If Free Will Isn't Real, We Will Have To Invent It.

[The-Captain]

Another thing too is that just because something can be explained in natural terms or in math, it doesn't take away its beauty. I don't see any reason to why Free Will, Love, Empathy, and so on, has to be explained using magical pixies, invisible clowns sitting on imaginary thrones waving wands and uttering spells, for things to be what they are. Just because nature is what it is and led to us to exist and eventually causing us to have emotions or the sense of a will, doesn't make it less real or less inspiring. I find it to be the opposite!

 

I agree, if things are what they are it does not demean them. Our emotions, though reducible to chemical reactions and hormone levels are no less real and meaningful to us. Though I do find determinism to be a bit depressing, not that I would shy away from uncomfortable truths. I just don't think that there is enough reason to buy into it part and parcel just yet.

[Ouroboros]

No, I think that's wrong, because we are that. We are these things. We are part of the Universe. What you're doing is creating a separation between "You" as something that is not the things that exists, and the things that are, and you do so, because you want to be different and special than the existing Universe. You want to be a spirit, and refuse to be a natural being.

 

Well you're kind of losing me here, is this part of a prior conversation between you two? Anyway I'm not trying o force a dichotomy, while I think that if there is free will humans would be the most inclined to use it due to our higher cognitive capacity, I wouldn't relegate the rest of the universe to being deterministic. In fact the more I learn about our surrounds the less the universe seems like and orderly place bound by laws, to me it looks more like occurrences, relationships, correlations and chaos. I think it was a tenet of Epicureanism that as long as there was chaos in the universe the possibility of free will remained.

So is Chaos the same as Randomness? Would a Chaotic Choice be the result of pure chance?

 

Then how do you think? How do you reason? When you reason you build it on previous argument and previous thoughts. When you think you lay things out one (or more) at a time and compare. It's a process. You process information. Each bit of thought is built on a previous thought.

 

Well yeah, that is reasonable choice but we still are aware of that prior experience and how it factors into our decision making and the choice remains to say "to hell with it all, I'm going to do this". Though I suppose you could say that choice was arrived at by prior influence and circumstance but the seems more like an argument for the linear nature of time rather than the impossibility of free choice. So repeating myself from the beginning of the thread I think our awareness grants us the capacity for freedom of will, not just clinging to that but it makes sense to me.

The "to Hell with it all," can be the result of an underlying wish to rebel, and as such be the result of a previous deterministic line of reasons, and not "free". Or, it's just a random choice, without any prior reasons, which means it's random. So Free Will must include randomness and chance, without prior reasons to make a choice.

 

If we'd became friends it would be because you would have certain characteristics that would match to ideas and experiences I have. This is why match.com and other sites have more success in matching people by making a profile on them first, instead of pure random guesses. Unfortunately, there are research that show that people don't become friends or lovers out of total random choices. Like they say, a 9 marries a 9, and a 5 marries a 5. There are pattern that are statistical about these things. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, friendship is more deterministic than you think.

 

Again that explains proclivities but obviously we are aware of that, the choice still remains to befriend someone who is out of your usual range of characteristics that you look for in a friend. You have the choice to be critical and judgmental of others or to be accepting etc, and yes that does "determine" what kind of people you will gravitate towards but you were still the one that made the choice to be that way.

And the final choice would be based on the amount of time you spent with the person, and finer details in compatibility, and closeness in proximity, and much more, which are all in a sense predictable, even though the complexity of a parameters make it impossible for us to make such a prediction. But still, it would be deterministic.

 

No argument here, science is simply our understanding of already existent principles it is in and of itself neutral. But determinism is not a scientific law, its simply an inference from scientific data. Could be wrong could be right, but it's still in doubt.

Determinism is more of a philosophical concept, I think, and it includes an infinite times more than science can cover today. The deterministic idea would include all events from grand to small, and all the past events leading up to it, and it's impossible for us to establish all that.

 

Btw, Chaos Theory is mathematical subject, and chaos can be ordered. Just FYI. Unordered chaos is the equivalent to complete randomness. While ordered chaos can be described in procedures. It's either or. They are their absolute opposites. And my idea of Free Will is that it's a mixture of both. Lets say 99.99% of what we say, do, think, and decide, is based on things in the past, or our composition, while a fraction of what we decide to say or do is influenced by some small pure random event, ultimately caused by some quantum event.

