Determinism Question - possibility of scientific explanations for human behaviour

And on the matter of altruism, just to be clear, it is something that has been quite extensively studied and researched, perhaps most famously by a biologist named William Hamilton, but there is a clear evolutionary explanation for the behaviour based purely on the idea of propagating the maximum number of copies of your own genes. And there is, surprisingly, a quite rigid mathematical formula that expresses the concept, based on degree of relatedness. Some wag, I forget exactly who, made a joke about how he would jump into a river to save two of his brothers, but only for four of his cousins, or eight of his second cousins, etc.

Anyway, as you have suggested on the original homosexuality thread in the biology forum, these things are unlikely to have a robust and rigorous scientific explanation any time soon, so this all only remains our respective speculations. But it is still a tantalising and fascinating thing to try to understand.

Hmmm. I hope you will understand my slight nervousness at posting on the philosophy forum with all of its tight rules and circling, predatory mentors. My hope is that by following your instructions closely I’ll avoid the awful finality of those thread closing talons.

So, moved from the Homosexuality thread on the Biology forum:

Yes, Ryan, I take the point about just how complex a question this is in terms of hoping that science will ever be able to provide anything close to definitive answers. I wonder if I might coax you into answering a particular point of interest to me. I am conscious that I might be accused of going off-topic, my hope is that people – and in particular the OP - can see that I am only actually stretching the principle that underlies the question of a genetic programming for homosexuality. Perhaps the bigger problem is that, as I do understand and with all due acknowledgement of your knowledge and expertise Ryan, I am inviting you to make a speculative response. But I am interested in your thoughts.

In any case, the point is that greater minds than mine have spoken of the possibility that every human action, every human decision, would have its ultimate explanation down in the quantum interactions of the atoms and subatomic particles that make up the brain – or perhaps it would be better to say the central nervous system. The contrary view would be that somewhere between the quantum level and the actual behaviour of a human individual, there are points at which some level of not randomness necessarily, but certainly some form of scientific unpredictability operates.

Perhaps I can better relate it in this way: If you watch the water coming over the edge at Niagara Falls, you might take the ‘clockwork’ view of the universe and believe that, however hopelessly complex an endeavour it would be, theoretically it would be possible to trace the interaction of every atom in every molecule of water – and all the impurities in the water – and give a precise explanation for how every droplet of water broke away from the main body as it came over the edge; how every splash at the bottom of the falls leaped to the height that it did, how every bubble of foam was caused to appear. Alternatively, you might think that the universe is not so clockwork, and that something of the uncertainty of the quantum world ultimately makes it impossible to explain every action of the water as it comes over the edge, no matter how great the endeavour made to explain it.

And, absolutely vitally, let me make it clear, I am not trying to make some deeply philosophical point about the dignity of human life rising above the inherent reductionism of science, I am just interested in what someone with your kind of expertise in biology particularly and understanding of broader science generally feels about that. Is it likely that we are ultimately, a prisoner of our genes, of the chemical reactions that drive us, of the quantum interactions that underlie those chemical reactions, such that theoretically, one day science might be able to completely explain us? Or do you think that such a question is doomed to remain for ever more a purely philosophical one? Or do you not care to speculate? I quite understand if you don’t.

Einstein (the biggest mind of science) fought for determinism . He tried to reach for God's mind. Imagined himself in God's place (from a human perspective of God) ,and discovered the famous general and special theory of relativity.

My opinion:

God has hidden several mysteries within the universe (such as the double slit, particles travelling back in time, matter being created out of nothing i.e. the big bang). He wants us to research deeper and deeper into these and really appreciate what he'has created. If everything was really simple and predictable, then we probably wouldnt be impressed by most of the things around us or one could say, by the creativity of God.

Probabilities are are assigned to things, that we do not, and can never have full knowledge of. This is actually higlighted by Heisenberg's uncertainty principle: 'one can never have full knowledge about the position and the momentum of a particle at the same time i.e the knowledge of a particles position results in loss of all of its momentum'.
In a way, Probabilities are the best approximation to how we perceive a certain situation. It underlines the incapability of the human mind to understand the reality of nature and as a result predict outcomes.

In a way, God has expressed these probabilities throughout nature. Summary : We can never fully understand the universe, and the uncertainty within a probabilistic world will always remain.

