"Are We Automata?" by William James (1879) • Hacker News Board

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#61

Post by Kim_Bruning » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:11 PM UTC

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #49

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #31

Fwiw nothing with outside influence is automata as the true randomness from quantum phenomena propagates. Eg. If you take in real world visual input to a system that from that point on is deterministic the output of that system is now non-deterministic. Similar to how Shrodinger talked about the macro scale cat being alive and dead at the same time. So the arguments that the neurons in the brain are deterministic or…

As far as we've been able to determine, almost all macroscopic objects can be behaviorally described in terms of classical physics, and this includes neurons. Even in rare cases where quantum effects are seen, such as photosynthesis, or radioactive decay, it's extremely localized. The fact that a plant's efficiency of conversion of light to chemical energy appears to use quantum effects doesn't affect the rest of the…

There's an entire field of deterministic mathematics called Chaos Theory, that pretty much encompasses what it says on the tin.

It turns out that -innocent, simple looking- finite state deterministic automata can actually be less predictable than the non-deterministic kind. (and it can get pretty wild! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE )

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#62

Post by ryanklee » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:17 PM UTC

karaterobot wrote: post #51

dnissley wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> STEM devalued non-STEM studies for years What does this refer to?

Figuratively, how all my physicist and computer science friends rolled their eyes when I took degrees in the humanities. Literally, how true the joke is about the difference between an English major and a large pepperoni pizza is that the pizza can feed a family of three. On the other hand, the humanities did plenty to devalue itself, by adopting the view that 'value' itself is likely a social construct.

> the humanities did plenty to devalue itself, by adopting the view that 'value' itself is likely a social construct.

The humanities is not a monolith.

If you ask a philosopher in the analytic tradition, which is the tradition in which most of the philosophical world resides, they are likely to disagree with social constructivist views.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#63

Post by kouru225 » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:19 PM UTC

operatingthetan wrote: post #50

kouru225 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean we’re killing things?

Not sure about killing, but maybe harming.

I feel like it would mean we’re doing less damage than before: if everything is conscious then death isn’t what we think it is. Decomposing suddenly means something completely different.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#64

Post by hackinthebochs » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:19 PM UTC

ryanklee wrote: post #57

hackinthebochs wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Stephen Hawking and Neal Degrasse Tyson have been running around for decades telling everyone that the humanities are worthless. Young students, unfortunately, listened to them on this subject. A real tragedy, I think. Neither of them has said anything like this. Hawking's "philosophy (metaphysics) is dead" is a narrow point about the relevance of philosophy to basic theorizing about nature. NDT said something along…

This is not correct. See my comment with numerous citations.

I looked at it. Randomly opened a couple of links, none of which really support the idea of NDT thinking humanities are worthless. All I see are a lot of overinterpreting and misrepresentations for the sake of using popular guys as a jumping-off point for one's own defensive screed. If you have a specific citation that you feel best represents the case against NDT or Hawking, I'm happy to consider it.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#65

Post by notjoemama » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:24 PM UTC

ryanklee wrote: post #55

kbenson wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has NDT been saying that? I wouldn't know, since I mostly consume him as small segments of larger appearances, but it seems half the time he's conversing with someone he's spouting philosophy as he sees it, so it would be surprising to me that he denigrates it.

1. Tyson dismissed the intellectual value of philosophy in a podcast, which led to criticism from those within the discipline[1]. 2. He has been quoted saying, "What they teach in the humanities is not 'skepticism' or 'critical thinking.' It's mental masturbation disguised as critical thinking"[5]. 3. Tyson warned that philosophy "can really mess you up" and has implied that philosophy does not progress in the way sc…

Back to the concept rather than an individual, isn't part of the problem that STEM fields feed back into actionable ways, but perhaps philosophy doesn't?

For example, if a new exo-planet were found to have a certain chemical make up that our current understanding didn't agree with, that would go back to theoretical physics and mathematics, where they might discover a way to better describe the discovery. That then becomes a new model that allows us to recognize a new pattern of solar system formation, etc etc.

There's a practical application to STEM work. In what way is there a practical application in philosophy? Is it isolated to educating people on broader more complex thought?

