Learning more about philosophy

[ragarth]

On that note, the nature of free will and human experience are of interest to me. I'm of the mind that free will does not truly exist, and I have a war chest of several arguments to back that, one of which just took a rather decent beating in the physical and life sciences thread. I like that.

 

[The Nihilist]

Would you link the beating? I'd be interested to see it

 

[ragarth]

Would you link the beating? I'd be interested to see it

here it is.

The part where I got whumped was the nature of the universe being an open or closed system. [serious] provided proof that the preservation of information within a black hole necessitates the existence of a multiverse. The fact that the preservation of the information is integral to this invalidates the idea of a closed universe because of the duplication of information between the two universes, ie, the duplication of the information shows a link between the two universes that is more than random noise, thereby keeping the system 'open'. This does not necessarily invalidate a deterministic universe, so the debate is still kicking, but that is one point I'm wanting to find time to research more deeply.

This applies to the nature of free will, because a closed system is by necessity governed by chaos rather than randomization to prevent a grandfather paradox, whereas an open system provides the potential for real randomization to make an appearance. I still don't believe true randomness exists, but if it did, it would invalidate a deterministic approach to the universe, thereby making free will possible. To take this a step further, there is no room for a soul within human consciousness if free will is an illusion, but there is room for a soul if free will is real, whereby the soul is defined as an entity apart from the physical world that acts as the embodiment of thought and consciousness.

 

[Inviolable]

I still don't believe true randomness exists

Now that we've determined that I'm no expert.

This statement has made me curious.

How can you claim to have lived an open life and not seen the randomness in it?

 

[ragarth]

Now that we've determined that I'm no expert.

This statement has made me curious.

How can you claim to have lived an open life and not seen the randomness in it?

What we usually perceive as random is in fact the result of chaos. I use the term Chaos in it's scientific meaning, whereby a lack of capacity to predict a system over time is the result of that system having so many inputs effecting it that it's impossible for us to account for them all. Further, a small perturbation in the system will have increasingly large changes in the system's state over time. A classic example of this is the effect of a butterfly in africa flapping it's wings, and creating a hurricane in florida.

The result of this is that there's very little true randomness (if any), even rolling the dice is not random, it's a chaotic system. If we knew exactly how you held your hand, how the dice were positioned within your hand, the exact contours of the dice, the vector and release point of your hand, shape, contours, density and material of the table at various points... etc. We could come up with an equation that would predict those dice rolls, but the sheer number of variables going into the act of rolling the dice, and the fact that a small change in any one will completely change the results, makes the system unpredictable.

 

[Inviolable]

What we usually perceive as random is in fact the result of chaos. I use the term Chaos in it's scientific meaning, whereby a lack of capacity to predict a system over time is the result of that system having so many inputs effecting it that it's impossible for us to account for them all. Further, a small perturbation in the system will have increasingly large changes in the system's state over time. A classic example of this is the effect of a butterfly in africa flapping it's wings, and creating a hurricane in florida.

The result of this is that there's very little true randomness (if any), even rolling the dice is not random, it's a chaotic system. If we knew exactly how you held your hand, how the dice were positioned within your hand, the exact contours of the dice, the vector and release point of your hand, shape, contours, density and material of the table at various points... etc. We could come up with an equation that would predict those dice rolls, but the sheer number of variables going into the act of rolling the dice, and the fact that a small change in any one will completely change the results, makes the system unpredictable.

Holy anal retentive Batman!

Did you calculate that I'd be thinking you were uptight by the time I got done reading that post?
I bet you did.
Regardless it's still funny.

 

[ragarth]

Holy anal retentive Batman!

Did you calculate that I'd be thinking you were uptight by the time I got done reading that post?
I bet you did.
Regardless it's still funny.

Hah, no, I didn't. And I'm shy, not uptight!

Seriously though, just because I see it as a chaotic system doesn't mean I can't appreciate the beauty of an ocean coast, and some things I really really want to do but haven't had a chance to yet is go sky diving, scuba diving, and tour Europe.

 

[The Nihilist]

Because a very complicated system can appear to be random from an extremely limited, localized vantage point

 

[The Nihilist]

oh it seems i took to long to write that

 

[ragarth]

oh it seems i took to long to write that

The system defined by your hands, mouse, and keyboard had an external influence introduced upon it that produced a chaotic effect, creating an unpredicted delay in how long it took for your message to get posted.

