Animal Cognition

Michael wrote to Dragonfly:

"Er... So you consider life sort of as a nonessential detail in terms of *kind*?
The difference between the living and the nonliving is just a matter of *degree*,
not *kind*?"

Michael,

That belief is supported by the bedrock principles of modern science. The
idea that there's no difference of kind between the laws applicable to inanimate
and animate matter was given explicit formal statement in 1847, in a paper
by Helmholtz. Here's a quote about that paper from Edward G. Boring's
*A History of Experimental Psychology*, 1950, pg. 299:

"In 1847 [...] Helmholtz read before the *Physikalische Gesellschaft*
in Berlin his famous paper on the conservation of energy (*Ueber die
Erhaltung der Kraft*). Nobody every 'discovered' the law of the
conservation of energy. The idea had been developing since Newton.
Joule a few years earlier had demonstated the fact that heat has
a mechanical equivalent. Helmholtz brought together much of
the previous work and gave the theory mathematical formulation.
He was still being the physicist within physiology, for one
of his motives was to show that this principle works within
the bodily machine, that the living organism is no exception
to the laws of physics."

Something that never ceases to amaze me about Objectivists is their
simultaneously considering themselves champions of science AND holding to
the Objectivist theory of volition. No theory which requires that there
be more than one physically possible action available to an organism
integrates with modern physics.* (Though there are those who argue it
does, via "information theory," "emergentism," maybe Prigogine's
"dissipative systems," but I've yet to see any argument I find convincing
that any of these approaches does the trick of pulling the needed magic --
i.e., a breach in the conservation laws and in Newton's laws of motion --
out of the physics hat.)

* And notice that although Dragonfly speaks of "choices" what
he's meaning by "choices" isn't what Objectivists mean,
as is made, I think, crystal clear in this comment from
his post 60:

"Your introspection can only look as far as your conscious
thoughts, but everything 'under the hood', where the
deterministic machine is grinding away, is invisible to you.
So all the possibilities seem still to be open. But inexorably
you'll arrive at that one particular choice that you were
destined to make."

He isn't proposing that there really is more than one physically possible
future.

Ellen

___

Post 81

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 1:59pm

No theory which requires that there be more than one physically possible action available to an organism integrates with modern physics.*

This I have to disagree with rather strongly. Physics is not even close to advanced enough to explain its own field (no unified theory yet), let alone make this incredible leap of what? Faith? Can you prove this experimentally? Do you have a theory that can be shown to support this assertion?

Post 82

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:10pm

Well said, Ellen. You make my task easier, instead of plodding along at writing a more or less coherent reply, I can now just refer to your post.

Post 83

Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 2:32pm

Ellen,

So I take it from your post that you consider the principles of birth, growth, aging with decadence, death, reproduction and awareness also apply to nonliving entities - and that the concept of volition within that context is essentially the same as the randomness of a pair of dice falling?

I still don't get it.

Michael

Post 84

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 8:55am

Kurt: Can you prove this experimentally? Do you have a theory that can be shown to support this assertion?

What? You're asking for a theory for an assertion that no theory/explanation exists?

Post 85

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 9:24am

Maybe I am misunderstanding, but here is the statement:

No theory which requires that there be more than one physically possible action available to an organism integrates with modern physics.*

So, this is saying to me that modern physics precludes more than one physically possible action available to an organism, even though it is stated as a negative, it is asserting a connection between modern physics and choice for an organism to take action, and I see no such connection. So, I am asking for proof of a connection that is assumed in this statement, and which must arise from modern physics. On the other hand, I confess this is a very poorly written statement, perhaps the author meant something else, or would care to elaborate.

Post 86

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 10:26am

Kurt: So, this is saying to me that modern physics precludes more than one physically possible action available to an organism, even though it is stated as a negative, it is asserting a connection between modern physics and choice for an organism to take action, and I see no such connection.

I don't see it that way. I think she's asserting the negative, that NO adequate (in her judgement) connection exists between current physics and non-deterministic outcomes (or breaches in conservation or Newton's laws as she put it).

Post 87

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 1:37pm

I lost a post I made in reply Bob Mac, but essentially these laws don't apply and have no evidence. All of the evidence physics uses relate to mass, particles, and the like. As an example:

Physics - I can prove that an object of any mass in Earth's Gravity will fall at the same velocity, and can do so 100% of the time.

