Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch • Hacker News Board

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#81

Post by K0balt » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 10:00 AM UTC

eternalban wrote: post #71

s1artibartfast wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, this is my deterministic take.

So, - the un-conscious processes are fully deterministic. - all consciousness is a post fact [deterministic] process. - [thus] free will and control are illusory. The first thing that jumps out here is: what purpose does consciousness serve in this system? You have effectively reduced consciousness to the status of the appendix of the psyche: an entirely useless thing with the defining feature of having an entirely e…

I suspect sometimes that this could be correct, but I find the host/Symbian model more predictive and useful.

Host- a bright, hairless human animal, otherwise minding his own business.

Symbiant- the "imaginary friend" imaginary viewpoint cultivated through the process of inculturation, put in control of the human by the process of inculturatiion, essentially an information based construct

"control yourself" and other linguistic and experiencial artifacts point to the existance of two distinct entities, a controller and a controllee.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#82

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

yetihehe wrote: post #74

s1artibartfast wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think your problem is that you assume free will is a prerequisite for accountability, consequences, or justice. When my computer breaks, I either fix it or replace it. I don't ask if the computer actively chose to break. Assume there is a robot programmed to walk around punching people, do you ignore it because it isn't making choices? Similarly, if a person is walking around punching people due to a combination of…

> Similarly, if a person is walking around punching people due to a combination of random and deterministic factors (no free will), do you ignore them? I will ask why they are punching people and might join if cause is valid. I'm not yet convinced if we have free will or not, whole concept looks a little meaningless when you look at it too closely.

I think it is largely a philosophical question, but it does have some cultural ramifications. For example, it can change how most people think about and punish crimes.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#83

Post by s1artibartfast » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 2:30 PM UTC

dalbasal wrote: post #77

s1artibartfast wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both. Evolution by natural selection is composed of several processes and events, some of which are random, some of which are deterministic.

...That was an example in a context re: free will. Determinism vs randomness dichotomy. Evolution is not distinctly either, which is my point.

Free will, by definition, can be neither deterministic or random, which is very different.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#84

Post by eternalban » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 8:05 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #72

eternalban wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, - the un-conscious processes are fully deterministic. - all consciousness is a post fact [deterministic] process. - [thus] free will and control are illusory. The first thing that jumps out here is: what purpose does consciousness serve in this system? You have effectively reduced consciousness to the status of the appendix of the psyche: an entirely useless thing with the defining feature of having an entirely e…

>The first thing that jumps out here is: what purpose does consciousness serve in this system I dont know, but could throw out a few ideas. One is that consciousness is part of a post processing step for memory storage, abstract analysis, or feedback loops. Another possibility is that is an unnecessary artifact or emergent property, more the laryngeal nerve than the appendix of the brain. >I assert that your position…

It is noteworthy that the defining aspect of human experience in your model is an "unnecessary artifact".

The issue is not the precise boundary between unconscious and conscious mind, the point is that there is, in fact, such a boundary. You dream, do you not?

What you fail to address is what 'function' would require this otherwise inexplicable asymmetric partion of mind. Why this asymmetry? Why this duality?

Your principle error, imo, is that you simply assert that un- and sub-conscious psychological action is deterministic. You, nor anyone else for that matter, has any basis for making this determination. "We can't explain it so it doesn't exist". All we have observed in some experiments is that psychological signals that engender action occur before the conscious mind 'thinks' it has made a decision. To choose to label one's own mind's actions "deterministic" in that modality is merely an assumption. The simpler view is that one's 'self' has both unconcious and conscious aspects. This continuity does not require any assumptions; it seems self evident that 'it' is a unified 'thing'.

It is entirely irrelevant what physics has to say, today, about consciousness. Physics is having rather significant problems addressing a coherent, unified, treatment of simple matter, nevermind self-conscious minds. I think it is both prudent and rational to have a bit of humility in terms of what we actually know and understand, as a species.

[p.s. in context my OP, to be precise: I assert that it is "my unconscious self that has made a decision; my conscious mind becomes of aware of my decision, and a bit of continuity theater of the mind make my ego think it is the one that made my decision." It is an error to confuse 'ego' for the 'self'.]

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#85

Post by eternalban » Wed, Sep 23, 2020, 9:26 PM UTC

K0balt wrote: post #81

eternalban wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, - the un-conscious processes are fully deterministic. - all consciousness is a post fact [deterministic] process. - [thus] free will and control are illusory. The first thing that jumps out here is: what purpose does consciousness serve in this system? You have effectively reduced consciousness to the status of the appendix of the psyche: an entirely useless thing with the defining feature of having an entirely e…

I suspect sometimes that this could be correct, but I find the host/Symbian model more predictive and useful. Host- a bright, hairless human animal, otherwise minding his own business. Symbiant- the "imaginary friend" imaginary viewpoint cultivated through the process of inculturation, put in control of the human by the process of inculturatiion, essentially an information based construct "control yourself" and other…

I think this is a distinct matter, addressing the 'agency' of 'choice'. Above we're considering if 'choice' is illusory, as claimed. Choice presents a problem for proponents of 'mind/consciousness is a side-effect of a brain' school of thought.

Re: Acorn Woodpeckers Have Multi-Day Wars, and Birds Come from All Around to Watch

#86

Post by dmoy » Thu, Sep 24, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #60

dmoy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He may have broken state or federal law though. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, yes It was probably federally illegal

Unlikely. AS I understand it, most woodpeckers are not migratory.

Right but the federal migratory bird act covers a ton of birds that aren't what you or I would consider migratory

For whatever reason, basically every species of woodpecker in the US is classified as migratory non-game, and thus it's federally illegal to hunt them

The only way you can legally shoot a woodpecker is with a depredation permit by the USFWS