Can randomness be caused by something?

[wanabe]

hello, Hello, HELLO,

I do not define. Randomness is both those things and more. The objective randomness is embedded in side all of the posts past.

So you mean randomness by things that are not alive...what is alive? what is nature?

Can true random exist? Yes. Does it exist? at 'times'. When does it exist? When there is little order or too much...please hello let us discuss.

[Hello]

Wanabe,

What is alive is what is conscious as far as I know, and anything else that isn't is nature.

Assuming that you believe that randomness can be caused by something unconscious, do you believe that this form of "unconscious choice" (random) can apply to a deterministic world? In other words, do you believe that when, say, an unconscious animal acts according to a pre-set instinct, do you think that these actions should be considered "unconscious choices"?

If you look at a random choice made by somebody conscious, you can easily apply this choice to a deterministic world where one is say, convinced 100% by a cause, but chooses. The choice can apply to both situations as you can imagine the conscious person still choosing.

It seems as though the key here is a sense of an ACTIVE being, where there is a person who performs an action. An unconscious being can be concieved (like a rock), but when it is involved in events (like when it rolls down the hill), it seems like a PASSIVE agent where it did absolutely nothing and was moved by somethingelse as far as I know.

There are moments where we are passive and just sit wand watch, and moments where we get off our asses and do something (whether it be as low as a decision). But an unconscious being seems only passive and those "random choices" seem like the only time where it is shown to be active. But can't this activeness be applied to a deterministic world just as conscious choices are?

Confused?

[wanabe]

Hello,

I request that you think more deeply about this answer.

What is alive is what is conscious as far as I know, and anything else that isn't is nature.

What is conscious?

Assuming that you believe that randomness can be caused by something unconscious, do you believe that this form of "unconscious choice" (random) can apply to a deterministic world?

I believe it is possible. What do you mean by "apply"? I think certain aspects about the world are deterministic but also there are some that are not that are random wholly, so it's a bit of a contradiction to word it like that, if I understand you correctly. --I believe that random exists in a deterministic world, and that determinism exists in a random world(not that this isn't a contradiction, but perhaps lessoned with explanation). I think that is the answer to what you are asking by my understanding.

In other words, do you believe that when, say, an unconscious animal acts according to a pre-set instinct, do you think that these actions should be considered "unconscious choices"?

An animal acting on instinct still uses their brain to think about it(how are you using the word conscious?). The actions the animal takes should be analyzed case by case and compared and reflected upon, not lumped in to some category.I'm not in the ~business~ of defining(though I do from time to time), I feel that it is a futile task, I simply describe.

If you look at a random choice made by somebody conscious, you can easily apply this choice to a deterministic world where one is say, convinced 100% by a cause, but chooses. The choice can apply to both situations as you can imagine the conscious person still choosing.

How do we know the choice is random? But I see what you're saying.

It seems as though the key here is a sense of an ACTIVE being, where there is a person who performs an action. An unconscious being can be concieved (like a rock), but when it is involved in events (like when it rolls down the hill), it seems like a PASSIVE agent where it did absolutely nothing and was moved by somethingelse as far as I know.

Again, there is activity in passivity, and passivity in activity. Perhaps the rock had the foresight to be on the hill to be rolled down; it may not be alive but does that mean in lacks consciousness? By physical indications I can agree.

...can't this activeness be applied to a deterministic world just as conscious choices are?

If one is willing to put the thought into it, of course.

I'm confused while at the same time possess clarity.

[John Jones]

Hey, when you think about the concept of randomness, how do you think it operates? Like Quantum Physics is said to be random, but where does it come from?

Right now, I have 2 workable concepts of randomness:

1. Caused by absolutely nothing (just came into existence)

2. Caused by something (Like a computer that may randomly choose between A or B. The decision came from the computer)

I am kind of having some difficulty with this second concept.What you think about this?

Randomness is the name we give to an unidentified structure, such as a heap. Once the structure is named it is no longer random. e.g. A heap is given a structure when we ask how many objects 'constitute' a heap.

[Hello]

Wanabe wrote:

"What is conscious"

Now that question, I don't know. It is possible for everything in this world to be conscious, and that a rock may be able to feel, love, and even choose when it acts. If you mean the concept, then that is pretty difficult to explain as well, but we definately have a good grasp of what it is.

