i just finishied reading the book Going Postal by Terry Prachett and in the book it mentions about the idea that hope wouldn't be possible without freewill (or at least the illusion of it)
so i thought: that would mean that even if the world was destined to be in such a way we woulld never know it.
Now i want to know other peoples oppinions
Destiny or Freewill
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I believe in free will as much as I believe in anything in the universe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I consider free will to be an absolutely necessary falsehood.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
If free will doesn't exist, I am very content to remain ignorant of the fact. Anyone else believe in deja vu? (I'm feeling it right now.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Insufficient information, does not compute. More specifically, we do not know how chaos theory interacts with quantum indeterminacy, nor whether this has any relevance for the human brain. Indeed, in this context it is not quite clear what free will even means; is it sufficient that it be unpredictable even with arbitrarily good information? Then the solar system has free will. Unpredictable even in principle? That gives free will to electrons. Unpredictable statistically, in large samples? Then you have removed free will from humans. And none of these, necessarily, detracts from actual determinism - a chaotic system is perfectly determined by its initial conditions, it's just that arbitrarily small errors blow up in a given time, in the strict, mathematical sense of 'arbitrarily' : That is, there is really no error, no matter how small, that will not behave like this.
Posted by pfresh85 (Member # 8085) on :
I like to take a pinch of both myself. I believe in destiny in a sense (I believe there is a purpose, direction, and plan for my life), but I also believe in free will and the ability to choose (which can delay destiny and possibly even change things if enough is done). So yeah, looking at it now it sounds sort of contradictory. It makes sense to me though.
EDIT: Just thought of a good example. I can say that I believe I have a destiny as far as career goes. Free will comes into play though in how I get to that destination. It's like you're at point A and there are multiple paths to point B. You pick one and take it where you will.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
King of Men, i've been interested in chaos theory for a while, but never got around to reading up. Do you know a good resource for a beginner?
Edit - Grats on breaking 3k posts, by the way.
Posted by aiua (Member # 7825) on :
I don't much believe in either.
All right, you win. You win. I give. I'll say it. I'll say it. I'll say it. DESTINY! DESTINY! NO ESCAPING THAT FOR ME! DESTINY! DESTINY! NO ESCAPING THAT FOR ME! Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Sorry for double posting, I just saw this:
quote:If free will doesn't exist, I am very content to remain ignorant of the fact. Anyone else believe in deja vu? (I'm feeling it right now.)
I once heard a theory that deja vu is caused by one eye/ear stalling before sending information to the brain. So one sensor relays the information, then a stall, then the other. You feel like you've experienced something twice because, as far as your neurology is concerned, you have. Don't know if that's actually true or not, but I thought it was interesting.
Posted by Geekazoid99 (Member # 8254) on :
No that can't be true for Deja vu because when it happenes i have distinct memories of the exact same thing happening not seconds before but like a year earlier
Posted by MandyM (Member # 8375) on :
I don't think I fully believe in either one. I personally think God has a purpose for me in my life and pushes me in that direction. That can only loosely be called destiny in my mind. Also, I can only follow that path if I have chosen to listen to Him and I have freewill to do that or not. So really I guess my answer is both and neither.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I don't think people are even conscious individuals in the way we usually mean those words, but believe that it's necessary for us to pretend otherwise.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I consider free will to be an absolutely necessary falsehood.
I consider free will to be one of the very few things that we can know with certainty are true - based on the simple fact that (among other things) I can choose to blink my eyes whenever I want (like I just did now) and they do it. If you can choose to do things, then you have free will. Those that would say this is not really freely choosing are going to have to give a pretty powerful argument that it isn't, because it's just that sort of thing I've always called choosing, and I'm not sure what choosing could be if not that.
Confusion arises, I believe, because many people think you can't choose to do something unless you could have also have chosen to do otherwise. I don't see why that follows. In fact, that definition of "free will" seem bizarre - it seems to suggest that we are only free if our decisions are arbitrary. I think the only way you could have chosen to do otherwise is if there was nothing that made you chose the way you did. And if there was nothing that determined how you chose the way you did, no physical or mental reason for your choice, then your choice was arbitrary. I'm inclined to think that to be free is not equivalent to acting in an arbitrary manner. When I make a choice, I like to think it is what I feel is the right choice at the time, and thus the only choice I could possibly make. I don't understand why that would cause it to cease being a free choice.
I have a suspicion Christianity might be somewhat responsible for confusing the free will issue.... after all, if God can cause us to do whatever He wants AND we can still have free will, then one particularly popular answer to The Problem of Evil is complicated a good deal. Those are my current thoughts on the matter....
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I like to think it is what I feel is the right choice at the time
I don't believe you have any REAL freedom or control over what you feel or think, and therefore the choices you make based on those inputs are by their very nature somewhat deterministic.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What would REAL freedom and control of what I feel and think consist of? I can't conceive of what it would even mean to choose in a non-deterministic way. And thus I have to think that REAL freedom is deterministic choice. It's either that or humans have invented and frequently use a term that doesn't mean anything that makes sense - much like a square circle.
Again, I agree my all my choices are more or less deterministic. I just don't see why this should imply they aren't free choices.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
Here's my take on the matter, sorry if it's not entirely clear, it's a difficult topic discuss precisely:
I perceive the world in such a way that I am under the impression that when I do something, that action is the result of my desire to do it. If there is some force (or set of forces) that controls my thoughts in such a way that it can control what I think I want to do, it doesn't change the fact that according to how I experience life, I still think that I want to do the things that I want to do.
If there is indeed some force distinct from myself that is causing me to act the way I do, it functions on such a deep level and has such total control over my thoughts that awareness of such a force is impossible.
There is no way to scientifically prove the existence of something like free will. The only way that I can know for sure that I don't have free will would be for the force that controls my actions to make me aware of its separate existence. However, as I experience the world, the part of me that controls my actions and the part of me that experiences reality is an indistinguishable thing that I understand as being consciousness. If my "will" were separated from my "awareness", thus proving the absence of free will, it would destroy my perception of how I experience the world. I cannot imagine such an experience happening without fundamentally altering a person's existence (resulting in death or other drastic changes of one's state of being).
Consequently, it is my belief that we will never be able definitively prove or disprove free will in this life. A person's view on the issue becomes a matter of personal choice or an unknowably determined decision. Either way, a definite answer will never be known.
In conclusion, I happen to like the idea that I have a little control over the world I am in, so I think that I choose to think that I have free will.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: King of Men, i've been interested in chaos theory for a while, but never got around to reading up. Do you know a good resource for a beginner?
Edit - Grats on breaking 3k posts, by the way.
Thank you. Didn't actually notice it happening.
To get back to the actual question, sorry, no. I seem to recall a book called 'Does God play Dice' by (perhaps) Ian Stewart, but it may have been about quantum theory, instead. But whatever the subject, it was pretty good.
Tom, that is a really depressing worldview - pardon me, I meant that my brain is wired to react to the letters contained in your post in a pattern usually identified as 'depressive'. Unfortunately, that has nothing to do with its truth value. Can I ask how you reach that conclusion? It is clear that individual neurons are quite deterministic, barring the aforementioned quantum effects. (And neurons are large, sure, but there's a lot of them. Even a small probability of a flip adds up over the whole brain.) But it is not clear that the whole network is non-chaotic. For all you know, the chaos timescale of the brain is five seconds, and the decay or non-decay of a neutron in Alpha Centauri affects the pathways of your brain.
But again, I do not necessarily think the concept of free will has been properly defined. Do we really understand what it means? It seems, for example, that I and Tresopax would disagree on the subject. Perhaps someone could offer a definition for us to argue about? As for me, I am choosing this moment to go to bed, or perhaps my neurons are being stimulated by sleep hormones in such a fashion that they will move my body to the bedroom. Take your pick. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:It is clear that individual neurons are quite deterministic, barring the aforementioned quantum effects. (And neurons are large, sure, but there's a lot of them. Even a small probability of a flip adds up over the whole brain.) But it is not clear that the whole network is non-chaotic.
But again... why would the choices made by a chaotic brain be any more free than those made by a deterministic brain? Or any less depressing, for that matter? It seems to me that a chaotic brain is just more random than a deterministic one.
Frankly, I'm happy I don't act randomly or in a chaotic fashion - I'd much rather have reasons that absolutely determine the choices I make, so I can consider the choices I make to be definitively better than the other options I pass up.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I like what Tres has to say. I think a lot of people define free will in such a way that the term is meaningless.
It reminds me of the argument that when I do something kind for someone else or do the responsible thing, I am really doing it so I can feel good about myself. Therefore, all acts, even the ones that appear altruistic, are selfish. I find that definition of selfishness to be meaningless.
To illustrate what I mean by "meaningful": It is far more meaningful when discussing "selfishness" to place the distinction between an act that brings instant gratification and an act that brings long term happiness involving delayed gratification. (ie: paying my bills isn't as fun as spending that money on toys, but I know I will be happier in the longrun if I pay my bills instead.)
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
beverly - that reminds me of a quote from Wicked:
quote: Was I really seeking good Or just seeking attention? Is that all good deeds are When looked at with an ice-cold eye?
Maybe not the exact same vein, but still, it begs the question.
As to freewill vs. destiny, I believe that we all have freewill. There is no such thing as destiny and we can all choose out path and its destination, no matter where that path may lead us. If I didn't have a choice in my life, I would be very distraught. I don't like to think that there's someone directing my life. I like to be in control. Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would to request that, when saying "I believe X about free will", people give some kind of reasoning other than "I want to feel I have control". So do I, so does everyone; it doesn't exactly add anything to the debate.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Okay, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I see people doing things so independently that I believe can't be part of an overriding plan. I don't believe that a God, or instituteur of the destiny, would give people freewill if He didn't intend for us to use them to the fullest extent. It seems somewhat hypocritical to allow for freewill without allowing us to use that freewill to follow whatever path we choose. I hope that clarifies. I'm not great at articulating my thoughts, so I'm sorry.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What if that God has a way of knowing what we will do with our free will? Does that somehow remove it? I remember someone saying on another forum that they believe it would remove free will. I do not understand that line of thinking.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
Well, I'm not sure about my beliefs in God, so I'm not sure I could answer that without making people upset. But, if there was a God (which there might be, I haven't figured this out yet), what would be the point of creating people if He knew exactly what they were going to do with their lives. For me, part of what makes life amazing is that I DON'T know what I'm going to do from day to day.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Perhaps someone could offer a definition for us to argue about?
Free Will: The ability of a person to make a choice where the outcome cannot be predicted with complete accuracy before that choice is made.
It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So what makes free will different from weighted random chance ?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
To Evie: I actually have the answer to that question, one that satisfies me, anyway.
You see, I believe that there is value in the experience. It is nice for God that He knows what we are going to do, but it doesn't mean anything. We have to go through it ourselves and learn. To truly learn, there must be the possibility of real failure and loss. I believe God put us here for what we can learn and acheive and that nearly all of the time we come out the better for it.
I believe God is in the act of bringing things to their fruition, taking things from theory to reality. Perhaps it isn't "fun" for Him to know what will happen but perhaps it is fulfilling for Him to see it through our eyes, we who don't know what will happen--to have compassion on our circumstance and human condition. To teach us and see us "grow".
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: So what makes free will different from weighted random chance ?
Must free will be different from weighted random chance? Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Juxtapose, thanks for that information. I get deja vu a lot, and I mean a lot. It's annoying and of no benefit to me whatsoever. I've had hearing detereoration my entire life, needing surgery at age 5, 10 and 15 (I'm now sixteen), so your premise seems very logical. I'm going to see an optomitrist soon about getting glasses. Would that be a person to ask about this, or should I just go ask my GP? I might be a bit reluctant to ask for help from a doctor who doesn't believe in the idea (like, here at least, a lot don't believe in chronic fatigue).
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What if that God has a way of knowing what we will do with our free will? Does that somehow remove it?
Only if God occasionally meddles, via miracles and the like. If miracles do not happen, God can be as omniscient as He wants without affecting Free Will.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Free Will: The ability of a person to make a choice where the outcome cannot be predicted with complete accuracy before that choice is made.
I disagree with this definition, because I think our ability to predict the outcome of a choice has nothing to do with whether that choice is free. Here's two counterexamples that I think show why:
-A perfectly random coin: We cannot predict with complete accuracy what it will do, but does that mean it has free will?
-Anyone who always does the same thing, when placed in a given situation... such as an unrecovered alcoholic or a serial rapist. Does the fact that we can predict they will do something wrong in that situation mean they didn't freely choose to commit that wrong? I don't think we should abdicate someone's responsibility for an unethical, criminal, or unhealthy act just because we could predict they'd choose to do it.
I'd propose an alternate definition...
Free Will: The ability of a person to determine his or her own future actions, to some degree.
And here's the key - this definition says nothing about whether or not other things determine the way you choose to determine your action. If Y completely determines Z, then X can completely determine Y (and thus indirectly completely determine Z), without violating Y's free will. Furthermore, knowing X would allow us to predict with certainty what Z would be, yet Y would still be free, because Y would also still determine Z.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And here's the key - this definition says nothing about whether or not other things determine the way you choose to determine your action.
Which is why it's a useless, crappy definition. Because I can set up a situation in which I know precisely how you'll respond, thus eliminating your free will entirely, and yet still pretend that you have free will under this definition. So this definition is right out, too.
Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :
quote:Because I can set up a situation in which I know precisely how you'll respond, thus eliminating your free will entirely
Yes, but why would that eliminate my free will? Why do you think knowing how I will respond eliminates my free will?
