3% of all that can be possible known, or is it 90%? I would guess we are closer to 3 than to 90 But there is a nice quote from Robert Goddard, the rocket scientist: “No matter how much progress one makes, there is always the thrill of just beginning.” regards Andi

Exactly We do not need a mind to make random decisions. For random decisions it´s easier to roll the dice, or do literally just anything, and evolution would never select a conscious mind to produce such behaviour. We do not need a mind to act deterministic. Our reflexes do this already. Evolution would never select minds if deterministic behaviour is at least equal to mindful behaviour. Our minds are right in between, weaving between randomness and clockwork. regards Andi

There must be a fundamental description of state for everything. The most fundamental description of state is the wave function. It gives exactly (within the uncertainty principle) information about every single part of every single atom. Thats what they are looking for to build the transporter for Captain Kirk´s Enterprise. Unfortunately, aside from some small technical problems, the wave function of man is a stack of discs that fills the diameter of the visible universe. So to reconstruct somebody, well, thats not a problem. You give me your wave function, I insert the discs, and here we are - a perfect copy. As a matter of fact, not a copy, but the original, because since we used the wave function - the most fundamental description of state - there is no means to measure any difference to the original. Your "copy" would be you. And if you tell me exactly how your brain works, I could figure out what difference some more atoms make regards Andi

This is not correct. Chaotic systems are not deterministic (thats why they are called chaotic). While chance is important in quantum mechanics, this is not what I ment. What I ment is that quantum mechanics is a barrier for the precision of any measurement, also for objects as big as billard balls. This unavoidable error in any measurement is irrelevant for normal billard, but becomes important if you just play enough balls. regards Andi

It means that there is a choice between two or more alternatives. A few thoughts to the opponents "free will" and "determinism": It is said that physics is deterministic, however this is not the whole truth. First, it is a very good thing that physics is generally deterministic. If it were not, and matter would change its properties randomly, we obviously could not exist. Second, we do like a predictable environment, and make efforts to make our lives as predictable as possible. We build houses, roads, heatings, supermarkets and so on to exclude chance as much as possible, we prefer partners who behave in a predictable way, we dislike persons who act erratic. Now this determinism has limits. In physics we know chaotic systems, where infinitely small changes of the initial point lead to unpredictable behaviour (e.g. double pendulum, weather). Then there is quantum theory, while its effects on our world are not fully understood, it is safe to say that if I want to calculate wether the 28. billard ball will hit the 29. at the intended angle, my calculation will be very doubtful because of accumulating errors. So if things get complicated and complex - and both the universe and our brains are - determinism comes to an end. So the universe is not deterministic in the way that Laplace assumed - given a demon knows position and movement of every atom in the universe at a certain time, this demon is still not able to forecast future. It is not possible. And here we have the base for free will. It is no proof that man has free will, but it is the proof that free will is possible according to the laws of physics. Neither the universe nor our minds operate like clockworks. In the universe many things happen by chance, we act (sometimes ) after the process of thinking. Thats the free will in naturalistic terms. regards Andi

The information on which a personality is based. The genes plus experience. regards Andi

The oldest way to distinguish between "us" and "others" is religion. Since there is no objectice way to find out which religion is better, there is only one way left: A non objective way, violence. On the other hand: It was James Watt who invented the efficient steam machine, not me. It was Albert Einstein who wrote down his general relativistic theory, not me. So obviously we can locate objectiv differences in their lives and in mine. Not to distinguish between me and them, and to say, well, somehow "we" did it, would mean that I am greedy for the unearned. Buddhism (as any other religion) wants you to get rid of your ego because you can be controlled easier that way. You suffer, are a sinner, just being born is enough to be guilty - but if you do as I (sic!) say, well maybe you have a chance for Nirwana, or heaven, or whatever they promise. What an awful idea of man. Unfortunately you get your reward when you die, not before. So the believe in the always unprovable, usually a topic were no reasonable mind lingers, robs your life. Obviously you think that two "I´s" must always fight if they have the same goal. As said above this is only true if your moral and values are based on non-objective and arbitrary thoughts such as religion. "They have to wear a headscarf, otherwise they are immoral". Such nonsense enters politics nowadays, it is unbelievable. If your values have an objective base, you trade, make contracts and act voluntarily for mutual benefit. Thats how the work-sharing economy works, and thats how wealth and civilisation are made. And its necessary to divide into "us" and "others" if the "others" just drain your wealth and spread dangerous religious nonsense instead. regards Andi

It is the old philosphical problem of identity. If I have a 2 identical drinking glasses, how can I distinguish between them? I have to do very accurate measurements to distinguish, e.g. some minor scratches etc. Just by the way: If there is no measurement possible that finds out any differences, we have to say thats the very same object(s). This applies e.g. for photons. We can not distinguish between one photon and an other if they have the exact same characteristics. We could only distinguish between their appearance at certain locations and certain times. Funny now - since photons move with the speed of light, for a photon such things as time and space do not exist. Form their point of view they just are everywhere at the same time. So as a matter of fact - all whats needed to illuminate the whole universe would be one single photon. If I have a wooden ship, and its repaired and some planking is replaced - is it the same ship as before? Usually we say yes, as long as its qualities in the water are the same. However these qualities depend on a certain arrangement of matter. Now we can say, if matter is the base for our minds, and every mind is based on a slightly different arrangement of matter, that enables to distinguish between me and you. regards Andi