Essentially, you are saying that you can ignore the noise in biological systems because it is not relevant to the decisions we make. You use how people can make non-random decisions as something that implies that the stochastic aspects of it are not relevant(this is incorrect)
Actually, it's entirely correct. Most people I see making decisions, don't care about the noise or the stochastic process or randomness or anything like that. They have a set of options, a set of values, a set of norms, and they ponder and then conclude based upon their own thoughts and assumptions of the various things. Saying that "the noise in biological systems is important to our decision making processes" is like saying that the noise in biological systems is important to me drinking my coffee; it's not. It's easily ignorable as I drink away at my coffee (actually, that's a bit of a misnomer, as I'm not "ignoring" the noise; in fact, I never thought of it in the first place in order to then ignore it).
Perhaps you're confusing what scientists do while they study these events and the natural laws that govern our lives, with us consciously caring about them. I don't need to care about the workings of the digestive system in my body in order to know that if I drink pepsi and then coke, I'm going to be very
gaseous; I get gaseous because of those very workings, but I don't need to worry about it. You're mistaking the workings at the micro level for the conscious human awareness at the macro level.
however, consistency is only seen due to the dynamical aspects of the biology, itself. This means your deduction is incorrect.
No, mon. It means you be worryin' 'bout stuff you don' need ta worry 'bout, mon.
As I have been saying, you are making errors in your deductions. See the below quote. The quote from the article above shows that when you do this, you don't get things that accurately represent things like brains where people need brains to decide things;
BINGO! You nailed it. Yay. Accuracy. I'm not accurately
portraying things at the micro level. There's a certain level of accuracy that I care about, and then anything below that is irrelevant to me
because it brings nothing meaningful to the table. (However, you've also been accusing me of being wrong about things because I've merely been adhering to a certain level of inaccuracy. Which, is technically true, but a proper scientist who adheres to an even greater level of accuracy than you do could then accuse you of being just as wrong)
therefore, stochastic processes are very relevant in discussing the neurophysiology upon which a decision is built.
Mahbe. Or maybe they're not. You know why they might not be?Because you can't change anything one way or the other just because you know about it.
And by "you", I mean you, Rayn, as a human being living your life at the macro scale, as well as myself as a human being living my life at the macro scale, as well as every other reader on these forums who are all living their lives at the macro scale. None of us can even ascertain, let alone modify, the stochastic processes going on within our own brains at this very moment.So answer me one very important question here, Rayn: how do you propose that people should change their lives by becoming aware of the fact that stochastic processes exist within biology?
Do we eat differently? Do we meditate more? Do we drink less alcohol? Less socializing perhaps? Spend more time finding ways to make money?
In other words, given that the stochastic process is a very real effect and is constantly working, and has been constantly working within our bodies since before the day we were born:
1) I continue living my life completely unaware of the stochastic process, and make the decisions I make based upon the macro level reasons for making them;
2) I continue living my life aware of the stochastic process, and still make the same decisions I make based upon the same macro level reasons for making them.
What's the important
difference between 1 and 2? If there is no important difference, then I can
, in fact, declare that knowledge and discussion of the stochastic process is entirely irrelevant because
no relevance has been shown between the two different scenarios of "it being known about" versus "it not being known about".
And remember: I'm not asking about whether scientists could take advantage of the specific knowledge in order to create drugs that affect the stochastic process towards one set of outcomes or another. I'm asking what you, personally, do to improve your day-to-day living with this knowledge (especially if you can tie it back to freedom / free will, but I'm not going to demand that specifically in this regard as I'd be interested to see if you can come up with even one thing that has been improved in your daily life because of this knowledge).
The problem I have noticed, with these conversations, is that people tend to argue from philosophical stances without much knowledge of the math, physics, or chemistry.
Well, you know, that tends to happen when you're talking about a philosophy. You discuss philosophy from a philosophy stance rather than a math, physics, or chemistry stance.
You are speaking in generalities, which your average person does. You have a cursory knowledge of this. As I have formal education in this field, I know the more esoteric aspects of it in such a way that I can speak on this subject in detail. You can't; however, you refuse to admit your incompetence.
I speak in generalities because it's easier to communicate with the average person, which I have to do on a daily basis far more often than I would like. I used to speak in such a manner that left these normal average people very confused, so I modified it. And secondly, I've admitted I have less knowledge of the field of biology than you do. Multiple times. You, apparently, are just too imcompetent to read or remember it. I like to think that my competencies are more relevant to my life than yours are to my life.
Regardless of the magnitude of which you were talking about determinism, you were still arguing that because people can make non-random decisions, this implies that the stochastic aspects of it it do not matter; however, when you make everything noise-free, you don't get what resembles activity in the brain; therefore, Scientifically, you were wrong.
Well, it's good that you caught what I was saying, but it's bad that you are still thinking on a different level than I am and don't realize it. I'm actually somewhat aware of the activity of the brain with regards to the stochastic process blah blah blah; I just don't care. Because, it really doesn't matter
. Unless you can go back up to that very important question I posed and actually show why I should care.
