Naked Science Forum
General Science => General Science => Topic started by: Andre Wissler on 15/11/2010 08:30:03
-
Andre Wissler asked the Naked Scientists:
Hi Chris,
I try and catch you as often as possible on Rudi's show on 702 Talk Radio in Jhb. Great show and love your answers to the questions (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/).
I was wondering if you ever touched on the subject of "free will" i.e. do we have "free will" in the actions that we do as human beings or are our actions / day to day activities all governed by our environment or perhaps even "pre-programmed"?
I suppose it is a bit of the Nature vs. Nurture argument.
If you have a podcast (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/podcasts/) around this topic I would be interested to listen to it, please can you send me the link. Else perhaps you can discuss it this Friday with Rudi.
Please let me know.
Thanks and kind regards
Andre
What do you think?
-
We are predestined to think we do.
It depends on the definition of freewill you choose.
-
Yes, we do have free will, but only within certain constraints can we come to realise it.
As far as nature goes, our free will may be impossible to realise. For example, the will to fly like a bird cannot be realised due to the constraints of nature.
Our free will to chose our own destiny may be contrained by our own abilities or by outside forces. Nurture may not subdue our free will, as can be seen in Burma, China and other totalitarian regimes. But such regimes can, and do, suppress free will.
As for those in the 'free' world, even our free will is suppressed by the constraints of acceptability, economics and whole host of other factors.
So, yes, you can have free will, but acting it out is a different matter altogether.
-
Interesting how even the scientifically minded can resort to dogmatic statements when the subject is right.
I doubt that anyone would deny (is that the only 4-letter English word ending in "eny"?) that our free will, if we have it, is subject to constraints, but what about some evidence as to whether or not we actually have it; or should this thread be in something other than science? [:P]
-
" Since I don't have a clue about the original question I will answer this one instead.
(is that the only 4-letter English word ending in "eny"?)
I will choose randomly from a number of alternatives.
Eeny, meeny, miney, mo....
-
Do humans have free will? If you ask the strongest advocate of free will to define what he/she is talking about it is easy to explain their example as deterministic. So, the answer to the question is yes, but free will is determined, and free will versus determinism is not a dichotomy. This is one of those questions that is fun to argue about, but has little effect on daily life. If you don't agree, please define free will.
-
Eeny, meeny, miney, mo....
Some of your 4-letter words betray a sad disregard for basic arithmetic.
Back off - this could get very silly. [::)]
-
Work is a four letter word.
The important point is that "eeny" is too, and so demonstrates the falsehood of the hypothesis.
If you look closely, you will see that most of the words in my post don't have 4 letters.
Do you know the nursery rhyme that starts "Eeny, meeny, miney, mo"?
-
It seems like a meaningless question to me. Suppose you had two identical Earths, but on one people had free will, on the other they didn't. What differences would you expect to see?
-
On one earth when you asked people if they had free will they would say they did and they would be right.
On the other earth they would still say they had free will, but they would be wrong.
I'm not sure how you could tell which was which.
I think you have essentially nailed this debate.
Well done!
-
Do you know the nursery rhyme that starts "Eeny, meeny, miney, mo"?
Yes, and it is as dubious politically as your reasoning seems to be, logically. [;D]
-
On the other earth they would still say they had free will, but they would be wrong.
Unless, of course, they knew they did not have free will, in which case they might say no.
-
On the other earth they would still say they had free will, but they would be wrong.
Unless, of course, they knew they did not have free will, in which case they might say no.
Then they wouldn't be people.
-
There is always a balance between "Nature", "Nurture", and "Free Will".
There are certainly aspects of a personality that are genetic, or a genetic predisposition. They are hard to explain, but at least there is growing evidence for genetic aspects such as addictive behavior.
Likewise, if you think of Autistic Spectrum, at some levels it leads to very dysfunctional people. At other levels it can lead to some extremely bright scientists, and musicians. I'm convinced that it is more than a "disorder", but many scientists and engineers have a "scientific mind".
Many parents would love to have no "free will", and everything based on "Nurture"... if their children would only do what they were TOLD!!!! But, at the same time, one certainly doesn't want puppets.
A lot can be learned though. Some things not entirely intentional. For example my mother makes her dog sit in the back seat of the car. He gets a treat if he sits back on his own seat... so what did he learn? Well, the first thing when he gets into the car is to get his two front feet up onto the center console... so Mom will command him "back"... and then he gets his treat.
In the end, there may be some desires and compulsions. We may learn to control some, and not others, and perhaps even develop more that we've learned.
But... we don't just puppet back what is in our genes, or what someone has taught us, but we add a little something unique to each of us, and unique to each situation. And this is our "Free Will".