[The-Captain]

I think we have a different idea of free will here. Yours is probably the general philosophical definition, while mine is more of a home brew. The examples you are giving of how our choices and options are limited, and how we came to our choice by a progression of occurrence is something I account for when I call it free will.

 

We are bound by gravity and cannot choose to treat it as one possible option out of many, yet we still have freedom of mobility. I think it's the same with our will, we are bound by our natural limits yet still have freedom within those. What else would we have, what physical thing isn't limited by the physical universe? So yes, perhaps we don't have free will in the truest sense of the word, but as much as can be had by a living being I think we have.

[Ouroboros]

I agree, if things are what they are it does not demean them. Our emotions, though reducible to chemical reactions and hormone levels are no less real and meaningful to us. Though I do find determinism to be a bit depressing, not that I would shy away from uncomfortable truths. I just don't think that there is enough reason to buy into it part and parcel just yet.

Well, I think you're missing my point a little.

 

I'm not saying that we are deterministic, but I'm actually offering a way out of that to show that we are more than machines. But yet, not supernatural or spiritual in the religious sense.

 

Quantum Mechanics is considered by some philosophers to be the answer for the deterministic free will concept. I read that somewhere, but I can't remember where. It was part of an article about the free will. I think in general the whole debate about free will has been put to rest, because we can't even really define what we mean with the word. Free from what? Free how? Free to do what? Is it positive, negative, external, internal, or something else?

 

But personally, I find the quantum mechanics to be the answer. Everything above the level of QM is very predictable and contingent, while quantum events aren't. The quantum events are based on probability and statistics more than a chain of linear equations. Like half-life of nuclear waste, you can't tell exactly which particle will do what, because it's based on a overall statistical model, and not some kind of marching order where particle one goes first, then particle two, and so on. Take one particle in a block of uranium, and you can't tell at what time that exact particle will change its energy level, because the "laws" that guides these events are on the quantum level, below our natural understanding of cause-and-effect.

[Ouroboros]

I think we have a different idea of free will here. Yours is probably the general philosophical definition, while mine is more of a home brew. The examples you are giving of how our choices and options are limited, and how we came to our choice by a progression of occurrence is something I account for when I call it free will.

Well, that's why many have given up the discussion about free will. It's such a wide concept, and it's hard to pinpoint a definition to agree upon.

 

We are bound by gravity and cannot choose to treat it as one possible option out of many, yet we still have freedom of mobility. I think it's the same with our will, we are bound by our natural limits yet still have freedom within those. What else would we have, what physical thing isn't limited by the physical universe? So yes, perhaps we don't have free will in the truest sense of the word, but as much as can be had by a living being I think we have.

I think my arguments are more about trying to put a wedge between supernatural explanation of free will, vs a natural explanation of free will. In other words, I'm not denying free will, but I'm denying a magical explanation for free will. And I think you and I are in agreement on that point.

[agnosticator]

Maybe you (Hans) are understanding and concluding the freewill/determinism debate with compatibilism?

[Ouroboros]

Maybe you (Hans) are understanding and concluding the freewill/determinism debate with compatibilism?

Perhaps. I have to admit I haven't studied that idea yet. Too much to learn as it is!

[BuddyFerris]

... Follow it through. No choices belong to you; no choice of subject matter for the books you read, no choice among TV shows or leisure activity, no choice of priorities among issues demanding your attention.

No, I think that's wrong, because we are that. We are these things. We are part of the Universe. What you're doing is creating a separation between "You" as something that is not the things that exists, and the things that are, and you do so, because you want to be different and special than the existing Universe. You want to be a spirit, and refuse to be a natural being. I feel a connection, a very deep connection, to existence, the world, the universe, and everything. So I don't see the processes, the probability, matter, space, and time, as different than me, but rather, those things make me into me. In a sense I feel sorry for you, because your view requires a constant search of your own identity in the world, but I feel I've found it. I have found my religion. I am, who I am, and I exist, in these things that exist, and all is connected and related. I feel like I'm the Universe knowing itself. What you have is the constant search for something else, and the refusal to acknowledge nature as part of you, and you part of it.