Firstly he did not use the word God as nature => watch BBC horizon, einsteins unfinished symphony. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_...eligious_views , also, i am not talking supernatural but i am just referring to God as infinite and something we cannot comprehend, as i said it is my opinion and i appreciate your criticism but you cannot tell me that i am not allowed to post an opinion on this website.
Peace

Well, ryan m b i see your point but proving a philosophical point of view is non sense, its just thoughts based on a possible evidence which are contained within your own consciousness. If evidence can be provided with 100% certainty for a philosophical idea , then explain metaphysics to me.
Thanks

1) The present is deterministically contingent on the past (cause and effect)

2) We have no control over the past

C) Therefore we have no control over our behaviour.

This is a fallacy. What is this we that don't have any control? Having control of our own behavior does not mean that our behavior is not part of physical causality. We do have control of our own behavior. Our will is part of physical causality, and we are free in that regard to control our own actions according to our will.

The arguments of this type usually assumes a very speculative view of the self and the will.

I think the question is not proper, whether the will be free, but whether a man be free. This way of talking, nevertheless, has prevailed, and, as I guess, produced great confusion...

I only discussed the argument, it's fine if you don't support it. But back to the argument. Discussing free will has its difficulties, as both sides will have difficulty explaining what free will is (even if it proposed that it doesn't exists; what is it that doesn't exist?). The explanations usually does not run further than saying that free will is will that is not bound by physical causality. What does this mean? Does it make sense? I don't think it does, but it is certainly not an explanation at all.

It's fine if one relax at the notion that free will is non-sense, it can't really be explained because we don't know what we are talking about. But why does it interest us so? Certainly there must be something to discuss. But I am confident that "free will" we do have is unproblematic and tautalogical.

Why do we say that the will is free? Can one imagine, or give an example of a free willed action? And why don't human will qualify? (qualify for what)



- Locke


We are free in the sense that we are not constrained. Physical causality (in the brain) is reason for our actions, but in what respect is this a constraint? Isn't freedom really to have the possibility to act as one wishes? (even if wishes are also physically caused)

The problem is a blurry notion of the self, or the person, as something affected by physical causality; when, really, all that comprise us is physical.

I only discussed the argument, it's fine if you don't support it. But back to the argument. Discussing free will has its difficulties, as both sides will have difficulty explaining what free will is (even if it proposed that it doesn't exists; what is it that doesn't exist?). The explanations usually does not run further than saying that free will is will that is not bound by physical causality. What does this mean? Does it make sense? I don't think it does, but it is certainly not an explanation at all.

It's fine if one relax at the notion that free will is non-sense, it can't really be explained because we don't know what we are talking about. But why does it interest us so? Certainly there must be something to discuss. But I am confident that "free will" we do have is unproblematic and tautalogical.

Why do we say that the will is free? Can one imagine, or give an example of a free willed action? And why don't human will qualify? (qualify for what)

- Locke

We are free in the sense that we are not constrained. Physical causality (in the brain) is reason for our actions, but in what respect is this a constraint? Isn't freedom really to have the possibility to act as one wishes? (even if wishes are also physically caused)

The problem is a blurry notion of the self, or the person, as something affected by physical causality; when, really, all that comprise us is physical.

A cell is the basic unit of life (some may even call DNA to be so, at least philosophically). The problem ( as per my belief) is that cell is the effect of a phenomena where the final outcome is greater than the sum of its constituent parts. We just go after the physicallity of things whereas there are realms that are beyond mere physicallity. These are yet to be explored by science.

Prevoiusly scientists were 100% certain about the determinism of science. But with the advent of quantum mechanics they had to accept uncertainty as something ingraned in this universe ( maybe this uncertainty points to some sort of order in the distant future). Previously we had 4 dimensions, now M-theory talks of 11 ( an error of more than 70% within a few decades). I believe (may be wrongly) that life is not mere physicality of things but some kind of energy that arises ( or performs its role) when certain very-2 complicated and precise configurations of matter become possible randomly or by design. May be after 300 yeras or so, humans will create their own forms of life ( I am not just talking about genetically modified beings but those that will be created from the rudimentary material configurations, provided we get to know about the mechanism that instills the 'energy' of life in matter).

What is a possibility then?