-
If you agree with the Theory of conservation of the information that says that all information of our material Universe cannot be lost in any way, Free Will would imply that we generate new information all the time... If we are generator of information, does it mean that our consciousness is not only in the material Universe but in other dimensions that are interacting with the material Universe? New information has to come from somewhere else... The material Universe could be perfected eternally by being modified by our free will and consciousness...
-
If you agree with the Law of Conservation of Information, you will probably also agree with the "theory" of Intelligent Design and disagree with the Theory of Evolution.
-
The Theory of evolution may be true but the creation of evolution would be caused by the interactions of consciousness through the material world... Both Theory could be true... Everybody would be happy... [:o)]
-
When you choose to have a baby with your girlfriend or boyfriend, you make a decision that will change evolution. I have no doubt about the Theory of Evolution. It is not complete but there is enough science to prove it...
-
On the other earth they would still say they had free will, but they would be wrong.
Unless, of course, they knew they did not have free will, in which case they might say no.
Then they wouldn't be people.
My guess is that on both planets, the majority of the respondents would say "Yes" while a minority would say "No". On Planet Free Will, the majority would be right and the minority wrong. On Planet Determinism, the majority would be wrong and the (smart) minority would be right. You still wouldn't be able to tell which planet is which.
(Reality held a gun to my head while I wrote this post. I had no choice.)
-
Of course we all have a will, but if it's a free one? As so many pointed out here it's constricted by circumstances, and when taken to its limit pointless. What would you call being give a choice of how to die, it's 'free will' but for a healthy, reasonably happy human, not a especially engaging spectrum of choices.
But as a theory I would say, sure we all have a 'free will'. We even surprise ourselves with it sometimes :)
-
Free Will would imply that we generate new information all the time...
The information we generate may be new to us, but can we be sure it is new to the Universe. Might we not just be recycling information?
-
Free Will would imply that we generate new information all the time...
The information we generate may be new to us, but can we be sure it is new to the Universe. Might we not just be recycling information?
I would have to say that we are taking old information and combining it in new ways... and thus creating new information, or successive generations of new information.
Modern computers wouldn't exist without the Eniac, and the Apple II and the TRS-80's and the Commodore PETS, and CPM.
But, had all the information to build today's microcomputers existed in the 1940's... wouldn't people have just stared with a 2010 laptop rather than the Eniac?
Certainly humanity has forgotten many things. We're still trying to figure out whether the Ancient Egyptians had access to technology that has been forgotten for thousands of years. But, if we discover the secrets behind an ancient Druid anti-gravity device... it still might be a "new" discovery.
-
The way i see it, no, unless we have no free will. Free will imply that we are a source of information that violates the Entropy Principle and the Information Principle. For Life, it seems to be the case regarding the Entropy Principle. If your will depend entirely on information of the material universe, it is not free. It may be the case, but i hope not because we would be like puppets in a strange freak show...
What about the Information Principle if the universe is infinite?
-
Yes is the simple answer it does. However, I like the fact that it does. We do have free will, but what the whole Hell and Heaven thing is to teach us that in the long run, if you do something bad to someone, something will be bad to you. Basically it's the same as karma.
Erectile dysfunction spam removed by Moderator. Leave out the spam, or something very bad will happen to your karma
-
What about the Information Principle if the universe is infinite?
An infinite cosmos does, at first glance seem to militate against free will, but this may not be the case if free will is relative.
Here is an extract from some notes I made while I was trying to sort out my ideas about infinity.
Consider the following possibility. The cosmos is infinite; therefore every part of the cosmos is the cosmos. Everything, including our apparently finite Universe, is infinite. The birth of the Universe and perhaps its ultimate death exist together in infinity, along with all the things that “happen” between those two points. It is all there, in eternity, in an all-embracing now. We perceive spatial differences, and the passage of time, because our minds need to make sense of the partial image to which we are restricted. This sounds like a recipe for predestination, but I am not suggesting that we should abdicate all responsibility for our actions; far from it. In eternity, things are as they are, permanently. However, we cannot entirely rule out the possibility that they are as they are, to some extent, because of the choices we seem to be making now.
I think that what I was trying to get at here is that we have free will within our frame of reference, and, in this instance, that F of R is our Universe.
-
Is this proof that we have free will?
I posted something which many people would find ridiculous, but which everyone has chosen to ignore.
Free choice, free will, you saw it here. [8D]
-
"Do humans have free will?" This question is nonsense because one can't say whether it is true or not unless the notion of free will is well defined. Otherwise it is just mental masturbation.
