A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

It's all in the programming. If a computer has been programmed to calculate which choice is better based on the input given to it, it will be able to choose which way to go, right or left, back, or stopping, but the hybrot a lot less sophisticated than a human brain so this kind of data is not in the program, at least not yet. The circuitry is primitive with 10 thousand neurons next to 10 trillion neurons in the human brain.

So are you saying our movements are merely programmed? You went from programmed calculations to human brain making choices in the same sentence. If our movements are programmed, then the question is programmed by whom?

The Hybrots are not programmed to move in certain directions by the way, the rat neurons do the controlling

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So are you saying our movements are merely programmed? You went from programmed calculations to human brain making choices in the same sentence. If our movements are programmed, then the question is programmed by whom?

The Hybrots are not programmed to move in certain directions by the way, the rat neurons do the controlling

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1-0eZytv6Qk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are approx. 300,000 rat brain cells that grow collections to each other as explained in the video. These cells work together to sense external stimuli and produce a certain output by its motor capabilities. A human brain is much more complex than placing rat neurons in a hybrot, although they still work according to a specific program. You asked me who programmed the human brain? That's like asking who created gravity, or who created our ability to adapt to our environment? This is a description of what is observed. As to who did the programming is a mystery. You could say that this is how the universe operates and it is not necessary to answer this question in order to observe that there is a causal aspect to the rat brain as it receives input from the external world which produces a certain output, and to the human brain as it receives input from the external world and produces a certain output.

[LadyShea]

If you are discussing what is actually observed in the hybrots, then "programmed responses" is not at all apt. Why are you using that analogy?

When you say "certain responses" happen due to "programming" then the programmer must know what those responses will be. If the hybrot is programmed to move forward 2 feet, then turn left and move 1 foot, etc. those would be programmed responses, predetermined by the programmer.

So, are the hybrots programmed with directions and distances to move in their pen? No, they are not. Since they are not, how do they know which direction to move in?

Explain emergence in any neural system if everything is programmed to produce "certain" outputs.

[LadyShea]

I very much agree with the take of this man, Jeremy Lent. Note he is a novelist, not a scientist, so his credentials are not a factor in my agreeing with him.

Free will vs. determinism | Finding the li

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I very much agree with the take of this man, Jeremy Lent. Note he is a novelist, not a scientist, so his credentials are not a factor in my agreeing with him.

Free will vs. determinism | Finding the li

I was not able to read the entire article, but unless he changes course completely at the end, This article seems to illustrate a common practice in a debate. On both sides there is a tendency to either narrow a definition so that it can be denied, or to broaden the definition so that it cannot be denied. In this case Peacegirl has been attempting to put limits on free will so that she can find some legitimate objection to it. Others have either broadened the definition or proposed multiple definitions so that one or more definitions will be irrefutable. Until a definition can be agreed on the argument will be about the definition and not about the subject, in this case whether we have free will or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So are you saying our movements are merely programmed? You went from programmed calculations to human brain making choices in the same sentence. If our movements are programmed, then the question is programmed by whom?

The Hybrots are not programmed to move in certain directions by the way, the rat neurons do the controlling

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/1-0eZytv6Qk" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I understand that the hybrots are not programmed (a slip in language), but there is no major difference LadyShea in response to what is going on. The bottom line is that there are precipitating factors that are causing a specific response in the rat brain. I'm surprised that you don't get this at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I very much agree with the take of this man, Jeremy Lent. Note he is a novelist, not a scientist, so his credentials are not a factor in my agreeing with him.

Free will vs. determinism | Finding the li

I don't have much time to read this entire article. It is long and I'm now trying to market my book. Could you help me by summarizing the most important points? If you can do this, I will be glad to respond.

[LadyShea]

It's a blog post, it's not at all long. It can be read entirely in less than 10 minutes...would you watch it if it was a 2 hour video?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that the hybrots are not programmed (a slip in language), but there is no major difference LadyShea in response to what is going on. The bottom line is that there are precipitating factors that are causing a specific response in the rat brain. I'm surprised that you don't get this at all.

Where did I deny that there are factors causing responses? You don't seem to understand how inconsistent you are in your arguments for determinism. You switch between different understandings of what determinism is. What is your exact stance?

Are the hybrots programmed which direction to move, or are they responding to the environment autonomously?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have much time to read this entire article. It is long and I'm now trying to market my book.

What have you done so far?

[LadyShea]

thedoc, that has been the problem the whole time, as I've pointed out and tried to get peacegirl to understand.

[thedoc]

LadyShea, I have seen you, Spacemonkey and others presenting various interpretations of free will and determinism, each with reasonable arguments in support. Peacegirl seems to be stuck on the definitions in her fathers book and refuses to even consider anything else. Lessans said as much in the book and now Peacegirl has accepted those as the only true definitions possible. She has repeatedly responded to other varieties of free will and determinism with the statement that they are just not accurate, and can't seem to grasp that we can't see that her fathers words are absolutely correct. She is a very frustrating puzzle, what is the trigger that will snap her out of it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you are discussing what is actually observed in the hybrots, then "programmed responses" is not at all apt. Why are you using that analogy?

When you say "certain responses" happen due to "programming" then the programmer must know what those responses will be. If the hybrot is programmed to move forward 2 feet, then turn left and move 1 foot, etc. those would be programmed responses, predetermined by the programmer.

So, are the hybrots programmed with directions and distances to move in their pen? No, they are not. Since they are not, how do they know which direction to move in?

Of course they are programmed. The brain has a sensing system already built into it. Without it, the robot would not know what to do or have any sense of direction. What appears to be an independent hybrot that can move right or left without bumping into a wall, or writing with a pen, has to have within it an organizing principle that allows it to follow the genetic code given to it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain emergence in any neural system if everything is programmed to produce "certain" outputs.