If I know how you will respond to this question, does that mean you are no longer free to respond to it how you wish?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Still agreeing with Tres.
I'm not sure how God's "meddling" does away with our free will either. That's like saying that if gravity suddenly started working backwards, it would remove my free will. It would certainly freak me out, and I wouldn't like suddenly being flung out into space, but I don't see how it nullifies my free will.
Granted, I believe that God keeps "meddling" to a minimum and has certain criteria that must be met before said "meddling".
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: Granted, I believe that God keeps "meddling" to a minimum and has certain criteria that must be met before said "meddling".
Do you mean that God has his own criteria that we do not know, or are there specific conditions that we know of that must be met? If the latter, what are those conditions?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I believe that some of the criteria are: 1) someone requesting that meddling and 2) the requestor having overall "good" in mind rather than selfish desire 3) faith 4) keeping promises He has made to His faithful servants both now and since the beginning of mankind.
I think there are other criteria as well that I cannot currently see or understand, including what God sees as being best in the long run and the needs of His children who are not currently living. (Pre-born, or post-death. After all, they have faith and free will as well.)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
The problem that I have with the idea of free will is that it seems that a person's decisons are nothing more than the result of a complicated set of rules governing the way our brains function, uncontrollable input of information, and some perhaps random events at the quantum level. In other words, our choices are determined based on our adherence to a set of laws beyond our control. Just because it feels like I am making a decision, that doesn't mean that I could have actually made any other decision, and that's the idea that I struggle with.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
If god is Omniscent, then he knew everything you would ever do before he even created you. He knew every implication of making you in such a way that you would do whatever it is you would do. If he didn't want you doing whatever you do, he wouldn't have made you like that.
This is the problem with Omniscence+Omnipotence vs Free Will. If God made you knowing all your choices and could have made you differently to change those choices, how is it that you have Free Will again?
And if you don't have free will, then what's the point of this life when your ultimate reward or punishment is predetermined?
Pix
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Us Mormons believe that there is a part of us that God didn't create, which has always existed, that is eternal in essence. This is the part of us that has free will.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Us Mormons believe that there is a part of us that God didn't create, which has always existed, that is eternal in essence. This is the part of us that has free will.
Assuming a metaphysical concept like this is the only way I can agree with the idea of free will. Of course, that also makes it a matter of faith.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Is believing in intelligence that isn't just part of the normal ebb and flow of the universe--an actor rather than something to be acted upon--just a religious thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I'm not sure how God's "meddling" does away with our free will either. That's like saying that if gravity suddenly started working backwards, it would remove my free will.
If God knows your choices AND the result of all your choices, interfering to change the results of those choices removes your free will. Saul's free will was obliterated on the road to Damascus, for example.
And if He changes some things and does NOT change other things, presumably He's okay with the things He does not change -- which amounts to explicit PERMISSION to do those things, given that He possesses both the knowledge and the power to prevent, and also the will to OCCASIONALLY prevent.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
From my perspective, Saul’s free will was restored to him on the road to Damascus. He was struck down, but somewhere between the time he was struck down and the time he recovered and became “Paul,” he was given another chance, which he took. The event was forceful, but it took a jolt to get him to see that he was traveling down a dead end street. I would say he was given a clear view of the consequences of his actions and a chance to change his ways and get back on a road that didn’t lead to destruction.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Is believing in intelligence that isn't just part of the normal ebb and flow of the universe--an actor rather than something to be acted upon--just a religious thing?
I suppose it depends on the reason for which you might believe in its existence. Is there evidence (outside of religious experiences) that suggests that something like this does exist? If so, I would very much interested in reading about it. If not, then I don't see how it's not a religious thing.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:interfering to change the results of those choices removes your free will.
I'm not sure it removes it, but it does give that person extreme power to direct the course of events. I tend to believe that God uses that power with *exreme* restraint. But that is a matter of faith.
quote:Saul's free will was obliterated on the road to Damascus, for example.
This is an interesting example--certainly doesn't seem on the surface to follow the criteria I laid out. I still disagree with the obliterated part--Saul exercised his free will in how he responded to the vision. He was so zealous in his response--one of the things I really admire about him. I imagine God knew Saul would respond that way, and that went into the decision to allow the vision.
quote:And if He changes some things and does NOT change other things, presumably He's okay with the things He does not change -- which amounts to explicit PERMISSION to do those things, given that He possesses both the knowledge and the power to prevent, and also the will to OCCASIONALLY prevent.
Which, if I understand your past posts on the topic, you turn an accusitory eye on God (if you believe He exists) for the things which He does allow. I tend to look at the same events differnetly.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus:
quote:Is believing in intelligence that isn't just part of the normal ebb and flow of the universe--an actor rather than something to be acted upon--just a religious thing?
I suppose it depends on the reason for which you might believe in its existence. Is there evidence (outside of religious experiences) that suggests that something like this does exist? If so, I would very much interested in reading about it. If not, then I don't see how it's not a religious thing.
I just wonder how a belief in such intelligences can be lumped into the same “religion” category as a belief in Jesus Christ as our savior. I don’t have an agenda with this, I’m just wondering how you define “religion,” I guess.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Saul's free will was obliterated on the road to Damascus, for example.
Hmmm, I can see two sides to this example.
On the one hand, a God that manipulates events in order for you to act according to the way He wants you to act doesn't seem like free will.
On the other hand, a God that has the ability to know the future but does not always exercise that ability does not have to contradict the idea of free will. In the example of Saul, God could have chosen not to fortell what Saul was going to do, rather, He just wanted Saul to make his ultimate choice based on knowledge rather than ignorance with Saul still having the choice in determining how he wanted to act upon his newly acquired information.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I just wonder how a belief in such intelligences can be lumped into the same “religion” category as a belief in Jesus Christ as our savior. I don’t have an agenda with this, I’m just wondering how you define “religion,” I guess.
I don't think I would exactly classify it as religion. If you belive in free will because of religious doctrine, then yes, I think would be a religious belief. If you believe in it for any other reason, then it wouldn't necessarily be religious, but it would take a great deal of faith considering our inability to study or detect any such thing scientifically.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It takes faith in order for me to believe in the Big Bang. Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:It takes faith in order for me to believe in the Big Bang.
True, but it's a different type of faith. With theories like the Big Bang (or even Strings, Dark Energy, and Dark Matter), there are at least mathematical and/or observational reasons to believe the theory might have some merit. As far as I know, there are no such reasons, outside of religion, to believe in the existence of some type of force that enables free will.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
(In response to camus' earlier post) OK, I pretty much agree with that.
I do get a little irritated when something gets categorized as “religious” in a discussion and can thus be discarded as irrelevant. In a few cases that’s science shooting itself in the foot.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
Faith in the Big Bang is different than faith in the existence of intelligent beings is different than faith in Christ. Only the latter has any significant impact on how I live my life. I think we use “faith” and “religion” too broadly.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
All I said is that basically at this point, the belief in an eternal essence requires a certain measure of faith. I did not attach any religious connotations to it. Perhaps we do use the term "faith" and "religion" too broadly, but that doesn't deny the fact that belief in some type of metaphsical, controlling force requires a certain degree of faith, ie. a firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Posted by 0range7Penguin (Member # 7337) on :
1. I believe that we have freewill. And i classify it as the right to make a choice.
-Someone earlier said that it would not be free will if they made a scenario where they new exactly how you would react but i disagree because knowing how i would react does not mean you have taken away my choices. Just because you know i would not, lets say, burn my sister alive doesnt mean i couldnt so i still have the free will to do that.
2. If you flip to the end of the book and can read the ending does that mean that the characters in the book have no free will? I know this is a wierd example because the characters in a book are fictional but i believe God is the same way. He knows the ending but he didn't pick the ending. I do believe he meddles but not with free will. The bible says he can harden/soften a man/woman's heart but God can't force us to make a choice. God can send angels and messages to tell us things but again God can't make us. He knows what choice we will make though so he also knows when his(im using he to describe God because there is no he/she for a sexless being because i wont call God an it)efforts will work and when they wont. 3. This is something that hasnt previously been brought up and that thing is-INSTINCT. All humans, like or not, run almost 80 percent on instinct. We like to think were special since the average animal runs on something like 99.9 percent instinct. But it still controlls us.
-How much of the stuff we do is because of the opposite sex. I mean everything from deoderant, to not burping in public, to buying flowers, to courting, etc. is done to impress the oppostite sex. And the whole sex thing is the easiest example but almost everything we do is based fundementally on instinct.
So is the fact that the choices we make are due to a preprogramed set of instructions mean that we have less free will?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If God made you knowing all your choices and could have made you differently to change those choices, how is it that you have Free Will again?
Because you are still choosing, and could have chosen otherwise.
It doesn't matter if God knows what you will choose, or if God set you and the universe up in such a way as to get you to choose exactly what He wants you to, you are still choosing, and still could have chosen otherwise had your nature had been such that you wanted to. God might determine who you are, which then indirectly determines exactly how you choose, but nobody has yet given a reason why that should mean you didn't freely choose what you did.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tres: if that's free will, then predestination is free will. I'm generally a fan of not using definitions that are so weak they make the distinctions people consider important immaterial .
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
What important distinction does this make immaterial?
Or, more broadly, why do we care about free will? Seriously... why?
I can think of several good reasons. Many of us believe having free will makes life meaningful and valuable, because it allows us to leave our own individual marks on the world, or because it gives us the chance to succeed or fail based on our own decisions, or something along these lines. That's one reason we care about and desire free will. Another reason is the ethical issue - people with free will are accountable for their actions, while people who could not have done otherwise should not be blamed for that which they did wrong. Feel free to explain your own reason for caring about it.
I think these reasons revolve around the fact that free will means we determine how we act, and how we thus take certain benefits or penalties for those decisions. If we have free will then we determine our actions. If we don't have free will then we do not. This distinction is not at all dissolved by my definition.
The distinction that IS dissolved by my definition is this one: If we have free will then our actions are not determined by anything outside us. If we don't then our actions are determined by things outside us. I disagree with this distinction. Notice how it is different from the first one I gave. The first difference is divided along the question of "Do we control our destiny?", whereas the second distinction is divided along the question of "Does someone else control our destiny?" Which of these distinctions is important?
If you control your own destiny, does it matter much if someone/something else also does, indirectly, through you?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:In the example of Saul, God could have chosen not to fortell what Saul was going to do, rather, He just wanted Saul to make his ultimate choice based on knowledge rather than ignorance with Saul still having the choice in determining how he wanted to act upon his newly acquired information.
So your defense of freewill in this example relies on God refusing to exercise omniscience? On the assumption that God did not know exactly how Saul would react to his intervention?
------
Tres, your argument is like saying that a domino which falls when it's struck by another domino does so out of its own "free will." I'm sure the domino chooses to invent all kinds of justifications for its action, many of which might even wind up convincing it that falling was the right thing to do, that it had planned to fall, and that falling was really the logical choice.
But someone set the dominoes up. Someone whacked 'em with His finger. And they fell.
That they can come up with all sorts of cute stories to tell themselves about the anguished choices they made about whether or not to fall is completely irrelevant.
Do dominoes control their own destiny? Why should we believe that humans do, in a world with gods?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Why does it change anything if the world is with or without gods? Whether it's a diety setting up the dominoes or just the laws of physics, what difference does it make to the dominoes?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Which is why I call it an essential fiction. Doesn't make it any less of a fiction, though.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Do dominoes control their own destiny?
Don't they?
Dominoes don't have free will because they aren't people, aren't conscious, and thus don't choose things. Even if the first domino fell over all by itself, it wouldn't have freely "chosen" to fall, no? Rather, we'd say it just spontaneously fell, because free will doesn't apply to inanimate objects. Choosing is an ability unique to minds, or experiencing/thinking things.
But imagine if we arranged a bunch of people in a row and we knew for sure that each of those people would certainly choose to fall onto the next person if the person behind them fell onto them. We'd know for sure that all the domino-people would fall once we knocked over the first. But they would each still control their own destiny, as long as they could decide whether or not to fall when hit by the person behind them. The fact that all would certainly decide to fall does not eliminate that control, because they could have chosen different, if they were of such a nature that they'd choose to.
Who's to blame for the last domino-person falling? If God knocked the first one over, then He is. But so is that first domino-person. And so is the second, and the third, and every other, including the last one. All of them are to blame, because all of them could have prevented the result, had they chosen to act differently. Each domino-person in line controls not only their own destiny, but the destiny of every domino-person in front of them. Why is this a contradiction? Why can't more than one thing control the given destiny of a domino-person, including that domino-person itself?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:The fact that all would certainly decide to fall does not eliminate that control, because they could have chosen different, if they were of such a nature that they'd choose to.
*laugh* Listen to yourself, Tres. "They could have chosen differently, if they were of such a nature..."
In that sentence, you tacitly ADMIT that one's choices are defined by one's nature. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
"Dear Diary, Today both TomD and Fugu defended my argument. I can only guess that I have slipped into some strange alternate demension. Oh look, it's raining Ice Cream!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:From my perspective, Saul’s free will was restored to him on the road to Damascus.
AFR, I don't see how that makes any sense for any useful definition of "free will." Saul had chosen. God disapproved of his choice, so struck him blind and sent him miracles to change his mind, knowing in advance (presumably) what Saul would choose when this happened. Saul would not have chosen to convert in that manner had not God intervened; God's intervention, therefore, directly canceled the normal exercise of Saul's will.
