Free Will???

Zukustious

I'd like to hear some opinions on whether or not we have free will. Think about it for a while, consider both possibilities.

Zombrex

you are going to have to be a bit more specific in what area you mean ... are u talking about free will against God, or free will from a scientific, civil rights etc etc point of view.

I believe you have free will to do anything you want (scientifically i mean, jump of a bridge, choose Coke instead of Pepsi) but of course it is kinda hard to show, cause after all you only do ONE thing in the end. Even if you choose to do something, in the grand sceen of time and space you only ever do the one choice. If I said to you "don't do what you ARE about to do" it would be impossible for you not to do it cause you can only do what you do :-P

Brain sore ... going to lie down now ...

azezil

Interesting question do we really?

We have freedom to a certain degree but if we agree to live within a society we agree to abide by the rules which govern it, and if we don't we suffer the consequences.

All our lives we are shown how to behave, guidelines are set out, restrictions imposed. Can we honestly say we have 'free will' within an organized social structure?

I think not, to have true free will one must separate oneself from all restrictions and expectations, does such a place exist now? perhaps, perhaps in some remote corner of the world one cold be 'free'.

pro_gnostic_8

Originally posted by azezil


I think not, to have true free will one must separate oneself from all restrictions

G'way outta that, ya f

---

g anarchist black flag-waving anti-everything troublemaker

With apologies to Azezil for the above, ( and Az knows I'm only slaggin') the problem in my experience is that "Free Will" comes diluted with a thing called "Conscience". Some dead white poet (Shakespeare I think) said Conscience doth make cowards of us all.

The righteous man will always have a conflict between his Free Will to satisfy his baser instincts(sexual gratification, money accumulation, etc) and that conscience "thing"

Me........ I'm cursed with a conscience to my detriment!

azezil

heehee i was just making a point, those are not my true feelings, quite the oposite, i'm all in favour of rules and regulations

Manach

From a religous perspective, free will is the ability to choose between good and evil. Which in itself seems very simplistic, when one considers how even trivial choices can really snowball.
So it could be a matter of making a choice, anything really, instead of forever sitting on the sidelines.
Then again, perhaps it's just one of life's mysterys.

DeVore

We know that the motion of things such as planets and stars was decided at the big bang. their course is set, its a closed system and given a snap shot of the state of the universe and the laws of physics (ever as we understand them today) we can predict exactly where things will be tomorrow. And therefore the day after. and the day after etc etc...

We know that the universe is deterministic at all but the quantum level (where different forces of physics intervene and ARENT deterministic cf: Schroedinger's cat). The question is: do quantum effects come into play in the neurons of your brain....

If they do then free will is possible (not certain but possible). If they dont then the (admittedly highly complex) workings of your mind are predictable and determinist.

Just cos something is very very complicated doesnt make it un-modelable...

I dont know which is the answer, I'd like to think I have freewill but then I would, wouldnt I.

DeV.

Zukustious

What made me ask the question was the possibility that human behavior can be predicted by laws of physics or something. You know the way you can predict the rain by position and velocity of the cloud and other factors governing it's actions. I was thinking that people could be predicted similarly if you knew the make up of their brain and the environment that they are brought up in. That's kinda what I initially meant to ask but couldn't be bothered to write it down. Well, I've written it now so I'd like more responses please. Thanks.

I'd also like to congratulate DeVore on his eerily large knowledge of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty princible. He knew what I was talking about even though I did'nt explain it right.

Clintons Cat

Free Will,absolutely.
Inhibitions,definately.

Then we have Rules and Regulations to govern the interaction between the two and laws to punish those who fail to abide by societies Norms.
Societies Norms are variable over time

But ultimately we have free will.

We just choose not to exercise it.

Shinji

(I was rather shocked to see a prime-time TV science fiction show deliver a convincing (and entirely accurate) explanation of the principles behind this recently. Maybe the public is more intelligent than I give them credit for... Or maybe they dismissed it as more "plasma conduits on deck ten!" type technobabble. )

Newtonian physics says that everything is predetermined; if you could get a snapshot of the universe, with the velocity and position of every particle mapped, you could then calculate every interaction between them until the end of time, meaning that the future is set and we have no free will, on a basic level. Of course information theory rules out such predictions (a system capable of storing the information state of the universe would also be as big as the universe).

