Free will

[delta_9]

delta9, intranasal administration of oxytocin (other administration routes wont get it into the brain) increases feelings of trust, empathy, love. thereve been numerous studies involving the molecule (and vasopressin, a closely related molecule) in forming social bonds, and having a role in empathy. what i am trying to get at is that the emotion of love (like the other emotions) is biological/physical in nature, and merely makes us compute data differently than otherwise. it doesnt make us "not a computer"

regarding your next post, im not sure that youre familiar with the terminology we're using

>>if society and parents arent the program then what is?>>

society, parents, are some of hte major influences of your programs. but you cant say htat "they are the programs". a program is software within your brain that takes in data, processes it, and sends output. programs are, basicly, what allow you to think and reason and manipulate reality based on your senses, and htey are what allow your PC to run the explorer browser your'e using. both cases require input, processing (decisions), and output

>>theres no denying that computers can only be as smart as the person who made it>>

well there are many different kinds of 'smarts.' in any case theres no reason why a computer couldnt be as smart as its maker because of how flexible computer's programming can be. this fact will be obvious to everyone once computers start creating better computers... as far as speed and rate of error goes, by the way, computers far surpass the brain already

i reccomend wikipedia'ing some of these concepts...

your the one who said society and our genes are our "programs", i brought it back so i could try to disprove it, i never said i think that, and computers dont surpass the brain since it was the human brain which spawned th computer, thats like saying that humans are smarter than god, since god created us(supposedly)
this is a quote from dictionary.com and the definition of "computer"-"Also called processor. an electronic device designed to accept data, perform prescribed mathematical and logical operations at high speed, and display the results of these operations." im not electronic, neihter are you, so there for, we are not computers

 

[Pegasus]

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a human action that can't be explained through mechanical decision making strategies of the brain.

I figured I should explain this a bit more, as I was in a rush earlier. Notice I use the phrase "can't be explained"... What I mean by this is that the deterministic way of thinking isn't going to be disproven through logical means. The fact that you can logically argue that everything fits into a mechanical framework is my point.

 

[Tokey-tokerson]

Your body + experiences = output.

A computer can be programmed to do that.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find a human action that can't be explained through mechanical decision making strategies of the brain.

Edited.

No not really. I could take a shit on the floor if I want to. I can kill myself.

Computers are just dumb machines that perform functions programed into them.

I don't get why some people can't get the fact that we can have free will with the future still set in stone.

 

[Xorkoth]

I believe pretty much exactly what the OP stated. Time itself is a continuum. Past and future are all laid out already on an axis. We only perceive it as passing because our brains are filters for raw perception, so that we may live a successful physical life. At any given moment, you make decisions based upon the factors leading up to that moment. It's your decision, but if you were repeatedly go back to the same moment, you'd always have the same set of factors and thought process present that led you to that decision in the first place.

Hence, free will is an illusion, although our egoes are still making the decisions. But our egoes are made up entirely of the factors from the past which made them. It's a bit of a paradox, as is so much of existence.

 

[Xorkoth]

im not electronic, neihter are you, so there for, we are not computers

Actually, we're run via bioelectric impulses. The difference between our brains and computers is that our brains are analog processors, whereas computers are digital processors. A digital processor reads each piece of data at a 0 or 1, on or off, yes or no, whereas an analog processor is able to see shades of grey.

So really, our brains are just very advance computers, so advances that we haven't really even begun to understand how they work as a whole to make us.

 

[vegan]

^i believe his point was that if we cannot predict a person's actions given sufficient data (ie, universe is probabalistic instead of fully deterministic), you still cannot say that there is a free will choosing

with a probabalistic universe, instead of strict laws that govern particles choosing your decisions, you have loose laws that govern particles choosing your decisions (or, randomness chooses)

ok
we then have 3 possibilities, not 2
- deterministic universe
- probabilistic universe
- free will

how can the universe be deterministic, if the laws that dictate its evolution are probabilistic?

even if we were to look at only one electron, and that we could magically know its position and speed (which from my understanding are not even "applicable" simultaneously), its wave function could only give us the probabilities of future positions, not the outcome itself

and this incapacity to predict wouldn't just be a limit of our ability to calculate the electron's position, but would be due to the fact that its future position is simply not pre-determined/pre-determinable, even "in absolute", outside of our own knowledge

What could a conscious choice be based on other than predetermined factors?

does it have to be based on anything?

if given 2 similar options, you choose one
is the choice any less conscious because it's not influenced by anything?
or is the choice of a option without any external influences the very definition of free will?

i understand the most basic degree of free will as the capacity to "choose without any factors influencing the decision", "to choose with will itself"
and in this situation, the choice doesn't have to be justified (= based on something)
the fact that the choice exists is the very proof of free will

and so, in its most simple form, i do think that free will and randomness overlap


to finish, here's a highly speculative theory
it would be that our consciousness may emerge from our material components, but may in return be able to influence them :
the particles forming our bodies organize themselves in a complex system that gives birth to consciousness
and that consciousness is doted of free will, and able to influence the apparently random fluctuations of said particles in order to fit its "free choices"

 

[elemenohpee]

No not really. I could take a shit on the floor if I want to. I can kill myself.