 

[The Nihilist]

The system defined by your hands, mouse, and keyboard had an external influence introduced upon it that produced a chaotic effect, creating an unpredicted delay in how long it took for your message to get posted.

holy christ ragarth, you have no idea

 

[ragarth]

holy christ ragarth, you have no idea

That's the point! If I had an idea about it, I could account for it in the system...

 

[Inviolable]

Hah, no, I didn't. And I'm shy, not uptight!

Seriously though, just because I see it as a chaotic system doesn't mean I can't appreciate the beauty of an ocean coast, and some things I really really want to do but haven't had a chance to yet is go sky diving, scuba diving, and tour Europe.

I guess I did jump the gun by calling you uptight.
Sorry about that.

What is the philosophy that covers emotions The Nihilist, "mighty all knowing"

I can agree with the chaos theory.
I can even see it working on an emotional level to influence a persons life and become yet another unpredictable system.

I'd like to think that because I can see it working I can also understand that it is flawed. Through understanding that not everything turns out the way it should. Emotions operate outside of the system.
For the most part.

I personally think the question should be. Does everything fit within the equation?
And not, how does it fit?
It could be two totally different things effecting each other.

This talks about the system of emotions and maybe even puts in a perspective you might like.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/

And while it doesn't actually help to make my point it does explain why they're so darn confusing sometimes.

 

[ragarth]

I guess I did jump the gun by calling you uptight.
Sorry about that.

What is the philosophy that covers emotions The Nihilist, "mighty all knowing"

I can agree with the chaos theory.
I can even see it working on an emotional level to influence a persons life and become yet another unpredictable system.

I'd like to think that because I can see it working I can also understand that it is flawed. Through understanding that not everything turns out the way it should. Emotions operate outside of the system.
For the most part.

I personally think the question should be. Does everything fit within the equation?
And not, how does it fit?
It could be two totally different things effecting each other.

This talks about the system of emotions and maybe even puts in a perspective you might like.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/emotion/

And while it doesn't actually help to make my point it does explain why they're so darn confusing sometimes.

Working backwards, I've never really considered emotions beyond seeing them as a result from a combination of endocrine and neurological systems. Take for instance, love.

I've always just thought of love as a familial relationship built within the mind, tied to the release of endorphins. You love your wife deeply, you see her and your heart skips a beat as your head fills with a long time sense of familiarity and care, you may even remember moments you share together that mean a lot to you as you look at her face.

To ruin the moment, what's happening here is that your mind has built a connection between memories of her and those parts of your mind that trigger the release of endorphins. You associate good feelings with all those memories surrounding her, and so reinforcing this makes your love grow deeper over time. The inverse of this is true, if you fight with your wife all the time, you will tend to relate her with stress, and so the sound of her voice might be tied to a release of adrenaline.

This isn't to say that emotion is entirely a hierarchial relationship of neural connections triggering endocrine release, I believe that a certain amount of love, hate, etc can exist entirely within the brain without the endocrine system. This is equivalent to feeling good when you look at a beautiful painting, it's not as strong as the love you have with your wife, but it's a stimulus that triggers positive relationships within the brain.

The trick of thinking like this and still enjoying the pleasure of eating an icecream sunday or being with people you love, is to be able to forget it and just enjoy the moment.

Given this, there really is no equation to emotion, really, science has very few over-arching theories to explain stuff, we're still in our infancy on many things, therefore, while I believe that the universe is a chaotic rather than a random system, I am open to proof or logic that points in other direction.

I don't know if I'd classify emotion as flawed. Certainly our emotions are not the proper response to many things in today's society, but if you think about it, we aren't really designed for today's society. If you believe in evolution, then we evolved as a tribe of hunter-gatherers, and we were adapted for that life. Then we discovered agriculture, and things took off from there. The time from unwashed goat herders to jet planes is vanishingly small in evolutionary terms- We're changing the society we live in faster than we can adapt, mentally or emotionally, and so what was once great emotional responses for tending goats, isn't so good for driving on the interstate.

 

[ragarth]

So, what kind of thinking would you call that? Pragmatism? I'm trying to put a label on my method of thinking so that I can learn more about it. That will let me expand out beyond myself and relate other methods of thought to my own.