quote:
How.... Jensus.... uughhhhhh:
Now if we define X as the current state of the brain, where the mind is based off, and we define Y as the current input being received and processed on some level, then we will always reach action Z. Never action B or action N, we will always reach action Z assuming X and Y and any other relevant factors are the same.
I think this is valid to a certain point. I think that input Y is varries from person to person. Thus the amassed input Y will cater multiples of Z. Hence Z1, Z2, Z3... So in theory if I was subject to exactly (and I mean exactly from the genes to the name of your great aunt) the same input as you from birth to death it is logical to think that I would react in the same way. But if even the most abstract of details was changed from instance to instance that could dramatically change the whole situation.
I posted his argument before, on a lower level concept. Think of the universe as a bunch of billard balls. Once one ball is in motion, you know where they all are going to go. With no external stimula and a predetermiend set of rules, things pretty much are determined from the start. You could say this of the universe.
On the same note, turn to the end of a book. It's allready written. But the end is determiend because of hte characters actions.
To give Jen's argument a little more weight.
Think you are 10 again. Everything is exactly the same. You are thinking exactly hte same things you did when you were ten. Like someone hit rewind on a tape. Is anyting going to happen diffrently? No. Why? Because there's not a single stimli that's diffrent. Not a single atom out of place.
edit: What DrPaint said was correct.
edit2: This means that if the religous types are right and there is an all knowing being, he/she/it alone would have the power to change hte future as he/she/it saw fit, becuase it would know the reactions to anything it took. diadem fucked around with this message on 04-10-2005 at 10:43 PM.
quote:
diadem probably says this to all the girls:
Think you are 10 again. Everything is exactly the same. You are thinking exactly hte same things you did when you were ten. Like someone hit rewind on a tape. Is anyting going to happen diffrently? No. Why? Because there's not a single stimli that's diffrent. Not a single atom out of place.
While that may be true, I think it is only due to it has already happened. It would be more like playing back a recording of what did happen, the paths you already took. I guess the argument is that free will is of the present, and that you could not put that same test to the future.
quote:
Delphi Aegis obviously shouldn't have said:
My query is: Given enough information in terms of how people respond to things, would it be possible to predict the entirety of human future, a la Psychohistory coined by Asimov?
No.
People will respond to the predictions, which changes what they do. Change the predictions to account for this, and they get new predictions that they will react to in new ways. The very act of predicting the future changes the future.
quote:
Teagan got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
No.People will respond to the predictions, which changes what they do. Change the predictions to account for this, and they get new predictions that they will react to in new ways. The very act of predicting the future changes the future.
Just like that torturous question of "If I know how I'm going to die, can I avoid that thing and live longer?" And we all know how many movies, novels, etc. have tried to deal with THAT conundrum (*coughTimeMachingcough*).
quote:
I
Kaitboobies!
Just like that torturous question of "If I know how I'm going to die, can I avoid that thing and live longer?" And we all know how many movies, novels, etc. have tried to deal with THAT conundrum (*coughTimeMachingcough*).
It can be done, provided you have two Soul Reavers handy.
quote:
Delphi Aegis had this to say about Knight Rider:
My query is: Given enough information in terms of how people respond to things, would it be possible to predict the entirety of human future, a la Psychohistory coined by Asimov?
No, since you'd have to predict all the external stimuli humans would be exposed to as well.
quote:
Teagan had this to say about Robocop:
No.People will respond to the predictions, which changes what they do. Change the predictions to account for this, and they get new predictions that they will react to in new ways. The very act of predicting the future changes the future.
Wrong. If you start from the beginning, assuming the lack of free will, you will see that your predictions is included in the overall timeline. It's all going to be there. You just need to know everything that can change and have all the information. If there is no free will, you couldn't not predict things. So this is definitely wrong.
quote:
ACES! Another post by Maradon!:
I sure am glad that I was programmed not to care about this shit.
Way to go! You can just live your life and not worry, a great benefit of itself.
However to announce it in such a thread and going "me > you" makes you pretty retaaaahdid
But hey, what do you care, you're basically a walking limbic system, right?
quote:
Mod had this to say about dark elf butts:
No, since you'd have to predict all the external stimuli humans would be exposed to as well.