Hans, my friend. We agree on so many important things, but we may spend years here on this one. I'll gladly agree with you down to the quantum events if you'll take the logical next step. At the quantum level, results are probabilistic rather than programmatic. The choice isn't yours to make, it's just a statistical solution. You go along for the ride. Determinism, no? Yet your life as you describe it is full of freedoms the quantum model denies are possible for you. I wont deny you your religion, but I may bug you a bit about your explanation.

Then how do you think? How do you reason? ...

My point exactly.

But lets say you move your "free will" to the spiritual world....

Whoa, Nellie! I'm not advocating anything other than natural for the self awareness we all experience. It's the deterministic model that kicked off this thread, indirectly. Is the brain the man?

...

Did you miss the part of quantum events?

Nope.

Unfortunately I wrote a longer post yesterday about how quantum mechanics actually do present a new answer to the free will argument. It adds the part of probabilistic behavior instead of deterministic. It adds chance and randomness, so determinism isn't really as hot in the mind debate today.

What will you call behavior that is statistically triggered (multi-variant vs. binary option) instead of determined? Randomized? Statistically normalized? Will you be able to pick a name, or will it be statistically probabalized for you?

If we'd became friends it would be because you would have certain characteristics that would match to ideas and experiences I have. This is why match.com and other sites have more success in matching people by making a profile on them first, instead of pure random guesses. Unfortunately, there are research that show that people don't become friends or lovers out of total random choices. Like they say, a 9 marries a 9, and a 5 marries a 5. There are pattern that are statistical about these things. I'm sorry, but you're wrong, friendship is more deterministic than you think.

You're a 9, I'm a 5, I like you anyway. How statistically exasperating is that, my friend? Do you know why, by the way?

 

Buddy

[The-Captain]

I'm not saying that we are deterministic, but I'm actually offering a way out of that to show that we are more than machines. But yet, not supernatural or spiritual in the religious sense.

 

I guess I've been arguing with myself then, really.

 

Yes going back I can see that's not what you were saying, guess I get a little bit ahead of myself.

 

I see no problem with building our conception of reality based only on what we can directly observe and experience, I think they call that sanity. This is a tangent here, but I think we may be touching on it here, there may yet be a component of human consciousness that is separate from the purely physical. No I don't have substantial proof, mostly just anecdotal hearsay from health professionals and my own time at hospitals. Not sufficient cause to build belief on it by any means, but enough to make you wonder.

 

As for believing in the supernatural, I don't see why it would need to be. If it exists, but is out of our sphere of knowledge that doesn't make it supernatural just uncommon or unknown.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, my friend. We agree on so many important things, but we may spend years here on this one. I'll gladly agree with you down to the quantum events if you'll take the logical next step. At the quantum level, results are probabilistic rather than programmatic. The choice isn't yours to make, it's just a statistical solution. You go along for the ride. Determinism, no? Yet your life as you describe it is full of freedoms the quantum model denies are possible for you. I wont deny you your religion, but I may bug you a bit about your explanation.

Maybe we're on the same page then? But I'm not sure what you mean why the quantum model denies certain freedoms which are possible for me? Can you give an example?

 

Whoa, Nellie! I'm not advocating anything other than natural for the self awareness we all experience. It's the deterministic model that kicked off this thread, indirectly. Is the brain the man?

All good with me then. We most likely share very similar views then.

 

The man is the brain, the genetics, the experience, the memory, the environment, and the cog in the bigger machine of society. I can't say I necessarily stick to one model to explain everything, but I'm just certain that our mind is a result of this world, and not the result of a greater mind. If Free Will only could exist because a higher level of Free Will "willed" it into being, then we have the all to common problem of infinite regression.

 

What will you call behavior that is statistically triggered (multi-variant vs. binary option) instead of determined? Randomized? Statistically normalized? Will you be able to pick a name, or will it be statistically probabalized for you?

Lets say you have a situation where you have two options: A and B. And it so happens that you pick A.

 

Now lets say we set up the exact situation, reverse the whole universe to be exactly the same as it was at that point, and give you the options again. Would you pick A again, or would you pick B this time?

 

If A is the option you would always pick in that exact same setup, it means you are following a deterministic model.

 

If you by chance pick option B instead, it's an in-deterministic model, or random.