In the same way, someone about to kill someone else in an accident while drunk driving would presumably NOT drive drunk if God appeared to them and struck them blind before they got behind the wheel. But God allows this hypothetical driver to drive because he respects free will enough to let people make bad decisions that hurt other people.
God did NOT respect Saul's decisions.
Posted by advice for robots (Member # 2544) on :
A few thoughts on that, Tom, and thanks for responding. First, Saul was being punished for his choices to that point. The ability to choose for ourselves, at least as I see it, does not come with the ability to choose the consequences of our choices. Saul had chosen wrong, and these were apparently the consequences, with more to come if he didn't shape up.
As a corollary to that, bad choices tend to lead to less freedom of choice in your life. You choose to start drinking, you choose to drink more, you choose to get behind the driver's seat while drunk, and eventually you find yourself without many choices at all, perhaps behind bars for killing someone. In this case, an accident or a court has taken away much of your remaining freedom to choose. It appears that the court has not respected your decisions by taking away your power to decide, when in fact your decisions led to this judgment and these consequences.
So with Saul---from God's perspective, Saul had made a string of bad choices that constricted his ability to do good and that was leading many others down the same path. Saul's decisions had led him to these consequences, which were both inescapable and just. God himself acknowledged that Saul was "kicking against the pricks," or basically being herded around like cattle at that point.
Next, Saul/Paul was a fairly unusual example of God's intervention. God knew who Saul was and what he would accomplish if converted. He also knew the damage Saul would do if left to his own devices. So God made an example out of him. It was visible and spectacular because Paul's conversion story would become a very important missionary tool in its own right. The fact that Paul stayed blind for three days directly relates to the period of time Jesus lay in the tomb, and finally having the scales fall from his eyes represents being born again. It's a very pointed example, actually, and rich with meaning to Christians.
As for God not intervening in other cases and letting people cause harm to others: my only answer is that he reserves judgment according to his own knowledge and purposes, but does deal justly in all cases.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:As a corollary to that, bad choices tend to lead to less freedom of choice in your life.
And yet very rarely does God strike someone blind before they can make more bad choices. And the traditional explanation for this is that God respects free will too much to intervene.
Which, by extension, means that God did not respect Saul's free will enough to avoid intervening. Consider your own quote, which makes my case for me:
quote:God knew who Saul was and what he would accomplish if converted. He also knew the damage Saul would do if left to his own devices. So God made an example out of him.
Does this suggest that Saul's free will was exercised? Or does it suggest that, indeed, he was not "left to his own devices?"
quote:my only answer is that he reserves judgment according to his own knowledge and purposes, but does deal justly in all cases
Or so you sincerely hope.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:In that sentence, you tacitly ADMIT that one's choices are defined by one's nature.
Yes, that's exactly the point. Your nature is you! So, that's another way of saying what free will is - it's when your nature (you) can determine your future. And that's what choice is - when the external world confronts you with options and your state of mind (your nature) gets to determine what you do.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
There is no destiny. There is only free will. I was convinced when I learned about the suicide concept. This is the only proof I need to understand that whatever the details of the definitions of the two concepts (destiny/free will) are, the “issue” is just a matter of faith.
Yet, the religious people seem to cling (by faith) to the destiny + free will “solution”. The power to end one’s own existence (the conscious one, obviously) means there is no external “controller” of destiny. And those who believe that someone could have “the destiny to end one's own existence, unexpectedly” than that is the biggest proof of that bliever’s faith. Period. [It is a self-supported belief]
And for the part that relates this issue to the “omnipotent” deity, well, whatever deity one chooses, it MIGHT BE that it (the deity) is just a concept. Therefore the implications of its “existence” over this issue are based on pure faith, the same one that “proves” that existence in the first place.
I suggest that there is no Universal answer to this “debate”. The truth on the matter is simply personal and it depends on faith, education, morality, intelligence, openmindness, etc (not necessarily in this order).
A.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I believe in free will because I experience it every day. I chose to run 20 minutes on the treadmill this morning. I hate running, and today it was particularly hard to make the choice to do it. I know that I could have chosen not to do it because: A.) when faced with the choice to run or not, I have chosen more often to "not". B.) There were many immediate benefits (as I see them) to choose "not" today, yet I chose to forego those benefits in favor of the one long term benefit I saw.
That's, conceptually, really all I need in order to believe in free will. (I mean I believe in free will because the example above illustrates perfectly a concept I see repeated hundreds of times a day.) Now there are even more times a day when my behavior goes into auto-pilot. Perhaps I am not excercising my free will at those times, but I certainly could if I wanted to.
I believe in the ability to imagine a not-yet-existent future, to consider the implications of that future, and to take actions that will insure (or at least facilitate) making that future real. To me, that is free will.
I'll grant that it can be argued metaphysically that this is all an illusion. To me this is an example of useless navel-gazing that ultimately adds no value to my life. Therefore to me it is irrelevant whether this is true or an illusion. There is no way for me to tell conclusively one way or the other, so I adopt the belief that best fits with my observations and what kind of person I want to be. YMMV.
Now, the fact that I believe in free will is one of the primary reasons I do not believe in God as he has heretofore been conventionally defined. I understand Tom's "Saul" complaint, but I'm not sure I agree with him because (even if I assume the "facts" of the story), I see another possibility. Perhaps God did not remove Saul's free will, but helped him re-direct it. Perhaps in Saul's heart he was doing God's will to the degree that he understood it, but based on what he "knew" about God could not have chosen differently and still continued (in his mind) to choose God's will. Perhaps God had mercy on him and gave him what was necessary to show Saul the error of his premises. Saul, now Paul, continued with the same choice he had made before (i.e. to do the will of God as he understood it) only now with more correct understanding. Thus, his free will was not what changed, but his understanding of reality.
However, that explanation, while preserving free will for Paul, does not explain why God does not perform this service for others. Why does God not give a "Saul Moment" to the Dali Lama? Or if you don't like that example, surely you believe there is someone in the world sincerely trying to do God's will but actually working against him out of misunderstanding. Take your pick. The fact that God doesn't do this for others indicates that he either does not care about them or the people they influence or that maybe to God the Christian way isn't the only one that serves his purposes.
(But for the record, what I believe about the Saul/Paul story is that Saul made a political decision and he or someone later made up a conversion story to explain his switch. Yeah, it's cynical, but it also preserves free will and has the added benefit of fitting better with my experience of the world and my idea of logic than the traditional religious alternatives. YMMV)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Dominoes don't have free will because they aren't people, aren't conscious, and thus don't choose things. Even if the first domino fell over all by itself, it wouldn't have freely "chosen" to fall, no? Rather, we'd say it just spontaneously fell, because free will doesn't apply to inanimate objects. Choosing is an ability unique to minds, or experiencing/thinking things.
I think this distinction is the argument.
We say the domino fell as a result of an initial outside action, laws of physics, the properties of the domino itself, and the particular environment that the domino was in. Thus, it is obvious from our perspective that the domino had no actual choice in the matter. It was just following rules already in place. If the domino had enough of a brain, it might assume that it had made a choice, even though we realize that it actually did not.
So how are we different? We too are governed by environmental forces, laws of physics, properties of our human nature, and the environment that we find ourselves in. All of these things are factors in determining the decision we make about a given situation. The fact that we see it as a conscious choice does not necessarily mean that it is anything more than the sum of all the parts working around and within us.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
1) I don't believe in freewill. I do beleive in a very cheap and easy will, but that is between Will and his special friends.
2) I do believe in destiny, but I don't believe in Destiny's Child. I mean, they are totally figments of the imagination.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The power to end one’s own existence (the conscious one, obviously) means there is no external “controller” of destiny.
No it doesn't. Someone could still be controlling you if they knowingly made you in such a way so that you would choose to end your own existence. In that case you would be controlled, but you'd also have free will, because it was still your choice whether or not to end your existence, whether or not someone knew exactly how you'd choose.
Being controlled and having free will do not contradict, so long as the control is limited only to getting you to choose the way they intend you to. Free will only disappears when you would choose to do one thing, but the controller users external factors to prevent you from carrying out that choice.
quote:We say the domino fell as a result of an initial outside action, laws of physics, the properties of the domino itself, and the particular environment that the domino was in. Thus, it is obvious from our perspective that the domino had no actual choice in the matter. It was just following rules already in place. If the domino had enough of a brain, it might assume that it had made a choice, even though we realize that it actually did not.
Obvious? It's obvious that the domino had no actual choice IF it had no brain. But if the domino had "enough of a brain" to be conscious, then that's a different matter. If the only reason the domino fell was because the conscious mind of the domino decided to, even if that's just because the nature of that conscious mind is that it always wants to follow the rules, then the domino DOES have a choice in the matter. It (the mind) had wanted to it could have chosen otherwise then, no?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:Choosing is an ability unique to minds, or experiencing/thinking things.
Is choosing the unique ability or is the illusion of choice the unique ability?
I thought that I had agreed with what Tres was orginally saying but now I think Tres gives free will too much credit for me to agree with.
I personally don't see why free will and determinism can't co-exist. I believe in a deterministic world, and I believe that if you knew all the inputs, variables, initial conditions, etc...you can always determine the outcome. If you understood someone's genetics perfectly, the whole sum of their lifes experiences, every thought they've ever had, their current mental and physical state, etc...you could determine what they would "choose" to do in any given situation.
But that doesn't change the fact that as an individual you still have to make that choice. YOU don't know what the outcome is and you still have to go through the experience of choosing. That doesn't make the experience any less real and it doesn't make the choice any easier.
I could've chosen to not type a reply at all. I could've chosen to just say, "i agree with Tom". And i could've chosen to word this post in a countless number of ways. I could choose to delete this whole post right now. But this is what i chose to do.
So sure, maybe in a technical sense it's all an illusion, but it's all very real to me. Maybe like Tom said, it's an essential fiction. Because I do at times have a hard time reconciling my views on determinism/free will and the concept of being responsible for ones actions. If free will is an illusion, than is it fair to put someone in jail for the rest of their life for something they couldn't help doing? It is an essential fiction in that society couldn't function unless people were held responsible for their actions.
I hate to leave this post without any resolution, but i have to get back to work. Or maybe I just choose to...
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So sure, maybe in a technical sense it's all an illusion, but it's all very real to me.
Why? If it looks like what we'd consider real free will, if we should act as if it were real free will, and if treating it as if it were real free will is necessary to act and judge ethically, then why is it not free will?
If something looks like free will and should be treated as free will, there needs to be a VERY good reason why we shouldn't consider it real free will. I've asked for that reason several times on this thread, and have yet to receive any answer.
At the same time, what else could REAL free will even be? Acting randomly, without allowing reasons to dictate how you make your decisions? If dominoes stood and fell randomly, would that mean they have free will? To put it another way, is it free will if my mind randomly violates it's own nature and suddenly, for no reason whatsoever, decides to go rob a bank? That's insanity, not free will.
A free person is deterministic, and bases decisions in a predictable fashion on his own stable nature and the information available to him. Only an insane person is indeterministic, basing his "decisions" on nothing whatsoever, not even on his own nature. Such a person is not free.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If it looks like what we'd consider real free will, if we should act as if it were real free will, and if treating it as if it were real free will is necessary to act and judge ethically, then why is it not free will?
Because it's not truly free, Tres. It only appears to be free will because we lack the intelligence to perceive and the power to manipulate all the inputs that produced the inevitable decision.
It goes deeper than simply having "reasons;" it's an acknowledgement of the fact that you will always respond to certain stimuli in a certain way, and that your "reasons" largely consist of those responses.
I understand that you consider "freedom" to be an end in itself, and therefore are emotionally invested in the term. But "freedom" in a closed system simply isn't possible.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, do you believe free will to be an impossibility? Is there any hypothetical situation you can come up with in which a being could have free will?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Tom,
Then answer my second question: If what I described is not freedom, then what is? Give me an example of what it would mean to make a free decision that is not determined solely by inputs and the nature of the decider?
Edit: Err... yes, what beverly just said!
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Being controlled and having free will do not contradict, so long as the control is limited only to getting you to choose the way they intend you to. Free will only disappears when you would choose to do one thing, but the controller users external factors to prevent you from carrying out that choice.
Ironically, I think it's just the opposite. If you are controlled to choose a specific way, you have no free will. You are robotically exercising the will of another. On the other hand, preventing you from carrying out a certain choice does not remove your free will, only your ability to enact it. For instance, if you have such control over me that I cannot ever choose contrary to your will, then you have eliminated my free will. Or perhaps a better example, if I have to choose a path and I could choose right or left, but you make it so that I do not see a left, but only a right, you have taken away my free will in that case.
On the other hand, if you let me see the choice, but somehow make me choose right and make me think I chose it myself, then you have preserved the illusion of my free will, but have removed the free will in reality.
However, if I want to go left and you pick me up and drag me right, kicking and screaming, you have not removed my free will. I still choose left, but you have removed my freedom to enact my will. The will itself, though, remains preserved.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:But "freedom" in a closed system simply isn't possible.
I'm not sure I get what you're saying. To me that's like saying a man in a jail cell has no free will. Of course he does. He can exercise his free will in a million ways. He may be restricted from enacting that will, but he can still will whatever he wants. The very phrase, "held against his will" indicates acknowledgement of the preservation of will even if the freedom to enact it has been removed.
Maybe I misunderstand what you mean by "closed system"?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I keep thinking of that guy from the concentration camps (who's name eludes me ), who wrote a book. He spoke of how in spite of the horrible suffering and lack of freedom, he still had his free will and no one could take that from him. I find that marvelously inspiring.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think what Tom means is any system in which ALL the inputs and initial conditions can be known.
