Posted: Jan 10, 2017 10:21 pm
ughaibu wrote:It's pretty obvious that we don't behave much like rivers, but as we're made very differently, even someone who thinks that their behaviour is just "chemistry or physics doing its thing" should realise that. So, let's consider something that is made the same as we are, dead people. Clearly it would be as idiotic to say "live people are made of the same stuff as dead people are and as dead people don't have free will, neither do live people" as it would be to say "dead people are made of the same stuff as live people are and as live people have free will, so do dead people".romansh wrote:even in the realm of where I think I control them it is chemistry or physics doing its thing. Ultimately it is like saying a meandering river over plain chose its course based on the water flow, topology, geology ... it had free will in choosing its path ... it had no compulsion. The same fundamental forces that apply to the river that apply to us.
To get an idea of how daft the claim that our behaviour is "chemistry or physics doing its thing" consider three things: 1. physicists and chemists themselves will tell you that they cannot derive human behaviour from these sciences, 2. chess can be played using any physical medium in which the moves can be encoded and in a game of chess there can be a forced move, so, either the rules of chess are some manner of uber-laws of physics and chemistry that apply regardless of the physical medium or activities like playing chess are independent of laws of physics and chemistry, 3. we cannot derive from facts about the world and laws of chemistry and physics where a person will be several weeks from now, but by rolling dice we can find in which of six places, which of six people will be, on which of six days in which of six future weeks and which of six activities they will be conducting. Again, either their actions are independent of laws of chemistry and physics, or we can do what the scientists admit that they can't do, by rolling dice. Notice that following the instructors of who, where, when and what, as indicated by the dice, is equivalent to recording the result of the sequence of dice rolls. In short, it is a requirement, for the conduct of empirical science, that the behaviour of people is not entailed by any empirical science, so it is barking nonsense to hold that our behaviour is "chemistry or physics doing its thing".
Are you sure? Weather is physics and chemistry doing its thing. In terms of predicting the future the best we can do is having 50 models computing available data, and average the results. So this tells you about the inadequacy of our current models, not that physics and chemistry are inappropriate tools.
WHen it comes to human behaviour, we have nothing like the starting dataset we presently have for weather, and even if we did have, the required dataset for predictions is probably a lot more complicated. So it is reasonable to postulate that we are presently so far from an understanding of the inputs/interactions/modifying factors involved that we could not even begin to construct a reliable predictive model.
Yet it is clear that at a basic neuronal level that is the only viable model, so scaling up is the only reasonable hypothesis in the market.