Does the non-existence of free will change your beliefs?

[crossfire]

You could ask for sources, and I'd be more than happy to provide them for you. This is, after all, my field.

EDIT: I don't exactly appreciate having my views mocked by someone who will not (or cannot) read the literature on the subject because they freely admit they lack the ability to understand it:

Since this is your field, I have a question for you: in the graphs generated by the data, have you ever seen an instance where the data would, in effect, be divided by zero? I understand that the probability graphs would naturally diverge away from this occurance, although it might approach it. Has there been such an event been observed such that the probability for such event would be the equivilent of being divided by zero?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Since this is your field, I have a question for you: in the graphs generated by the data, have you ever seen an instance where the data would, in effect, be divided by zero? I understand that the probability graphs would naturally diverge away from this occurance, although it might approach it. Has there been such an event been observed such that the probability for such event would be the equivilent of being divided by zero?

I'm not sure I understand your question. First, what do you mean by "data" and by "graphs"? Often, neural networks are represented by graphs, but these are graphs in the "graph theory" sense (i.e., a representation or diagram of some real-world situation, entity, model, or what have you via "points" or vertices and "edges" which join them). In graph theory, the combinatorics of probability theory are represented visually, but typically this entails discrete probabilities. Usually, probability is represented by a function (model). If the probability distribution is continuous, then the chance of any "event" along this continuum occuring is 0, because it is equivalent to 1/infinity. However, division by zero is almost always undefined, the typical pseudo-exception being the limiting process of some function which is a fraction with, say, "1" as a numerator and the argument of the function as the denominator: f(x)=1/x

In statistics or probability, it is common to have a function (like the normal distribution) in which the denominator is uncountably infinite (because the set of real numbers is uncountably infinite). However, the graphs which are behind much of the work in neural network (as well as social network and a host of other applied mathematical approaches) are discrete and/or do not involve sets with a cardinality greater than the rational numbers.

 

[crossfire]

I'm talking about Poincare Resonances.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I'm talking about Poincare Resonances.

Poincaré maps are used in dynamical systems approaches to neural activity. However, these phase maps aren't division by zero. They're typically used in synchronization analysis because of the relation of the phase space to fixed points.

EDIT: For an example of Poincaré maps in neuroscience, see chapter 10 of Dynamical Systems in Neuroscience which is available online (and only online; the chapter is for some reason not in the book which was rather annoying).

 

[crossfire]

Poincaré maps are used in dynamical systems approaches to neural activity. However, these phase maps aren't division by zero. They're typically used in synchronization analysis because of the relation of the phase space to fixed points.

Thank you. This information has a back-handed relation to a problem I'm working on in this thread.

Any more information you can give me regarding resonance points and fixed points would be appreciated, as well as symmetry breaking. When cause and effect gets blurred, correlation not implying causation can also get blurred.

{I really need to dust out my long-disused mathematical neural pathways to wrap my mind around this.}

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thank you. This information has a back-handed relation to a problem I'm working on in this thread.

Any more information you can give me regarding resonance points and fixed points would be appreciated, as well as symmetry breaking. When cause and effect gets blurred, correlation not implying causation can also get blurred.

{I really need to dust out my long-disused mathematical neural pathways to wrap my mind around this.}

There are some rather advanced statistical models and method in musicology (e.g., Beran's Statistics in Musicology or the edited volume Mathematics and Composition in Music). There's even a volume Music that Works which incorporates everything from neurobiology to cognitive development. However, my knowledge of musicology is quite limited (it's my brother's field, and his research concerns history, not mathematics). On the other hand, I have a background in classics, and the ancient Greeks began the "mathematical" approach to scales, chords, and harmonics. That said, there is nothing about the nature of music or harmonic analysis which makes these somehow fundamental components of reality. The quantitative analysis of tones, cords, etc., has to do with
1) fuzzy cuts/slices to produce crisp sets
2) interpretation of perceptual input and a categorical analysis which reflects a sensory-based construction, not any fundamental components of reality.

 

[Orias]

Hey guys,
This time I want to discuss / debate how the lack of any free will may change your beliefs. I mean a reality that is absolutely deterministic (with the exception of God if that is what you happen to believe in, as to many God is outside the laws of reality). Assume that free will does not exist (and realize this is likely true). How does this change your beliefs on, well everything. For example, if you are a person who believes we must accept God, the lack of free will means that rejecting God is not our choice, and how could we be punished for not believing in God when God programmed us not to believe.

Beliefs change with recognition.

Thats all thats too it.