 

Then you have the third option: if we repeat this 10 times, and we know that out of those 10 times, 9 times you will pick A, and only pick B once. And if we repeat this 10,000 times, we'll see this to be exactly the same every time. Then it's something between deterministic and random. It's random with a deterministic pattern. Absolute determinism would be able to say, "You will pick: A,A,A,B,A,A,A,A,A,A, in that exact pattern each time." While a random pattern with statistical nature would be "B,A,A,A...", or "A,B,A..." or "A,A,B...", or "A,A,A,B..." and so on, but always come out that of the 10 times, one time B was picked. This is a non-deterministic, but yet probabilistic view. (In my opinion, of course)

 

You're a 9, I'm a 5, I like you anyway. How statistically exasperating is that, my friend? Do you know why, by the way?

 

So why the reason you like me? Maybe because I don't call you name... or at least not too often?

 

And why do I even bother responding to you? Maybe because I like to hear my own voice? Or maybe it's because you have a certain level of accepting other people's view. Some people I can't talk to because they refuse to listen to any argument which contradicts their view, while you are willing to talk about it. And I don't think I'm a 9 or you're a 5. I think we're both closer to 7... well, maybe you're a six, but that's okay... The 9 vs 5 or any other number has to do with more parameters of compatibility than just hair color, age, or kind of beer we drink. It doesn't have to be about intelligence either, but rather personality and if we like to spend our time in introspective thoughts and share them with someone who's not only willing to listen, but willing to understand.

 

Besides, a lot of the foundation for our decision is beyond our reach. It's planted in our minds based on previous history, and we can't really tell all the time why or how. So you could say, it's my belief that this is so, but quite much based on how I have reasoned about certain sides of myself over the years. Why do I do a certain thing? Why do I like that? Why do I act that way? Why do I feel this? And so on, and even though I'm far from knowing myself, I do think I know myself much better know than any time before. And this is one danger of religious views, it stops the chance for a person to truly discover his own identity and who he really is. And I think you're more of a free spirit and disconnect yourself more from the traditional religious views, and that's why we have a fair chance of having this dialogue. (And I know I'm arrogant... don't you think I picked a fitting icon on the left?)

[Ouroboros]

I guess I've been arguing with myself then, really.

That's okay. It's not an easy topic.

 

Yes going back I can see that's not what you were saying, guess I get a little bit ahead of myself.

 

I see no problem with building our conception of reality based only on what we can directly observe and experience, I think they call that sanity. This is a tangent here, but I think we may be touching on it here, there may yet be a component of human consciousness that is separate from the purely physical. No I don't have substantial proof, mostly just anecdotal hearsay from health professionals and my own time at hospitals. Not sufficient cause to build belief on it by any means, but enough to make you wonder.

 

As for believing in the supernatural, I don't see why it would need to be. If it exists, but is out of our sphere of knowledge that doesn't make it supernatural just uncommon or unknown.

Right. The problem of: is supernatural the same as unnatural? Or is supernatural something which is natural?

[BuddyFerris]

Maybe we're on the same page then? But I'm not sure what you mean why the quantum model denies certain freedoms which are possible for me? Can you give an example? ... Lets say you have a situation where you have two options: A and B. And it so happens that you pick A. Now lets say we set up the exact situation, reverse the whole universe to be exactly the same as it was at that point, and give you the options again. Would you pick A again, or would you pick B this time?

If A is the option you would always pick in that exact same setup, it means you are following a deterministic model.

If you by chance pick option B instead, it's an in-deterministic model, or random.

Then you have the third option: if we repeat this 10 times, and we know that out of those 10 times, 9 times you will pick A, and only pick B once. And if we repeat this 10,000 times, we'll see this to be exactly the same every time. Then it's something between deterministic and random. It's random with a deterministic pattern. Absolute determinism would be able to say, "You will pick: A,A,A,B,A,A,A,A,A,A, in that exact pattern each time." While a random pattern with statistical nature would be "B,A,A,A...", or "A,B,A..." or "A,A,B...", or "A,A,A,B..." and so on, but always come out that of the 10 times, one time B was picked. This is a non-deterministic, but yet probabilistic view. (In my opinion, of course)

 

 

Probabilistic, yes. In your description though, probability makes the decision for you. Probability determines the outcome, not you and your choices. Deterministic, modified for randomization and statistical normalization, from a simple math perspective (mine, obviously).