Try to do that by predicting if I will move left or right at any instace. There ISevidence that intelligent beings, while acting within the limits of the physics of their bodies (as proven by science) can choose to do X or do Y at a particular moment. Try to create any physics model or prediction that will tell you where I will be in 24 hours? In 1 Hour? It can't be done, and yes therefore YOU must offer proof that says you can do it, or else you are making a gigantic leap of failth with no evidence. You say that because you can predict the trajectory of a particle or mass, you can predict the movement of a being with volition, and you don't think that it needs proof?

Here look at it another way, science will typically (and correctly) debunk those who claim "ESP" or predictive psychic ability. They demand experiments proving that the psychic can do what they say, that is see or predict whatever it is. Now, when they cannot, or even if they show they often can but maybe not often enough to be provable, the scientists will say you cannot prove your ability.

Now, that same scientist tells me physics can determine what I will do, but has no evidence to support it? Wow maybe he will say it is too complicated, just as the pyschic may say they are not "feeling the spirits" or the "conditions" may not permit it.

No, I want proof of this, because otherwise reality tells me otherwise.

Post 88

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 3:39pm

Kurt, you're confusing determinism with predictability. Determinism means that for any state at time t1 there can be only one state at time t2. That doesn't imply that you can predict what the state at time t2 will be. In practice that will be only possible in a very limited class of systems. Classical physics is a deterministic system.

There IS evidence that intelligent beings, while acting within the limits of the physics of their bodies (as proven by science) can choose to do X or do Y at a particular moment.

If they are acting "within the limits of the physics of their bodies, as proven by science", this means that their actions are deterministic, because that is what the physics as proven by science tells us. Some people try to escape that conclusion by seeking refuge in quantum mechanics with its chance element, but that doesn't work. First, the general consensus is that quantum effects play no significant role in the mechanism of the brain, and second, even if they did, it wouldn't make any difference in the explanation of "free will". When you say that people "can choose to do X or Y at a particular moment", this only means that you can't predict what they will choose, but there will be nevertheless only one possible outcome. We can't prove this by predicting that outcome, but that isn't necessary, as it is the only possibility within the framework of classical physics. If you claim that it is not true, your claim implies that the physical theory cannot be applied to this situation, and thereby you introduce a new physical theory. If you do so, you should tell us what that theory is, and what the evidence for your hypothesis is.

Post 89

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:32pm

Kurt, I understand what you're saying and I do not believe that we are deterministic machines FWIW.

Kurt wrote: You say that because you can predict the trajectory of a particle or mass, you can predict the movement of a being with volition, and you don't think that it needs proof?

I did not make this assertion and my only point is that I don't think anyone did. However, this (your assertion above) is simply not the same as asserting that non-deterministic physical science does not exist within the realm of current physics. Again, this is the only point I disagree with you - the assertion being made, not the validity. Personally, I only have an undergrad degree in Physics and simply do not have enough knowledge to confidently address the validity of the original assertion.

I believe, in the context of the knowledge I have now, that we are volitional AND this can be most likely eventually explained by natural physical laws yet unknown, or by a current newly emerged branch of Physics that I am unaware of. This position has got me into serious trouble with another faction of the Objectivist community. So, to be completely forthcoming - I believe volition in man is true, but is also a big leap.

Post 90

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 2:42pm

Another point

Kurt: I lost a post I made in reply Bob Mac, but essentially these laws don't apply and have no evidence. All of the evidence physics uses relate to mass, particles, and the like. As an example:

Physics is not just an isolated science. Physics at it's core is the scientific study of the nature and laws of our universe. Laws of physics ALWAYS apply - to everything, by definition. All other sciences are a subset of physics. Only incorrect or incomplete laws do not apply.

Can you tell I'm a physics guy? :-)

Post 91

Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 4:27pm

Sorry for the multiple posts, but I keep thinking of more points.

Many scientists and others have held the view that the universe operates entirely on current deterministic physical laws. The whole Newtonian "Clockwork Universe" is an obvious example from history. However this has historically always been wrong if only because our current understanding of the basic laws of the universe was, and continues to be incomplete.

I guess the burden of proof exists on the person that asserts that volition is outside our current understanding of the universe only if they believe also that our understanding is complete. The implication would be that volition is therefore bunk and all is predictable. Then sure, they'd have to accept your challenge and predict an outcome. This is not the case here. Asserting that our incomplete physics cannot explain volition does not imply the burden of proof/prediction you assert.