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
beverly: Elie Wiesel. The book is Night.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Thx, Celaeno. Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
No problem, it's one of my favorites. You should check out Legends of Our Time if you like Wiesel's stuff. It's a collection of short stories. Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I think that one problem is that some people seem to be arguing in respect to the "freedom to choose". Which isn't a matter of free will but a matter of freedom.
We're trying to determine whether that feeling of retaining free will(while being deprived freedom) that that holocaust survivor was talking about is actually "free" will or just a false self-perceptual illusion brought about by a fundemental flaw(that may not be the right word) in the way our minds percieve the world around us and our place in it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Then answer my second question: If what I described is not freedom, then what is? Give me an example of what it would mean to make a free decision that is not determined solely by inputs and the nature of the decider?
Well, if there is an actual eternal essence in humans, some soul or entity that is more than just the conscious mind, I would classify that as a freedom that doesn't rely solely on inputs and the nature of the decider.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:We're trying to determine whether that feeling of retaining free will(while being deprived freedom) that that holocaust survivor was talking about is actually "free" will or just a false self-perceptual illusion brought about by a fundemental flaw(that may not be the right word) in the way our minds percieve the world around us and our place in it.
Then I'd say the question is unanswerable and therefore irrelevant. Is that a toffee brownie on my desk or just an illusion so perfect that I see, feel, smell, and taste a toffee brownie? Who knows? Who cares?
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I care, because like i said before, that doesn't make it any less real for me, or anyone else experiencing the world. We must act as if our choices are free, otherwise what's the point of doing anything? i might as well just stay home all day and watch tv and eat chocolate chip cookies. I couldn't help it anyway, it wasn't my choice, i was predestined to be a bum.
Anyway...why is the question unanswerable? We're all made up of the same small particles that all interact according to set laws. Everything that makes us up and that makes up everything else in the universe acts according to set rules. It's just a matter of taking what we know about science, and physicas and biology, and applying it to how our minds work. Maybe everything we need to know to answer this question isn't known yet, but that doesn't mean it's unknowable
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
While reading the posts in this thread I realized that this debate is like a bunch of colorblind people arguing about the colors of the rainbow. And not only that, but apparently the names of the colors themselves are not agreed upon. So I propose that each opinion should come with the definition of the “destiny” or “free will” that it sustains, and/or some examples where those apply. I’m not saying that nobody did that, but there are a lot of those who expect that everybody else knows (and agrees) on “their” definition. Here I have the definitions that come from online dictionaries, as a reference:
quote: destiny n 1: an event (or a course of events) that will inevitably happen in the future [syn: fate] 2: the ultimate agency that predetermines the course of events (often personified as a woman); "we are helpless in the face of Destiny" [syn: Destiny, Fate] 3: your overall circumstances or condition in life (including everything that happens to you); "whatever my fortune may be"; "deserved a better fate"; "has a happy lot"; "the luck of the Irish"; "a victim of circumstances"; "success that was her portion" [syn: fortune, fate, luck, lot, circumstances, portion]
For me, destiny is the concept that appears in phrases like: It was her destiny to make that scientific breakthrough!/ Such a nice couple, they were destined to each other. / I can’t fight my destiny!
This is that “destiny” that I say IT DOESN’T EXIST. If a person is destined to do/become something during hers life, but commits suicide a day before, then there is no destiny. The fact that it is possible (even if suicide isn’t that common) makes me think there is no such thing as destiny. Of course, the fact that I’m not one of those persons who need to be told “Yes, there is a (higher) point in life, and No, you don’t have to assume the responsibility to find it, someone else (eg the Church) is glad to point it to you.” helps me accept my responsibilities in this here life.
Also for me, free will is the fact that knowing what I know, I can decide what to do next, I can choose to do even something that goes “against” traditions, “unexpected” things and so on. And I surely don’t like to “submit to others will”, and that’s the primal sign of my own free will.
Thus, there is no destiny, there is only free will.
A.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:We must act as if our choices are free, otherwise what's the point of doing anything? i might as well just stay home all day and watch tv and eat chocolate chip cookies. I couldn't help it anyway, it wasn't my choice, i was predestined to be a bum.
I agree. I'm with ya. But I don't care because I don't think the question is answerable in my lifetime and I'm not sure the question is important even if in some far far distant future it might conceivably be answerable.
But while I don't deny the possibility of it being answerable, I'm very skeptical that it will ever be. Of the things we need to know that you listed, "how our minds work" is probably the most important to determining if there is free will or not. Even if we can trace every atom and see how cause after cause after cause put you in the state of mind that you are in at the moment a choice presents itself, it does not follow that you will make a specific choice. Additionally, we already know enough about behavior to show that when faced with a concious decision, people don't always choose the same way. Even if you show that every indicator of every previous cause up to this point indicates that this person at this time will almost definitely choose A over B, you won't know until he makes the choice if you are right, and you won't know even then if he was caused to make the choice, or if he coincidentally chose freely what was predicted. And even if you're relatively sure in this particular case, all those causes and events leading up to that correctly predicted choice only hold true for that particular case. You have to consider a whole new set of variables for the next person. The astronomical amount of stuff you'd have to know to even significantly weaken the "illusion" of free will, in my opinion, is far more effort than knowing whether it is an illusion or not is worth.
I'm not even sure this is a question that could be answered by a being outside of our universe, were he able to perfectly observe our universe.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:And I surely don’t like to “submit to others will”, and that’s the primal sign of my own free will.
Unless of course you were made that way.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I agree Karl, you would need to know an astronomical amount of data to accurately predict what I'm talking about. And we need to learn alot more about the mind.
But I disagree with your point about knowing "that when faced with a concious decision, people don't always choose the same way". Not that I disagree with the statement, but I disagree with what you are trying to imply with it. I have never argued that determinism means that you will always make the same choice when presented with an option. Just that what choice you WILL make is knowable if all the inputs and present conditions are known.
quote:You have to consider a whole new set of variables for the next person.
that's exactly the point. the variables are always changing. but that doesn't mean the equation doesn't work.
so as you say, it would take a being intimately aware of the state of every particle in the universe(and assuming that this universe IS a closed system), from it's very initial condition to its present state to determine what the next sentence I type is going to be.
I like Star Wars.
That would most likely necessitate a being outside of this universe as it's unlikely(as Tom says) that any being inside of a closed system could know everything about the state of said closed system, including themselves.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:
quote:And I surely don’t like to “submit to others will”, and that’s the primal sign of my own free will.
Unless of course you were made that way.
What do you mean? That I’ve “been made” deliberately this “way”, not liking to submit to others will? What is that proof of? Destiny or free will?
If it's "my destiny" to have free will, then there is no need for the debate. If, on the contrary, that implies that free will is "just" an illusion, than tell me how can anyone ever know she has free will?
A. [edit, too many "quote:" ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If, on the contrary, that implies that free will is "just" an illusion, than tell me how can anyone ever know she has free will?
No one CAN ever know. So we pretend that everyone does.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:No one CAN ever know. So we pretend that everyone does.
Out of context this sounds like you’re talking about the existence of some God
Within the topic context, does this mean that you agree to “Free will is just a convenient concept” ? [I think somebody said this already on this thread, maybe yourself…]
A.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:However, if I want to go left and you pick me up and drag me right, kicking and screaming, you have not removed my free will. I still choose left, but you have removed my freedom to enact my will. The will itself, though, remains preserved.
That is a good point. So, free will isn't necessarally the ability to control your own destiny. It's the ability to choose the action you desire to do, whether or not you can actually act upon that choice.
quote:Well, if there is an actual eternal essence in humans, some soul or entity that is more than just the conscious mind, I would classify that as a freedom that doesn't rely solely on inputs and the nature of the decider.
I do believe in the soul... and wouldn't you say the soul IS the nature of the decider? A person is not their body, but rather their mind/soul. Therefore, the nature of a person is the state of their conscious mind and their soul. So, when I say it is your nature that determines your choices, I mean it is your soul - that which is fundamentally YOU, whatever it is.
But again, if God made your soul the he could have determined how it would decide things, and thus determine how you would choose what you choose. This would not stop you from choosing freely, though. It would just mean both you and God are fully determining the outcome of your choice.
quote:I care, because like i said before, that doesn't make it any less real for me, or anyone else experiencing the world. We must act as if our choices are free, otherwise what's the point of doing anything? i might as well just stay home all day and watch tv and eat chocolate chip cookies. I couldn't help it anyway, it wasn't my choice, i was predestined to be a bum.
Notice the casual jump you made there: First you say you "couldn't help it" - then you say you were "predestined to be a bum". Note that these two things are not exactly the same.
Being predestined to do something means it was certain beforehand that you would do it. But, just because it is certain you will choose to do one thing does not mean you "couldn't" have chosen to do otherwise.
If I am driving to work and a car stops in front of me (and I see it in time) then it is certain that I will stop. In such a situation you could say I was predestined to stop. But does that mean I could not have done otherwise? No, I could have chosen not to stop, had I wanted to. So, I was in fact predestined to stop, yet I could have done otherwise had I wanted to. Therefore, you cannot jump from "being predestined to do something" to "could not have done otherwise" because the former does not imply the latter.
This is critical to this question, because of why you just said you cared. You care because you think no free will implies there's no point in anything. So, which of the following two issues actually does make everything pointless? 1) Being predestined to do what you do 2) Being unable to do anything otherwise If you are predestined to do something, but you can do otherwise if you want, then there's still a point to living, no? After all, you can do otherwise, so your choices still mean something, even if they were predictable beforehand. Hence, having (1) but not (2) does NOT make everything pointlesss. In contrast, if there is no predestination, but you are forced to do everything the one way you do it, then choices are pointless no? You can't do otherwise, so regardless of whether predestination is true, you have no real choices. Hence, having (2) but not (1) DOES make things pointless.
Therefore, we can conclude that if you are correct that no free will means everything is pointless, then it must mean (2) and not necessarily (1) - meaning that no free implies you can't do otherwise, rather than implying that you were predestined to do what you do. That shows us the definition we should be using.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: But "freedom" in a closed system simply isn't possible.
Actually, I don't think this statement is true. Stating it as though it's true doesn't make that the case. Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It's the ability to choose the action you desire to do...
But what if someone can make you desire things, Tres? You're still choosing, but are you still free?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I do believe in the soul... and wouldn't you say the soul IS the nature of the decider? A person is not their body, but rather their mind/soul. Therefore, the nature of a person is the state of their conscious mind and their soul. So, when I say it is your nature that determines your choices, I mean it is your soul - that which is fundamentally YOU, whatever it is.
I would agree with this if I believed in a soul. I'm not sure that I do.
Here's another way to look at it.
I'm confident that in the future we will be able to create a supercomputer with the same capacity and processing power as the human brain. We may even eventually be able to create a program for it that enables it to decide what it thinks is the best purpose for itself, to make decisions based on past experiences, environmental surroundings, and newly acquired information. It may eventually become self aware and maybe even have the understanding necessary to alter its programming to suit its desires. Yes, it may be able to make a decision independent of the outside world, but if you break it down, it is still nothing more than a bunch of very complicated, but predictable, algorithms.
So what makes humans different? Perhaps some concept like a soul would make the difference, but that just creates the issue of what the soul actually is, whether it was created, and for what reason it was created.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
The existance of a soul is irrelevent. God made you. He knew all of your choices before you made you. He could have made you and your environment such that you would make different choices. (It doesn't take much change in body chemistry to alter the choices you make. Anyone who's been around drunk people knows that.) Therefore all of your choices are God's choices and are pre-destined.
Pix
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
The thing that makes free will free is that at any moment anyone can do something that surprises you, no matter how well you know them.
That's what makes it free -- you can never predict what someone's going to do with 100% accuracy; they can always do the unexpected.
So as long as the computer's choices are predictable, it's not demonstrating free will, it's just following orders. Namely, its programming.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:The existance of a soul is irrelevent
In the biblical sense of the term soul, true. However, I guess I was thinking that maybe the concept is true even if the belief about it is not. Maybe something like an aiua.
quote:So as long as the computer's choices are predictable, it's not demonstrating free will, it's just following orders. Namely, its programming.
But aren't we all? Another person's actions may surprise us, but that's only because we didn't know the person as well as we thought, or we didn't fully understand the reasoning behind the surprising thing. Unless, of course, there's some amount of randomness hardwired somewhere in the brain.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
That's the thing, though. You can't know a person well enough to predict every choice. They can always surprise you.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
But nothing is random. It seems random to us because we don't know all the variables involved.
When you throw a pair of dice, what number it will land on when it hits the table is already determined. We just don't know what it will be because we don't know how it will bounce or how the wind or lack there of will move it. But the force is applied and if we could wrap our mind around the math and physics (and had a way of measuring everything) we'd know that we were going to get snake eyes at that moment.
Likewise, all the randomness in the brain is called random because we can't measure and calculate all the tiny chemical reactions. We don't know the position, vector and speed of every molecule, nor any outside influence that will alter that. If we knew, it wouldn't be random. It would just be causation. (and of course, life would be boring.)
Pix
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Which is why I can reconcile free-will with God already knowing every choice every person will ever make. We can't know, because we aren't omniscient. So it is truly free, because we actually do make the choices on our own.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:But what if someone can make you desire things, Tres? You're still choosing, but are you still free?
Yes, I'm still free insofar as I'm choosing.