You're a 9, I'm a 5, I like you anyway. How statistically exasperating is that, my friend? Do you know why, by the way?

Because I like to hear my own voice...

 

No, because you have a certain level of accepting other people's view. Some people I can't talk to because they refuse to listen to any argument which contradicts their view, while you are willing to talk about it. And I don't think I'm a 9 or you're a 5. I think we're both closer to 7, both of us.

 

Besides, a lot of the foundation for our decision is beyond our reach. It's planted in our minds based on previous history, and we can't really tell all the time why or how. So you could say, it's my belief that this is so, but quite much based on how I have reasoned about certain sides of myself over the years. Why do I do a certain thing? Why do I like that? Why do I act that way? Why do I feel this? And so on, and even though I'm far from knowing myself, I do think I know myself much better know than any time before. And this is one danger of religious views, it stops the chance for a person to truly discover his own identity and who he really is. And I think you're more of a free spirit and disconnect yourself more from the traditional religious views, and that's why we have a fair chance of having this dialogue. (And I know I'm arrogant... don't you think I picked a fitting icon on the left?)

Close. Actually, I'm fond of you because you're a compassionate father, a thoughtful husband, and a rather noble fellow in a difficult world. You're a pragmatic fellow who has paid a real price for the opinions he holds. You're a standup guy with a few opinions at odds with mine. I'll give you a 6.5.

 

Buddy

[Snafutopia]

Well odds are I don't know what the hell I'm talking about...

 

 

There's something I've never once heard or read any fundie say. Ever. I totally appreciate the honesty here at this board.

 

 

But what I'm trying to say here is that while scientific observation can look at the workings of the brain or take note of correlations between brain activity, emotions and certain actions etc. that does not account for the whole of human consciousness or thought. So extrapolating from scientific knowledge about the brain and the cognitive process that all consciousness is purely physical, limited to the body and deterministic seems to me like more of an assertion of belief, or a philosophy of the mind theory rather than established scientific fact or consensus.

 

 

Ok thanks and also thanks to everyone else who replied -- you've all given me (and my sieve of a brain!) lots of great stuff to think about.

[Ouroboros]

Probabilistic, yes. In your description though, probability makes the decision for you.

Yes. But consider that in the "Free" world, you only have limited number of options. And you only have certain chances of picking certain choices.

 

I make a difference between what I could call "hard determinism" and "soft determinism". The HD would be when I can predict the exact outcome from a given situation if that exact context is setup the exact same way each time. While the SD would be when there's more a probabilistic chance than a definitive outcome.

 

It's like rolling the dice. You're limited in options, but neither you or I can say what the next number will be. We can however roll 10,000 times as see that we get "1" about 1/6th of the time. But even after 10,000 times, no one of us can say what the next number will be. That's how a statistical model would work for free will. We'd make choices mainly because of our presets, but sometimes we're also influenced by small chances. I don't know. You take it for what it is. I leave it at that.

 

Probability determines the outcome, not you and your choices.

But you see, I believe myself being those things. I am part of both the deterministic world and the probabilistic quantum mechanics. I don't see "me" as being something outside, independent, and disconnected from all that. So I am a probabilistic/deterministic mix. That's my mind and my consciousness. And by separating the world from my mind, I would only push the problem to some other fantasy world where you still would have either "probabilistic" or "deterministic" or a mix. By saying that "You" are not anything of these things doesn't answer anything, it only pushes the question another step, and doing so by removing it from this world. To answer the question with: "it's a black box," doesn't really answer anything. Do you see what I'm saying?

 

Look, if "you" is not the real "you" in this world, well, then the real "you" must be outside and beyond this world. It can't be here, and be here fully, and yet not be here fully.

 

Let me challenge you with another problem: You know that you are you. You feel that you exist, and that you have an unique identity as being... well, just you and not someone else. So you feel that you have a mind, consciousness, and a "soul" (whatever that really means). Now, here's the problem. How do you know that anyone else, me, Bob, your neighbor, etc, have the same experience? How can you know that you aren't the one and only existing, living, "soul identified" being in this world? What is the proof for you that the world isn't just filled with "zombies" who walk and talk just like you, but they really don't have a soul? How do you know about other "souls?" And we can move this question into the realm of free will too: how do you know I, or Bob, or your neighbor, truly have free wills? Maybe we're just robots without it, and you're the only one who has it?