DO NOT become confused with the difference between "this is the mechanical process that happens at the biological level" versus
"this is why you should care", because that's what you've been doing this whole time; I want the second one, not the first. You've been constantly asserting that the process is real, and I've been acknowledging that, but you have not shown, even once, why anyone should give a flying fuck that it exists. Me showing someone how to open a beer is more relevant to a person's life than discussing the stochastic process is.
And as for determinism itself, I should probably go into it a bit since you can't seem to leave it alone, and I do make some deterministic arguments, but you keep assuming things about determinism that I don't, and thus you assume that I'm asserting things that I am not, which causes problems. So...
Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.
The roots of the notion of determinism surely lie in a very common philosophical idea: the idea that everything can, in principle, be explained, or that everything that is, has a sufficient reason for being and being as it is, and not otherwise.
-"If and only if".
-Inclusion of natural law
"If and only if" means that determinism should not be viewed as factually correct in all circumstances (the incorrect assumption of which leads to the idea that "there can only be one possible outcome for the universe"). "Given a specified way things are at a time t" necessitates that a person knows, or is capable of knowing, the starting set up of the events; this means that determinism should not
be applied to the entire series of events of the entire universe leading from from the big bang until now, and should instead only be applied at best to limited events (and if you want to discuss it scientifically, should only be applied to truly closed systems). Natural law, which is to say all of the known laws of the universe which science has uncovered, is included in determinism because determinism requires the use of those laws in order to determine real and proper outcomes from events.
In and of itself, determinism is a fairly common-sense and reasonable idea. If I throw a ball, it will go where I throw it. It has gone where it has, because I have thrown it. NOT to be confused with "because that's the only possible way that it could have ended up there", nor to be confused with "that's the only possible place it could have gone when I threw it".
In fact, why don't you go ahead and read the entire introduction at least http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/determinism-causal/#Int
It already takes care of a number of fallacies that people assume regarding determinism.
Some false assumptions of about determinism:
1) That it is absolute.
2) That it has to do with predeterminism, or fate.
3) That there is only one possible outcome for each singular event.
4) The (false) idea that "humans could theoretically potentially
know the antecedent state of the universe" allows us to create futher assumptions.
5) That determinism and unpredictability cannot coexist in the same universe.
In regards to number three, some background. Determinism is an ancient
idea, as ancient as many other philosophies that long predate modern science. Modern science has since shown many many different aspects of reality that kill the notion that there is only one possible outcome for any given event; some examples include algebraic equations that have more than one solution, splitting singular photons of light through a semi-transparent mirror such that the photon travels two distinct paths at the same time, and the double slit experiment which can change distinct photons of light and particles into analog results.
As such, one should not confused philosophical discussions with scientific ones. Your constant attempt at using specific aspects of science to try and argue philosophical notions regarding will and freedom is misdirected (this is another reason I am speaking in generalities).
Choices are inherently indeterministic because we break the chain of determinism. We come to a fork in the road, and we weigh the various options before us, and then we make a choice. The choices we make are inherently fuzzy, or imprecise, because of a multitude of variables that drive our Selves each day, and which we do not bother looking back to and trying to determine (hey look, the stochastic process at the macro level, no? Does this mean I've contradicted myself at the beginning where I said it's not relevant? No, because it's not relevant to know about it
in order to make the decision). Some of these driving forces are more important in some choices than others; for instance, if I am hungry, then I will make more choices towards getting food than if I am already full; this is not deterministic, but is probable towards a weighted outcome (where the weighting of the outcome can change with time and events).
Example: I'm drinking a coffee right now; I don't know the set up of the various molecules in my body, nor the set up of the molecules in the coffee, so before even touching upon other aspects of determinism we can establish that this is not an event where determinism would be appropriate to use.
Example: While playing pool/billiards with friends, we set up the specific conditions of the balls in specific places, we roll the pool cues to find any bends, and we run our hands over the pool table to find any subtle changes to pitch; we actively set or gather information in the set up to be used in what will become a game based partly on determinism. The game stops being deterministic when we add in our own human faults for not being able to line up shots properly, or when our hands move in ways that we don't want them to.
Example: Humans can create robots to play the game of pool instead, and can create robots to set up the game in the first place. With the superior repeatable
precision that robots can produce, the game can become deterministic in every single run; the robots set up the balls in the same place every time, and shoot the balls in the same angles and with the same power every time, then the balls will go the same distances in the same directions every time. Human ability is imprecise enough and faulty enough that we can blame ourselves for some aspects of indeterminism when a deterministic solution could otherwise have been found.
For both of the pool examples, we can definitively declare that a deterministic outlook does not
start prior to us setting up the balls, because regardless of what the conditions were like before we set up the balls, we ignore those preconditions and force a certain starting set up to be created. While playing the game, everyone can see where the balls are at any given point in time, but people of different skill levels attempt to plan out their shots in different ways; I usually plan out the white ball hitting one or two other things (balls or walls) and then leave the rest to chance (not because I can't plan out more, but because I find the game is more fun that way); a more skilled player can plan out the white ball hitting more other things; a less skilled player has difficulty planning out the white ball hitting even one other ball.