Post 92

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 6:59am

Mr Bob Mac:

I guess the burden of proof exists on the person that asserts that volition is outside our current understanding of the universe only if they believe also that our understanding is complete. The implication would be that volition is therefore bunk and all is predictable. Then sure, they'd have to accept your challenge and predict an outcome. This is not the case here. Asserting that our incomplete physics cannot explain volition does not imply the burden of proof/prediction you assert.

Uh-uh. It doesn't work like that. Science in general and physics in particular are of course never complete. That doesn't mean that they have to prove that no other theories are possible. The burden of proof is on the proponents of such alternative theories. Should we for example waste time on disproving a theory that states that only God can explain this or that feature? Further there may still be many open questions in physics, but these relate not so much to the physics of everyday life, but to extreme conditions as in the universe, black holes, big bang, cosmology etc. For our daily life situations the standard theories of classical mechanics, QM and relativity are confirmed to a very high degree (for the validity of each in its own domain, like QM at atomic scales and GR for the GSM system, etc.). It is therefore no small matter to claim that these standard theories are not valid for human beings. Such an extraordinary claim demands extraordinary evidence, and it is up to the claimant to provide that evidence. As long as that is not given, we may safely ignore such claims. Vague feelings don't count.

Post 93

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 8:10am

Cal: Uh-uh. It doesn't work like that. Science in general and physics in particular are of course never complete. That doesn't mean that they have to prove that no other theories are possible. The burden of proof is on the proponents of such alternative theories.

I'm not disagreeing with you in principle, only application. Somehow a statement like

"No theory which requires that there be more than one physically possible action available to an organism
integrates with modern physics.*"

got a response requesting proof of a deterministic human. The exact quote was "Try to create any physics model or prediction that will tell you where I will be in 24 hours?"

This does not follow and in my estimation, neither does your viewpoint of "The burden of proof is on the proponents of such alternative theories. " simply because an alternative theory was not stated.

Kurt's original response was directed at the bolded text above, not the implied assumption of universal determinism for which his response then makes sense.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it all boils down to whether one is arguing that Objectivist volition is wrong or just unfounded. The former requiring the burden of proof you assert, the latter not (at least not the same burden). Do you agree? To me, it seems both positions (volition and determinism) are unfounded as of yet.

Post 94

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 1:12pm

I think that the problem with "volition" is that it is not rigorously defined. Many times I've tried to find out what people exactly mean by volition, and in most cases the answer was something vague like: "Well, by introspection I know that I am free to choose between several alternatives, that several different choices are possible, that's evident!". But what do they exactly mean by "possible"? One interpretation could be: if I repeat this experiment (choosing one of several alternatives) many times under similar circumstances, it will in general have different outcomes, so we can't say in advance that it will have one particular outcome. I completely agree! But does that mean that in any particular experiment different outcomes are possible? No! We just don't know what the outcome will be, but there isn't any reason to assume that for that particular experiment more than one outcome is possible and that you therefore have to invent some new physical theory. In fact there is also always only one outcome (supposing that the alternatives are mutually exclusive), so where is the evidence that more than one outcome (for that particular experiment) is possible?

There is an analogy with the throwing of a die: when we throw a die we can't say in advance what face will come up, but we know that when we repeat the die-throwing experiment many times different faces will come up (approximately with the same frequency for each face). So we say that when we're going to throw a die, any face can come up. But that only means that we don't know in advance which face will come up, although this is a completely deterministic event. Therefore we don't hesitate to use such deterministic events to generate a series of "random" outcomes.

Post 95

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 1:52pm

Bob Mac is correct when he says:

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it all boils down to whether one is arguing that Objectivist volition is wrong or just unfounded. The former requiring the burden of proof you assert, the latter not (at least not the same burden). Do you agree? To me, it seems both positions (volition and determinism) are unfounded as of yet.

The bolded text I referred to was in fact rather vague as to its meaning, so I should have clarified it first. On the other hand, the dinosaur guy is off when he compares a random outcome of dice to a random outcome of a being, because with dice I can use the science of statistics to show the variability of outcome, whereas if I choose the number I can make it anything I wish it to, and no statistics can predict it.

Experiment 1) Dice thrown 1,000 times, our results boil down to 1 in 6 chance for each side to come up, our theory is proven.

Experiment 2) Scientist asks me to choose a number from 1 to 6 and repeats it 10,000 times. I tell him 1 every time, but occasionally throw in another number for fun. Maybe I don't. Nothing is proven, as it is not a deterministic event, it is a matter of choice.