However, Newtonian physics is a bit long in the tooth, and quantum mechanics is altogether more relevant to this discussion. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that you can never know the exact state of a particle; the more accurately you measure its position, the larger the margin for error in the measurement of its velocity. As such you can't predict interactions on a quantum level, and that's where the basic building blocks of the universe reside.

So, the universe behaves in an unpredictable way. You can surmise two things from that;

First, you can believe that the universe is random. For the purposes of a belief in free will, randomness is as bad as predictability; either way, there's no way "free will" can develop on top of such a basis.

Secondly, you can believe that the universe itself is "coded for consciousness"; that intelligence, self-awareness and free will are as basic a building block of how our universe as gravity, mass, energy or time.

Crazy? It's certainly different, but it's no crazier than any number of other theories out there - and it provides a convenient basis for the otherwise utterly mind-boggling importance of the observer in quantum physics.

Of course, like any other theory in this field, the idea of consciousness being an essential universal force raises as many questions as it answers - more, in fact. But it's an interesting new slant on the free will debate, regardless....

Zukustious

The Uncertainty princable tells us that "we" cannot predict the direction and velocity of an electron or some other sub-atomic particle accurately. That doesn't mean that their course of events over the next period of time is random. There is a definate path, we just can't see it. If there were some divine being i.e god, who was just given the information of every particle in the universe, maybe he could predict the events of the future, if he could perform the most complex calculations involved in such a task.

Shinji

That's not the case I'm afraid. You're breaking the laws of quantum mechanics there; you're seeking to observe (thus forcing waveforms into resolved states) without actually having the effect of observation... But even that doesn't even make any sense, because until you observe, there ISN'T a definite state to observe....

It's not just that WE can't measure these things, it's that until we TRY to measure them, there isn't anything to measure!

(Yes, it's rather mindbending. That's why it's a fun area of physics )

Rnger

Courtesy of dictionary.com
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

After watching my hamster running about. I say no. My opinion, not really adding to the discussion.

DadaKopf

To imply that we have free will is to say that we are our own masters - that we control our lives. Often, this is attitudinal; it was never considered until recently that animals were intelligent - the attitude was that we humans were higher life forms and could think reflectively, therefore we possessed free will. When we look at animals, we see ourselves too - we're all complex biological systems that follow the laws of causality. If we're the same as pigs, then surely they, too, have free will.

The point is it's important to consider what we're made of and how we work.

There's evidence to suggest that our feeling of 'choice' or 'free will' is just the bringing to conscousness of automatic biological processes of the body. By the time we are aware of our thought processes, the brain has already made its decision. There is a measurable time lag between a mental process and its conscious awareness. Mental events occur in the body as a result of the causal relations between inputs and outputs - because this is causal (albeit extremely complex) suggests to some that we have no free will.

I sometimes think it's an irrelevant question and an emotionally comforting proposition based on willful abstraction from reality. It's nice to think we're free, i.e. separate from base animals, but that's just historical baggage.

Just because we're biological systems that act/react causally, due to our 'hardware' and our dispositions and our instincts and our genes and our environment, doesn't mean we can't do what we want. It doesn't mean we're not reclective beings - look at the cool stuff we can do. I think that proves we're pretty deadly. What it does mean is that we have to radically revise our conception of what 'free will' means.

Finally, I think the 'free will v. determinism' debate is pretty academic. It's an issue for scholars. 'Freedom' in this case shouldn't be confused with political freedom.

bonkey

Originally posted by Zukustious
There is a definate path, we just can't see it.

Not necessarily.

Recent work in the field has made much use of concepts such as "imaginary time", which is a secondary time "axis" which runs perpendicularly to the first.

This gives rise to terms such as "sum over all histories", which shows that the path of a particle is, in one sense, typically the most probable (or one of the most probable). In another sense, there is no path - there are probability-paths. The particle travels all paths and we experience reality as a probability "smear" - seeing the most probable outcome.

It is also worth noting that we do not fully understand the manner in which the human brain really works, and lets not even go near trying to get a scientific definition and explanation of consciousness.

Ultimately, when push comes to shove, the best science can offer us is still an incomplete picture. What this means is that there is room for sway either side - the question remains a fully valid one.

I would also suggest that were everything really deterministic, it would still be too challenging a task (for a number of reasons) to "map" an individual's brain, and their sensory inputs etc. to be actually able to fully determine their thoughts.