As long as you start from the beginning of the Earth and have all the equations/laws for how things behave then it should be possible to map it all out. It's not "predicting" so much as it is "reading" as the term predicting assumes some level of inaccuracy. If you don't leave any variables out, though, then you should be completely spot-on. This is the problem, though, humans aren't very good with many variables.
quote:
Mod had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
No, since you'd have to predict all the external stimuli humans would be exposed to as well.
Not only that you would need to predict how people reacted to the unknown stimuli.
If we can find a way to quantize brain reactions on a large enough scale, the individual details become immaterial. Because one tomato farmer loses his crop, the stock price of produce won't suddenly skyrocket. If, however, the entire nation's crop of tomatoes is lost, the individual prices are all affected. While one farmer's crop is hard to predict, we can say that in a dry year, there will be fewer products overall. It's a matter of crossing that critical mass barrier that will allow us to predict things on a grand enough scale.
Paraphrased from Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, awarded 1960 Hugo Award for the Best Sci-Fi Series Ever
quote:
Big Easy stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
At this time, we can't possibly understand all of the individual variables of each brain. However, on a large enough scale, we probably can predict the actions of the society. Though we have no way of predicting the actions of each atom in a gas, we can predict the actions of moles of gas through the gas laws, which are based on probablilities and observed patterns through significantly large numbers of atoms.If we can find a way to quantize brain reactions on a large enough scale, the individual details become immaterial. Because one tomato farmer loses his crop, the stock price of produce won't suddenly skyrocket. If, however, the entire nation's crop of tomatoes is lost, the individual prices are all affected. While one farmer's crop is hard to predict, we can say that in a dry year, there will be fewer products overall. It's a matter of crossing that critical mass barrier that will allow us to predict things on a grand enough scale.
Paraphrased from Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, awarded 1960 Hugo Award for the Best Sci-Fi Series Ever
Pretty much what I was saying, only I put it in layman's terms, which apparently makes me an idiot... ¬_¬
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Big Easy said this:
At this time, we can't possibly understand all of the individual variables of each brain. However, on a large enough scale, we probably can predict the actions of the society. Though we have no way of predicting the actions of each atom in a gas, we can predict the actions of moles of gas through the gas laws, which are based on probablilities and observed patterns through significantly large numbers of atoms.If we can find a way to quantize brain reactions on a large enough scale, the individual details become immaterial. Because one tomato farmer loses his crop, the stock price of produce won't suddenly skyrocket. If, however, the entire nation's crop of tomatoes is lost, the individual prices are all affected. While one farmer's crop is hard to predict, we can say that in a dry year, there will be fewer products overall. It's a matter of crossing that critical mass barrier that will allow us to predict things on a grand enough scale.
Paraphrased from Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, awarded 1960 Hugo Award for the Best Sci-Fi Series Ever
When you have an equation that you take varriables out of you will most certainly loose solutions.
When you predict the general sense of what is going occur its not the same as predicting every single action and reaction. Your essentially solving a completely different problem, and your solutions will reflect that.
quote:
I want some of what DrPaintThinner was smoking when they wrote this:
When you have an equation that you take varriables out of you will most certainly loose solutions.When you predict the general sense of what is going occur its not the same as predicting every single action and reaction. Your essentially solving a completely different problem, and your solutions will reflect that.
"Predicting the entirety of human future" is not "predicting every single action and reaction".
Cease speaking.
quote:
There was much rejoicing when Delphi Aegis said this:
"Predicting the entirety of human future" is not "predicting every single action and reaction".
Ah but it is! Who is to say that a single person wont wipe out the entire race? This would be the crucial difference between the end of humanity and its continuation. While It seems very hard to imagine, Imagine if Hitler didn't do the things he did (never been born even). Who's to say that society would have been what it is now. As dispicable as a man as Hitler was he certainly made a difference in human history.
In another instance what if the dictator of the Soviet Union ordered all nuclear weapons in their power fired at America and all of its allies. And we retaliated. Global armagedon, and the end of the human race (possibly). It is clear that the actions of the individual can influence human kinds history.
Edit: Another example, although rather ficticious, would be a more catastrophic version 12 Monkeys. DrPaintThinner fucked around with this message on 04-11-2005 at 03:51 AM.
quote:
DrPaintThinner had this to say about Captain Planet:
When you have an equation that you take varriables out of you will most certainly loose solutions.When you predict the general sense of what is going occur its not the same as predicting every single action and reaction. Your essentially solving a completely different problem, and your solutions will reflect that.