-
sorry for my bad english...
i think that we are living in a world which is regulated by rules (phisical)... i don't see any entity which is independent from the rules... not even us, people...
if we know the current condition of a system which works in accordance with rules than we can compute its condition in the future... that's why i see the whole universe's future determined... i don't say that we or the designer has the ability to compute the future but it's determined
you may say that the designer can interfere... i say yes, but he lives in an upper level which should be determined as well...
so the free will is illusory only... nobody is responsible for his decisions... we are just robots in the theatre
-
Here is my problem with this whole free will issue. When looking at the “lowest,” most automatic of our brain functions, such as body homeostasis, movement control, balance, and so on, it is easy to understand this as determined because the brain mechanisms just take in sensory information and output an action without conscious thought. At the highest levels of brain function that include consciousness, cognition, emotion, and decision making, all the output of the much more complicated brain processing is based on sensory data, inborn and learned proclivities, and memory, so they are also determined. This is abundantly clear when looking at people who have suffered some kind of brain damage. Nobody can be free of this or would even want to be free of this. This is also determinism. Even in instances where one makes the decision to do something random because there is no basis for a decision is a determined action. What does anyone think is a thought or action that is outside of one’s brain processes or that they think would demonstrate free will? The free will/determinism issue is a false dichotomy.
-
I believe determinism exists. Indeterminism is a concept where meaning does not exist. Using logical thought, since our universe follows a principle of least action ∫ Mv ds = ∫ p dq would have our universe work the most efficient way. Efficiency would result in some type of meaning, reducing a concept to its most simplistic form.
Because of this, one must assume that indeterministic universes cannot exist at this lower component of understanding.
-
if we know the current condition of a system which works in accordance with rules than we can compute its condition in the future... that's why i see the whole universe's future determined... i don't say that we or the designer has the ability to compute the future but it's determined
so the free will is illusory only... nobody is responsible for his decisions... we are just robots in the theatre
WHAT? OK, seems we need to define our terms here prior to any discussion on whether humans have free will. Obviously, we can't do Anything we want just because we want to; I am not free, for example, to jump over tall buildings in a single bound. However, given the choice between doing something that I desire to do and one I don't necessarily feel like doing, and assuming that I have the physical and mental capacity to do either, I've been known to totally forget about Newton's 3rd law and do the thing I FEEL like doing. I am generally a hedonist, and although I may well know that said choice will eventually lead to a negative result, I exercise my free will to seek my pleasure now and deal with the effects at some future date.
"God" may have prior knowledge of the course that I will choose to follow, but he'll only have knowledge of the future that I CHOSE. It's almost as if he first turns to the last page of the autobiography he's reading, so even as he reads he knows what will eventually happen. But that does not mean that he caused the book to end as it does.
This human had the free will to make stupid decisions for years despite of her education and intellect. I wish that I had chosen to do things a bit differently, but without the freedom to make my own choices I might as well be a television set. [8D]
-
Christina, just going against what you think might be the best choice is not free will. You made your choice because you felt like it and there is a reason and history to your feeling. If we define free will as ones ability to make bad choices it makes the free will question trivial and suggests that self centered teenagers and criminals have the most free will. Steve
-
Christina,
yes, you have free will... you can decide... but your decisions are computable so your free will is illusory
just think of a robot >> does it have free will? yes, it can decide and act free but it makes decisions by it's sense organs and it's program... that's why it's decision are computable and it hasn't real free will >> like us
we also have sense organs (ear, eye...) and program (dna) ...
-
No, its good arguments but its still a clock work universe building on the concept that if we only knew it all. The only way to know it all is actually to look at what already happened. The problem being that even when we do so if we are three persons we will get three versions. I say free will exist, even though circumstanced by our beliefs and ideas etc etc.
Assume that you decide to do what you do by throwing a dice first, letting that symbol define you action? Assume also that the you don't know what the choices are, being someone else's? Your free choice is to be in this game or not. What happens once you join is a very free expression of that first choice. And there is no way for you to backtrack the action to your actual 'state of mind'. And I can easily think up any number of reasons to why you might join :) Also we have 'bifurcations' coming at some point in time, impossible to backtrack, and 'many paths' etc. I think indeterminacy is 'built in' in our universe.
-
Yor_on, your post is so difficult to understand that I have to think that it is meaningless. Perhaps someone would like to interpret it for me (Geezer?) so that I might be able to respond. Steve
-
I think Yoron is simply pointing out that "Life is but a bag o'shells."
(Sorry about the poor pun, I should have said "Life is but a bagatelle")
-
yor_on,
my native language is not english, please explain your opinion more detailed... i'd like to understand
1. imagine the whole universe working by it's rules but without material... is it's future determined? i guess yes... it would remain as it is... vakuum forever
2. imagine the universe with 1 elektron only... push the elektron and let it move... is the future of the universe determined? i guess yes... even you could compute the elektron's position in the future
3. why do yu think that the result is not the same if the universe is filled with material? with planets and living being on them? the universe's condition in the future is determined because of the working rules... i think
-
So, Yor_on thinks that because there are many choices in life and, because once a choice is made it is impossible to backtrack, that the universe is indeterminate, and Geezer interprets this, in turn, as meaning that life is but a trifle. I am confused.