Which leads to an interesting question. If the universe is deterministic, but sufficiently complex that something like the mind can never be fully modelled, mirrored, or whatever....do we still have free will?

jc

jc

DadaKopf

I think evolutionary psychology is paving a useful path to us understanding the mind. However, the brain is so complex that it may actually be an impossible task. I do think, from reading this thread, that it's a bit silly, and premature to say the least, to start talking about quantum mechnaics. Science first has to catch up with how the brain functions before we can address the bigger issues like time. That said, philosophy of mind is really an attampt to look at those big questions from a different angle - and it seems to be gaining good ground through working with science.

It'd be interesting to see if it'd ever be possible to accurately map even one conscious thought. If we're to accept that thoughts are actually functions of the body's hardware, then they don't actually exist anywhere; all that can ever be left of consciousness is a string of causal relationships between neurons, c-fibres and so on, which are so transient in nature as to be almost unmappable - even if there ever was a way to trace our 3-dimensional neuronal architecture. It's entirely possible that no matter how much we know about the mechanisms of the brain, we may never know what a thought is. But finding what a thought is, what it's made of, is, I think, a redundant idea. I also don't think it tends towards determinism - if this is the way we work, and have always worked, and that just turns out to be as causal as logic, then it's our out-moded philosophical notions that we have to throw out, not make the science fit the suitcase.

DeVore

Originally posted by Zukustious

I'd also like to congratulate DeVore on his eerily large knowledge of quantum mechanics and the uncertainty princible. He knew what I was talking about even though I did'nt explain it right.

Heheh, actually my final year thesis was partly on this very topic. I have an even more interesting way of stating the question which I'll proffer below.

Heisenberg speaks to the accuracy of observation of motion and location. Not about quantum states and superstates. By the time Heisenbergs Principle comes into play... the state has long been set. Schroedingers theories deal with the uncertainty of Quantum state. Be careful about those, they are often confused because of the use of "Uncertainty" in Heisenbergs principle...


When I get a chance I'll quote chapter and verse on this, I just need time and to check something.


The question really comes down to this:

If you had two brains in EXACTLY the same neural states ie: the neurons have the same weightings and firing thresholds and connections. Everything is identical...

If you fed them the identical inputs, would you get identical outputs from the neural network? Every time?


Needless to say this is a gedanken experiment (unless you are REALLY handy with a BIG spoon) but its an important question.

Obviously the answer is yes if the brain is just a meat machine and there are no "random" elements at work.
Very very smart and complex neural systems already exist and are considerably better at their complex tasks then expert humans (diagnosing diseases for example), so we are just a difference of DEGREE from modeling the human brain in that case and one would expect consciousness and self awareness to be emergent properties of such systems.

However the human brain is sufficently non-linear and chaotic to (possibly) be susceptible to Quantum effects. These are the effects of quantum state unpredictability on sufficently complex chaotic systems.
Some people (myself included) would be open to the idea of Quantum being responsible for phenomena like "inspiration" and "creativity". In this case the answer is NO and "freewill" as its being put here, is possible.

Shinji, dont get wrapped up in the role of the "observer" in Quantum Mechanics. It doesnt require a lifeform to observe it for its state to be set. Just that it interacts with the universe in a some meaningful way.



There is DEFINITELY the illusion of freewill and so I dont think ANYTHING ABOVE entitles people to choose evil over good and then say "oh it was ordained that I would do that". The physics is really a moot point. The fact is that as Bonkey alludes to, the universe is so HIDEOUSLY complex that its really only a question keep physicists up half the night. We appear to have the choice and the morality arise from what we do with that choice.


I'm going to go home and get out the big book of Quantum again and check my facts for all this.


DeV.

Zukustious

O.K. My head hurts. Lets see now. Are "Alternate Realities" actually possible, or is the universe pre-defined from the singularity that it once was?

I'd like both peoples theories and the actual "official" theory/proven answer that today's science people go by.

I've heard of the concept of imaginary time and found it really difficult to comprehend. Is there a book that explains it in an easy to understand way? If so give the name please.

DadaKopf

If we had the equation of a cow, what would that mean?

DeVore

Originally posted by DadaKopf
I think evolutionary psychology is paving a useful path to us understanding the mind. However, the brain is so complex that it may actually be an impossible task. I do think, from reading this thread, that it's a bit silly, and premature to say the least, to start talking about quantum mechnaics. Science first has to catch up with how the brain functions before we can address the bigger issues like time. That said, philosophy of mind is really an attampt to look at those big questions from a different angle - and it seems to be gaining good ground through working with science.