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#66

Post by VirusNewbie » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:29 PM UTC

ryanklee wrote: post #41

VirusNewbie wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it very suspicious that people who avoid learning rhetoric, or formal logic, or axiomatic thinking in general, are able to draw useful conclusions from studying humanities.

I think you are putting words in GP's mouth. They never said anything about avoiding learning formal logic or math. The context of that statement was a sarcastic position.

You misunderstood, I was criticizing the majority of people who study humanities in college, because they don’t have the requisite skills to make valid conclusions about what they are learning.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#67

Post by ryanklee » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:33 PM UTC

hackinthebochs wrote: post #64

ryanklee wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not correct. See my comment with numerous citations.

I looked at it. Randomly opened a couple of links, none of which really support the idea of NDT thinking humanities are worthless. All I see are a lot of overinterpreting and misrepresentations for the sake of using popular guys as a jumping-off point for one's own defensive screed. If you have a specific citation that you feel best represents the case against NDT or Hawking, I'm happy to consider it.

Sure. Please tell me how I can possibly read this interview in any other way than NDT doesn't see the value in philosophy:

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/neil-degrasse...

As far as I can tell, he doesn't say one charitable thing, and more, his attitude comes off as smug and arrogant.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#68

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:35 PM UTC

AnotherGoodName wrote: post #60

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as we've been able to determine, almost all macroscopic objects can be behaviorally described in terms of classical physics, and this includes neurons. Even in rare cases where quantum effects are seen, such as photosynthesis, or radioactive decay, it's extremely localized. The fact that a plant's efficiency of conversion of light to chemical energy appears to use quantum effects doesn't affect the rest of the…

There can be macro objects with non-determinism. The cat in the box in the Shrodinger experiment has deterministic neurons but you don't actually know the state of the cat as a whole due to the initial quantum event that set the entirity of the cat on one path or another. This is where the entire problem with the thought that systems are deterministic or not comes into play. If there's a single photon that can hit a…

It's not at all clear how quantum mechanics in general, or a thought experiment like Shrodinger's cat, should be interpreted.

In the lab one can perhaps coax a few atoms near absolute zero into a superimposed state, but not a large room temperature object like a cat, so that particular thought experiment is just that - not an observed experimental outcome.

Is quantum randomness actually real, or just a reflection of an imperfect model of reality ?

In any case, isn't William James really just considering the issue of free will ? If the world, including ourselves, is just an automata evolving according to (say) Schrodinger's equation, then does it really make any difference if it's deterministic or not ? Even at a classical level the future is unpredictable due to chaotic dynamics, and from a subjective (presumably misleading) POV we have free will, regardless of what the reality is.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#69

Post by ryanklee » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:38 PM UTC

VirusNewbie wrote: post #66

ryanklee wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are putting words in GP's mouth. They never said anything about avoiding learning formal logic or math. The context of that statement was a sarcastic position.

You misunderstood, I was criticizing the majority of people who study humanities in college, because they don’t have the requisite skills to make valid conclusions about what they are learning.

And you think that those individuals are representative of the value of the field of humanities? Sorry, but that's just a red herring.

I mean, I'm suspicious of individuals who can't hack it in general, too, but not sure how that's relevant.

Re: "Are We Automata?" by William James (1879)

#70

Post by HarHarVeryFunny » Sat, Jan 06, 2024, 9:41 PM UTC

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #61

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as we've been able to determine, almost all macroscopic objects can be behaviorally described in terms of classical physics, and this includes neurons. Even in rare cases where quantum effects are seen, such as photosynthesis, or radioactive decay, it's extremely localized. The fact that a plant's efficiency of conversion of light to chemical energy appears to use quantum effects doesn't affect the rest of the…

There's an entire field of deterministic mathematics called Chaos Theory, that pretty much encompasses what it says on the tin. It turns out that -innocent, simple looking- finite state deterministic automata can actually be less predictable than the non-deterministic kind. (and it can get pretty wild! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2vgICfQawE )

Sure - not everything that looks random is random. How about Stephan Wolfram's finite automata "Rule 30" for another example.

But anyways, neurons don't even APPEAR to be acting randomly - they appear to obeying the laws of chemistry, and behaving in meticulously studied and well understood ways.