-
it seems that the number of choices is infinity... but it isn't... your choice is computable >> there is one path in the time only... one event follows the other
do you think that animals have free will?
i think no... they have neither... they are bio robots as well... not so complex like us of course but they make decisions based on their inputs as well (eye, ear and other sense-organs...)
-
Okay, it might have to do with my choice of English. Look at it this way then. We have an indeterminacy in all things physical, do you guys agree?
If you do, do you agree to that humans fall under the 'physical' category too?
If you, as me, think we all belong to a physical system called 'SpaceTime' and also accept the indeterminacy, what the he* does that have to do with free will?
To me the equivalence is there. Free will is something where you can't say what's going to happen just by looking backwards, when it comes to an individual.
But when using statistics we will still find certain patterns that makes it possible to plan ahead. And that makes us no different to the indeterminacy seen at a QM level that then still express itself in stable patterns like what we call 'matter'.
It's easy to prove 'free will' at a individual level, not as easy when looking at statistics as we then see this tendency of things to recur and 'stabilize' :)
But let me turn it around, anyone ever proved the statement that you can 'predict' what a human will do, anywhere? Don't you think governments would love that idea? So perfectly behavioristic :)
-
yor_on,
you don't understand me... i don't say that god or anybody else can compute the future
i say that the whole system works by rules and that's why the world and our fate is determinated
we are talking about 2 things
1. you say that we have free will because we can decide between "a" or "b"
yes, i agree with that
2. i say this kind of free will is illusory because we are working by rules so our decisions are computable
-
Nope.
Not on the individual plane.
Turn your question around instead.
Is there anywhere in history we could say that one man/womans free will have made a big difference to us?
If there is, do that mean that one 'particle' can decide the behavior of a pattern?
-
i understand your question but i don't understand your meaning
Is there anywhere in history we could say that one man/womans free will have made a big difference to us?
we are talking about free will... i say there is no free will so in my opinion your question has no sense
i suggest let's start with the roots...
1. do you agree that everything in our universe work by rules?
-
Do you know them?
==
Look I think my point of view is simple.
Not difficult to comprehend.
And I've given what I see as good examples to why free will should exist.
Both expressed in negatives as positives.
As for what rules that steer this SpaceTime, that's a open question.
I do not have the answer.
And if you think you have?
Present them.
-
I can give you a hint for what I expect to steer them though.
Constants.
-
Yor_on. I agree with Sliffy. The inability of a government to predict human behavior only gives people some freedom from government, not free will. The inability to predict the future does not equate to free will. I presume that some of your invocation of indeterminate nature of the physical world has something to do with quantum mechanics. If so, you should state this up front so somebody might actually understand what you are talking about. I am not sure at all that the indeterminate properties of particles has any effect whatsoever at the level of reality that brains work in, or that if it did that it would have any importance to this discussion. Steve
-
Steve, I made my statement already. This is the second time you tell me that you don't understand what I'm saying :)
That's okay with me.
Just do your thing.
-
the rules are phisical rules
some of them know we already... a lot of them we have to discover
-
Sliffy, your question seems to come down to the question if SpaceTime can be seen as a 'whole process' where all things ultimately have to be 'accounted for' as they took place inside this 'closed system'. Looked at that way I will direct you to 'bifurcations' and then you should look at 'Feigenbaums constant'.
What you see there is non-linearity impossible to backtrack but still inside a 'linearity' represented by this Feigenbaum constant.
And the constant is the really interesting part here.
Once we thought the world to be a linear thing, steered by 'forces'
Then we realized that the linearity was like islands inside non-linearity.
Now we start to find that it is like dolls inside dolls inside dolls ins...
So I think free will exist, for sure.
But I don't know if it makes a difference.
Can you see my point better now?
-
Everyone has limitations, i.e. Physical. intellectual, financial, etc. etc. Within those limitations, one has free will to act as one sees fit. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
-
Yep, nice definition Joe. On the individual plane we all have a free will.
-
Yor_on. I will give this one more try. Please provide a definition of free will that will allow us to evaluate it in light of your notions regarding causality. Even more important, how would your definition of free will differentiate between a person making a decision and a complex computer program making a decision? Steve
-
Joe. I am willing to accept your definition if you will admit that this also means that my dog and the giant banana slug I just moved off the porch also have free will. If you don't agree, what is the difference. Steve
-
Look up my references Steve, then I hope you will see why I see it like I do. There are more things to it of course, but ain't it that way always? But they are a good staring point for what 'free will' might be. If you accept the basic premises I do. That we too, are a part of a physical system called 'SpaceTime'.