Actually we understand a great deal about *how* the brain works. There has been a phenomenal amount of research into this area in the past 30 years.

We understand the biochemical signal system, the electrical pulse threshold, the reasons for anticipation (triggering the Pavlovian response), we even have a good idea of how memory is stored (just not a good understanding of the indexing system).

This is like understanding the ability to play notes on an instrument, we can see how the symphony *could* be played but no idea how to begin it ourselves.

Consciousness, creativity, inspiration. These are emergent phenomena from simplistic rules. Read up about Artificial Life if you want to see some amazing emergent properties of quite simple rules systems.

DeV.

DeVore

Originally posted by Zukustious
O.K. My head hurts. Lets see now. Are "Alternate Realities" actually possible, or is the universe pre-defined from the singularity that it once was?

The currently accepted theory of Quantum is that all possible quantum states happen, giving rise to an infinite number of universes of which ours is only one.

Hows your head now?

You have to understand that this is really pretty philosophical in nature. It is derived from observed equations in our universe and by logical steps is extended into many universe "platters" each one separated by a single quantum state outcome being different.

Its the ultimate smartarsed answer to "you cant have your cake and eat it"

You have to understand that much of this stuff is largely irrelevant to modern day living, beyond a thirst to understand the very nature of reality. For example the last I heard maths-physicists were arguing if there were 11 or 21 dimensions to our universe!

I'd like both peoples theories and the actual "official" theory/proven answer that today's science people go by.

I think I (and indeed Hawking) would be VERY interested in the proven answer

I've heard of the concept of imaginary time and found it really difficult to comprehend. Is there a book that explains it in an easy to understand way? If so give the name please.

Imaginary time is one of those things that bugs me. I know its accepted "dogma" but it seems an artificial concoction, like the cosmological constant.... some day someone will prove that we can explain it all without it.


There is a book that explains all this and while its not TOO hard it is dealing with a hard topic and shouldnt (and doesnt) dumb it down too much imho. (Einstein has a great quote: "Everything should be made as simple as possible... but not simpler")

Its: A Brief History of Time, by Stephen Hawking.
Try and get the illustrated one, not only is it updated but it has a TON of helpful 3d images...

DeV.

Rnger

Of course! I was thinking "How the hell does he know this..." when I read your posts. You have that book! Perhaps not the illustrated one.

DeVore

heheheh actually I know all this because I have a degree in pure maths specialising in neural networks LOL. (Admittedly not a very good one but I did graduate!:))


Monkeys can read books on Quantum Mechanics... they just dont understand them. However books are good ways to know things too. They arent considered cheating you know


Anyway, I'm not as clever as I might like to think, I was partly wrong about the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, it has an effect on Q.M. in so far as *we* cannot accurately measure particles because of the variance in the Quanta (discreet packets) of light. We'd need infinitely short lightwaves and thats not allowed under QM.

*however* getting back to the topic at hand, its accepted that a "god-like" entity COULD know the exact position and location of a particle but thats ignored by scientists who want to deal with what we can determine ourselves.

While Q.M. killed the idea of a deterministic universe, it doesnt apply at all levels. The Uncertainty Principle doesnt apply to planets for example, they are ALWAYS predictable... they follow the rules of General Relativity (the *other* great theory of the 20th Century). Though to be honest, most people still use Newtons laws of motion because while they are known to be inaccurate, they are only very slightly inaccurate and they are a DAMNED SIGHT easier to work with then Einsteins brain-bender! lol.

DeV.

EnigmasWhisper

I'd like to hear some opinions on whether or not we have free will. Think about it for a while, consider both possibilities.

It's quite true that natural law does indeed uphold that human beings do have a free will. Laws of nature govern the creation of all things and hardly anyone can claim that nature influences by direct intervention towards human behavior. Nature has no way of keeping track of morality. That's why it is a natural phenomenon for human to exist in accordance to their own decisive destinies. This is indeed a fabulous freedom for humans to uphold.

DeVore

Enigmas... thats a subjective viewpoint.

Its possible that we percieve a freedom of will from our position in time, however its could be equally possible AT THE SAME TIME that the path of all matter (including that of our brains) is preordained. Einstein believed in a deterministic universe, despite also being responsible for some of the work that shows that at at least some levels.... its not.

The question is: do quantum uncertainties affect the workings of the brain. If you run my brain-experiment a billion times will they always agree or sometimes produce "creative, original" thoughts.