But the premise is that it is impossible to know the state of all of the variables, so the closest we can get is the general case.
The idea that we can know every variable's state is laughable at best, since not only are most of them in constant flux, the act of detecting their state changes them, like putting a cold thermometer into a hot cup of coffee. Or like in some of the quantum arguments mentioned previously. The change may be slight, but the difference could lead to a different outcome, especially if this thread is concerned with the individual.
Besides, the individual has little effect on a grand scale. Even great individuals like George Washington or Julius Caesar were products of their age. With the social pressures around them, they acted with those pressures, like a surfer riding a giant wave. Those who acted against the pressures lost, like the British or the Roman Senate. We only remember individuals because it gives us a warm fuzzy feeling and makes us think that anyone can be that great. Anyone can, but only given the right circumstances. Thus, the individual is essentially meaningless in the long term. Call it free will or not, it won't really matter if they go along with the consensus or not, unless the consensus follows them.
quote:
DrPaintThinner spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Ah but it is! Who is to say that a single person wont wipe out the entire race? This would be the crucial difference between the end of humanity and its continuation. While It seems very hard to imagine, Imagine if Hitler didn't do the things he did (never been born even). Whos to say that society would have been what it is now. As dispicable as a man as hitler was he certainly made a difference in human history.In another instance what if the dictator of the Soviet Union ordered all nuclear weapons in their power fired at America and all of its allies. And we retaliated. Global armagedon, and the end of the human race (possibly). It is clear that the actions of the individual can influence human kinds history.
You've never, ever read any book by asimov, have you?
After WWI, the german people WANTED a person to come up onto a podium and say "you work in a war factory, I'll give you bread and beer". Psychohistory predicts hundreds of years, over THOUSANDS of planets and quintillions of people. Comparing it to WW2 era earth populations or cold-war era MADness is simply ludicrous.
Btw, nuclear armageddon wouldn't have happened anyway; both countries were too afraid to press the button. 
quote:
Big Easy had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
But the premise is that it is impossible to know the state of all of the variables, so the closest we can get is the general case.
Oh, of course! Its not even feasible to know every action and reaction (at this time). But predictions are little more than guesses in the grand scheme of things. And general cases are as close as we can at this point in human history.
quote:
DrPaintThinner had this to say about dark elf butts:
Ah but it is! Who is to say that a single person wont wipe out the entire race? This would be the crucial difference between the end of humanity and its continuation. While It seems very hard to imagine, Imagine if Hitler didn't do the things he did (never been born even). Whos to say that society would have been what it is now. As dispicable as a man as hitler was he certainly made a difference in human history.In another instance what if the dictator of the Soviet Union ordered all nuclear weapons in their power fired at America and all of its allies. And we retaliated. Global armagedon, and the end of the human race (possibly). It is clear that the actions of the individual can influence human kinds history.
In the case of the Soviet premier, that wouldn't have happened because the social impetus wasn't there. They would not have launched because they were assured of their own destruction. It is human nature to continue living. Therefore, that argument is absurd and groundless.
As far as Hitler goes, the real reason he rose to power was because of the Treaty of Versailles and Germany's effective bankruptcy. World War II and the holocaust cannot be laid entirely at the feet of Hitler. It was a product of social pressures, and Hitler happened to be at the forefront of it, along with others such as Mengele, Heidrich, and Himmler.
To argue that it was just one man who organized the entirety is about as absurd as blaming the precipitation of a super-saturated solution on the lab tech who shook the flask. It wouldn't have precipitated had the solution not be super-saturated.
Edit: Synopsis: What Delphi said. Big Easy fucked around with this message on 04-11-2005 at 03:59 AM.
quote:
Delphi Aegis wrote this stupid crap:
Btw, nuclear armageddon wouldn't have happened anyway; both countries were too afraid to press the button.
But we are speaking in hypotheticals. You said no one person's actions could affect the whole race. I was providing an instance where it could. And yes, I realize that they were both too afraid.