-
thx, i see better
i know that our doll is within another doll and the number of dolls can be infinity but i guess that not only our world is determined
the designer in the upper level should be determined as well
his world has rules as well
-
As for what differ a program with multiple choices and a human being?
Depends on how many choices that human sees, don't it?
The difference have to be in my question here :)
That is if you don't construct a quantum computer, or a analogue one with an infinity of possible 'choices', and also it seems to be a thing of 'magnifying/contracting' what 'reality' we look on as QM also seems to leave choices open, but hinged in by 'probability'.
So it becomes a very philosophical question if you want to narrow it down. I'm not trying to, I just look at what I think is significant for my understanding of 'SpaceTime' and when it comes to 'free will' I have this definition.
-
Well Sliffy, that depends on your own definition of what the world ultimately should be seen as. My view is that the world probably is a whole thing, and if we could see it that way the question about free will will become meaningless on that plane. But I don't expect any arrow to exist there either. The question of a 'free will' is meaningful only under our arrow as I see it.
(arrow of time)
-
you write: "free will will become meaningless on that plane"... >> why it is meaningless? do you agree that free will doesn't exist if our system is closed?
i can't imagine a closed system working by rules to be non-determined
-
Yor_on. What references are you referring to? Are you unwilling to give your own definition of free will? I don't accept your basic premises because you haven't actually laid them out in a logical manner. Do you actually think that the number of choices available to a person, or computer, is what defines free will? If you know what you think free will is, just define it. Steve
-
Look Steve, I can see you want a ah, 'discussion' about it. I'm not interested, simple as that. I do not have the answer to the universe although I have my own opinions. The references was 'bifurcations' and then the 'Feigenbaum constant'.
And Sliffy, the 'thingie' that i expect to be 'whole' is not what we call SpaceTime. It's ? Well, it have to include the virtual aspects as well as what we see as those 'Russian dolls'. It's not anything I know how to specify, as there most probably will be more to it than what I can see. And our 'SpaceTime' and the the 'arrow' created by that I see as a consequence of it, with us infused with all that 'virtuality' etc. We 'exist' on many planes simultaneously if you look at it like that, the 'virtual world' being inside each one of us. So? My view that is :)
-
Think about it Sliffy.
Where is your choice if you have no arrow of time to 'create' it in?
Also called 'causality chains'.
-
Joe. I am willing to accept your definition if you will admit that this also means that my dog and the giant banana slug I just moved off the porch also have free will. If you don't agree, what is the difference. Steve
Hi, Steve. I agree that your dog and your slog have free will within their limitations. You are one of their limitations. Thanks for comments
-
yor_on,
you ask "where is my choice?"
i don't have choice... i'm a bio robot who makes his decisions by the input data getting on sense-organs in a ruled world
-
Joe, I am OK with such a loose definition, but I have one complaint. It was a banana slug, quite beautiful. I greatly expanded his/her free will for the future which would have been cut short by being stepped on. Steve
-
Joe, I am OK with such a loose definition, but I have one complaint. It was a banana slug, quite beautiful. I greatly expanded his/her free will for the future which would have been cut short by being stepped on. Steve
Hi, Steve. Yes, I forgot to state that you are one of their assets also. Thanks for comments. Joe L. Ogan
-
We all have our own way of looking at reality.
And a free choice is something treated under an 'arrow of time'.
Without an arrow that concept loses its meaning.
It depends on how you define your 'system' :)
In yours?
Well, I'll leave that to your imagination.
-
in my definition: i would have free will if my decision wouldn't be calculable
but i see my decisions calculable so i think that my will isn't free
how do you define free will?
-
in my definition: i would have free will if my decision wouldn't be calculable
but i see my decisions calculable so i think that my will isn't free
I don't think they are calculable. I certainly cannot anticipate your future actions, and I doubt that you can either. Any calculation will result in an infinite number of possible actions, so we already know the answer before we do any calculation.
-
Greezer,
i didn't say that you, me or the designer can calculate the future... "calculable" doesn't mean that anybody has the capability to calculate
calculable means that our system works by rules so it's condition in the future is determined
- do you understand now what i mean?
- do you still say that our universe's future is non-determined?
if yes, please explain why?
-
It's not calculable if you can't predict the outcome.
For a system to be 100% predictable, it cannot react to any external variables, which means it must be entirely self contained.
Whenever a system has to react to external variables, the outcome cannot be 100% predictable. It's only possible to talk about the probability of certain outcomes.
-
yes, you are right but not only our system is determined... the other layers which contain our universe are also determined
even the designer's world is determined
it's not an assumption to be predictable... it doesn' matter if the designer (or god) can compute the future or not... the whole existence works by rules >> everything is determined
-
everything is determined
I don't think so. You can't even determine at precisely what temperature a simple thermostat will switch on or off.