Personally, I think they do.

DeV.

EnigmasWhisper

The question is: do quantum uncertainties affect the workings of the brain

The uncertainties involved in quantum mechanics actually mainly apply at the microscopic level of atoms and subatomic particles. At larger levels involving a great number of atoms, we can take a statistical average. The larger the system, the closer we come to where these averages match what we expect from the predictions of classical physics.

Regarding your question, the most interesting speculations involving the peculiarities of quantum physics suggest that they somehow play a special role in the human brain. (I think the brains of other animals are usually not mentioned.) The earliest of such speculations was that quantum physics allowed for the "free will" of the "spiritual soul" to operate in the brain, making conscious decisions without violating the laws of physics.

There have been more sophisticated theories proposed which try to make a connection between various workings of the human brain (including the experience of conciousness) and quantum physics. But, so far as I know, there is no real physical evidence that supports any of these theories.

I remain unconvinced.

Clintons Cat

I think man has always struggled against the limitations of his own Physical abilities that ultimately form the boundries of "Free Will".

Still with me then indulge me whilst i extrapolate.....

Since Time Immemorial 1 Man has struggled with his position in the cosmic order of things. 2 Never one to accept his limitations or his own mortality,man set about recreating the world in his Own Image. 3

He looked to the skys,saw the birds soaring above him and thought to himself "Flight, Corking idea, I think i'll have some of that" 4
Early Flight experiments involving high towers, sacks of feathers and pots of glue were less than sucessful.See Footnote 5 .

For a time man was perplexed by natures unyielding attitude to his collective expression of individuality.Mankind did what every self respecting teenager would do and went off in a collective sulk that was to be known as The Dark Ages. 6 Muttering that he didnt really want to fly that much anyway.

Mankind spent much of the dark ages in his metophorical bedroom making up stories about what happened to Stupid Geeky People who tried to fly 7 and doodling naked chicks with wings...that is...i mean angels and seraphim. 8

Man burst back out of his bedroom with the cultral kickstart known as the renaissance 9 with a whole new bunch of ideas,some of them kind of strange yet exciting,that would carry him through to the Industrial Revolution.

Finally,after what seemed an eternity,man developed the rudimentary ability of flight.Admitidly he felt a little underwhelmed by the event so he spiced up the whole thing by using his new found power,to drop things on his less developed fellow man. 10

But man was ultimately unsatisfied,with the gift of flight.Like a petulant child on boxing day he soon tired of flight and soon set his mind to other tasks.World peace and a cure for cancer seemed pretty mundane to our Smartest Monkey so instead he set his mind to inventing Death rays and grafting Human ears to the backs of mice.

Ultimately free will is the desire to reach beyond the physically possible,to achieve a measure of immortallity,to not be confined by physical restrictions or convention,to soar with the spirits in dream space.To form a collective consiousness.Ladies and Gentlemen i present to you The Smartest Monkey In The Tree,The Free Willed Cyber Monkey.

now where did i misplace that URL for "Genuine Seraphim Chicks, hot for you"?



Footnotes

1 About Teatime to be precise.
2 Directly Underneath A Sabretooth Tiger In The Evolutionary Foodchain Marked Down As "Smart Monkey" Right Next To The Long-Forgoten Evolutionary Dead-Ends The "Sarcastic Marsupial" And The "Philosophical Badger".
3 A Good thing If Your Blessed with The Looks And Ability Of Michelangelo Not Such A Good Idea If Your Andrew LLoyd Webber.
4 Exact Translation Not Available OnLine.
5 As were Similar experiments with Straw Hats and burning towers,thrones shackled with eagles,and Chariots made of various flameable materials.For the Classically Minded
6 Also known as going through a difficult period or an awkward age
7 Their Stupid Geeky Wings Fell Off If you must know,now stop hassling me about it OK?
8 Uh Seraphim Chicks are kinda hot dude.
9 "Scholars" accept that it is scientifically proven that The drive to create the printing press was in part fuelled by Guttenbergs desire to distribute his collection of hot Seraphim porn to as wide an audience as possible
10 It is widely accepted If man ever manages to set up an offworld colony,Developed using the finest minds and to act as a repository for all of mankinds aquired Scientific knowledge and culture.That within a month the colonists of this brave new world will be firing asteroids at those that stayed on earth,Just to observe what happens.