I haven't read much by Azimov, but what I have was good. Maybe I should read more?
quote:
DrPaintThinner spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Azimov
CEASE. SPEAKING.
quote:
Nobody really understood why Big Easy wrote:
In the case of the Soviet premier, that wouldn't have happened because the social impetus wasn't there. They would not have launched because they were assured of their own destruction. It is human nature to continue living. Therefore, that argument is absurd and groundless.As far as Hitler goes, the real reason he rose to power was because of the Treaty of Versailles and Germany's effective bankruptcy. World War II and the holocaust cannot be laid entirely at the feet of Hitler. It was a product of social pressures, and Hitler happened to be at the forefront of it, along with others such as Mengele, Heidrich, and Himmler.
To argue that it was just one man who organized the entirety is about as absurd as blaming the precipitation of a super-saturated solution on the lab tech who shook the flask. It wouldn't have precipitated had the solution not be super-saturated.
Edit: Synopsis: What Delphi said.
It is apart of the human condition for self preservation. But that seems to be absent in some humans. IE suicide victums. Why didn't their self preservation kick in?
And would the germans been so successful without a charasmatic leader? Who was so sure of himself that an enitre group of people would follow him? I know if I was at the forefront I would be so confused that they would linch me.
edit: Yes I misspelled Asimov. But in my defense you didn't even capitalize it. DrPaintThinner fucked around with this message on 04-11-2005 at 04:20 AM.
Karnaj: I'm not certain how that applies on an abstract level. You are correct that we will never be able to predict pretty much any impending decision by anyone beyond very roughly, and I never claimed otherwise, but that only applies on an applicable scale and is not relevant to an argument of concepts like this.
quote:
Vise the Stompy has a secret obsession with Richard Simmons, as evidenced by...
I see your taking the Pierre-Simion Laplace stance, but a problem arises when you try to explain everything based in physical terms. First off some ideas, such as the truths of logic and mathematics, do not depend on the laws of nature and therefore can not be explained by physical means. Because of this, nothing capable of grapsing logical relations can be explained in purely physcial terms either. Which means that human beings can not be explained in purely physical terms.
They can be explained by logical means and thus predicted, making your argument null and void.
The human mind is not an abstract concept and is thus subject to the laws of nature, regardless. Either way your argument is pretty stupid.
quote:
DrPaintThinner obviously shouldn't have said:
It is apart of the human condition for self preservation. But that seems to be absent in some humans. IE suicide victums. Why didn't their self preservation kick in?And would the germans been so successful without a charasmatic, leader? Who was so sure of himself that an enitre group of people would follow him? I know if I was at the forefront I would be so confused that they would linch me.
edit: Yes I misspelled Asimov. But in my defense you didn't even capitalize it.
It's like arguing with a brick wall, or something.
Btw, Big Easy, I think you said it much better then me, but I'll try again before I head off to bed.
Okay drinkingpainthinner: Imagine an atom of gas. Let's keep it simple. Say hydrogen. Most common element in the ENTIRE universe. One proton. One electron. Now, at any given moment, we cannot tell what one atom of hydrogen is doing. Why? In order to measure said atom, we have to bombard it with some sort of radiation. This can (literally) knock it hundreds of miles away. We may get the measurement, but it's outdated.
Now, take a mole of hydrogen atoms. Since you obviously haven't taken highschool chemistry yet, a mole is 6.02x10^23 atoms.. Or roughly 602,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. For a given molocule, one mole is a mass (in grams) equal to the atomic mass of the molocule. So, since water has an atomic mass of 18 (Oxygen's 16, 2 hydrogen makes 18! math is fun!), a mole of water would weigh 18 grams. Get it? Am I going too fast? Want to read that part again?
Since we cannot predict what one individual atom will do, given large enough numbers of said atoms, we can start to more easily predict what they will do as a whole. Now when you're talking about 602 sextillion people, instead, of, say, 3 billion.. It becomes much easier to predict what is going to happen and the actions of ONE individual will cease to make a difference in a noticable scale.
In other words, if you have two people and one decides to slit his throat.. that's a big change. However, if you have fifty billion people, and one decides to jump off a cliff, it doesn't fucking matter. Delphi Aegis fucked around with this message on 04-11-2005 at 04:31 AM.
quote:
Delphi Aegis got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
It's like arguing with a brick wall, or something.Btw, Big Easy, I think you said it much better then me, but I'll try again before I head off to bed.