The "I'm a computer" analogy isn't right either. Contrary to popular opinion, the outcome of any computer that reacts to external events is never 100% reliable, let alone predictable.
-
It's perfectly possible that everything is "determined", but that's not the same as "predictable".
The behaviour of the human brain may be determined by the physics/biochemistry/etc of its existing state, but even leaving out any other kind of consideration, ionising radiation, has the potential to alter the chemistry of the DNA and other reactions and thus, ultimately, alter behaviour. So although free will may be illusory, it's still impossible to calculate behaviour (even if it were possible to compile a complete model of the state of the brain at a partcicular instant, which it wouldn't be).
-
rosy,
i agree... :)
that's all i wanted to say... i don't say that you can predict the future... tis topic is not about that
i just say that if everything is determined than you have no free will
you are a robot
-
Greezer,
you don't understand me... i didn't say that me or someone else can determine anything
the whole existense is determined... read rosy's post... you may will understand
-
Our brain is a physical entity that calculates and controls all our behavior and thought. It might make inaccurate or uninformed calculations, but it is the physical instrument of our behavior and thought. When parts of it are broken, we don’t work so well. So if anybody wishes to claim that this isn’t true and that this system is, somehow, working outside of causality please explain how this can work. Steve
-
Greezer,
you don't understand me... i didn't say that me or someone else can determine anything
the whole existense is determined... read rosy's post... you may will understand
I was really objecting to your statement about "calculable". I contend that is truly impossible because of quantization thresholds. It's not a question of the size of the computer available to do the calculation. That's why I rasied the very simple case of the thermostat.
-
Greezer,
sorry for my bad english... it's maybe because of that
anyway do you agree with me?
if yes than we can go further...
we are a kind of robots... our free will is likely to the robot's >> determined
there are two things which determine our behavior
1. dna
2. circumstances
none of them is influenceable by me >> i am no responsible for my decisions in front of the designer
i am only responsible for the society >> for the laws which are necessary for working the system
-
none of them is influenceable by me >> i am no responsible for my decisions in front of the designer
You're arguing both a deterministic view of free will, and a designer?
Goodness.
Well, I suppose people have managed to believe for centuries in Calvinist pre-destination, so I shouldn't be surprised. But it seems to assume a pretty odd "designer".
Why on earth (or anywhere else..) bother to believe in such a being?
-
i see everywhere the marks of an intelligent design
but it is not the issue of this topic
-
Greezer,
sorry for my bad english... it's maybe because of that
anyway do you agree with me?
if yes than we can go further...
we are a kind of robots... our free will is likely to the robot's >> determined
there are two things which determine our behavior
1. dna
2. circumstances
none of them is influenceable by me >> i am no responsible for my decisions in front of the designer
i am only responsible for the society >> for the laws which are necessary for working the system
Ah, but that's my point about computers (and robots if you like). Their state is not synchronized with the external events to which they react, so their behaviour is never truly deterministic. You can only say they will probably do this or that.
-
Our brain is a physical entity that calculates and controls all our behavior and thought. It might make inaccurate or uninformed calculations, but it is the physical instrument of our behavior and thought. When parts of it are broken, we don’t work so well. So if anybody wishes to claim that this isn’t true and that this system is, somehow, working outside of causality please explain how this can work. Steve
Based on our current understanding, without a time machine, it's impossible to recreate precisely a set of circumstances, so it's impossible to prove that we will behave exactly the same way twice. We can only talk of probabilities.
Consider this: The states of the stuff of which we are made (atoms) is indeterminate. If you can prove that a uranium atom is controlled in a deterministic fashion so that we can say, with great accuracy, when it will emit a particle as it decays, then perhaps we have no free will.
-
we can't be sure that atoms are indeterminate... scientists say it today and it can be changed tomorrow... atoms should behave by rules as well... just we don't know all this rules yet... but rules should exist
anyway i wouldn't dig so deep into the system... i am not sure in anything... i am not sure if material exist... the whole system can be an illusion... everything is posssible
i just say that the system works by rules... there should be rules... if there is no rule >> then it is a rule that there is no rule... coincident doesn't exist
a system working by a rule is determined... that's all i want to say
we are part of a determined world >> our fate is determined
-
we can't be sure that atoms are indeterminate... scientists say it today and it can be changed tomorrow... atoms should behave by rules as well... just we don't know all this rules yet... but rules should exist
anyway i wouldn't dig so deep into the system... i am not sure in anything... i am not sure if material exist... the whole system can be an illusion... everything is posssible
i just say that the system works by rules... there should be rules... if there is no rule >> then it is a rule that there is no rule... coincident doesn't exist
a system working by a rule is determined... that's all i want to say
we are part of a determined world >> our fate is determined
Well, if you are going to refute a huge amount of well established science, you might as well say that the rules are established by the Easter Bunny [;D]. You are entitled to your own opinion of course, and it seems unlikely I'll be able to alter it either.