Emergence in any neural system does not violate the underlying program that supports its existence, even though the output based on those inviolate rules cannot be predicted, as Comings describes.

Corning's description of emergence:
Rules, or laws, have no causal efficacy; they do not in fact “generate” anything. They serve merely to describe regularities and consistent relationships in nature. These patterns may be very illuminating and important, but the underlying causal agencies must be separately specified (though often they are not). But that aside, the game of chess illustrates precisely why any laws or rules of emergence and evolution are insufficient. Even in a chess game, you cannot use the rules to predict “history” — i.e., the course of any given game. Indeed, you cannot even reliably predict the next move in a chess game. Why? Because the “system” involves more than the rules of the game. It also includes the players and their unfolding, moment-by-moment decisions among a very large number of available options at each choice point. The game of chess is inescapably historical, even though it is also constrained and shaped by a set of rules, not to mention the laws of physics. Moreover, and this is a key point, the game of chess is also shaped by teleonomic, cybernetic, feedback-driven influences. It is not simply a self-ordered process; it involves an organized, “purposeful” activity.[7]

Emergence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What have you done so far?

Improving my website. I'm creating a way for people to read my book as an ebook.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Emergence in any neural system does not violate the underlying program that supports its existence, even though the output based on those inviolate rules cannot be predicted

Who said anything about violating rules?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything about violating rules?

I thought you were refuting the laws of causality. Aren't you? Just because there is emergence in a neural system does not negate the fact that there are underlying causal mechanisms at work. As in the example of the chess game, these mechanisms are not always known in advance, and cannot be predicted since feedback is part of an ongoing process until a particular chess move is made. That is why causal laws set the rules of the game but cannot produce a programmed response through a set of simple inputs and outputs.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain emergence in any neural system if everything is programmed to produce "certain" outputs.

The following definition of emergence does nothing to negate the fact that novel structures are linked to previous inputs which then allow new patterns to emerge. The self-organization that forms these new structures are not self-authored. They are created out of a growing network of complex systems.

Goldstein initially defined emergence as: "the arising of novel and coherent structures, patterns and properties during the process of self-organization in complex systems".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I very much agree with the take of this man, Jeremy Lent. Note he is a novelist, not a scientist, so his credentials are not a factor in my agreeing with him.

Free will vs. determinism | Finding the li

I don't agree that insects have free will just because they are self-organizing. They are still reacting to a situation (the example given was deprivation) that seems to be causing this reorganization. Is this reorganization what you call free will? As long as the term "free will" is qualified, it is acceptable to say "he did it of his own free will" or "he created something from his own volition or initiative"; or the insect created its own self-organizing pattern of behavior, but this does not in any way, shape, or form indicate that the will of this bug to do something novel is independent of any and all causal constraints. If you want to discuss this article more fully, that's fine with me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't agree that insects have free will just because they are self-organizing. They are still reacting to a situation (the example given was deprivation) that seems to be causing this reorganization. Is this reorganization what you call free will? As long as the term "free will" is qualified, it is acceptable to say "he did it of his own free will" or "he created something from his own volition or initiative"; or the insect created its own self-organizing pattern of behavior, but this does not in any way, shape, or form indicate that the will of this bug to do something novel is independent of any and all causal constraints.

Cause, does not negate 'free will' it only sets limits within which free will may operate. Sometimes the limits are very narrow and other times there is a wide range of choices, but the will is always free to choose from what is available.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Improving my website. I'm creating a way for people to read my book as an ebook.

What have you done to improve your website?

What else have you done?

What is your marketing plan?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Improving my website. I'm creating a way for people to read my book as an ebook.

It still looks the same to me, and there is nothing on the 'discussion forums'.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you were refuting the laws of causality. Aren't you?

Nope.

Just because there is emergence in a neural system does not negate the fact that there are underlying causal mechanisms at work. As in the example of the chess game, these mechanisms are not always known in advance, and cannot be predicted since feedback is part of an ongoing process until a particular chess move is made. That is why causal laws set the rules of the game but cannot produce a programmed response through a set of simple inputs and outputs.

Yet for several posts (not just one slip) you tried to say all behavior is due to programming. You are not being consistent at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The following definition of emergence does nothing to negate the fact that novel structures are linked to previous inputs which then allow new patterns to emerge. The self-organization that forms these new structures are not self-authored. They are created out of a growing network of complex systems.

And where have your "certain" outputs gone now?

[LadyShea]

this does not in any way, shape, or form indicate that the will of this bug to do something novel is independent of any and all causal constraints

So? Who said it is independent of causal constraints? I have never argued against causes leading to effects. Not once.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What have you done to improve your website?

What else have you done?

What is your marketing plan?

I am working with someone to improve my website. We're working out a payment plan. My goal is to first create a flipbook which will give me the ability to sell my ebook at a very low cost. Then I will begin marketing through social media and other avenues that will bring in traffic.

[LadyShea]

I thought you told me social media wasn't a good avenue for you, when I urged you to market through social media?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? Who said it is independent of causal constraints? I have never argued against causes leading to effects. Not once.

Based on the article you gave me, the guy seems to be conflating the words "novel" with "free". Just because an emergent action is novel (and solves a problem) in a bug or a human does not equate with freedom of the will, nor does it negate the truth of determinism. As the example of the chess game showed, the rules of the game remain even though the feedback from the environment along the way cannot predict how the behavior of the agent will be manifested. You are just changing definitions to suit your desire to have free will in the midst of a deterministic universe. You are no different from a compatibilist, so you can have your cake and eat it too. I hope it's tasty.