Yarin

Just recently, I was having a discussion that led me to ponder on this on:
So the question is... when does an action exist?

)> When it's defined, or thought of. Before or after it occurs.
)> Only while it happens, if it was thought of, but never done, it doesn't exist. Nor does it exist if it was done, but is no longer done.
)> As soon as it's done. Once an action was done, it came into existence, and won't stop existing even after it's no longer being done.
)> Actions don't exist. We talk like the say do, but really we shouldn't because an action can't really exist.
)> Something else?

Explain your opinion, and why.

__________________
GCC 4.4.0, Code::Blocks 8.02, Fedora 11, x64

Akkernight

An action exists when you do it, then it's claimed that everything you do echo's into eternity and nothing ceases to exist, so it exists forever, while an action is something you do, it doesn't exist only by thinking of it...

That's my opinion :P

__________________
I deny the Holy Spirit; burn me.

http://blasphemychallenge.com/ <- Do you dare?

tabstop

Definitely #2. Before we have made a choice about what action to take, or after we have chosen a different action, we can do a thought experiment to (try to) predict outcomes of potential actions, but that's not actually performing that action. (Those other potential actions that are thought of do exist as ideas, but not as actions.)

(I suppose we then insert quantum many worlds stuff here, if we have to.)

Sebastiani

I believe the answer is both #3 and #4. The latter because 'action' is a mere conception used to compartmentalize a complex nexus of causuality.

whiteflags

I don't think actions exist in the "I think therefore I am" sense. You could look at it by asking yourself would you exist if you took no actions, but isn't that different from the beginning since thinking is an action? I think the whole question is a lot simpler if you recognize the (obvious) connection with verb tenses. Those are all phases in an action's life.

__________________
Os iusti meditabitur sapientiam
Et lingua eius loquetur indicium

"There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act II scene ii)

http://www.myspace.com/whiteflags99

Mario F.

An action exists when it's intrinsic nature can only describe with the help of a verb. Walk, fly, dance, sleep, stop, think,...
Because of this an action is also the thought of an action and the thought of the thought of an action, regardless if the particular action ever takes place.

Inaction, on the other hand is much rarer. Or perhaps more appropriately entirely non-existing in the universe.

You can however try and limit the scope of the meaning of "action". But then it becomes a word play.

__________________
Originally Posted by brewbuck:
Reimplementing a large system in another language to get a 25% performance boost is nonsense. It would be cheaper to just get a computer which is 25% faster.

Daved

>> But then it becomes a word play.
The whole conversation is really word play. Action is just a word with several different meanings. If you want to use it in a discussion where the exact meaning is important, you must define that meaning beforehand. And if you define that meaning, then whichever meaning you choose will be the answer to the OPs' question.

In general conversation I would agree with tabstop and say that #2 is accurate. An action only "exists" when it is occurring and anything before or after that refers to the potential action or the previous existence of the action.

Bubba

Seems like another excuse to start a useless poll without actually using the poll feature.

__________________
If you aim at everything you will hit something but you won't know what it is.

MK27

I don't believe in time, so I would say it's more meaningful to ask where the action exists.

__________________

Accuracy and integrity mean nothing if you don't make it past the censors...PYTHAGORAS

abachler

Well, to make any meaningful answer to that question, you first have to prove whether we live in a universe with free will or of predetermination.

If we have free will, then the action originates with the precognitive motivation that ultimately results in physical action.

If we live in a universe of predetermination then the action existed since the big bang or whatever other creation myth you happen to believe in.

Now according to our legal system, we have free will, or else punishment would be pointless and cruel.

But according to B.F. Skinner we do not have free will, only the illusion of free will, which is necessary for the ego to maintain a healthy self image.

Personally I think the truth is somewhere in the middle. We ultimately have free will, but our primitive minds are so undeveloped that it is extremely difficult to truly exercise free will all the time. The overwhelming majority of our actions are predetermined, but we can make a conscious effort to exert free will if we chose.

__________________
He is free, you say. Ah! That is his misfortune… These men… [have] the most terrible, the most imperious of masters, that is, need. … They must therefore find someone to hire them, or die of hunger. Is that to be free? - Simon Linguet

anon

I've always found that the free will vs mechanical determination is another rather useless distinction. If the illusion is perfect, I can't see how it would make any difference any way. The punishment will not be immoral, since it has been coming too from the dawn of ages, along with the good feeling of having served that bastard right.

Also, I suppose physics acknowledges chaotic behaviour of systems, so the results of things won't be computable even from a mechanical point of view. E.g if I fall from a window, will I survive or die - can you predict a gust of wind that steers me away from a nasty rock on the ground?

I guess "free will" would be a more productive concept when applied to social behaviour and such (but of course, then determining between deterministic and free actions becomes more fuzzy once we stop trying to reduce all complexity down to simple collisions between billiard balls).

__________________
I might be wrong.

Quoted more than 1000 times (I hope).

mike_g

I guess it depends if you consider things associated with an action as part of it. I don't so I'd say number 2.

While it sounds quite funny, that does not really make sense. Reinforcement learning is probably the most basic, mindless, way to condition an organism. If anything you would have to have something closer to free will to keep offending.

__________________
Senior highbrow doctor of authority.

Sebastiani

Action doesn't necessarily involve free will. You may be taking a brisk walk though a field, thinking that your action is simply to exercise and invigorate the body, but in fact every step may perforce cause the death of some small creature. Even the mere motion of a pebble underfoot (and thus the electrons within it) stimulates an electromagnetic field that propagates across the universe at the speed of light. All of these things occur without concientiosness.

The original thought itself of the action of walking is a conceptual aid to describe something that isn't completely describable. All things being connected, it's impossible to clearly discern from whence the walking truly arose, it's meaning in totality, and it's eventual implications.

The question of free will versus determinism is unsolvable, I think. Neither can be either proven or disproven, and so the matter is purely philosophical. My opinion is that all things are deterministic in a purely physical sense, but free will is itself a 'force' that influences physical systems, and so the two concepts are not completely incompatible. Furthermore, considering that conciousness may simply be the effect of the flow of energy, and that all matter is composed of and emits energy, the case may actually be that everything in the universe is in fact 'alive' and capable of exerting free will, and thus this may be the actual 'force' that follows the Boltzmann distribution which in turn is the basis for quantum mechanics (eg: the 'uncertainty' that mandates probablistic equations (coupled with actual 'hidden' variables, of course)). And since there is no real distinction between all things (eg: where does a given 'thing' actually begin or end?), it could be said that the entire universe (including our own egos) is a manifestation of 'this' all-pervading conciousness, and moreover, since the conservation of energy states that matter/energy is never really destroyed, this conciousness exists throughout eternity, and thus you, me, and everything are in essence the force of 'god', or whatever you wish to call 'it'.

MK27

Sebastiani's been taking the real drugs again

__________________

Accuracy and integrity mean nothing if you don't make it past the censors...PYTHAGORAS

Sebastiani

Hehe. I actually wrote an essay in 7th grade titled "A Body Without a Soul" (which was later derived into a poem) that essentially asserted that basic idea, and yes, my instructor in fact asked, in all sincerity, if I had been experimenting with mind-altering substances! I guess it's always been my natural inclination to think that way, though (of course I won't rule out the possible effects of both being raised within the hippy counter-culture and being strongly influenced by Heinlen's "Stranger in a Strange Land").