Dont Let Grandpa Near The Cliff Face

Devores Diabolical Brain Experiment

This Post Was Brought To You By The God Of Kittens.
plagurised unwittingly from funnier sources.

Zombrex

don't really following the whole quantum level stuff but I was thinking that even though everyones actions may be predictable given enough information, does that still mean you have no free will??

What exactly do we mean when we say free will? I assume it means we can choose to do anything we want. Even though the outcome of the choice may be predictable, does that mean it was not really a choice?

I am walking down the street and get to a corner. Stephen Hawkings knows I am going to turn left. I think about it and do turn left. I made the choice, even though it was possible to predict what choice I would pick.

To my mind you can have a totally predictable universe and human free will.

Zukustious

O how the thread has grown. I leave it for a day and a second page gets filled.

Originally posted by Rnger
Of course! I was thinking "How the hell does he know this..." when I read your posts. You have that book! Perhaps not the illustrated one.

I think he was refering to me as I told him I was reading the book. I have the book but a really old one. I finished it with a bit of confusion. I got "The Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene. It's on the same topic but I find it much easier to comprehend. And there are useful illustrations in it too. T'is a modern book and features String Theory. I kind of wanted to see if there was a book based on the specific topic. I also find the "spin" thing on particles confusing.

Anyway... A fan-freakin'-tastic book is "E=MC(whatever the ALT code for squared is)" by David Bodanis. The most simple book to understand. It's just on Energy and Mass and how they're the same.

s0l

This is a little off topic, but i'm curious.

The larger the system, the closer we come to where these averages match what we expect from the predictions of classical physics.

Does that mean that the idea of Asimov's psychohistory isnt really all that out there? I'm half way through the Foundation seires so i'm curious.

Clintons Cat

Asimovs Psychohistory is just a concept based upon a traditional socialogical perspective (functionalist).Wrapped in a sci-fi narrative.Its not a proper science.More an interpretive version of history.

[offtopic]Foundation Series
The later series looses its momentum and gets sucked down a narrative side track that involves Harry Seldon being chased around a lot by

Giant Robot Bees !!!

A disapointment really if you are expecting more of the same from the later series,but given the delays between the original series and the later books (the first series was published at the hieght of macarthyism and based on Asimovs observances of the rise of national socialism and communism and the cause/effect model of propaganda upon europe as viewed by an American Emigree.
the later books written in the 80's as communism was collapsing and Americas faith in itself was shaken by the vietnam war.The later books have a more of a New Age bent/vibe)
Psychohistory becomes less of a feature of the later books,and more ambiguous as a concept.
Its not suprising the books loose a lot of their Absolute Certainty displayed by the younger Asimov.But are better for it[/offtopic]

Clintons Cat

Its possible that we percieve a freedom of will from our position in time, however its could be equally possible AT THE SAME TIME that the path of all matter (including that of our brains) is preordained. Einstein believed in a deterministic universe, despite also being responsible for some of the work that shows that at at least some levels.... its not.

The question is: do quantum uncertainties affect the workings of the brain. If you run my brain-experiment a billion times will they always agree or sometimes produce "creative, original" thoughts.

Personally, I think they do.

I am not convinced of the influence of quantum mechanics has on the workings of the human brain.It sounds far too much like Biological tides theory.Once we start subscribing to such beliefs We might as well lock people up because their brains hold to much moisture,or their synapses are too small or some other kind of Eugenic quackery.
In the grand scheme of the universe all we are is another layer of fosil fuel on an unremarkable piece of rock.Given the collososal forces at work,it would be the hieght of human folly to assume that wether or not we go down the shops or what form of government we have got will in any way influence earths final destination.

Ultimately i believe an individual is responsible for his/her own actions,When it comes to Free Will nothing is pre-ordained.

Doodee

Right, topic is free will, and i think that Az hit the nail on the head with

I think not, to have true free will one must separate oneself from all restrictions and expectations, does such a place exist now? perhaps, perhaps in some remote corner of the world one cold be 'free'.

If u take the experiments with rats, leave 2 food sources in a cage, on is electrified, one not, the rat will eventually learn not to touch the electrified one.
This is much the same as good / bad, their are laws that are their to protect the weak, noble whatnot. ppl learn from their mistakes and the mistakes of others (Like rats in a cage, only, instead of electrified pellets, try poison)

I'd like to try and make myself sound smart by applying this theory.