Again, nothing in physics speaks to your assertion at all in any fashion. So my conclusion is that 1) You are making an unfounded extrapolation and 2) Furthermore, it is one that does not even serve a purpose, since it predicts nothing and tells us nothing of value that can be used.

Post 96

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:27pm

This is the first I've had time to look at RoR since I posted my post #80.
In the usual course of events, I don't have time for reading RoR more
than once or twice a week, so I'm often behind the curve of discussions.

I typed a reply in which I wrote:

"I think that C.S. ('Dragonfly,' an easier moniker to type than
'Calopteryx Splendens' ;-)) has, in post 88, adequately answered
Kurt Eichner. Kurt, did you understand Dragonfly's reply?"

However, in going to the site to post this reply, I see that Kurt
has meanwhile responded in a way which shows that, no, he doesn't
understand. Kurt, as Dragonfly explained, you're confusing
predictability with determinism. I'm not seeing what you found
"vague" in my statement which you bold faced. Possibly you're
not understanding what in modern physics doesn't integrate
with the idea of there being "more than one physically possible
action available to an organism." As I said in the original post,
the conservation laws and Newton's laws of motion. You require
that these be breached if you hold that there is "more than one
physically possible action available to an organism."

I should probably clarify that I myself am of the belief that it is NOT
the case that (quoting from post 88) "for any state at time t1 there
can be only one state at time t2." My own belief is that there's
an error, as yet unidentified, in the foundational basis of current
physics, an error such that it will turn out to be the case that the
brain isn't a determinist system. But Dragonfly is right that anyone
holding such a view faces the very big task of proposing a new physical
theory. (I'm working on the problem -- ;-) -- but who knows if I'll live
long enough to get past the hope stage on it; it's an exceedingly difficult
problem.)

An historic detail which I'll correct in Bob Mac's post 91:
It isn't really correct to describe the Newtonian universe as a
"Clockwork Universe," though this description is often used.
Newton objected to the "clockwork" image held by Descartes and
others. The Newtonian universe is one of moving bodies acting
in accordance with the laws of motion enunciated and explained in
Newton's *Principia*.

And a comment about this statement of Bob Mac's, again from post 91:

"I guess the burden of proof exists on the person that asserts that
volition is outside our current understanding of the universe only
if they believe also that our understanding is complete."

I see no "burden of proof" needed beyond reference to current physics
in saying that "volition [if by 'volition' one has a definition in mind
which holds that intentional non-deterministic actions are possible at
least for humans] is outside our current understanding of the universe."
The truth of the statement that there's a mismatch between our current
theories of physics and a theory which requires that for any brain state
at time t1 there could be more than one possible outcome at time t2
doesn't depend on whether or not a person believes that current physics
is complete; it's a straightforward statement about what current physics
theory is.

Ellen

___

(Edited by Ellen Stuttle
on 1/13, 3:43pm)

Post 97

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 1:59pm

but there isn't any reason to assume that for that particular experiment more than one outcome is possible and that you therefore have to invent some new physical theory.

Well put, and I agree.

Post 98

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 3:43pm

Kurt:

Experiment 2) Scientist asks me to choose a number from 1 to 6 and repeats it 10,000 times. I tell him 1 every time, but occasionally throw in another number for fun. Maybe I don't. Nothing is proven, as it is not a deterministic event, it is a matter of choice.

You're missing the point. It's not my intention to prove that all choices are possible (maybe they aren't, maybe you'll never choose 3, or always choose 2 for example), but to give meaning to the vague term "possible" in "any choice is possible". In any particular experiment only one choice is possible (and there is only one outcome, surprise, surprise). So if you say that more choices are "possible", this can only mean that you can't predict what choice will be made, but that you expect that in a repeated experiment there may be (but not necessarily are) different outcomes (we just don't know, and it is this ignorance that we translate into "all choices are possible", but that doesn't necessarily imply that even in a repeated experiment all outcomes will be realized).

Again, nothing in physics speaks to your assertion at all in any fashion. So my conclusion is that 1) You are making an unfounded extrapolation

This all is completely in accordance with current physical theory. If you think that this is not true and that a new theory is necessary, then you'll have to give evidence for that assertion; I haven't seen that so far.

and 2) Furthermore, it is one that does not even serve a purpose, since it predicts nothing and tells us nothing of value that can be used.

What purpose should what serve? There is no mystery at all, this is a straighforward case of standard physics. If you claim that a new theory is necessary, then what does that theory predict and what does that theory tell us that can be valued?

Post 99

Friday, January 13, 2006 - 6:10pm