 

[crossfire]

There are some rather advanced statistical models and method in musicology (e.g., Beran's Statistics in Musicology or the edited volume Mathematics and Composition in Music). There's even a volume Music that Works which incorporates everything from neurobiology to cognitive development. However, my knowledge of musicology is quite limited (it's my brother's field, and his research concerns history, not mathematics). On the other hand, I have a background in classics, and the ancient Greeks began the "mathematical" approach to scales, chords, and harmonics. That said, there is nothing about the nature of music or harmonic analysis which makes these somehow fundamental components of reality. The quantitative analysis of tones, cords, etc., has to do with
1) fuzzy cuts/slices to produce crisp sets
2) interpretation of perceptual input and a categorical analysis which reflects a sensory-based construction, not any fundamental components of reality.

The problem I'm working on is the fact that in order to get harmonics, you need to have the string "tie down." (You won't get harmonics in an unlimited, unattached string, as in a rapidly expanding universe.) The video posted talks about possible "gravity waves" as being the component that "ties down the string" so you get specific harmonics, instead of white noise of infinite possible vibrations. (Sorry for the tangent wandering off topic)

 

[Orias]

The problem I'm working on is the fact that in order to get harmonics, you need to have the string "tie down." (You won't get harmonics in an unlimited, unattached string, as in a rapidly expanding universe.) The video posted talks about possible "gravity waves" as being the component that "ties down the string" so you get specific harmonics, instead of white noise of infinite possible vibrations. (Sorry for the tangent wandering off topic)

Have you considered that an "out of tune" guitar is still tuned to a note?

The same can be applied with M-Theory and the pitch effect of all things that make us capable of perceiving.

 

[crossfire]

Have you considered that an "out of tune" guitar is still tuned to a note?

The same can be applied with M-Theory and the pitch effect of all things that make us capable of perceiving.

The string is still tied down, though. Think about a growing guitar string vibrating when it is not attached to the guitar, or anything else.

 

[Orias]

The string is still tied down, though. Think about a growing guitar string vibrating when it is not attached to the guitar, or anything else.

Thats why M-Theory is so brilliant, unlike the string of a guitar which extends to two separate points on either end, M-Theory suggests that these vibrations are like a wave that arose from connecting with a parallel membrane (or piece of paper for simple imagery).

But even then, a piece of paper waving in the wind does not have to be anchored to anything to vibrate, if its not it will blow around in a wild manner. But what else do we have to consider in this equation, there is a lot to include and exclude when talking about an expanding universe

 

[Prophet]

I suppose if you were able to demonstrate that it is likely true that free will doesn't exist, my beliefs would change dramatically. However, your announcement that free will likely doesn't exist is hardly that.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The problem I'm working on is the fact that in order to get harmonics, you need to have the string "tie down." (You won't get harmonics in an unlimited, unattached string, as in a rapidly expanding universe.) The video posted talks about possible "gravity waves" as being the component that "ties down the string" so you get specific harmonics, instead of white noise of infinite possible vibrations. (Sorry for the tangent wandering off topic)

I'm not sure what you mean by "in order to get harmonics". Certainly, if we are talking about actual guitar strings or string theory, then I guess one way to conceptualize the boundary values which determine every harmonic function is the way in which they are "tied down". But I don't see how this relates to nonlinear systems in general or the brain in particular.

 

[crossfire]

My apologies for the tangental wandering derail. (Danged spiral thinking! )

 

[Orias]

I just thought of M-Theory when I read the bit about strings and their frequency. It reminds me of a conversation me and The Doors of Perception had a while back about life and energy, and how its a constant vibration. Its very easy to tie M-Theory considering how the theory attempts to unite all of the string theories.

Its pretty interesting stuff.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It doesn't affect my beliefs in so much supports them, as I can absolutely claim to be innocent of even subjective morals, as it was cause and affect, determination, what made my action occur.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Hey guys,
This time I want to discuss / debate how the lack of any free will may change your beliefs. I mean a reality that is absolutely deterministic (with the exception of God if that is what you happen to believe in, as to many God is outside the laws of reality). Assume that free will does not exist (and realize this is likely true). How does this change your beliefs on, well everything. For example, if you are a person who believes we must accept God, the lack of free will means that rejecting God is not our choice, and how could we be punished for not believing in God when God programmed us not to believe.

Discuss.

If free will did not exist, I would not be able to change my belief freely.

In other words I would not be able to change my beliefs willingly.

In other words, i would not be able to change my beliefs because i would not have the freedom and will power to do so, because free will (freedom do to what i want) would not exist.

 

[Skwim]

If free will did not exist, I would not be able to change my belief freely.

And you can't.

In other words I would not be able to change my beliefs willingly.

Only in so far as pasts events determine.

n other words, i would not be able to change my beliefs because i would not have the freedom and will power to do so, because free will (freedom do to what i want) would not exist.

Not in the sense that you could equally do so as not.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Skwim;3112336]And you can't.

But I can. I just did.

Only in so far as pasts events determine.

Past events determine my will to change, if I did not have freedom to willingly change, past events would not matter.

Not in the sense that you could equally do so as not.

I unwillingly dont understand what you mean.

 

[Me Myself]

You can willingly change. but the change you chose is determined.