If u did go back to the creation of everything, no right, no wrong, no anything really, and well before any big bang, left 2 babies within this sea of white or whatever, would there be any consideration for write or wrong, if they have not been thought.
Is their thought of free will, or have we actually predicted what might happen by leaving them with no education and to fend for themselves.

If u ask me, fact remains that the instinct to survive will overcome any morals and whatnot, and will lead to free will, one baby, will get the idea, that inorder to survive, he must eat the other baby, or find a food source, but there is no food source, not until one is created by the big bang. His decision to eat the other baby is free will, his instinct tells him he must eat, he has no morals and will just follow nature. He is thinking independantly, there are no particles colliding to predict his actions other than instinct.

Morals are a creation of the weak and noble, pity, and emotion, empathy.

This is free will, the chance to decide your actions, not based on right or wrong, but on your feelings, if it makes u feel good u ****, if it makes u feel guilty dont. Free will.

its 2.40am, This stuff sounded better in my head, and as i am also suffering from a nasty cold, thinking straight is hard. Hopefully i shall be back tomorrow to back up this sketchy theory, but until then, you try decide and understand my logic on this point.

Also, as reguards religion, if we dont have free will, and there is one superior being, then we are either all ****ed or all saved, its up to his Discretion, which means life is a ****ed up experiement or even a form of entertainment, he holds the answers, and is amusing himself with our ideas on trying to question our existance.

blah, tired, need sleep, and the loo.

Devore, u big nerd

swiss

Gaaah, why did this thread escape me for so long

Well here's something I made earlier.

I'm surprised how much of my little treatise on the matter of free will made it's way into this thread. Makes me reconsider some of my assumptions a little o_0

DadaKopf

Here's some comments I hurridly scribbled down at work, after reading your little treatise:

It's important to delineate between "free will" and "options". Free will, typically, is based on abstract philosophical principles based on outmoded metaphycsical theories. "Free will" tends to be absolute, axiomatic, unitary and often treated as a singular (non-)physical object. "Options", to my mind, tends to support a more pragmatic theory of mind that accepts that the world is complicit in the limitations of people's freedom (in a broadly political sense) and the determination of people's capacities and dispositions by the external world. Furthermore, this is all by virtue of our brain architecture because what's important is not to pinpoint human essence (typically understood as "freedom" or "intentionality" or "rationality" - the latter of which holds that true freedom occurs as a result of following the laws of logic, otherwise we're just slaves to our instincts). Older conceptions of freedom were either insufficient or just plain wrong. Basically, ideas, concepts, choices occur physically and we can show this in operation; we can also show how the external world determines brain structure (of course these experiments are severely limited and mostly suggestive) in the same way human ingenuity determins world structure (I guess I'm showing my Marxist underpinnings here :rolleyes: ).

The debate, therefore, centres around the question od causality. People can tend to see all this as deterministic (in a Newtonian sense, I guess), but the jury is still out. DeVore has outlined, for example, how it's perfectly possibly that "inspiration" occurs because of quantum mechanics. Alternatively, inspiration may arise from unusually arrayd neural nets. Daniel Dennett accepts the functional nature of the brain but because it's so complicated, we have the a greater ability to transcend evolution than lower animals - for example, unlike other animals, we have sex for fun as well as reproduction. As DeVore also pointed out, the only way we'll know for sure whether a brain is entirely deterministic is for us to get two identical brains, feed it the exact same data and observe the outcomes - however, this is both impossible (computers will be our only indication) and philosophically problematic because the "other minds" problem still applies. All in all, though, we just don't know enough; as Dennett says "what we need is more science".

To say that we're affected by the world, "conditioned" is not to say we lack free will, it's to say that there's a state of affairs out there that influences the self (body and mind) as much as we influence it. Free will is a reciprocal thing, not a self-positing essence. It means that potential options are always already given to us and others are, therefore, limited by that state of affairs.

The implicit assumption in the 'free-will versus determinism' argument is that free-will is a thing, a property which makes us human like a property of rock is hardness. It implies that it's a brazil nut somewhere inside each of us that simply needs to be found and cracked open. Gilbert Ryle and Wittgenstein smashed that false notion utilising logic, indicating for the first time that the mind was comprised of dispositions and behaviours, not any special essence. Dennett took Ryle's theory to the scientific biological level when it didn't quite work.

My point is this: we simply have to reconceive what 'free-will' is and, should the mind be found to be entirely deterministic, we'll just have to deal with that. There's no point in carrying all this philosophical baggage just because it feels nice.