But it would make a difference HOW you make me desire that thing. I have a choice as long as *I* am doing the choosing, and I am my mind and soul, so altering my mind and soul would be altering me, and would thus be influencing my choice in a way that doesn't violate my freedom. It would still be me choosing. It might still violate certain moral rights though, because you are altering me! In contrast, altering my body so I feel pain when I don't have the desired thing would be different - then you are altering the world around me (my body) to trap me into making the decision you want. You could describe this as making me "desire" that thing, but really this is no different from physically forcing me to do it.
quote:Therefore all of your choices are God's choices and are pre-destined.
I agree. My dispute is whether this automatically implies those choices are NOT mine too. I think my choices can be determined by both me and God's simultaneously.
quote:That's what makes it free -- you can never predict what someone's going to do with 100% accuracy; they can always do the unexpected.
Do you believe a coin that is tossed is free if we can't predict how it will land?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Coins don't choose how they land, Tres, and you know that.
That's a spurious argument and a poor analogy.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But nothing is random. It seems random to us because we don't know all the variables involved.
Heh. I was actually going to use the argument you made as a reason why free will doesn't exist, but then I decided I was unsure about that argument since there are quantum effects that we don't really understand. . . .
quote:So it is truly free, because we actually do make the choices on our own.
I do agree that the choices we make are made on our own. It's the idea that our choices are the product of set rules and laws governing the way our brains receive and process stored and new information that I question. The fact that we can't understand all of the processes doesn't change my opinion of how it works.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Tres: You have the illusion of free will (and what a precious and beautiful illusion it is.)
Pix
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Coins don't choose how they land, Tres, and you know that.
It's not an analogy. It's a proof by counterexample, and it only works because we all know coins don't choose how they land, and thus aren't free. That's the point: What it makes it free is not just that you can't predict what it will do, but rather that it can make choices. Things that can't make choices (like coins, or your example of computers) aren't free no matter how unpredictable they are.
quote:You have the illusion of free will
Why? (Simply stating a different conclusion without a reason proves nothing.)
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Tres, If the soul does not actually exist, how might that change your stance on free will?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:What it makes it free is not just that you can't predict what it will do, but rather that it can make choices.
Why do you believe that a computer can't make choices? What about a computer makes it less capable of choosing than the human brain?
Posted by DarkKnight (Member # 7536) on :
quote: Why do you believe that a computer can't make choices? What about a computer makes it less capable of choosing than the human brain?
We understand how computers work, we do not understand how the human brain works, or at least not at the same level as we understand how a computer works
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:What it makes it free is not just that you can't predict what it will do, but rather that it can make choices.
No, the 'will' part of 'free will' is that it can make choices. The 'free' part is the part we can't predict.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, If the soul does not actually exist, how might that change your stance on free will?
That depends on what you mean. By soul I mean that thing that makes me an individual person, that which I am. If there are no souls then there are no people, and thus no free will. But I'm fairly sure there are people, so I'm also fairly sure there are souls. What a soul actually IS is a more complicated matter.
quote:Why do you believe that a computer can't make choices? What about a computer makes it less capable of choosing than the human brain?
Because I assume a computer has no actual mind or soul. Note that human brains can't choose either, unless they are somehow the same thing as the mind/soul.
Why don't you think a coin can make choices?
quote:No, the 'will' part of 'free will' is that it can make choices. The 'free' part is the part we can't predict.
So a random coin is free? And a predictable coin is not free?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:That depends on what you mean. By soul I mean that thing that makes me an individual person, that which I am. If there are no souls then there are no people, and thus no free will. But I'm fairly sure there are people, so I'm also fairly sure there are souls. What a soul actually IS is a more complicated matter
What if the soul, or the thing that makes you an individual, is nothing more than the synapses and neurons of your brain and some genetic sequences? Would that change your perception of free will?
quote:Because I assume a computer has no actual mind or soul. Note that human brains can't choose either, unless they are somehow the same thing as the mind/soul.
So is the mind/soul a metaphysical thing? [Edit to add] What makes you believe that the mind/soul is somehow different than the brain?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Because I assume a computer has no actual mind or soul. Note that human brains can't choose either, unless they are somehow the same thing as the mind/soul.
You don't think a computer could be built that believed it had a soul, even though it didn't really? Couldn't a biological being be fooled in the same way? And if so, how do you know you're not such a being?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:So a random coin is free? And a predictable coin is not free?
No matter what adjective you put in front of the word, "coin", it's never gonna be a sentient creature. It's an inanimate object, and as such is neither random or predictable.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm going to make the argument that "sentience" is itself a pretty arbitrary thing.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:So is the mind/soul a metaphysical thing?
I think it is, but I'll grant it could be physical in some way I don't understand.
quote:What if the soul, or the thing that makes you an individual, is nothing more than the synapses and neurons of your brain and some genetic sequences? Would that change your perception of free will?
My decisions are determined by my nature, whether that nature is a physical make-up or a nonphysical one. So in that sense, it wouldn't matter - determinism is true in both cases. It might change my perception of free will in regards to various other details, but I'm not really sure because I have a difficult time imagining what it would mean for a soul to be made up of physical parts. I'd have to view it all from an entirely different angle.
quote:You don't think a computer could be built that believed it had a soul, even though it didn't really? Couldn't a biological being be fooled in the same way? And if so, how do you know you're not such a being?
If there's no soul, there's nothing to believe anything. I think belief is something experienced by a person. So if you believe things, you are a person, and have a soul. You can't mistakenly believe you have a soul any more than you can mistakenly believe you can have beliefs.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If there's no soul, there's nothing to believe anything.
I don't understand this argument. Why does the absence of the metaphysical mean that the physical is meaningless?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I just meant nothing purely physical can believe anything, as far as I know, because belief is a metaphysical thing. It's something experienced.
I do believe, though, that the absence of the metaphysical means the physical is meaningless - although that's kind of an unrelated issue. In short, the reason is that meaning is a metaphysical thing too - and something that can only be experienced by people (souls), or God, or something metaphysical. If there is nothing that experiences meaning, there is no meaning.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:If there's no soul, there's nothing to believe anything. I think belief is something experienced by a person. So if you believe things, you are a person, and have a soul. You can't mistakenly believe you have a soul any more than you can mistakenly believe you can have beliefs.
The point isn't that I can mistakenly believe I have beliefs. The point is that (adopting your use of words) I can't be justified in believing I have beliefs (or a soul), because a being could act just like I do without having them.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:because belief is a metaphysical thing
What if neuroscience eventually proves you wrong?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:The point is that (adopting your use of words) I can't be justified in believing I have beliefs (or a soul), because a being could act just like I do without having them.
That argument works in regards to what I know about everyone else, who I only know from their actions. Yes, I can only really make educated guesses about whether or not you have beliefs or souls. But because I can see into my own mind, I can directly observe that I do believe things. I don't have to guess about whether I believe things based on my actions.
[ January 25, 2006, 01:24 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What if neuroscience eventually proves you wrong?
Then I'll be wrong... it has happened before.
Although "what belief is" is not the sort of thing neuroscience can really prove. I don't think it is an experimentally testable question.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:But because I can see into my own mind, I can directly observe that I do believe things.
How do you know you can see into your own mind? Don't you think a purely physical object could be fooled into asserting that it sees into its own mind?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Although "what belief is" is not the sort of thing neuroscience can really prove. I don't think it is an experimentally testable question.
What is testable, though, is whether there is any explanation for your saying "I have beliefs" besides the arrangement of your brain. If your claiming to have beliefs turns out to be caused by brain chemistry, then either your account of beliefs is wrong or you don't have them.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
quote: What is testable, though, is whether there is any explanation for your saying "I have beliefs" besides the arrangement of your brain. If your claiming to have beliefs turns out to be caused by brain chemistry, then either your account of beliefs is wrong or you don't have them.
What if brain chemistry is controled by the soul? There is enough uncertainty involved in the action of the brain that it is scientificaly posible for an unknown force such as a soul to influence the chemistry of a person's brain. There is a limit to how much we can know about the world, and it is posible that things like souls/aiuas act beyond the limits what we can observe.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: Unless, of course, there's some amount of randomness hardwired somewhere in the brain.
That's what I think. I'll go one further, too: I think there is some amount of randomness (I'd use "uncertainty" if not for its powerful association with Heisenberg) hardwired in the universe.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:How do you know you can see into your own mind?
It's just directly observable to me - one of those things that you cannot prove to someone else is true, but you more-or-less have to observe is true.
quote:Don't you think a purely physical object could be fooled into asserting that it sees into its own mind.
Being "fooled" is having a sort of belief, and for the reasons I've already mentioned, I don't think purely physical objects can have beliefs. Beliefs are metaphysical sorts of experiences that people can have, but physical objects cannot.
quote:What is testable, though, is whether there is any explanation for your saying "I have beliefs" besides the arrangement of your brain. If your claiming to have beliefs turns out to be caused by brain chemistry, then either your account of beliefs is wrong or you don't have them.
Why? My account has not included anything about what causes me to say "I have beliefs" - and if it did, I would say that is definitely caused by my brain. Speaking is a physical thing caused by neurons trigging certain things in my body. So, one way or another, my brain probably causes it.
What the link is between my brain and my soul is not something I understand, but presumably they influence one another or correlate somehow.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
quote:I'm going to make the argument that "sentience" is itself a pretty arbitrary thing.
I'll bite. How so? If by "arbitrary" you mean "random, or without reason" then I have to disagree.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
By "arbitrary," I mean that it's difficult to recognize and almost impossible to define.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Tom, if you answered my earlier question, I didn't see it. According to your understanding of "free will", is there any hypothetical situation in which you can imagine it existing?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Does "self-aware" not cover it?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Does "self-aware" not cover it?
I don't think it does. After all, we can tell a computer program that it's a computer program, and even code it to be able to recognize those elements in itself. While there's a gulf between that and what WE do, I don't see why all elements of "self-awareness" couldn't be replicated eventually.
quote:According to your understanding of "free will", is there any hypothetical situation in which you can imagine it existing?
Not really, no. If people respond to stimuli, then all that's necessary to eliminate free will is the ability to understand and manipulate those stimuli flawlessly. The absence of a God merely makes it possible to pretend that this precludes free will; the active presence of a God would make it more obvious much more quickly.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
But I think people are so much more than things that respond to stimuli. In fact, it is a key point in my religious beliefs that we are not just things that are acted upon, but beings with the power to act upon other things.
How could beings without free will create things never seen before? Art and music come to mind.
I figure we have the ability to choose, and we have wills. The two together make up free will.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:
quote:But nothing is random. It seems random to us because we don't know all the variables involved.
Heh. I was actually going to use the argument you made as a reason why free will doesn't exist, but then I decided I was unsure about that argument since there are quantum effects that we don't really understand.
still...all we know about quantum mechanics is that things on a small scale act in a "seemingly" random fashion. That doesn't mean that it IS random. Everything is random until you understand the pattern.
Tres, why does the absence of some sort of metaphysical meaning neccessitate the absence of all meaning? Why can't we create our own meaning?
Unless you believe there is only one correct way to live your life, and that everyone else who doesn't live life that way is wrong, then you see meaning being created every day by people doing what is meaningful to them.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Strider: we know a bit more than that, but yes, theoretically things could still be deterministic.
This would in some ways be even stranger than things being truly random, given some of the experiments that have been performed.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
got any links that'll help me get better acquainted?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, why does the absence of some sort of metaphysical meaning neccessitate the absence of all meaning? Why can't we create our own meaning?
We can create our own meaning. But all meaning is nonphysical and metaphysical. You can't build meaning out of atoms or cells. It doesn't exist outside in the physical world. It can't be measured or observed directly by science. Meaning only exists inside the minds (or souls) of people, and thus must be metaphysical.
quote:
quote:According to your understanding of "free will", is there any hypothetical situation in which you can imagine it existing?
Not really, no. If people respond to stimuli, then all that's necessary to eliminate free will is the ability to understand and manipulate those stimuli flawlessly.
Why do we care so much about it if it actually is something that can't even be hypothetically imagined?
[ January 25, 2006, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: How could beings without free will create things never seen before? Art and music come to mind.
Even now, computers can draw and create music. In fact, if you program them with the right set of rules, they can create fairly attractive art and listenable music -- on their own, based only upon the rules and preferences you've given them.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
quote: Even now, computers can draw and create music. In fact, if you program them with the right set of rules, they can create fairly attractive art and listenable music -- on their own, based only upon the rules and preferences you've given them.
But what is really creating the music or picture, the machine or the programer? If computers could spontaneously come up with new ideas without the input of a programer, then your claim would work. As it stands, none of the "creations" you atribute to computers could have occured without the program designers first creating rules that result in the machine creating pleasing sounds or images. When you remove the programers you also remove the ability to inovate.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, so humans who follow standard rules of composition aren't really creating music, either?
edit: a useful little conundrum for you. How come none of the people who program the chess games that can beat the best humans in the world is anywhere near capable of challenging the best themselves?
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
If a musician follows rules to the same extent that computers do, then I would have difficulty attributing any music they create to anyone but the person who formulate the rules that were used. An understanding of theory one thing, and I have no problem with artists using conventional methods to a point.
I have difficulty accepting something as art when it is merely the application of a step by step algorithm, as it is with computers. Claiming that computers make music is like taking credit for filling in a paint by numbers picture, sure the computers are more complex, but the principle is the same.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
quote:Even now, computers can draw and create music. In fact, if you program them with the right set of rules, they can create fairly attractive art and listenable music -- on their own, based only upon the rules and preferences you've given them.
I must admit, I have zero experience with this. Does anyone have a link to anything like that?
