Jan 7, 2024 12:54 AM
https://bioliteracy.blog/2023/12/01/dete...dichotomy/
EXCERPTS (Mike Klymkowsky): . . . The presence of stochastic, or seemingly random, events is widespread in biological systems and can have significant functional effects. These stochastic processes lead to a range of unpredictable but often useful behaviors. When combined with self-consciousness, such as in humans, these behaviors are not entirely determined but are still influenced by the molecular and cellular nature of living systems. They may feel like free actions, but they are constrained by the inherent biological processes.
[...] The term random is often used to describe noise, unpredictable variations in measurements or the behavior of a system. Common understanding of the term random implies that noise is without a discernible cause.
But the underlying assumption of the sciences, I have been led to believe, is that the Universe is governed exclusively by natural processes; magical or supernatural processes are not necessary and are excluded from scientific explanations. The implication of this naturalistic assumption is that all events have a cause, although the cause(s) may be theoretically or practically unknowable.
For example, there are the implications of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which limits our ability to measure all aspects of a system. On the practical side, measuring the position and kinetic energy of each molecule (and the parts of larger molecules) in a biological system is likely to kill the cell.
The apparent conclusion is that the measurement accuracy needed to consider a system, particularly a biological system as “determined” is impossible to achieve. In a strict sense, determinism is an illusion.
The question that remains is how to conceptualize the “random” and noisy aspects of systems. I would argue that the observable reality of stochasticity, particularly in biological systems at all levels of organization, from single cells to nervous systems, largely resolves the scientific paradox of randomness. Simply put, stochastic processes display a strange and counter-intuitive behavior: they are unpredictable at the level of individual events, but the behaviors of populations become increasingly predictable as population size increases.
Perhaps the most widely known examples of stochastic processes are radioactive decay and Brownian motion. Given a large enough population of atoms, it is possible to accurately predict the time it takes for half of the atoms to decay. But knowing the half-life of an isotope does not enable us to predict when any particular atom will decay...
[...] Why are biological systems so influenced by stochastic processes? Two simple reasons... The result is that noisy behaviors in living systems are ubiquitous and their effects unavoidable. ... Organisms exploit stochastic noise in various ways.
[...] Consider your brain. ... there is noisy as well as experience-dependent variation in gene expression, neuronal morphology and connectedness, and in the rates and patterns of neuronal firing due to differences in synaptic structure, position, strength, and other factors. Together these can be expected to influence how you (your brain) perceives and processes the external world, your own internal state, and the effects associated with the interaction between these two “models”. Of course the current state of your brain has been influenced, constrained by and contingent upon by past inputs and experiences, and the noisy events associated with its development...
[...] Am I (my model) free to behave independently from these effects? No! But am I (my model) determined by them? Again no!
The effects of biological noise in its various forms, together with past and present events will be reinforced or suppressed by my internal network and my history of familial, personal, and social experiences. I feel “free” in that there are available choices, because I am both these models and the process of testing and updating them.
Tentative models of what is going on (thinking fast) are then updated based on new information or self-reflection (thinking slower). I attempt to discern what is “real” and what seems like an appropriate response. When the system (me) is working non-pathologically, it avoids counter-productive, self-destructive ideations and actions; it can produce sublime metaphysical abstractions and self-sacrificing (altruistic) behaviors. Mostly it acts to maintain itself and adapt, often resorting to and relying upon the stories it tells itself.
I am neither determined nor free, just an organism coping, or attempting to cope, with the noisy nature of existence, its own internal systems, and an excessively complex neural network... (MORE - missing details)
EXCERPTS (Mike Klymkowsky): . . . The presence of stochastic, or seemingly random, events is widespread in biological systems and can have significant functional effects. These stochastic processes lead to a range of unpredictable but often useful behaviors. When combined with self-consciousness, such as in humans, these behaviors are not entirely determined but are still influenced by the molecular and cellular nature of living systems. They may feel like free actions, but they are constrained by the inherent biological processes.
[...] The term random is often used to describe noise, unpredictable variations in measurements or the behavior of a system. Common understanding of the term random implies that noise is without a discernible cause.
But the underlying assumption of the sciences, I have been led to believe, is that the Universe is governed exclusively by natural processes; magical or supernatural processes are not necessary and are excluded from scientific explanations. The implication of this naturalistic assumption is that all events have a cause, although the cause(s) may be theoretically or practically unknowable.
For example, there are the implications of Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, which limits our ability to measure all aspects of a system. On the practical side, measuring the position and kinetic energy of each molecule (and the parts of larger molecules) in a biological system is likely to kill the cell.
The apparent conclusion is that the measurement accuracy needed to consider a system, particularly a biological system as “determined” is impossible to achieve. In a strict sense, determinism is an illusion.
The question that remains is how to conceptualize the “random” and noisy aspects of systems. I would argue that the observable reality of stochasticity, particularly in biological systems at all levels of organization, from single cells to nervous systems, largely resolves the scientific paradox of randomness. Simply put, stochastic processes display a strange and counter-intuitive behavior: they are unpredictable at the level of individual events, but the behaviors of populations become increasingly predictable as population size increases.
Perhaps the most widely known examples of stochastic processes are radioactive decay and Brownian motion. Given a large enough population of atoms, it is possible to accurately predict the time it takes for half of the atoms to decay. But knowing the half-life of an isotope does not enable us to predict when any particular atom will decay...
[...] Why are biological systems so influenced by stochastic processes? Two simple reasons... The result is that noisy behaviors in living systems are ubiquitous and their effects unavoidable. ... Organisms exploit stochastic noise in various ways.
[...] Consider your brain. ... there is noisy as well as experience-dependent variation in gene expression, neuronal morphology and connectedness, and in the rates and patterns of neuronal firing due to differences in synaptic structure, position, strength, and other factors. Together these can be expected to influence how you (your brain) perceives and processes the external world, your own internal state, and the effects associated with the interaction between these two “models”. Of course the current state of your brain has been influenced, constrained by and contingent upon by past inputs and experiences, and the noisy events associated with its development...
[...] Am I (my model) free to behave independently from these effects? No! But am I (my model) determined by them? Again no!
The effects of biological noise in its various forms, together with past and present events will be reinforced or suppressed by my internal network and my history of familial, personal, and social experiences. I feel “free” in that there are available choices, because I am both these models and the process of testing and updating them.
Tentative models of what is going on (thinking fast) are then updated based on new information or self-reflection (thinking slower). I attempt to discern what is “real” and what seems like an appropriate response. When the system (me) is working non-pathologically, it avoids counter-productive, self-destructive ideations and actions; it can produce sublime metaphysical abstractions and self-sacrificing (altruistic) behaviors. Mostly it acts to maintain itself and adapt, often resorting to and relying upon the stories it tells itself.
I am neither determined nor free, just an organism coping, or attempting to cope, with the noisy nature of existence, its own internal systems, and an excessively complex neural network... (MORE - missing details)
