By Steven Pinker. I am largely unfamiliar with his work other than to say he refutes Noam Chomsky's universal theory of grammar. Has any of you read his works?
This article is provocative and we should discuss it. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1580394-7,00.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I think I recognize the name, but not in a sense where I could've even identified his field. I don't think I've read anything of his.
ReplyDeleteIn your posts, you need to do a little more expounding on the topic you want to discuss, rather than just say let's discuss this article. At least start with some aspect of it that you specifically found provocative, interesting, or that gave you a question to ask.
Personally, I didn't think that much of the article. To me, it was kind of cobbled together without the best organization or information. Granted, I read it more casually than critically, but partly because the beginning format kind of lost me.
He's talking about the most abstract feature of sentience. Intelligence and self-awareness are both more definable than consciousness. If you didn't grasp this, then read it again in entirety so we can figure out if neuroscience and the Easy Problem are really so easy.
ReplyDeleteI find this article to be very fascinating. First, let me just say this line of research in no way proves or disproves the existence of a God and to start the article of with such a statement probably lost half the audience whom this message could have done the most for.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, so as the author and researchers quoted in the article mention, we can manipulate almost every part of our consciousness via physical manipulation of the brain. We parse out decision making areas and emotive areas and even simulate out of body sensations.
At a very simplistic level, what control do we have? If we know the matter of our minds controls our thoughts, feelings, and decisions and we also know the matter of our minds is mostly genetically influenced, is there such thing as free will?
My answer would be no.
Arguments?
I guess part of the reason I didn't think that much of this article the first time I read it was that nothing in it really seemed to be new information to me, so it didn't really seem that provocative. The only concepts I wasn't fully aware of were the Easy and Hard Problems, but I think part of that was just not knowing they were referred to as that.
ReplyDeleteAs it's discussed here, isn't the easy problem essentially determining the mechanisms of conscious thought? Those kinds of things can be measured and figured out, given the financial wherewithal and enough time. Whereas determining how that is made into thought isn't so easily determined. It's good he mentioned Penrose for a couple reasons. First being that I think quantum mechanics can serve as an analogy to the easy and hard problems, in that quantum mechanics (from the little I know of it) would be the easy problem in that it can be tested. String theory on the other hand would be closer to the hard problem, in which it sounds good in principle, but can't actually be tested and therefore falls between the realm of philosophy and actual science.
The second reason it's interesting he mentions Penrose is because he partnered with Stephen Hawking on some work, and I was going to discuss A Brief History of Time in regards to the free will question posed by Jarrod.
In one of the physics courses I got from the library, the instructor brought up the concept that free will doesn't exist. I think the argument was based at least initially on Newton's laws of motion (specifically inertia). I'm assuming this allows for other forces such as diffusion, etc. I think the professor pointed out that for free will to be legitimate, the laws of nature would have to stop functioning in your head. It was kind of depressing to consider.
However, his discussion of free will was also tied in with determinism, the concept that if one were able to know the location and velocity of every atom (or lower) in the universe, you could ultimately predict everything that would happen. If I understood that section in A Brief History of Time though, quantum mechanics (and more specifically, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) at least cast doubt on the determinism aspect, as nothing can be accurately measured to include both velocity & position (on the quantum level). The act of measuring positions of quarks, etc can actually lead to disruption of them. Granted, this doesn't disprove determinism per se, but it seems to strike down any chance of people being able to fulfill that determinism, essentially.
In that regard, I think Penrose probably has valid reasons to say quantum mechanics may factor in to the outcome of the problem. It's not just "A is weird and B is weird, so A explains B" as the author put it.
So to answer Jarrod's question on whether or not free will exists, the answer I have to give (possibly literally) is that I don't yet have enough information. I had pretty much given up hope on the concept of free will for a while, but Heisenberg is giving me at least a sliver of hope. The research must continue.
Steve, you are correct. The article itself does not present any unique ideas, but I looked up Dr. Pinker and actually found a podcast of him talking about his book Blank Slate and I guess that is what I found very interesting.
ReplyDeleteQuantum mechanics: I thought they can't simultaneously measure the momentum and position of an electron? Minor detail. Anyway, you are right that this appears to be the only evidence of free will scientifically. I agree too that this may only be a deficiency or lacking of a tool to measure these outliers, and in 100 years may be solved.
Hypothetically, say quantum mechanics is random, or real evidence of free will. Could free will at that small of a level equate to free will at our conscious level?
I'd like to recommend the Star Trek episode "Measure of a Man" which Pinker references in this article, specifically the last half.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM9BwH_afOs