"I believe it is possible. What do you mean by "apply"? I think certain aspects about the world are deterministic but also there are some that are not that are random wholly, so it's a bit of a contradiction to word it like that, if I understand you correctly. --I believe that random exists in a deterministic world, and that determinism exists in a random world(not that this isn't a contradiction, but perhaps lessoned with explanation). I think that is the answer to what you are asking by my understanding."

I was refering to the concept of unconscious choices discussed earlier, and if it can apply to the deterministic world like the conscious choices which I have explained in the next few paragraphs. If that is what you mean, then right now I agree. The main problem here is what exactly this unconscious choice is since right now it seems mysterious.

"How do we know the choice is random? But I see what you're saying."

Choices seem to be the only output that come from a conscious being and that they have absolute control over. Any other actions, including body movements, and actions seem to be extensions of that choice. If randomness came from something, and that something is conscious, then what is random is the choice. (this seems to be stretching more into compatibilistic free will, so if you are not a compatibilist, then you may object .)

"Again, there is activity in passivity, and passivity in activity. Perhaps the rock had the foresight to be on the hill to be rolled down; it may not be alive but does that mean in lacks consciousness? By physical indications I can agree."

Can you please elaborate on this?

"I'm confused while at the same time possess clarity."

Well, you seem to have gotten most of what I am saying, so you're doing just fine .

[wanabe]

Hello,
What is conscious?

we definately have a good grasp of what it is.

...yet...

Now that question, I don't know.

Is our grasp that 'good', because I can answer no better.

The main problem here is what exactly this unconscious choice is since right now it seems mysterious.

Is it not; all that is not chosen? If you want exact, looking for a simple answer may not be the 'best' course of action. A broad answer may the 'very best' type of answer possible: one that allows for exceptions, changes, imperfections.

Choices seem to be the only output that come from a conscious being and that they have absolute control over.

Can't concious beings can choose to be random or not think: not the only output?

Any other actions, including body movements, and actions seem to be extensions of that choice. If randomness came from something, and that something is conscious, then what is random is the choice. (this seems to be stretching more into compatibilistic free will, so if you are not a compatibilist, then you may object Smile .)

Until we can say exactly what is conscious; I don't think it is apt to draw conclusions.

wanabe said before: Again, there is activity in passivity, and passivity in activity. Perhaps the rock had the foresight to be on the hill to be rolled down; it may not be alive but does that mean in lacks consciousness? By physical indications I can agree.

Hello asked: Can you please elaborate on this?

wanabe explained: When a rock on earth is sitting on a mountain it is eroded by the wind, water, sun, smashed by other rocks(the 'elements'). There is quite a bit of activity though the rock is said to be passive. Other forces are acting on it?..they are indeed a 'steel rock' acts differently does it not? Does the rock choose to be made a certain way(of a certain thing, after a course of events)? With our 'understanding' of consciousness it could. A humming bird flies around, yet it sleeps and 'dies': yielding passivity.

The quest of philosophy is practiced by the blind leading the blind.

[Hello]

Wanabe,

"Is our grasp that 'good', because I can answer no better."

Just because we can't know who or what is conscious in this world, it doesn't mean we cannot understand its concept.

"Is it not; all that is not chosen? If you want exact, looking for a simple answer may not be the 'best' course of action. A broad answer may the 'very best' type of answer possible: one that allows for exceptions, changes, imperfections."

We can only view this concept from afar, and theorize on what it is, but other than that, we can't seem to come with a workable concept of what it is, unlike conscious choices. All I know is that it is from an unconscious being, and that it is active. I myself am willing to adopt this idea, but the fact that we cannot understand it makes its existence seem doubtful, like a mysterious ninth sense.

" Can't concious beings can choose to be random or not think: not the only output?"

Two things:

1. If we "CHOOSE to be random or not think" it requires a choice.

2. If we choose to be random, is that choice caused in of itself?[/color]

" Until we can say exactly what is conscious; I don't think it is apt to draw conclusions."

Do you have another kind of active direct output that can come from a conscious being? Again, it seems as though choices are the only thing and the proceeding actions are the result.

