Determinism: Difference between revisions
m
Grammar and spelling
m (→Definitions) |
m (Grammar and spelling) |
||
| Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
Gazzaniga showed a split-brain patient two pictures: a chicken claw (located in his right visual field, processed by his left hemisphere) and a snow scene (located in his left visual field, processed by his right hemisphere). When asked to choose related images, the patient's left hand pointed to a shovel (as appropriate for the snow image), and his right hand pointed to a chicken (as appropriate for the claw image). | Gazzaniga showed a split-brain patient two pictures: a chicken claw (located in his right visual field, processed by his left hemisphere) and a snow scene (located in his left visual field, processed by his right hemisphere). When asked to choose related images, the patient's left hand pointed to a shovel (as appropriate for the snow image), and his right hand pointed to a chicken (as appropriate for the claw image). | ||
When asked why, his left-hemisphere speech center confidently explained: | When asked why, his left-hemisphere speech center confidently explained: "The chicken claw goes with the chicken," and, regarding the shovel, "You need a shovel to clean out the chicken shed." The left brain, unaware of the snow scene seen by the right brain, fabricated a plausible yet incorrect justification instead of admitting ignorance (Gazzaniga, M. S., p. 133).<ref>Gazzaniga, M. S. (2005). ''Who's in Charge?'' Dana Press, Univeresity Presses Marketing distributor</ref> | ||
This demonstrates that the patient was not [[Knowledge|aware]] of the real reason of why he selected the shovel, but instead his left hemisphere made up a false explanation. So the left hemisphere [[Belief|believed]] in having made a free choice, while instead it was the right hemisphere that made the choice for other reasons (based on visual skills) than the patient believed. | This demonstrates that the patient was not [[Knowledge|aware]] of the real reason of why he selected the shovel, but instead his left hemisphere made up a false explanation. So the left hemisphere [[Belief|believed]] in having made a free choice, while instead it was the right hemisphere that made the choice for other reasons (based on visual skills) than the patient believed. | ||
| Line 171: | Line 171: | ||
This basic information would represent the fundamental building blocks of the events in the entire universe, fully sufficient to deduce any event at any point in time, if logic was applied correctly. These fundamental blocks would include the first events in the universe, all natural laws and the definition of logic. | This basic information would represent the fundamental building blocks of the events in the entire universe, fully sufficient to deduce any event at any point in time, if logic was applied correctly. These fundamental blocks would include the first events in the universe, all natural laws and the definition of logic. | ||
Since humans are prone to logical errors, their ability to always predict an event correctly would not ensured, even given sufficient data. The informational content of a message about an event they failed to deduce correctly, might still be present to a certain level, but would be restricted by the extent of their error. | Since humans are prone to logical errors, their ability to always predict an event correctly would not be ensured, even given sufficient data. The informational content of a message about an event they failed to deduce correctly, might still be present to a certain level, but would be restricted by the extent of their error. | ||
Also, the average person lacks the scientific expertise to calculate all outcomes of any event as determined by all natural laws. This becomes even harder when we consider the idea of the butterfly effect, as Robert Bishop demonstrated in his article about Chaos, using the following example: " [...] the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Argentina could cause a tornado in Texas three weeks later."<ref>Bishop, R. (2024, October 11). Chaos. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/</ref> To predict an event, all small events, such as the flapping of a butterfly’s wings, should be considered carefully, and missing even one small event would lead to a false prediction. | Also, the average person lacks the scientific expertise to calculate all outcomes of any event as determined by all natural laws. This becomes even harder when we consider the idea of the butterfly effect, as Robert Bishop demonstrated in his article about Chaos, using the following example: " [...] the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in Argentina could cause a tornado in Texas three weeks later."<ref>Bishop, R. (2024, October 11). Chaos. ''Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy''. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chaos/</ref> To predict an event, all small events, such as the flapping of a butterfly’s wings, should be considered carefully, and missing even one small event would lead to a false prediction. | ||