-
Hmm yeah, wow.
you guys really have looked into this :)
Geezer, nice to see that we are two that think that indeterminacy exist :)
As for if it's a 'clock work universe?'
I vote n0000. ::))
As for if we have a 'Divine Designer'?
I don't really know.
He haven't knocked on my door yet though.
And if we know want to go with a predestined universe, shouldn't we inform those poor particles too? So that they can stop that nonsense? And our 'virtual particles' N0 Such Thing :) We will have order here, GET IN LINE...
-
Geezer (Greezer, I like it). Everybody seems to be hung up on quantum mechanics and intrinsically unpredictable phenomena. Just because the outcome is statistical doesn’t mean that what happened wasn’t dependent upon what happened previously. So, you can’t determine exactly when a specific uranium atom undergoes fission, but isn’t the fact that it does, eventually, have a specific cause and effect relationship. At the brain level, individual neural decisions are even more statistically related and much more complex than uranium fission. When a subset of brain systems made a decision for us, it is the result of a causal sequence of events. It doesn’t matter how faulty this might be because of randomness. It took me a while to understand this, but the main point in this discussion is— If you think that free will just consists of randomness in the chain of causality, then free will is a trivial concept. In other words, what is free about making random errors? Steve
-
Steve you're plain wrong there. :)
If you look up my references you will understand,
-
Yor_on. You said you didn't wish to discuss this. I respect your decision. Steve
-
That's true.
Chaos theory. (http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html)
-
And those digital computers?
How 'digital' are they??
-
I have several books on Chaos theory. It has nothing to do with this topic.
-
Well, believe me or not, but they work on 'energy' :)
Anyone want to show me a ounce of pure energy??
And no white powder now.. Energy thank you.
And if we work our way up we come to 'virtual photons' and then to 'real' photons' and then to electrons protons and stuff'
That behaves so weiirrdd.
Electrons can be superpositioned for example, meaning that 'one' can be in two 'places' simultaneously :) And then that stupid 'electricity' can 'tunnel' through solid matter too? Where they shouldn't. But not all the time, statistically or probability defines the amount. But we can't define 'when', well, as far as I know?
And then we come to GF.
Totally unpredictable they are, as any male of sound mind knows :)
-
Well, if you have them?
Then you should know. For the rest of us, not having your books Steve the link might be nice :)
Do look at what a bifurcation is.
-
I do know. I also know that you should calm down a little. If you really want to talk about free will, you have to give a definition before anyone could evaluate how quantum events might support the notion. I presume your reference to chaos theory has to do with the butterfly effect. This is a causal, though unexpected, event, and is very, very, rare in the real world. Steve
-
What you should notice is that even though we can't define single outcomes there will still be possible to see what I call 'patterns' as showed by the Feigenbaum constant. And that's just so weird :) I think. Here we have outcomes that in fact are unpredictable but when looking at larger patterns we still see a linearity. And that reminds me of statistics, and the fact that even though we can't predict single human behavior, as if we could psychology would look the exact same all over the world with every mental disease on its proper shelve, but it doesn't. Every country find their own definition and although psychologist worldwide try to 'get in line' it's still a very 'human science' :)
That's why behaviorism is so popular nowadays. It wants to reduce human behavior to a Newtonian 'action and reaction'. And it works in a lot of ways :) Humans are, if nothing else, adaptable to the society they live in, but so did shamanism :) Not that I find psychology and shamanism to be the same. Anyway, most thing in life seems unpredictable on a 'personal plane' even though predictable statistically. Just like those Russian dolls, inside dolls, inside dolls insi.. Thats unpredictability inside predictability insi.. etc.
And that's what I find interesting.
-
Geezer (Greezer, I like it). Everybody seems to be hung up on quantum mechanics and intrinsically unpredictable phenomena. Just because the outcome is statistical doesn’t mean that what happened wasn’t dependent upon what happened previously. So, you can’t determine exactly when a specific uranium atom undergoes fission, but isn’t the fact that it does, eventually, have a specific cause and effect relationship. At the brain level, individual neural decisions are even more statistically related and much more complex than uranium fission. When a subset of brain systems made a decision for us, it is the result of a causal sequence of events. It doesn’t matter how faulty this might be because of randomness. It took me a while to understand this, but the main point in this discussion is— If you think that free will just consists of randomness in the chain of causality, then free will is a trivial concept. In other words, what is free about making random errors? Steve
Thanks Steve.
-
No, chaos theory shows itself everywhere Steve.
-
When a subset of brain systems made a decision for us, it is the result of a causal sequence of events. It doesn’t matter how faulty this might be because of randomness.