"wanabe explained: When a rock on earth is sitting on a mountain it is eroded by the wind, water, sun, smashed by other rocks(the 'elements'). There is quite a bit of activity though the rock is said to be passive. Other forces are acting on it?..they are indeed a 'steel rock' acts differently does it not? Does the rock choose to be made a certain way(of a certain thing, after a course of events)? With our 'understanding' of consciousness it could. A humming bird flies around, yet it sleeps and 'dies': yielding passivity."


Okay, good enough.

"The quest of philosophy is practiced by the blind leading the blind."

Yep, the world is definately a confusing mystery . Though we try our best to understand it.

[wanabe]

Just because we can't know who or what is conscious in this world, it doesn't mean we cannot understand its concept.

We can use an idea, but that does not mean we understand it. We don't know 'who' is conscious, we don't know why we are conscious(if we are),nor how consciousness works. If we understand it we understand it very little.

1. It does require a choice but the end result of that choice is to be random though it started as ordered.

2. It can be caused of it self but does not have to be.

Do you have another kind of active direct output that can come from a conscious being?

I can make one, there are infinite kinds(I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "active direct output").

Again, it seems as though choices are the only thing and the proceeding actions are the result

Are there not things that we can not or have not controlled?: choices are not the only thing.

[Hello]

Wanabe,

"We can use an idea, but that does not mean we understand it. We don't know 'who' is conscious, we don't know why we are conscious(if we are),nor how consciousness works. If we understand it we understand it very little."

I agree that understanding where, why, and how are necessary to understanding the concept as a whole, but I am only talking about the WHAT component of consciousness, as in what it is. The rest is off-topic.

"1. It does require a choice but the end result of that choice is to be random though it started as ordered.

2. It can be caused of it self but does not have to be."

Where did you get these?

"I can make one, there are infinite kinds(I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "active direct output")."

By active, I am performing an action and by direct, I mean that it is not an extension with somethingelse inbetween. (Read the previous posts if you want a definition).

"Are there not things that we can not or have not controlled?: choices are not the only thing."

It needs to be controlled, or else it wouldn't be active, but passive. Choices are the only thing that applies to this.

[stax]

Hey, when you think about the concept of randomness, how do you think it operates? Like Quantum Physics is said to be random, but where does it come from?

Right now, I have 2 workable concepts of randomness:

1. Caused by absolutely nothing (just came into existence)

2. Caused by something (Like a computer that may randomly choose between A or B. The decision came from the computer)

I am kind of having some difficulty with this second concept.What you think about this?

The first system you have there is incorrect. Randomness is generated from an antecedent cause.

'Randomness', as commonly known, in generated from a cause which allows all possible courses of action an equal possibility of chance to occur, thus none can be 'predicted' to happen.

You'd find many people who deny randomness, Physicalists come to mind, because all actions are reduced to the lowest components, and from this rules, theories etc are used to determine their actions. Although they're finding on a quantum level everything is random.

[wanabe]

Hello,
If you are not looking at the whole concept of something, you will only get a partial understanding; I don't think that looking at the who, when, where, why, how, aspects of consciousness are off topic at all for this reason.

The 1 and 2 I wrote were my reply to your 1 and 2.

Choices are not the only thing a living thing does(what I think you mean by "active direct output") We are forced to breath which is not a choice, if we chose not to breath we die and so no longer (in the physical relm) make choice.

Why not just call active choice: order, and passive choice: random?

[Hello]

Wanabe:

I still don't see how knowing how and why consciousness exists is important to this specific topic, though I have yet to encounter a problem involving that.

". It does require a choice but the end result of that choice is to be random though it started as ordered.

2. It can be caused of it self but does not have to be."

1. It depends on what you mean by ordered. Is the random choice caused by the person?

2. Okay, I was assuming you meant that the person was already random to begin with and somehow decided to be random.

"Choices are not the only thing a living thing does(what I think you mean by "active direct output") We are forced to breath which is not a choice, if we chose not to breath we die and so no longer (in the physical relm) make choice."

I guess the word that I need to clarify more on is the term active. Since you believe that randomness is caused by something, what do you think decides on the random outcome? By definition, it seems to be something, though the word decide is the key word here. For conscious beings, the action of choice seems to apply, though unconscious beings are more difficult to handle. What other actions can be applied here if randomness is caused by something?