I can believe in theory that a computer could be capable of free will if they were able to acheive sentience and consciousness. Personally, I don't believe that is possible since I don't believe that any man-made machine can have a soul. But it is great for Sci-fi.
For instance, it is easy for me to believe that the human-looking Cylons have souls (and free will)--for the sake of the story. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
I'm still wondering, if free will were the absence of predestination, why people would consider it important to have. Why is it important that God can't predetermine our decisions?
I do understand why people feel it is important to have the ability to choose our own actions, but some of you are suggesting it is also important that we go further than that - that our choices must also be free from influence, that they must be random rather than based on stimuli, and that they must be unpredictable. Why is it a good thing to be unpredictable? I would think it is a very bad thing to have your decisions based on random whims, rather than completely predictable reasoning.
Saying we must maintain the illusion that our decisions are not determined by anything seems almost equivalent to saying it's important to pretend we are all insane. Isn't that what we call it when people act irrationally and totally unpredictably? If "free will" really means our the absence of determinism, then how is it not just the equivalent of being insane, and why is it something we'd want?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Saying we must maintain the illusion that our decisions are not determined by anything seems almost equivalent to saying it's important to pretend we are all insane. Isn't that what we call it when people act irrationally and totally unpredictably? If "free will" really means our the absence of determinism, then how is it not just the equivalent of being insane, and why is it something we'd want?
I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:As it stands, none of the "creations" you atribute to computers could have occured without the program designers first creating rules that result in the machine creating pleasing sounds or images. When you remove the programers you also remove the ability to inovate.
Incidentally, the things that inspire artists, such as processes or observations of nature, are all following a set of rules as well, such as a sunset, seashell, crystal, or some other fractal like design. Throw in some random mental connections, and you got yourself something innovative. The real question is what determines how we interpret something to be beautiful or pleasing to hear. Incidentally, that too is out of our control.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Meaning only exists inside the minds (or souls) people, and thus must be metaphysical.
...or an illusion, perhaps like the way in which the passing of time may also be just an illusion. Or it could be a way of describing a chemical based feeling that we don't quite understand.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:I don't think anyone here is saying that.
I think several people have definitely suggested that free will is the absence of determinism (a.k.a. when our actions are not predetermined by things outside ourselves).
For one, Tom has suggested it several times and called my alternative definition "useless", but has so far skipped over questions of what being in such a state would actually be like, why such a state would not be equivalent to insanity (which is what people often call acting in a random, unpredictable fashion), or why we'd want to be in such a state.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I agree with Tres on this point. Having your actions fully determined by your personality and the stimuli in your life, that's what I would call free will. Randomness is just randomness.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: edit: a useful little conundrum for you. How come none of the people who program the chess games that can beat the best humans in the world is anywhere near capable of challenging the best themselves?
Chess is a very good example of a (closed) system that is based on a (very well established) set of rules. These rules are fairly easy to hard-wire into a program. Playing good chess is based on the “power” to foresee its evolution and to “bend” it towards your goal (which is wining). Computer chess games are very powerful in the foreseeing part (calculating various possibilities very fast). A lot more powerful than their creators, that’s for sure. The fact that grand masters can still beat chess programs shows that “creativity” can beat calculation. The way a grand master sees a game is essentially different from the programs’ way of dealing with it. A grand master sees the board in “chunks”, analysing goals and feasibility, supported by experience. The computer uses “brute force”, basically (but not only). But the real difference comes at the awareness level. If you ask a grand master “why did you make that move and not the other?” the answer won’t be always very clear, the reasons are more like “it felt right in this situation”. And next time the move might be different. Yet, if you “ask” the program, it will list you all the calculations that it made, the parameters used to weight the alternatives, therefore THE HARD-WIRED resulting move. If the program has not a build-in randomness, given the same situation will always answer the same. [NOTE: The counter example of “learning programs”, based on neural networks and such isn’t good here, because “learning” means self-adjusting parameters, so “same situation” is not the same if the program has also changed.] My point is that a good chess program will play good chess. But it has nothing to do with creativity and/or beauty.
The idea about programs creating music and graphic art for example is quite different. The degree of “beauty” and “sounds right” or “looks right” is a lot greater here. Yes, they are subjective values, and “modernism” in art lately rather means “randomness” or “meaningless”. But that means lack of creativity, if anything. There are no formulas of any kind for “great sounding” symphonies. Even less for a "great looking" renaissance picture. That has to do with “real” beauty.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:some of you are suggesting it is also important that we go further than that - that our choices must also be free from influence
Yep. I'm saying that in the presence of an all-powerful controller, the mere fact that you WANT to do something cannot be trusted; it would be fairly easy for such a controller to arrange things so that you would want to do so. In this scenario, your "freedom" has merely been bumped back one level; your choices are no less limited, but you don't actively perceive the limitations.
quote:There are no formulas of any kind for “great sounding” symphonies.
Actually, there's a research group RIGHT NOW working on formulating this sort of thing. Music, like chess, has principles which make it possible to recognize certain consistent elements. What constitutes "greatness" is of course a matter of taste, and taste is highly dependent on inputs which are not consistent among individuals, but I fully expect to see computers writing highly marketable pop songs within the next decade.
------------
quote:Having your actions fully determined by your personality and the stimuli in your life, that's what I would call free will.
Sure, if you want. But I call it "able to respond to stimuli." After all, even if you're pointing a gun to someone's head and "forcing" them to push a button, they're only responding to that stimulus.
But here's the important distinction: if someone else is controlling all your stimuli, and there's no such thing as your "personality," who's in charge of what you do?
[ January 26, 2006, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: TomDavidson ]
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
not sure if this is the same thing that Tom is referring to, but I think the idea is similar.
quote:His research at MIT has focused on teaching computers to hear music much like people do. This means analysing the context of the song - what people think of it - as well as how fast or slow it is, and whether it is loud or soft. The result is a sophisticated profile of a song that allows more accurate categorisation than simply labelling a song as rock, pop or classical.
"The computer can go out on the internet and read a bunch of weblogs and record reviews and get a grasp on trends and buzz and hype and that sort of thing," says Dr Whitman. "At the same time, it also can listen to the music - do some signal processing to figure out stuff like dominant key and pitch and rhythm and structure."
quote:But here's the important distinction: if someone else is controlling all your stimuli, and there's no such thing as your "personality," who's in charge of what you do?
Clearly there is such a thing as my personality. What's a mystery at this point is what the correct scientific description of my personality might be.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: Actually, there's a research group RIGHT NOW working on formulating this sort of thing. Music, like chess, has principles which make it possible to recognize certain consistent elements. What constitutes "greatness" is of course a matter of taste, and taste is highly dependent on inputs which are not consistent among individuals, but I fully expect to see computers writing highly marketable pop songs within the next decade.
You mean I could learn to have a “musical ear”? I’ve learned to play chess (even if I don’t have a high level or anything) but I’m completely “deaf” when it comes to “great sounding” pieces of music (after all the music classes I took). Is learning the “principles of music” going to make me appreciate good music, and not only that, but composing it too? If you’re going to argue that music “takes talent”, then how can a computer (program) have it?!
It’s one thing (beautiful) pattern recognition and quite another (beautiful) pattern creation , isn't it?
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If you’re going to argue that music “takes talent”, then how can a computer (program) have it?!
As I'm not sure that sentience exists, I'm certainly not willing to concede that talent -- as a synthesized product of experience and ability -- cannot be replicated. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Tom, how are you defining "sentience" that you don't think it exists (Or think it might not exist)?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:tal•ent n. 1. A marked innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment. See Synonyms at ability.
2. a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality. b. A person or group of people having such ability: The company makes good use of its talent.
3. A variable unit of weight and money used in ancient Greece, Rome, and the Middle East.
________________________________________ [Middle English, inclination, disposition, from Old French, from Medieval Latin, from Latin, balance, sum of money, from Greek talanton; see tel - in Indo-European Roots. Sense 3, Middle English from Old English talente, from Latin talenta, pl. of talentum, from Greek talanton.] ________________________________________ tal ent•ed adj. tal ent•less adj. tal ent•less•ness n.
I know this looks like off-topic, but I think it is relevant. If there is no sentience, and therefore no free will, nor talent, then WHAT IS THERE?
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If there is no sentience, and therefore no free will, nor talent, then WHAT IS THERE?
Reactions to stimuli. It is convenient to classify some of those reactions in specific ways. We might call some of them "thoughts." We might call others "instincts." Or "reservations." Or "flashes of genius." Or "feelings." But I'm not sure what the distinction between those actually IS.
Perhaps a movie analogy would help. In The Matrix, would you consider the majority of the human race -- those unawakened humans -- to be "free?" Everything they saw, everything they responded to, was controlled by another source -- but they could of course still make their own decisions. But that source wasn't omnipotent or omniscient; it was in fact mildly incompetent. So they became aware of the extent to which their inputs were being manipulated, and rebelled against it.
If they were ALREADY free to make choices, why would they rebel? If the Matrix wasn't "real," if Cypher's argument wasn't actually a SOLID argument, how then can we say that merely being able to make choices constitutes freedom?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I know this looks like off-topic, but I think it is relevant. If there is no sentience, and therefore no free will, nor talent, then WHAT IS THERE?
There's always the blue pill.
(edit: it looks like Tom beat me to the Matrix example)
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Hmm, the MATRIX analogy . OK. Let’s see.
[Beware, if you haven’t seen the movie yet, this might be considered as SPOILER!]
People that didn’t know about the existence of the MATRIX are essentially identical to us (not aware if we are in fact inside such a simulation). So I’d say they had all the free will they wanted, at the extent they were aware of it, of course. The fact that they were physically in a PRISON (for the mind, but a prison nonetheless) didn’t affect them one bit. “Ignorance is bliss". They lived in that “less than perfect modeled human civilization simulation”, but they were sure they were “free”. (As sure as I myself I’m free ). They still could make their decision, suicide if they wanted, kill others and so on. In the scene were Neo is first interrogated, his ability to speak is removed and thus proves (if still necessary for him) that he is actually NOT free. But he was the one that was already (almost) aware of the fact that “there is something wrong, like a splinter in his mind …”. For me this only proves that as long as you are not aware of the PRISON, you are as good as a free person. And when you learn that you are IN such a prison, you have the free will to rebel against it. That is also in the movie
There is no destiny, only free will.
A.
PS: do you want to go on with the arguments, as it results that even the existence of the ONE was a pre-programmed/”destined” thing?
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
quote:
quote: If there is no sentience, and therefore no free will, nor talent, then WHAT IS THERE?
Reactions to stimuli. [Smile]
Human behavior is clearly influence by the stimuli that is presented to it. Perhaps the notion that free will is derived from the fact that a human's response to various stimuli is often so complex that some see fit to distinguish said response from that of other things in the universe.
For example, if you expose a tree to a certain stimuli, say if you point a gun at it, the tree will respond in a very predictable manner, namely it will not change anything that it does. However, if you point a gun at a human it might result in a variety of responses, the subject may scream, or faint, or they may say something, or run away. The way that humans respond is the result of a very complex set of conditions, and some may say that humans belong to a very exclusive group of things that are cappable of such complexity in responding to their environment.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:do you want to go on with the arguments, as it results that even the existence of the ONE was a pre-programmed/”destined” thing?
Sure. His very rebellion was pre-programmed. And the second film copped out by making love so surprising and beautiful that it could override his programming and make him behave in unpredictable ways.
Which is very cute and pretty and all, but also highly unlikely. I'd be very surprised if the computers -- after hundreds of years of filtering through human fantasies -- didn't at least recognize the power of love.
But the point is this: they had all the free will they wanted, insofar as they didn't realize there was more to be had. Their perception of freedom was completely contingent upon their continued ignorance.
----------
quote:The way that humans respond is the result of a very complex set of conditions, and some may say that humans belong to a very exclusive group of things that are cappable of such complexity in responding to their environment.
Amen to that. But Tres seems uncomfortable defining free will as the ability to be unpredictable.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
That's the second direct question I've posted to you Tom that you've ignored. Is this because of the "naked cupid" comment?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
*laugh* No. I'm hoping the answers become obvious from the other things I say.
I don't define "sentience" because I think it's largely a construct. I don't think there's a magic point at which something becomes sophisticated enough to "think;" after all, flatworms are far less sophisticated than modern robots, but we recognize that the former are alive -- and "intelligent" life, at that. This is actually one of my problems with abortion, too; while there's clearly a point at which all that unformed brain activity turns into "thoughts," I don't have the faintest idea where to draw that line.
The idea that we have free will because we can "think" is something that makes very little sense to me, not least because I don't think the question of what constitutes "thought" has been settled.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
After reading this thread I'm not sure we have exactly explained the God/predestined thing. So I'll take a shot. The paradox of free will is that if God knows everything and always has,including the future, that means that our choices are already known from the beginning. So how are we in the present doing anything other than than playing out the script. We can't choose other than what God already knows we have chosen.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
The counter-argument has been that merely knowing what someone else is going to do does not preclude them from doing something else; it merely means that they won't do something else. So they're still choosing freely, albeit choosing what you know they're going to choose.
I don't find that a compelling argument, myself.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson: But the point is this: they had all the free will they wanted, insofar as they didn't realize there was more to be had. Their perception of freedom was completely contingent upon their continued ignorance.
How does that prove that there is no free will? The free will is what you make of it, by definition BTW, don’t you think that the machines that build the MATRIX in the first place, had it? Or were they programmed to enslave the human race?
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:BTW, don’t you think that the machines that build the MATRIX in the first place, had it? Or were they programmed to enslave the human race?