 

Deterministic, modified for randomization and statistical normalization, from a simple math perspective (mine, obviously).

Like I said above, I make a separation between determinism (meaning HD) and probabilistic (meaning SD), where in the HD case I can each time predict the outcome, while in SD I can not predict the outcome of each individual case, but only in general what the overall pattern will be.

 

Close. Actually, I'm fond of you because you're a compassionate father, a thoughtful husband, and a rather noble fellow in a difficult world. You're a pragmatic fellow who has paid a real price for the opinions he holds. You're a standup guy with a few opinions at odds with mine. I'll give you a 6.5.

I take what I can get.

 

So, if in your view Free Will is neither deterministic, neither in-deterministic (random), then what is it? What makes a decision into "your decision?" How do you propose the ownership of a decision you make? Is it based on arguments, well, then it's a chain of thoughts, and can be predictable. If it's not considered or thought about at all, but chosen based on pure chance, then it is pure chance. What do you propose to be in between those, and yet you have the ownership of the choice you made?

[Ouroboros]

Ok thanks and also thanks to everyone else who replied -- you've all given me (and my sieve of a brain!) lots of great stuff to think about.

It's a good discussion. Have you ever felt that you had an idea about something, but it's a bit blurry? And then you talk and discuss about it, and it becomes clearer because you get challenged, change the idea slightly, and move the thought towards a better understanding? Well, that's how I feel about this one. I didn't start with a clear picture, but along the way it's becoming a bit less muddy.

[The-Captain]

Ah isn't this site great? This kind of topic just gives me warm feelings all over. Think I'll just leave off for a bit and let it stew in the brain, much like Il Pope here.

[BuddyFerris]

I make a difference between what I could call "hard determinism" and "soft determinism". The HD would be when I can predict the exact outcome from a given situation if that exact context is setup the exact same way each time. While the SD would be when there's more a probabilistic chance than a definitive outcome.

I like that. Not bad.

Let me challenge you with another problem: You know that you are you. You feel that you exist, and that you have an unique identity as being... well, just you and not someone else. So you feel that you have a mind, consciousness, and a "soul" (whatever that really means). Now, here's the problem. How do you know that anyone else, me, Bob, your neighbor, etc, have the same experience? How can you know that you aren't the one and only existing, living, "soul identified" being in this world? What is the proof for you that the world isn't just filled with "zombies" who walk and talk just like you, but they really don't have a soul? How do you know about other "souls?" And we can move this question into the realm of free will too: how do you know I, or Bob, or your neighbor, truly have free wills? Maybe we're just robots without it, and you're the only one who has it?

Aha! I just KNEW you guys were all robots!

Seriously, though, I think you've hit on one of the oldest questions in philosophical thought. How do you know that what you perceive is real. Could this world I live in be just in my mind? I don't recall the classical arguments other than thinking to myself that philosophers needed to get a job and quit wasting time. Is there an answer that could be summarized in a paragraph? I like the direction you're going though...

... I make a separation between determinism (meaning HD) and probabilistic (meaning SD), where in the HD case I can each time predict the outcome, while in SD I can not predict the outcome of each individual case, but only in general what the overall pattern will be.

 

... So, if in your view Free Will is neither deterministic, neither in-deterministic (random), then what is it? What makes a decision into "your decision?" How do you propose the ownership of a decision you make? Is it based on arguments, well, then it's a chain of thoughts, and can be predictable. If it's not considered or thought about at all, but chosen based on pure chance, then it is pure chance. What do you propose to be in between those, and yet you have the ownership of the choice you made?

Here you approach the central question, I think. Our experience suggests we make choices from available options; turn left here and right at the light. It also suggests chain of thought sequences; I have a broken air conditioner, it'll cost $500 to fix, I have the money but need to spend it on tires, and it's January, so I'll put off fixing the air conditioner until late spring. Both of those are understandable, and we presume we have described them adequately even to the point of equating them to a computer program. It becomes a bit more difficult when the issues are aesthetic or ethical. Your SD description begins to approach the sticking point, I think though.