"Why not just call active choice: order, and passive choice: random?"

It depends on what you mean by order, and also how can a choice be passive?

[wanabe]

Hello,

I still don't see how knowing how and why consciousness exists is important to this specific topic, though I have yet to encounter a problem involving that.

If you do not see the importance, than it is not relevant for this thread because you created it...

Since the mods deleted all your coloring; can you put things in quote boxes please.

Since you believe that randomness is caused by something, what do you think decides on the random outcome?

Randomness can be caused by something but it does not have to be. My personal belief is that there was always chance(random)/ probability(order). It sounds as if you expect a single answer for that question. So here it goes: anything.

Do you think it is possible to fully understand the concept of random by presenting and looking at random only in a ordered way?

By definition, it seems to be something, though the word decide is the key word here. For conscious beings, the action of choice seems to apply, though unconscious beings are more difficult to handle. What other actions can be applied here if randomness is caused by something?

"unconscious beings", things with no brain?(we never defined conscious)(As I understand it, an unconscious being would be a thing with no brain; they don't make a choice because they have no brain with which to do so) "What other actions...", I don't understand what you are asking.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that if we are to continue you must take the time to choose your words more carefully. I think it would be a good idea to state simply what it is you want to know; with out using phrases like "active direct output". Things are becoming increasingly confusing and complex. I will do my best to also do what I am asking you to do.

[Hello]

(Aw, what happened to my colors? I guess I have been playing around with it too much, mainly due to the fact that I don't know how to create individual quote boxes.)

Okay, fine, lets start from the bottom up.

There are two kinds of randomness that I believe in:

1. By nothing

2. By something

I assume you believe in both kinds by your last post, but my definition of randomness being by something is that that something determines the outcome in which is random. When by nothing, it just poped into existence and nothing determined the result.

There are now two kinds of actions:

1. Agent: Determined by the person/object. A conscious being decides on his/her actions, even if they are convinced/determined to act. When unconscious beings are considered, it seems unknown whether or not it does or can determine its actions, or if it can be convinced to act.

The choice all comes down to the actor who did the action. For conscious beings: It is the conscious mind that decides on its actions. For unconscious beings: I find difficulty in defining the actor, but lets just say an object. If you believe in randomness by something, then that something is the actor.

2. Non-agent: Not determined by the person/object. A leaf that is blown by the wind is an example. Another example is a person whose heart is pumping. Never did he/she determine whether or not it pumps.

Please tell me if you have any problems with the following criteria, and then we will move on from there.

[wanabe]

NOTE:the above post(#43) by Hello is critical to the discussion.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~
Hello it may be a good idea to add(not replace) post #43 to your original post in this thread. There is an edit box in the upper right corner that allows you to do this; when you are logged in of course...While you are at it could you put quote boxes in all your previous posts since the color went away.

First to create a quote box: You know how to change the font color(unless you import the text from some where else) you highlight the desired text and use the font color pull-down menu to select the desired color(there are a bunch of boxes(buttons) below the "Subject" text area). NOW there are little boxes(buttons) above that pull down menu: From left to right: B for bold. i For italics, u for underline. Then comes the quote box(button) it works in the same fashion as selecting an area of text to be colored.

["quote]bla bla bla[/quote"] <--when you select text to be quoted the for-mentioned bracket system will appear(with out the quotation marks) surrounding the text that was once highlighted. If you wish to insert a persons name so the quote box reads ex: "wannabe wrote:" simply put in side the first quote box ="wanabe" so a finished product would look like:

["quote="wanabe"]bla bla bla[/quote"]

(with out the OUTERmost quotation marks) the other buttons work in a very similar fashion...Ok, that was fun, if you have further difficulty ask: Scott
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

For unconscious beings: I find difficulty in defining the actor, but let's just say an object.

Couldn't the actor be a conscious being acting on it(directly or indirectly) they are objects too.

Though I see what you mean in "2. Non-agent:". Those are both living systems they do have some say in how the leaf falls, or how the heart pumps and when the leaf falls, when the heart pumps. I have stopped my heart from beating for '23 seconds', I almost fainted... So I would rather say: that which does not have to be determined by the person/object. Instead of "Not determined by the person/object".