Computers are just dumb machines that perform functions programed into them.

I don't get why some people can't get the fact that we can have free will with the future still set in stone.

That last sentance completely contradicts itself. If the future is set in stone, then BY DEFINITION, you cannot choose to go against it. No choice, no free-will. If you want us to understand your opinion, then youd better come up with a good explanation for it, better than "I feel like I have free will, so I do."

And get off the whole computer thing, its a false analogy. The reason a computer seems dumb is that it is MUCH less complex than the human brain. If you want to compare a computer to something, it would make (relatively)much more sense to compare it to some very primitive animal.

Delta_9, it would help the discussion a lot if you would familiarize yourself with some of the concepts we're talking about. Your points are not really doing anything because you're misunderstanding what we're trying to say.
Try reading some of these wikipedia articles:
determinism
free will
compatabilism

functionalism


I feel like a broken record, but people keep arguing points that the determinists have already adressed. Here (I think) is the argument we're putting forward, in the simplest terms I can come up with. (Anyone else feel free to amend this) Yes, free-will exists. In the sense that you are free to do as you choose. The key concept here is the definition of the self. It is not I REPEAT NOT your conscious experience. What it is, is a very complex system, built with your genetics, and modified by your life experiences. This is all encoded into your brain with physical circuits, this is what makes you different from anyone else. You are a physical system, and in that sense, that physical system makes decisions that you want it to. Where determinists have a problem with free will is when you step back from the individual and look at it with relation to the rest of the universe. Here we see that this "you" construct is really just a complex manifestation of physical laws. But you ARE these physical laws, that is what you are, a very complex pattern that emerges out of the laws of the universe. So you don't choose what decision to make, you're too busy making the decision. Really TRY to understand this concept. Its not like anything is going to change if you stop believing in free-will, I still feel like I have it, but now I just recognize it for what it is. So please, no more "I feel like I have free-will" arguments.

 

[elemenohpee]

Defining 'soul' or 'self' would be buying into the ego-based illusion that they exist.

The self does exist, the illusion is that it is seperate from everything else.

Consciousness needs to exist for free will to exist. From what I have read, consciousness does not need time, space, an ego, a body or a mind to 'be' - essentially 'empty' - like void space. The self-causation paradox dissolves and free will is inferred true.

I don't know where you read that, but it has no basis in reality.

 

[Revrent_mike]

At any given moment, you make decisions based upon the factors leading up to that moment. It's your decision, but if you were repeatedly go back to the same moment, you'd always have the same set of factors and thought process present that led you to that decision in the first place.

Kurt Vonnegut's, "Time Warp", is based on a glitch in the continuum where the whole world lives through the last 10 years over again, without knowing they had already done each and every event exaxtly the same way as the first time. Kilgore Trout is the only one in the world who by some fluke remembers that he already did it and is doing it all over again, but still can't change what he does. So for him it is hell knowing exactly what he did tomorrow but still have to do it again.

 

[Medatripper Tates]

I don't know where you read that, but it has no basis in reality.

it could never have a basis in a reality bound by these limitations (time, space, body, ego)

The self does exist, the illusion is that it is seperate from everything else.

the illusion lies in using only the definition of the self to understand it.

 

[Tokey-tokerson]

That last sentance completely contradicts itself. If the future is set in stone, then BY DEFINITION, you cannot choose to go against it. No choice, no free-will. If you want us to understand your opinion, then youd better come up with a good explanation for it, better than "I feel like I have free will, so I do."

It doesn't contradict itself at all. I'm glad you can use the shift button though.

Seriously though, you choose what the future will be. You make choices of your own free will. Believe it or not free will and fate are not in two totally seperate boats. But you will have to actually think about this yourself, as I understand your arguement, but we're only really argueing the definition of free will. To me free will is defined as having chioces, you might say it's an illusion, but so is the earth travelling around the sun


Edit: btw, quoting philosophy proves nothing. A philosopher is just someone who thinks about stuff, just like anyone else can.

 

[Dyno_oz]

OK.

What is stopping you from accepting free will is self evident?

The self-causation paradox?

You could say there is a 'loophole' for self-causation - the impermanance of the universe.

The cause that brought 'the universe' into 'existance' is unknoweable from where we stand, as there was no way to physically observe before time and space began. Hence, what happened before that point doesn't matter.

Moving forward, let's look at the evidence.

Maybe we weren't alive before life on earth. Conditions arose for life. So life began. Conditions were ripe for life to evolve, so life evolved. Billions of years ago, we may have spent countless lives as amobeas. Billions of years later, conditions became ripe for single celled life to evolve into animals and plants. Later still, animals very slowly became more advanced until humans like us evolved. So here we are today.

Notice how life's freedom for self-determined action evolved from amoeba-> plant-> animal-> human?