 

Consider the dilemma (this one's real): a young girl finds herself pregnant by a fellow she really doesn't respect or love. She's in a relationship with a different guy, a fine fellow who offers to marry her and raise the child as his own. She talks it through with family and friends, all of whom encourage her to marry the fine fellow and move on. Over the months, there's not a single voice disagreeing, yet in the end, she tells the biological father about his child and they eventually marry. She knew in advance that she would be giving up a beautiful future and committing herself and child to a difficult relationship and a hard path for life for them both. When I asked her how she had arrived at the decision, she described a labor of several months weighing the issues and praying. At the end, she says with confidence, it was the right thing to do. Contrary to all the voices in her life, she chose the difficult path. We might call that an HD/SD sequence, I suppose, with the conclusion being a statistical anomaly that can happen at the quantum level. The last question, though, did the quantum event just happen, thereby directing the event independent of the preceding sequence, or did she choose?

 

If the quantum event chose for her, she's an automaton. She didn't make the choice. Her life is chosen for her; all her labor (and the appearance of free will) comes down to the flip of a quantum.

 

If I were to offer an opinion at this point, since you asked, I'd probably suggest that free will would require a looser coupling between the individual and the brain/computer/program. Somewhere around this site, AM has described the brain/program as an evolving software package, continually reprogramming itself; a clever way to describe someone changing their mind. Maybe there's a clue for us there.

Buddy

[The-Captain]

Seriously, though, I think you've hit on one of the oldest questions in philosophical thought. How do you know that what you perceive is real. Could this world I live in be just in my mind? I don't recall the classical arguments other than thinking to myself that philosophers needed to get a job and quit wasting time. Is there an answer that could be summarized in a paragraph? I like the direction you're going though...

 

Rene Descartes came up with an argument I think you would like.

 

And I know you were joking but philosophy can be more important than you'd think. Looking through history most great social and technological changes were precipitated by philosophical advancement. It is in a way the most natural and accessible scientific disciplines, the right of all men as it were. Often it simply starts and ends with the question "how ought I to best live", always a worthy thing to consider.

 

Though I'd agree if you said some blokes go pretty far with it, almost to the exclusion of practicality.

[Ouroboros]

Consider the dilemma (this one's real): a young girl finds herself pregnant by a fellow she really doesn't respect or love. She's in a relationship with a different guy, a fine fellow who offers to marry her and raise the child as his own. She talks it through with family and friends, all of whom encourage her to marry the fine fellow and move on. Over the months, there's not a single voice disagreeing, yet in the end, she tells the biological father about his child and they eventually marry. She knew in advance that she would be giving up a beautiful future and committing herself and child to a difficult relationship and a hard path for life for them both. When I asked her how she had arrived at the decision, she described a labor of several months weighing the issues and praying. At the end, she says with confidence, it was the right thing to do. Contrary to all the voices in her life, she chose the difficult path. We might call that an HD/SD sequence, I suppose, with the conclusion being a statistical anomaly that can happen at the quantum level. The last question, though, did the quantum event just happen, thereby directing the event independent of the preceding sequence, or did she choose?

It's hard to know. And I think this question is heading for the real intention for the main question about Free Will, which is: does a person carry a form of responsibility for his actions? Or in other words, can justice be applied to a person's choice? But we'd be straying way to far away in this thread if we'd start discussing the issue of punishment for our actions. Anyway, in her case, it is possible that a million small events and experiences contributed to her final decision. There could be small things we don't know about, and not even she knows about. Lets say she saw a cartoon 10 years ago about some little rabbit who had to make a choice between two things, one good and one bad, and she decided to do the right thing, even though it carried some bad results, and this had some inner effect on this girl towards being inclined to take a path where she would suffer, but yet being in some sense the right thing to do. Just because we don't know all the bits and pieces to why a person make the choice, the complexity to why the brain made that decision is far beyond our reach, but yet it is a form of calculated decision. Does that make sense?