It's not a question of randomness. It's a question of a lack of synchronization with a causal sequence that can result in different responses. In many cases this will have a very small effect (if any) on the outcome, but it still means that the outcome is statistically indeterminate.
-
Geezer, I agree with your assessment. What I have said suggests the question-- Do you think that a little true randomness in the decisions that we all make represents free will? I don't think that my occasional mistakes, whether I am aware of them or not, are a representation of freedom. It seems to me that this represents the opposite because I am not responsible. Steve
-
Geezer, I agree with your assessment. What I have said suggests the question-- Do you think that a little true randomness in the decisions that we all make represents free will? I don't think that my occasional mistakes, whether I am aware of them or not, are a representation of freedom. It seems to me that this represents the opposite because I am not responsible. Steve
I'm not referring to randomness, or making mistakes. All I'm saying is that, because you are not completely synchronized with the events in your "environment", even if your evaluation process has no variables within it, you may reach different conclusions for an "apparently" identical set of inputs. I think that's the same as saying you have free will.
-
Geezer,
pls explain why do you thint that: "you may reach different conclusions for an "apparently" identical set of inputs. I think that's the same as saying you have free will."
i guess you can't measure it... for this to be true there should be 2 identical moment in time... which doesn't exist
just imagine your life as a moovie... do you say that backwarding the moovie you would have infinite versions of your life because you would decide different?
i guess not... you could back- and forwarding the moovie and you would see the same scenes... we are talking about FORWARDING now
-
I've never been sure that quantum mechanics suddenly solves all the problems with free will either...
In classical physics, if your brain and the surrounding universe is in state A at time t1, then applying the laws of physics to your brain means that you can determine with 100% accuracy that it will be in state B at a later time t2.
In quantum mechanics, if your brain and the surrounding universe has wavefunction A at time t1, then applying the laws of physics means that it will have wavefunction B at time t2, so you know the complete description of your brain at some time. Does that mean that you lack free will, since that description prescribes the number of thoughts you can have, and the probability of each one occurring?
Then there's the practical problem of whether it's even possible to construct a computer that can store the exact state of the universe plus your brain and then compute how that changes in time. To be fully accurate, it seems like such a computer would need to be bigger than the entire universe (it would need to store data on the entire universe and perform computations on the entire universe). If the computation can never be done, does that mean you have free will?
-
it's not a question if such a computer can be build or not... the question is if the future is determined...
if yes than we have no free will
JP,
i agree with you... all you write means for me that we have no free will
-
It depends on what you think of freewill.
Let me put it out to you in this way.
let's say that our thoughts are the outcome of this equation -
(a+b/4+c)d
the first part of the equation (a+b/4+c) is the domain where free will exists. In this domain, human can think of new things, and control his desire for things.
but the (d) part of the equation is essentially a nullifier, so it reduces the value of the equation to 0. This domain is the universal domain, and if looked from here, all our actions look as if they are guided by some mystical force of the universe, but, it is just how you look at it.
Any questions ? mail me [email removed - unless you are inviting a torrent of spam on yourself, I would recommend you shd only invite Q by PM - Regards, A. Mod]
-
siochi,
why do you think that the universal domain is not determined or working by rules?
-
"If the computation can never be done, does that mean you have free will?"
Nice formulation JP.
And I think yes, that's exactly what it mean.
If you can't define it, then you can't tell me what I will do the next time I stand choosing between ah, sweets? Which mean that my choice can't be known, even by myself..
Sh*, thinking of it, that explains a lot :)
But I can, decide I mean, I'm sure I can?
===
What I think is that we have both, by themselves.
It's not that one of the ideas is the absolute truth. Either Or..
Both are true but from different points of view.
So we have a free will, but as seen from some other 'magnitudes' we still have predictions and trends that make it seem as if there was some 'direction'. And that's the Russian dolls to me.
But free will exist.
-
yor_on,
you don't understand me...
please answer this question... you may will see what i mean:
does a robot have free will?
-
why we think that we are not robots without free will?
-
I think we might be making things unnecessarily complicated here.
Consider a thermostat. It can be off, or it can be on, so it's a fairly simple entity that only has two states. Does it have free will or not?
I believe it does. It decides when it wants to change state. Nothing can predict precisely when that event will occur.
-
Geezer,
maybe the question "do we have free will?" is not definite... we have free will of course
the question should be sound like this:
is our world determined?
if the answer: yes, it means that our free will is illusory
what do you think?
-
Geezer,
maybe the question "do we have free will?" is not definite... we have free will of course
the question should be sound like this:
is our world determined?
if the answer: yes, it means that our free will is illusory
what do you think?
I think we'll never be able to answer that one [:D]
That's really about what a person believes, and science won't be much help with that.