It could be said that free will evolved with life itself.

As far as I am aware, I did not cause time and space to begin and I did not cause 'myself' to 'exist'. Yet here I am today, able to spontaneuosly choose my actions and beliefs - 'standing on the sholders' of countless generations of ancestors.

So the genetic arguement used to back determism can be used to support free will also.

Nyer.

 

[Pegasus]

Edit: btw, quoting philosophy proves nothing. A philosopher is just someone who thinks about stuff, just like anyone else can.

Where is philosophy quoted, other than what I quoted at the beginning of the thread?

Yet here I am today, able to spontaneuosly choose my actions and beliefs - 'standing on the sholders' of countless generations of ancestors.

My question to you is "Do you think those spontaneous choices would be the same, if you lived the moment of the choice over and over again?"

You too, tokey (and anyone else)...

 

[Dyno_oz]

My question to you is "Do you think those spontaneous choices would be the same, if you lived the moment of the choice over and over again?"

That doesn't matter either.

Relativity states that ain't gonna happen :D

 

[Pegasus]

^It does matter. This isn't about time travel...

Come on, humor me with an answer.

Please?

 

[elemenohpee]

It doesn't contradict itself at all. I'm glad you can use the shift button though.

Seriously though, you choose what the future will be. You make choices of your own free will. Believe it or not free will and fate are not in two totally seperate boats. But you will have to actually think about this yourself, as I understand your arguement, but we're only really argueing the definition of free will. To me free will is defined as having chioces, you might say it's an illusion, but so is the earth travelling around the sun

It IS a choice, a choice that is made based on those underlying factors. In other words, if we were to go back and run through the scenario a million times, with the exact same initial conditions each time, the outcome would always be the same. There is no supernatural ego "choosing" anything, the choice is made based on the neural structure of that person. If you include this in your definition of the self, then its fine to say that person A chose to do action B. What doesn't make sense is to say that person A could have chosen between action B and action C.

Edit: btw, quoting philosophy proves nothing. A philosopher is just someone who thinks about stuff, just like anyone else can.

Who was quoting philosophy?

 

[Medatripper Tates]

My question to you is "Do you think those spontaneous choices would be the same, if you lived the moment of the choice over and over again?"

You too, tokey (and anyone else)...

your question can mean multiple things to me... care to clarify?

 

[delta_9]

Actually, we're run via bioelectric impulses. The difference between our brains and computers is that our brains are analog processors, whereas computers are digital processors. A digital processor reads each piece of data at a 0 or 1, on or off, yes or no, whereas an analog processor is able to see shades of grey.

So really, our brains are just very advance computers, so advances that we haven't really even begun to understand how they work as a whole to make us.

your right about one thing, we havent begun to understand the human mind, but were far from computers, if u need more proof, wikipedia defines a computer as a machine for manipulating data acoording to a list of instructions known as a program. i hope u dont come back saying were machines now

 

[SmC]

our bodies are machines. our brains take in, process/integrate, and output information. in other words they are computers

What aload of rubbish. Computers are machines. We are living human beings. There is a difference, its not that hard to understand.

computers can have emotions (it's been done). all an emotion is, is someting influencing the the mind's processing of information! for example, the sight of a predator may trigger stimulation of thought processes, a motivation to flee, etc. this can be done on a biological organism or an electrical robot in the EXACT same way.

You have a false understanding of what emotions are and I feel you're just trying to make it look like you know what you're on about to try and prove your point.
Computers can't have emotions otherwise they wouldn't be called computers would they? Our emotions are influenced, computers so-called emotions are programmed in. There's a huge difference.

to say that emotions make us unlike computers is silly because all emotions do is make us compute data in different ways than normal, but we're still computing data

I think you'll find that's what many scientists say is what seperates us from being computers, so, you calling them silly?

an emotion is another influence on our decision, sure. but how would that lead to the conclusion that we make our decisions independent of the physical matter making up our brain? emotions are electrical-chemical in nature, just like the rest of our decision making processes

We make the final decision, no matter what, I could've ignored your post if I wanted to, but made the final decision not to becuase I wanted to reply. I have ignored these influences before so you can't really say its becuase of them.

to act on those influences is down to 'you', sure, but there is no metaphysical entity choosing. it's YOU choosing, and YOU are made of atoms, and the ATOMS follow physical laws, so every thought and action of YOU (given sufficient data) is predictable, so determinism works

Determinism is just a theory, I don't know why you keep talking about it like its fact. If I didn't feel like I had free will there would be no point in existing,.

 

[Drug-Alchemist]

I urge you to think it from this point: Destiny, free will and random change are same thing.

I'm here now. Nothing else matters. Whether I'm put here(Destiny), came here(Free Will) or just happen to be here(Random Change) is irrelevant. In all instances, I'm here now, and what I choose(Free Will) to become(Destiny) is what is(Random Change) relevant.

We are as much agents of our own free will, as we are pawns of destiny. And from our choices spur the seeds of random change.