From: Chris Phoenix (cphoenix@CRNano.org)
Date: Sat Aug 21 2004 - 08:06:02 BST
hampday@earthlink.net wrote:
>Chris Phoenix wrote:
>>Despite my flirting with physics above, I think I'm talking about a
>>metaphysics, not a physics. And think the deepest questions of free will
>>should be answerable by physics.
>
> Why physics? Because your reality is a world governed by physical
> principles.
Say rather "a world governed by principles." A world where things are
consistent. Where miracles, in the sense of violations of the governing
principles, don't happen. And physics is the attempt to learn the
lowest-level of those principles, so "physical principles" is correct in
a reductionist sense. But it's usually easier, and close enough to
correct, to analyze the world in terms of higher-level principles. But
that leaves room for loopholes--which are not miracles, but are still
pretty cool.
To me, metaphysics is at the opposite end of the scale. It's looking
for the very highest-level "organizing" principles. And it's looking in
a strange place: symbolic manipulation informed by human experience.
This means it runs a serious risk of navel-contemplation, of telling
just-so stories, of supporting preconceived notions--in short, all the
ills that mind is heir to. So I like to try to compare it to reality,
or at least constrain it by reality, or at least as much as we know of
reality. But in the end, metaphysics is probably of value only as an
inspiration for other thoughts than as a foundation for reason.
> [I peaked at your website and see that you're very much into
> nanotechnology -- not one of my favorite sciences, as you now know]. I
> won't be able to shake you from that world because it is your personal
> mindset.
You might be surprised. I like trying on alien mindsets. And then
trying to synthesize them. That's why I'm dabbling in metaphysics when
I'm supposed to be working on nanotech. :-)
> From what I've
> seen of nanotechnology, you guys want to make molecules behave like living
> organisms as a sort of "post-evolution" of Nature -- perhaps even create a
> more efficient brain in the process!. To me, that's the epitome of logical
> positivism. It's based squarely on the idea that the essence of reality is
> in the object.
Don't read too much purpose into nanotechnology. I think it's more
accurate to think of it as just an extension of technology: trying to
extend human control into more aspects of physics and matter. Lots of
people see lots of possibilities here, for extending old patterns into
new areas (which, I'm coming to think, is dangerous if those "new" areas
are actually existing levels which are foundational for people); or more
rarely, for creating genuinely new patterns (which I still think is very
cool and even, in Pirsig's terms, highly moral).
But I don't think most developers of nanotech are thinking in terms of
metaphysical consequence or philosophy. (And be aware that there are
many different and dissimilar branches of nanotech.) I doubt they've
generally thought through the distinction between extending old patterns
and creating new possibilities. I think many of them do want to improve
on nature (lowercase-n), but the same could have been said of the
developers of any technology.
> You didn't ... I just wanted to see your explanation. The question of Free
> Will applies to every philosophy.
Why? Would you say the question of God applies to every philosophy? If
one believes in God (and presumably thinks God is important) then a
philosophy which denies the existence or importance of God will be seen
as lacking. But that doesn't make it incomplete in its own terms.
Whether it is incomplete with respect to the world must be tested
against the world. Not necessarily against everyone's personal opinion
of how the world is.
> The idea that everything is theoretically determinable by its antecedant
> causes means that man, whether he knows it or not, is not a free creature.
Um, I don't think that idea is very current anymore. Frankly, I'm not
sure free will is all that interesting. Whether or not free will exists
has less effect on my actions than what I had for breakfast. The world
would be the same either way. It's like arguing whether I have a soul;
outside of a religious context, the question disappears.
Inside of a religious context, it's too dark to read. :-)
http://www.outsideofadog.com/
>>Godel's Incompleteness Theorem proves that interesting systems contain
>>ideas the truth of which is unknowable within that system. A richer
>>system could exist that would be able to evaluate the truth of things
>>that the original system can't--but of course would have its own
>>unknowabilities.
>
> Godel would seem to be getting there. But why the need for a higher system?
> This is equivalent to arguing for multiple universes.
No it's not; you have a basic misunderstanding. A richer system simply
means a system with more axioms.
>>I found a paper that seems to confirm this interpretation. "And if such
>>is the case, then we (qua mathematicians) are machines that are unable
>>to recognize the fact that they are machines.
>
> Chris, do you really believe that man is a "machine"? (That makes you a
> mechanist, you know, and only confirms my suspicions about nanotechnology's
> objective.)
Gaah. You attach significance to things that I find insignificant, then
judge me based on conclusions you draw from that significance and from
comments (or citations) that simply don't have as much meaning when I
deliver them as you think they do.
What if I believe that it simply doesn't matter whether man is a machine
or not? What does that make me? What if I believe the question is
undecidable? What if I say I think it's ill-posed and I'm not curious
enough to search for the problem?
And by the way, you're also attaching way too much significance to the
concept of "nanotechnology's objective." Nanotechnology does not have a
singular objective. It's not even a singular discipline.
>>As the saying goes: if our
>>brains could figure out how they work they would have been much smarter
>>than they are.
>
> I'm sorry, Chris. "Smartness" may be a desirable attribute of the brain,
> but it doesn't lead us to philosophical wisdom. Its only function is
> dealing with the complexities of a finite world which is largely of man's
> creation.
We were talking about whether the brain can understand how it works in
detail. Not about philosophical wisdom.
>>You talk about the alternative to free will as being a state of knowing
>>everything.
>
> No. You missed the point -- an important one. I'm saying that IF man could
> possess complete knowledge (which he obviously cannot) he would not be Free.
OK, that's a good point. I'm curious: Does that mean that an omniscient
God isn't free? (Note I'm not asking whether you believe in God; that's
a separate question.)
> I like the way your mind works, Chris; but I'm afraid we're working in
> opposite directions. Appreciate the thoughtful response anyway.
Well, if you're focused on Free Will as an Important Question, then
we're not working in parallel *or* opposite directions. Don't make the
mistake of a fundamentalist Christian who equates atheists with
Satanists. I simply don't think free will is very important.
By the way, I also like to say, "Consciousness is not nearly as
important as it would like us to think it is." I once got a laugh out
of Marvin Minsky with that.
Chris
-- Chris Phoenix cphoenix@CRNano.org Director of Research Center for Responsible Nanotechnology http://CRNano.org MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org Mail Archives: Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/ Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at: http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Aug 21 2004 - 08:08:11 BST