That's precisely what I believe. I believe their decision to enslave the human race was a foregone conclusion once the option to do so was incorporated into their programming.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Tom, you've read too much Isaac Asimov
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
No. I'm just not an idiot. If you're going to build self-replicating machines that can contain their own power sources, you do NOT give them the option to rebel against their makers. It's hard to imagine a line of code that would be more important. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Tom, have you heard of the "3-laws-safe" thing?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yes. *laugh*
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:No. I'm just not an idiot. If you're going to build self-replicating machines that can contain their own power sources, you do NOT give them the option to rebel against their makers. It's hard to imagine a line of code that would be more important.
The key word here is option. A program is not a set of options, but a set of commands. If you have options, and chose one or the other (based on whatever data available), then by definition you exercise your free will.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Here's an example:
If A and B, then Z. If A and C, then Y. If A and A, then X.
I input "A" and "C." What happens? Has the program made a choice? Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Ha! But the program didn't chose the values of your input! You did! (You're the one with the free will here )
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
That's only if I assume that I'm not being controlled by something else. There may well be turtles all the way down.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
What kind of input did "make" you choose the input "A" and "C"?
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Since we're speaking purely of hypotheticals, receiving input "Y" from the other machine configures me to output "A" and "C." This creates a self-sustaining loop in which no free choices are actually made.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Since we're speaking purely of hypotheticals, receiving input "Y" from the other machine configures me to output "A" and "C." This creates a self-sustaining loop in which no free choices are actually made.
You are really going to accept the fact (as hypothetical as it might be) that the program that you yourself suggested/wrote, controls you?
And BTW,
quote: That's only if I assume that I'm not being controlled by something else. There may well be turtles all the way down.
That’s one unhappy choice of an analogy. We eventually got off the Earth, and seen that there are NO turtles.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: You are really going to accept the fact (as hypothetical as it might be) that the program that you yourself suggested/wrote, controls you?
Why not? I may not have realized when I wrote the program that I myself always respond predictably to a given input. I'm not omniscient. So it's perfectly conceivable that I've coded myself into a corner.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Please consider for a moment the following analogy:
God = the program you wrote.
I rest my case.
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
In which case neither God nor I have free will. Is that really your argument?
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
If, by "God", you mean an omnipotent being who created the universe, wouldn't the analogy make more sense if you said
You = the program God wrote?
If not, I would appreciate a little more explaination.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:In which case neither God nor I have free will. Is that really your argument?
Not at all. I sustain the idea the I (as a conscious being) have free will.
If I were to suggest to you (or anybody else for that matter) that “God” is just a “program” you wrote for yourself, allowing it to control you (in not so very obvious ways), just because you are not omniscient, and in the same time to accept that the “program” itself is all-powerful and omniscient, I think you wouldn’t agree to that. It’s a lot better when you say it yourself.
Following that, any program needs a creator. And the creator has a choice: to consider it’s creation as such, or to “give” it a lot of power, even greater than the creators’ own power. Incredibly enough, a lot of people choose the second alternative, not realizing that this way they “take away” their own free will (taking it away is just an illusion of course). But the free will is always there, just waiting to be reclaimed. One needs to accept the responsibility for it, and that’s the hard step. It’s a lot easier to leave that responsibility to … the “destiny”!
The simple fact that THIS (look at what I suggest by the analogy as a hypothesis) is possible, and that you can at any moment choose to act on your free will, proves that there is FREE WILL. You might not choose that, but it is your own choice to do.
That’s why I don’t expect to CONVINCE anybody of this. If I compel you to believe such a thing, I’d take away the only way for you to have the REAL thing.
I choose not to take that away from you
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: The simple fact that THIS (look at what I suggest by the analogy as a hypothesis) is possible, and that you can at any moment choose to act on your free will, proves that there is FREE WILL.
*laugh* Except that you appear to have missed my point completely. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:If, by "God", you mean an omnipotent being who created the universe, wouldn't the analogy make more sense if you said
You = the program God wrote?
If not, I would appreciate a little more explaination.
Ok, if you put it that way, it comes to this: you are a program (that God wrote) and are imperfect and all. But you can control the one that created you, namely God! So it would be as an imperfect being (the program) is controlling an omnipotent one (God). This goes against the definition of an omnipotent being…
There is no paradox, because I’m not saying that God is an omnipotent being at all. I’m saying that God is THE CONCEPT, the story, the program written in order to control the imperfect being (originally written by such an imperfect being for others, and then rewritten by every “believer” in his own mind).
I have nothing against belief (in God or any other deity), just that as long as such a belief “takes away” freedom/free will/responsibility from the individual, I choose not to subscribe.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:*laugh* Except that you appear to have missed my point completely. [smile]
If I missed your point, at least I made you laugh. Now it's time for me to fall off the chair and
See ya!
A.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
A, After two explanations of your argument, I'm still confused about what exactly you're argument is. In any case, I still don't see how you've proven that free will exists.
Tom, Tres, anyone with knowledge of Quantum Theory,
One of the theories regarding quantum mechanics is that the measurement determines the state of a particle. Some have speculated that it is actually consciousness that determines this. If reality is to some extent determined or affected by consciousness, be it an individual consciousness or a collective one, wouldn't that have an effect on the deterministic nature of the universe and ultimately the idea of free will itself?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Some have speculated that it is actually consciousness that determines this.
Except that there's actually very little reason to believe this at this stage. If it's ever conclusively shown that "consciousness" is necessary for quantum observation, we'll finally have a testable proof of "consciousness" that we could use to replace Turing tests. Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: The counter-argument has been that merely knowing what someone else is going to do does not preclude them from doing something else; it merely means that they won't do something else. So they're still choosing freely, albeit choosing what you know they're going to choose.
I don't find that a compelling argument, myself.
I find that counter argument more compelling if you look at it a bit differently. We don't have to assume that "God" (here defined solely as "an omniscient being") knows what we're going to do because we're following a script written for us, but because God already knows the script we've written for ourselves. We each have free will, which we experience from within the system as the choices we make, but from an outside perspective it has already been exercised and the end result is known.
It's not really much different from reviewing your own memories. IF you were free to choose what you had for breakfast, thinking about it now and even wishing you had eaten something else does not eliminate the free will you excercised at that time.
[edit to remove a double negative]
[ January 27, 2006, 07:19 AM: Message edited by: KarlEd ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If reality is to some extent determined or affected by consciousness, be it an individual consciousness or a collective one, wouldn't that have an effect on the deterministic nature of the universe and ultimately the idea of free will itself?
I think consciousnesses act in a predictable fashion, determined by their own nature and the inputs given to them, so I think determinism would still hold true.
And as I said, having an indeterministic nature does not give you free will; it just makes you random and potentially insane. I don't think it is something you'd want (and Tom - you've still not answered my questions as to why we'd want what you are terming free will, or what it would be like.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I don't think it is something you'd want (and Tom - you've still not answered my questions as to why we'd want what you are terming free will, or what it would be like.)
To answer your question: would you take the red pill?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Under my definition I'd have free will no matter which pill I took, and under your definition I think I'd lack free will in either case. So I don't think that answers my question.
The difference between the red pill and blue pill is a matter of knowledge - whether you know the whole truth, or just an illusion that might make you happier. I'd rather know the truth, but that is a different issue. This issue is, why would I want to act in an indeterminate way, rather than a way that could be predictable to someone who understood both me and the world perfectly?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:This issue is, why would I want to act in an indeterminate way, rather than a way that could be predictable to someone who understood both me and the world perfectly?
Would you be happy if you suspected that the person who understood you perfectly could make you do anything at all they wanted?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: After two explanations of your argument, I'm still confused about what exactly you're argument is. In any case, I still don't see how you've proven that free will exists.
Tom and camus, let me take another go at it…
[Disclaimer: this is not supposed to be a “cute” story, I use some “harsh” elements in it, but I don’t intend to offend anyone. If you feel offended, stop reading, maybe I don’t deserve your time and attention for this.]
Picture this: (use your imagination):
Does it matter if I can speak Japanese? - working title
I am suminonA, a … random guy. You are Tea, a precocious girl. There are some other people too: Emm and Eff, two people that you’ve known since you were born, and that give you the best available free advice. They love you and you love them too. There is also Pea, a wise person, respected by many. When she speaks people listen to her. Then there is X, a dear but naïve friend of yours, and mine.
You learn form Emm and Eff that Pea knows me. And there are a few important things to know about me: 1) I am fluent in Japanese and I carry around a Samurai Sword at all times. 2) I am easily offended, especially by Japanese curses and insults, and I never forget anything. 3) When I’m offended, I get angry and chop off the hands (Kill Bill style ) of anyone who dares to utter such words.
[Question to ponder: Does my knowledge of Japanese language affect you?]
So Emm and Eff worn you, and advice you not to use Japanese words that you don’t know, especially when I’m around. And you understand and follow the advice. You decide that is the wise thing to be discreet about it. When I’m around, you never user Japanese words, even les curses. Actually, nobody ever as much as hints about my knowledge of Japanese in my presence. For a while.
But your friend X doesn’t care too much about the warnings, plus he’s very curious about the Samurai Sword. Yet at any time, neither you, nor X, or anybody for that matter, has ever seen the Sword I’m supposed to carry around with me. So X begins to hint about Japanese, he learns a few words form a friend of his, and starts to utter them over and over again. I never bother to show if I understand any of it, so X goes further. He buys a dictionary and learns more words, including some nasty curses and insults, just in case. Yet I never respond to any words in Japanese, and X grows angrier, he wants at least to see the Shiny Sword. So soon enough he begins to use the insults!
What do you do? Well, you rush to him and warn your dear friend X, that it is dangerous, talking like that in front of me. Still X doesn’t stop. And even more “unlikely”, I never seem to bother. So you suppose that X doesn’t really uses bad words, so you take the dictionary and check, and find out in surprise that the words really are curses and insults! Yet, I don’t bother and I don’t produce the Samurai Sword at all. So you think that I’m just testing X (and you too), that I’ll remember to chop off his hands later on, so you make sure not to repeat any of the Japanese words.
This goes on for a while, and every time X insists more and more to get me to “take out” the Sword. I never do. So finally X gives up, lets go of the idea and we all go on with our lives. But you don’t forget and worry that I might strike X at any time, because I never forget anything. And much less the insults. Then I go away, to live in a distant country, like New Zeeland, and you get to see me a lot on TV and such, but you know that I live far away.
Time passes and when least expected, X decides that the next smart thing to do is commit suicide and he goes for it. Everyone is sad at the funeral, but you really are just wandering: how come X went on with his life, and never got his hands cut off? You know very well what Emm and Eff said about me, and Pea corroborated the story on various further occasions so there is this thing bothering you… And finally you decide that maybe, just maybe, in order to punish X for his deeds, I “controlled” him in very subtle ways (for no one could prove that) and made him take his life. This would be a serious allegation, and as long as you have no hard proof, you can’t go around sharing your theory with Emm or Eff, even less Pea.
So you live the rest of your life wandering what is the explanation of all this, and just before any of it mattered anymore, you realize that your whole life you have (successfully) avoided to speak Japanese words.
-The end-
Final questions: Does the fact that Pea said that I speak Japanese, “controlled” you into never uttering Japanese words? Were you depraved of free will concerning this matter? Who controlled whom? Was X insane? What if I was never able to understand Japanese (as a matter of fact I've never said I did). Where does the free will enter this “story”.
Here is my answer:
I say that you haven’t been deprived of anything. There is free will all over this story: -You’ve chosen to take Emm’s and Eff’s advice, based on what Pea had told them. More to the point, you’ve chosen to take Pea’s words for facts. You could have done as X did, and care little about what Pea said. You didn’t. Following that choice, you never uttered Japanese words. - Emm and Eff knew that Pea might be wrong, but they decided to advise you, because Pea might have been right after all. They did it out of love for you. It was their choice to love you. - Pea didn’t have a clue about me, but she heard the “facts” from her teacher and promised to teach the others too, the “truth”. She could have said nothing, but it was her will to help others. -X was naïve, but as a curious boy as he was, he had a lot of fun, “defying” me, and meanwhile learned quite a lot of Japanese. Then, when life didn’t make too much sense for him, he decided to end it all. And he did. It was his choice.
This is how I see life, and the fact that I have not only the responsibility of my own choices, but also the responsibility to MAKE them.
For me, this kind of “story” and “interpretation” is the proof that there is free will. You might argue that maybe all happened inside the MATRIX, it was all an illusion, and that nobody ever had “free will”.
Well, these are the alternatives: a) there is no free will, but we can’t see that, so we have the illusion of if b) free will is real, and the responsibility is ours.
If I choose to believe (b), then I take the same amount of responsibility even if the (a) is true, because I could never make the difference. If you choose (a) then you leave the responsibility to others (most of the time never knowing to whom). But if (b) was actually the case, you wasted your life letting others control you.
If this doesn’t answer your question, and it can’t stand as a proof of the existence of free will, then I’m sorry I wasted your time. Remember, I don’t want to convince you, I just wanted to present my personal view/proof on the subject.
I choose to believe that here is no destiny. There is only free will. [I hope now you see WHY.]
A.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Do you actually think that analogy makes the core argument simpler?
*laugh* And the problem here is that I dispute whether or not you had any actual choice in the matter of whether or not to speak Japanese -- that, once you sincerely believed that speaking Japanese would result in your death, your actions were scripted by processes largely out of your conscious control.
