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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's the thing, though. You can't know a person well enough to predict every choice. They can always surprise you.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.)
posted
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.)
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
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?
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 148 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
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. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 1256 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