I think that was meant to be some reply to your treatise. I thought it still left the free-will vs. determinism issue completely intact. Also, it was hard to see, exactly, where you come down on in your argument. Are you in favour of the nature argument, nurture argument, or both?

DeVore

There is no question according to science, that the universe at its lowest level is deterministic. It is not.

For freewill the question becomes "are our brains deterministic".

If I raise my hand a million times , apart from getting RSI it will ALWAYS raise 1 million times... theres no quantum uncertainty at play.

Q.U. only comes into play in systems where the state isnt observed (ie Schoedingers cat) or systems which are extremely non-linear where the probability path of a particle might actually make a large scale difference....

The brain may be one such system... I dont know. I'm not sure anyone can answer that question at the moment.

I'm not sure it matters anyway. I feel I have freewill. I make my own decisions. If nothing I do matters in the long run then the only thing that matters NOW is what I do.

And I'm NOT a big nerd! :mad:

DeV.

DadaKopf

Well, if the brain is deterministic, and we react conditionally to stimuli (external and internal), does that not mean we have no free will?

To some it does. To others, certainly not. It's still an open question.

Like I said, and you said, the real test will be whether two functionally isomorphic brains with identical inputs will generate the same outputs. If there's a difference in the behaviours of the test subjects, then either the brain isn't deterministic or there is more at play within the brain.

I started off my entry in this thread with some comment about someone saying that there's evidence to suggest that one's "feeling" of free will is only the brain bringing a decision already made to one's conscious awareness. You may feel that you excercise choice, but to the determinist you don't.

Personally, I haven't a problem with determinism. We still do some pretty cool stuff so there's obviously something a little more going on there, y'know? Once again: we have to redefine our concept of 'free will.

Doodee

no devore, i was only messing, like i said, cold + being awake at 3am after doing a 7hr shift which ended at 12 does make me very sarcastic.

DeVore

I wish people realised more often that I'm actually fairly slow to be annoyed (you just dont want to be in the way if I am! lol)

No offence taken at all, I am a "nerd"... in fact I relish the label from some quarters!

Dev.

Doodee

You could be hardly offened if I called you a nerd tbh

anyways, nerds have bigger willies!


your knowledge of Q.M just scares me thats all.

into psycology?

whatisthematrix.com

some very good stuff if u are.

Ivan

Firstly I'd like to say how I'm a big nerd too, and I'm not just saying that because Dev has recently made it cool to be a nerd but actually because my friends (computer geeks) all voted me as a nerd, all legal like.

Secondly I'd just like to draw attention to my similar (exact same?) post?

Click here to continue (Damn VB project)

Thirdly I'd like to say how I think that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle seems a little flawed to me. Now if it were me about to make this statement I would say : According to current methods of scientific observation it is not possible to observe the velocity (speed + direction) and position (3-D co-ordinates) without altering the velocity and/or position of said particle. This statement would be vague enough to cover my ass if I'm proven incorrect while still being sceintifically plausible to be applied as a theory.

Now, my reasons for this would be, who are we to say that it is not possible that in the future a method of observing velocity and position cannot be discovered? For example such a method could consist of observing the particles around the particle instead of the actual particle. Of course this would result in altering the experiment externally by altering the velocity and/or position of the surrounding particles. But I'm sure you get an idea of what I'm talking about.

Also Clintons Cat I love your The Smartest Monkey In The Tree,The Free Willed Cyber Monkey post.

Speaking of cats I also believe Schrodingers cat is also very dodgey

Take for example

If I raise my hand a million times , apart from getting RSI it will ALWAYS raise 1 million times... theres no quantum uncertainty at play.

under Schrodinger's cat's logic, if a third party observer (by that I mean neither Dev nor Dev's hand) were to observe the "experiment" 50 times he would always see the hand rise. However if he were to look away, then there would be the Quantum uncertainty that until the event is observed it may or may not have happened.

Of course Dev's conciousness would prevent this as he would instantly know yes or no and the quantum uncertainty would be overcome, however you could overcome this by giving Dev some nice anaesthetics and hooking up a low voltage electric generator to his muscles in his arm. Then design a circuit (either computerised or not, whatever) which randomly sends pulses of electricity through to Dev's arm, thus Randomly causing Dev's arm to rise and/or not.

In this situation Until the event is observed its result is uncertain.

This is the Schrodingers cat logic as I see it. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying. Heck I must be...I cant be right. Someone correct me before I get a big head.