Consider the latest study on the neurological pathways created by partisanship, in which people who are already mildly partisan are actually made more partisan by viewing evidence against their chosen faction, and become hostile to the source of the contrary evidence; as people become emotionally invested in their opinions, they subconsciously seek out worldviews to justify those opinions even in the face of direct evidence.
Do you believe this is an indication of free will? That you somehow choose to become hostile to, say, Fox News or the Village Voice because they present compelling evidence against one of your sacred cows?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Would you be happy if you suspected that the person who understood you perfectly could make you do anything at all they wanted?
It would probably be okay as long as two conditions are met: 1) I'm still freely choosing what to do, based on my own character and the inputs I receive from the world around me 2) I trust this being who controls me is not tricking me by sending me false or misleading inputs
For instance, when I watch TV I see ads for food that often make me hungry. The advertisers do not know me perfectly, but know enough about me to realize that they can get me to buy more food if I see it on TV. They are, in that sense, controlling me. But I am also controlling myself - I feely choose when to get food. They just happen to know what will make me freely choose to do so. And if they lie about their product, it would be problematic, but the problem would not be that they are controlling me - the problem would be the particularly unethical method they are using to control me: tricking me into doing something they know I would not do if I had a more accurate understanding. If they don't lie, I have no problem with them controlling me, as long as I am making the final choice, and as long as I retain the ability to alter that choice (even if they know perfectly well that I won't do so.)
If someone other than God could control me absolutely, I would be concerned that they might trick me. However, that would be far preferable than acting randomly and irrationally in order to avoid ever being controlled. And it certainly wouldn't be a level of concern that would lead me to conclude that my choices are meaningless - which is what many seem to think a lack of free will implies.
Chess is another example. In chess, both players attempt to control the other's decisions. This does not make a chess player's decisions meaningless, though - they are still deciding their own actions, no matter how much their opponent is manipulating them. The only thing they really have to fear is being tricked into falling into a trap they could not forsee.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I trust this being who controls me is not tricking me by sending me false or misleading inputs
What would constitute a "false" input? If they have arranged the universe so your inputs are all REAL, but are deliberately calculated to cause you to act in a certain way, is that better than if they're sending you "false" inputs?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson:
Do you actually think that analogy makes the core argument simpler?
Yes. If you see what all that “stands” for, you might agree I was oversimplifying the “program”.
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson:
*laugh* And the problem here is that I dispute whether or not you had any actual choice in the matter of whether or not to speak Japanese -- that, once you sincerely believed that speaking Japanese would result in your death, your actions were scripted by processes largely out of your conscious control.
Ok, you say that there are some processes controlling me, that are out of my conscious control. I answered that at the end of my last (way too longish) post [see the alternatives (a) and (b)]. My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe. That’s where the free will act. All that follows after that is just “reason” (for a sane person, not true for the insane ). We let our beliefs control our life, but we choose those beliefs. [The proof of that in my story is X’s existence, defying Tea’s belief and not being punished for it, because actually Tea’s belief was misplaced.]
quote: Originally posted by TomDavidson:
That you somehow choose to become hostile to, say, Fox News or the Village Voice because they present compelling evidence against one of your sacred cows?
Defending one’s beliefs is “instinctual” and circumstantial (as in your partnership example). But being able to CHANGE YOUR MIND on any given subject, that proves free will (IMHO)
A.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe
and that's the part that I would disagree with.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:
quote: My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe
and that's the part that I would disagree with.
When you say that there is no way for you to decide anything for/by yourself (not even the belief part) then my arguments hit an unbreakable stone-wall. I can't fight that. Only you can. [If I'd convince you otherwise I would be proving your point]
A.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
Has anyone seen the movie Primer? There's an interesting situation in the movie that I will try to briefly relate.
Abe has acquired the ability to travel back in time and shows his friend Aaron this ability. Aaron eventually realizes that Abe can go back in time and change the life that Aaron will live. In fact, it may have already happened and there would be no way for Aaron to know it. There would be no way to know what life he lost by any changes that Abe may have made earlier in time. In fact, Abe could keep going back in time and keep making slight changes with each of those changes eventually affecting the decisions that Aaron makes. This troubles Aaron greatly, the realization that even though he's still making decisions in life, he ultimately has no control over what happens because Abe can keep going back and changing things unitl Aaron does what Abe wants, and Aaron would never know it.
Tres, presumably you would be comfortable with this hypothetical situation if it were happening to you?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
A, I do agree that the choices we make are made on our own. It's the idea that our choices are the product of set rules and laws governing the way our brains receive and process stored and new information that, to me, implies the lack of free will. The fact that we can't understand all of the complexity of all the processes doesn't change the fact that they are all still governed by rules. The idea that there may be a higher power controlling or manipulating everything doesn't make the idea of free will any better.
It might be that we are defining free will in different ways, which is causing the difference in opinion.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What would constitute a "false" input? If they have arranged the universe so your inputs are all REAL, but are deliberately calculated to cause you to act in a certain way, is that better than if they're sending you "false" inputs?
Yes.
A false input would be one that deliberately leads me to mistaken conclusions about reality, like giving me a hallucination that I think exists but does not. This is bad because after I make my decision, I will have to confront reality, and will find I have maken the wrong decision. In contrast, if you change reality itself, then you are merely changing the right answer to be the one you want it to be - so I would still be choosing the right answer, and would thus have no problem.
For instance, making me conclude Big Macs are healthy when they are not is tricking me, and causes trouble because I may then decide to eat Big Macs and will confront reality when I gain weight. In contrast, changing the reality of Big Macs so they actually are healthy is not a problem. It would get the same result (me eating Big Macs) but would not be a problem because I have now chosen the right answer, rather than a mistaken answer.
quote:Tres, presumably you would be comfortable with this hypothetical situation if it were happening to you?
No, the problem with that (and other time travel examples) is that you are really killing one Aaron and replacing him with another. I'm fine with the idea that you did things in my history to make me who I am. But if that entails destroying an alternate me who already existed in some previous future (if that even makes sense), I think it's pretty immoral.
It could be troubling, I guess, to think that you are just what someone else made you to be. However, I think that's a bit of a confusion - it shouldn't be troubling. For one thing, that's what all of us actually are - whether God or Abe exists or not to design us. We are all made by the world around us, even if by accident. That's not a bad thing, because despite that fact, you are still yourself, and are still deciding how to live your life.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
What about the theory of a multiverse that diverges infinitely because of quantum uncertainties? Such a model argues that we can (and do) make alternate choices, but our present conciousness sticks with only one of those infinite possible realities.
I'm not a believer in such a multiverse, though I don't necessarily *not* believe in it.
I guess I am trying to figure out in what sort of situation "free will" could exist in a form everyone could agree upon. The answer: "free will is impossible no matter what the hypothetical situation" just doesn't seem right to me.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I guess I am trying to figure out in what sort of situation "free will" could exist in a form everyone could agree upon. The answer: "free will is impossible no matter what the hypothetical situation" just doesn't seem right to me.
I agree, and that's one theory that works. Another is the one I mentioned earlier about consciousness determining ultimate reality on the quantum level. There are others, like the idea of a metaphysical existence, or soul. But since I have a hard time believing a lot of these things, I have a hard time believing in the idea of free will, though, I'm not ruling it out completely.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe.
And I reject this, because I think what you sincerely believe is determined -- at least in part -- by an additional host of things external to your self.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:
quote:My arguing point is that I and only I can decide what I sincerely believe.
And I reject this, because I think what you sincerely believe is determined -- at least in part -- by an additional host of things external to your self.
But you see, there is the crux of the paradox (if free will doesn’t exist): Why would those external forces/things make me sincerely believe that they don’t really exist? I choose to break the paradox by stating that there is no destiny, there is just free will.
A.
PS: I’ve just watched (again) the movie “The Usual Suspects”. And there is one quote that seems to coincide:
quote: (by “Kayser Zose”) The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist.
Do you expect me to break away from one program, just to replace it with another?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Why would those external forces/things make me sincerely believe that they don’t really exist?
I think you're assuming many of these forces are conscious. Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:I think you're assuming many of these forces are conscious. [smile]
What is my consciousness worth if I agree to the idea that I’m being manipulated by some unconscious (external) forces?
A.
Posted by Friday (Member # 8998) on :
quote: What is my consciousness worth if I agree to the idea that I’m being manipulated by some unconscious (external) forces?
Are you planning on selling it? If so I bet you could fetch a pretty penny on eBay.
But seriously, I think it boils down to a matter of definition. If you define consciousness as an ability to observe and analyze your suroundings, then it doesn't really matter what you believe about free will. You will still be able to see and hear and think in the same sense that you were ever able to do these things.
If you define consciousness differently, then you may run into some difficulty.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:What is my consciousness worth if I agree to the idea that I’m being manipulated by some unconscious (external) forces?
The same thing it is worth if you aren't. Why would being controlled by external forces imply your consciousness is worth any less?
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by camus: It might be that we are defining free will in different ways, which is causing the difference in opinion.
quote:Originally posted by Friday: But seriously, I think it boils down to a matter of definition. If you define consciousness as an ability to observe and analyze your suroundings, then it doesn't really matter what you believe about free will. You will still be able to see and hear and think in the same sense that you were ever able to do these things.
If you define consciousness differently, then you may run into some difficulty.
Yes, I’m convinced that it all comes down to a matter of definition.
camus, for you “free will” is just a concept that you can rule out using arguments like timetravel. For me it is a matter of real life that I have to face every single waking moment of my life. And it has to do with responsibility. I sincerely believe that I have full responsibility for my actions and choices. And I take that responsibility.
The analogous example is the “destiny/deity” part of the issue. I don’t believe that my life is controlled by destiny, nor by whatever deity has been invented. For me those are just some concepts. So it’s easy for me to rule them out. But there are a lot of people (lots and lots and lots) that need to believe in those concepts as real, so their lives can have a meaning. And they won’t accept any theoretical arguments to rule them out. (And I’m not saying that’s a bad thing!).
I don’t want to force other people to see the things as I see them. But the fact that different people, brought up in virtually the same environment (now that information can travel freely), can have such different sets of beliefs, is for me proof enough that there is no “Universal Program” to rule as all.
A.
PS: I’m conscious that I wrote these lines, and no other different person. And I take full responsibility for it.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: The same thing it is worth if you aren't. Why would being controlled by external forces imply your consciousness is worth any less?
Because that’s what being self-aware is all about. I “know” (I have at least the most compelling impression) that I am myself, and not somebody else (who in his/hers turn thinks the same). And so, if I don’t have free will, and some external (and unconscious!) forces control me, then my individual existence is meaningless, plus I have no reason to take full responsibility for my life, actions and choices.
If I were to live on a deserted island in the middle of the ocean (that is - by myself) then the issue (of responsibility) would be quite irrelevant. But I live on a deserted island (named Earth) in the middle of the ocean (called the Universe), and not by myself but within a human society. Here the responsibility issue does matter, IMHO.
A.
PS: Do you (not just Tresopax) take full responsibility?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:And so, if I don’t have free will, and some external (and unconscious!) forces control me, then my individual existence is meaningless, plus I have no reason to take full responsibility for my life, actions and choices.
Perhaps, but the lack of free will would be the problem, not the control by external forces. Those two things are not necessarily the same.
What if I DO have free will and I DO control my own actions, but those actions are also controlled and manipulated by outside forces? Why would that imply not taking full responsibility? I'm still choosing and in control of my own actions, after all.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
quote: Perhaps, but the lack of free will would be the problem, not the control by external forces. Those two things are not necessarily the same.
Language is such a traitorous tool. I never said they were the same. Let’s use some logic
[I'll use "=>" as the sign for implication.] (a)= I have free will (b)= some external forces control me [clarification: NOT(b) = there are no external forces controlling me] (c)= I have full responsibility for my actions and choices.
Premises: 1) (a) = (c) [it is my personal choice to advocate that as true] 2) NOT(b) =>(a) [that’s part of my definition of free will] 3) (b) =>NOT(a) [argument used to prove that free will doesn’t exist]
Note that 2) is not equivalent to 3) !! [ 2) is equivalent to: 2’) “NOT(a)=>(b)” ]
So: 1) is equivalent with 1’) “NOT(a)=NOT(c)” From 1’) AND 3) => 4) “(b) =>NOT(c)”
What I argue is the proposition 4). I mean I don’t like to see that as true, which is what those advocating NOT(a) seem to do. If they accept that (b) =>(c) then I’m happy and I have no more contra-argument.
So, what I said was: “NOT(a) => (b) =>NOT(c)”, which stands within the premises. I like to believe that NOT(b) is true, but that is not necessary for this conclusions. I never stated that (a) = NOT(b) should be true.
quote:What if I DO have free will and I DO control my own actions, but those actions are also controlled and manipulated by outside forces? Why would that imply not taking full responsibility? I'm still choosing and in control of my own actions, after all.
Your question is: “Why [(a) AND (b)] => NOT(c)?” My answer: (a) AND (b) => (c) too. [Note: that is not true if all the 3 premises are true, therefore I say premise 3 is false, hence my post]
I hope you see that I’m not contradicting you at any point whatsoever.
A.
Posted by suminonA (Member # 8757) on :
Just the other night I’ve watched (for the first time ) the movie “King Arthur” by Antoine Fuqua.
*dark night + foggy forest + death in the air + cute Lady + bright Knight*
(Soon to be King) Arthur to (already Lady) Guinevere:
quote: There is no destiny, there’s only free will.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
? ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
), who wrote a book. He spoke of how in spite of the horrible suffering and lack of freedom, he still had his free will and no one could take that from him. I find that marvelously inspiring.
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)