Okay drinkingpainthinner: Imagine an atom of gas. Let's keep it simple. Say hydrogen. Most common element in the ENTIRE universe. One proton. One electron. Now, at any given moment, we cannot tell what one atom of hydrogen is doing. Why? In order to measure said atom, we have to bombard it with some sort of radiation. This can (literally) knock it hundreds of miles away. We may get the measurement, but it's outdated.
Now, take a mole of hydrogen atoms. Since you obviously haven't taken highschool chemistry yet, a mole is 6.02x10^23 atoms.. Or roughly 60,200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. For a given molocule, one mole is a mass (in grams) equal to the atomic mass of the molocule. So, since water has an atomic mass of 18 (Oxygen's 16, 2 hydrogen makes 18! math is fun!), a mole of water would weigh 18 grams. Get it? Am I going too fast? Want to read that part again?
Since we cannot predict what one individual atom will do, given large enough numbers of said atoms, we can start to more easily predict what they will do as a whole. Now when you're talking about 60 septillion people, instead, of, say, 3 billion.. It becomes much easier to predict what is going to happen and the actions of ONE individual will cease to make a difference in a noticable scale.
In other words, if you have two people and one decides to slit his throat.. that's a big change. However, if you have fifty billion people, and one decides to jump off a cliff, it doesn't fucking matter.
Your right, the numbers of humanity would be so massive that this wouldn't even be applicable at the current time.
quote:
Delphi Aegis's unholy Backstreet Boys obsession manifested in:
To be clear, I agree with Jens. Given the same stimulus and stimulated .. er, thing.. the results should be exactly the same, just like any chemistry equation. The human system simply has much much much more variables then anyone could possibly calculate with current computing technology. Same with the stimuli.
The changes in both give the (very convincing!) illusion of free will.
I also agree. Free will is only your reaction based on that which you have already been subjected to.
quote:
Jensus's momma would never want to hear them say:
The fact that you could only ever have reached that particular decision to do whatever you decide to at that specific instance.No matter what you decide, even if it's to change something, you can predetermine it with enough information, thus making free will impossible. Your entire argument is moot because it harmonizes perfectly with what I said.
How about this?
It doesn't matter if you can predict it, because I'm still choosing to do it.
You're confusing free will with predictability. The two concepts are not exclusive.
And no, you will never get enough information to be able to predict, with 100% accuracy 100% of the time what 100% of the population will do given a situation, which places this argument pretty far into the realm of fantasy.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter at all, because we'll never know it and it SEEMS like I'm making decisions. So I'll settle for that.
Most of these "ideas" about predictable physical reactions driving the universe in general and specifically making free will impossible have been discredited long, long ago. The counter-argument can be summed up in a single word: Heisenberg.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Tron:
Heisenberg.
Isn't that a sports trophy?
quote:
Bloodsage wrote this stupid crap:
The counter-argument can be summed up in a single word: Heisenberg.
That's funny because just a few posts before I got to your post, I was thinking the EXACT same thing.
quote:
In a disastrous attempt to be funny and clever, Bloodsage wrote:
I laff.Most of these "ideas" about predictable physical reactions driving the universe in general and specifically making free will impossible have been discredited long, long ago. The counter-argument can be summed up in a single word: Heisenberg.
I fail to see your expertly elaborated point so unless you actually feel like making an argument could you just get out or something?
Thanks
quote:
From the book of Jensus, chapter 3, verse 16:
I fail to see your expertly elaborated point so unless you actually feel like making an argument could you just get out or something?Thanks
So someone is able to counter your badly thought out idea in a single sentence so you tell them to get out.
Sorry, you lose.
quote:
Bloodsage came out of the closet to say:
I laff.Most of these "ideas" about predictable physical reactions driving the universe in general and specifically making free will impossible have been discredited long, long ago. The counter-argument can be summed up in a single word: Heisenberg.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle has to do with the availability of knowledge; not whether the knowledge exists or not. Heisenberg doesn't guarantee free will, he only guarantees that we'd never have enough information to predetermine someone's decisions. Whether the well-defined biological processes that factor into a decision are known by mankind and written down in a book and fully documented or not doesn't change the fact that they either exist, and there is no free will; or do not exist, and there is.