 

Have you ever read about neural net technology? It's a software (or hardware, or combination) which artificially imitate the way our neurons works. These NN can be taught (yes, you teach them, not program them) to recognize patterns and make decisions. In the early years when they were used, they were put into the submarines to identify enemy subs, and did so with an extreme accuracy. I think they got to be more accurate than the human ear+mind. Before that technology, humans had that task, and only a few people were apt enough, and trained well enough, to hear the signatures. Today, these NN systems are far more advanced, but they're barely less than a fraction of a percent of the human brain's capacity. But one day we might be able to create a system with the same amount of neurons as the human brain, and that day will be quite interesting.

 

If I were to offer an opinion at this point, since you asked, I'd probably suggest that free will would require a looser coupling between the individual and the brain/computer/program. Somewhere around this site, AM has described the brain/program as an evolving software package, continually reprogramming itself; a clever way to describe someone changing their mind. Maybe there's a clue for us there.

I believe Antlerman's definition is accurate. You know they have made AI program just like that. I heard about some laboratory where the "computer" not only did experiments, but also could come up with it's own new theories, test them, and draw conclusions. (I think I saw an article in a science magazine, but I can't be sure.)

 

I believe that when we can create a machine where the process is based on genetic algorithms, and neural nets, we'll have a new generation of artificial intelligence which would be very difficult to separate from humans. We wouldn't be able to tell if they have a "soul" or not, or if they have "free will" or not.

[Ouroboros]

Rene Descartes came up with an argument I think you would like.

Someone said that Plato pretty much laid it all out, and all the philosophical writings after him are merely footnotes.

 

And I know you were joking but philosophy can be more important than you'd think. Looking through history most great social and technological changes were precipitated by philosophical advancement. It is in a way the most natural and accessible scientific disciplines, the right of all men as it were. Often it simply starts and ends with the question "how ought I to best live", always a worthy thing to consider.

 

Though I'd agree if you said some blokes go pretty far with it, almost to the exclusion of practicality.

Sorry. I know. I will shut up now.

[The-Captain]

Yeah a lot of philosophies look like variations on that same theme, hell even a lot of Christian theology is borrowed from Platonism and Neo-Platonism. I a was always more of a fan of Aristotle and Epicurus myself.

 

Good to have you around here Hans, you're more or less our resident philosopher. Hope to have many more heavy thoughts run into my dense head by you.

[Ouroboros]

Yeah a lot of philosophies look like variations on that same theme, hell even a lot of Christian theology is borrowed from Platonism and Neo-Platonism. I a was always more of a fan of Aristotle and Epicurus myself.

My understanding is that the early Christians borrowed quite a bit from Epicureans. Epicureans in turn, of course, got a lot from Aristotle, which in turn built on Plato. And then Neo-Platonism influenced the Church even more. Basically 1-3 century, Epicurean influence, then 3rd century, more neoplatonism. To tell you the truth, I like all of those guys, even when they disagree, because they all have a point in some way or another.

 

Good to have you around here Hans, you're more or less our resident philosopher. Hope to have many more heavy thoughts run into my dense head by you.

Oh dear... resident philosopher... now we really are in deep do-do. I'm nothing but an amateur.

[The-Captain]

Oh dear... resident philosopher... now we really are in deep do-do. I'm nothing but an amateur.

 

Keeps you from being a prig

[Ouroboros]

Keeps you from being a prig

One can only hope!

[mahjong]

I, myself, have been grappling with my overly sensitive conscience and have been rethinking my own values, ethics and morals.

 

Very interesting topic. And would you care to explain a bit more about what you mean re rethinking your own values etc.? This is something I wonder about, especially in light of recent conversations with some Christians who believe values/ethics/morals are the exclusive domain of ... big surprise ... themselves

 

Hi Carmen Pope-randa- Thanks for asking.

 

Well, I really do have an overly sensitive conscience. I can't recall exactly what I was thinking at the time I wrote that. I know that I have been too hard on myself over the years. The Catholicism I was raised with was not an easy cross to bear, punintendous. I went to confession every week and how bad can a kid be? It made for a terrific (old fashioned use of the word terrific) sense of right and wrong. How dare I think I went through a whole week without sinning even one time? Me before a perfect ((((GOD))))

 

So, recently, I came across a quote by Winston Churchill: A man does what he must - in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles and dangers and pressures - and that is the basis of all human morality.

 

I am ruminating on this one for a while.

 

I don't go on the internet every day so I don't respond as quickly as some, fyi.