Free will

[Dyno_oz]

^ I have great respect for Einstein, but remember he WAS human and he DID make mistakes.

The Buddha claimed that intentional actions - acts of will - are the only real things in the universe.

The notion of agent or 'doer' is an illusion, only acts are being done.

Everything else is an illusion - unstable, impermanent and empty.

 

[elemenohpee]

Using neuron firing as a predictive tool (giving weight to determinism) is useless because:

For a start, noone has access to another person's live brain at neuron level.

We're not talking about actually predicting the future. We're just saying that theoretically, if you did have access at that level, that you could make predictions.

Each persons brain would be interconnected differently as everyone has different habits, experiences and beliefs. No two people have been exactly the same. EVER. So the firing pattern would be different for each person.

Even if it was used for one particular person, it would be constantly becoming obselete, as each moment brings new experience, which in turn 'burns in' new neural patterns at the expense of others - changing the firing pattern. [/quote]
Again, we're not talking about one specific person. This is more of a general argument. When talking about determinism, you need to take into account the exact wiring in any given person's brain.

A man's actions are not entirely due to prompts from the environment - like the 'worm analogy' suggests. He has the option to exert proactively.

For determinsm to be true, many aspects of human nature need to be ignored.

I don't think you're giving enough credit to the human brain. While a human is certainly capable of behavior vastly more complex than the worm, this is not due to any supernatural "free will" or anything, just a MUCH more complicated brain.

I have great respect for Einstein, but remember he WAS human and he DID make mistakes.

This is true, however he was one of the brightest minds this world has ever seen. So when he says something about the physical universe, it would probably be wise to weight his opinion appropriately.

 

[Dyno_oz]

This is true, however he was one of the brightest minds this world has ever seen. So when he says something about the physical universe, it would probably be wise to weight his opinion appropriately.

Aaaah. So THATS the foundation of Determinism - because Einstein said so?

The way I see it, Deterministic theory was born out of Einstein's dislike of the probability-based nature of quantum theory. Quantum theory was later shown to be a success.

Einstein was a man of great insight when it came to describing external phenemona - but when it came to the inner workings of living beings, he was ignorant. His area of expertise lay elsewhere.

It would be wise to take this into consideration.

 

[Pegasus]

Denying free will is like saying we are not conscious beings. You may want to consider the implications of this before taking determinism on board.

Not true, but I'm beggining to understand why you are fighting the concept so fiercley now.

I think you should maybe attempt to understand the concept before you go refuting it. We've explained it many times, and you're still arguing against the same misconception of it that you were originally fighting against.

 

[qwedsa]

Denying free will is like saying we are not conscious beings. You may want to consider the implications of this before claiming determinism is true.

tell me why free will is a prerequisite to consciousness?

 

[elemenohpee]

Aaaah. So THATS the foundation of Determinism? because Einstein said so?

That's not what I said at all, please don;t put words in my mouth.

The way I see it, Deterministic theory was born out of Einstein's dislike of the probability-based nature of quantum theory. Quantum theory was later shown to be a success.

I'm no expert by any means so take my opinions on this with a grain of salt. But its my understanding that the probabilities are not an actual description of what is happening in the system, but an abstract observation of the system in general. That is,l if we do an actual experiment, we find the particle at a particular place. Doing the experiment multiple times may allow us to form some probability funtion which will tell us how likely we are to find a praticle at a particular point. But this is just our observation of the universe, in reality things are happening a specific way. In any case, quantum theories have little to do with free-will.

Einstein was a man of great insight when it came to describing external phenemona - but when it came to inner workings of human nature, he was ignorant.

Are you basing this on anything?

Denying free will is like saying we are not conscious beings.

No

 

[Dyno_oz]

Not true, but I'm beggining to understand why you are fighting the concept so fiercley now.

I think you should maybe attempt to understand the concept before you go refuting it. We've explained it many times, and you're still arguing against the same misconception of it that you were originally fighting against.

I have just done some reading on determinism, and it appears that most peoples own definition and interpretation don't line up.

People can define determinism to be whatever suits them then claim it true, partly true or false, depending on their perspective.

Does this suggest free will - or is it an illusion? :D

 

[doesntmatter]

That's not what I said at all, please don;t put words in my mouth.

I'm no expert by any means so take my opinions on this with a grain of salt. But its my understanding that the probabilities are not an actual description of what is happening in the system, but an abstract observation of the system in general. That is,l if we do an actual experiment, we find the particle at a particular place. Doing the experiment multiple times may allow us to form some probability funtion which will tell us how likely we are to find a praticle at a particular point. But this is just our observation of the universe, in reality things are happening a specific way. In any case, quantum theories have little to do with free-will.

Are you basing this on anything?

No

it doesn't have to do with finding an electron in orbit with a certain probability. my point is that if you can't know everything, you can't PREDICT ANYTHING. predicting something means you make a prediction and it happens, otherwise its a prophocey. now assuming something will happen, and it happening is different.

the fact is still that you would either have to know everything, or not make a prediction.

i understand that you say that IF we could understand everything, that we could predict something.

and my point still stands, you would have to be ALL KNOWING to be able to do this. so what is the point of this theory?

again, i realize that the point of determinism doesn't rely on a human knowing everything. just that if everything is what it is, then it COULD be predicted by SOMETHING.

however determinism doesn't put a dent on free will because unless HUMANS could understand these factors that we can never understand, then we DO have free will. if our decisions to use can never be proven as just an act of force, then it IS free will.

now you can dispute what free will is, and thats getting far out there. however you can't go far enough out there to PROVE that EVERYTHING is able to be PROVED.

so where does detereminism lay in the face of human capabilities in direct relation to the fact that IF you could know enough to predict human actions (which humans can't), why would you need to predict things (you would already know everything, past and future?)

 

[Pegasus]

^

doesntmatter, the point isn't to be able to predict the future, it's to attempt to gain a deeper understanding as to how our world operates. That being said, looking at the world from a deterministic perspective does help you to see how things are likely to turn out in the future, and to act accordingly.

...as Albert Einstein so eloquently put it:

"In human freedom in the philosophical sense I am definitely a disbeliever. Everybody acts not only under external compulsion but also in accordance with inner necessity. Schopenhauer's saying, that "a man can do as he will, but not will as he will," has been an inspiration to me since my youth up, and a continual consolation and unfailing well-spring of patience in the face of the hardships of life, my own and others'. This feeling mercifully mitigates the sense of responsibility which so easily becomes paralysing, and it prevents us from taking ourselves and other people too seriously; it conduces to a view of life in which humour, above all, has its due place."

The prediction part you understand... That isn't the purpose, though.

As far as human prediction goes, you don't have to know every single contributing factor to get a good idea of how things might turn out. We utilize this strategy all the time.

 

[doesntmatter]

^^^

i most definitely agree.

a man can do as he will, but not will as he will.

that comes down to your choice to "do."

i agree in the many agents that have an affect on human will.

i disagree that humans can't control their actions. no matter what the will, they still have to act on it.

 

[Pegasus]

^I'm a bit confused as to what you're saying...

Do you agree that humans can control their actions, but how they will control them is determined beforehand?

 

[doesntmatter]

not in those words

more that humans can control their actions, not what they want to do.

in other words i see free will is the option of what WILL you will act on, not the fact that you WANT to do something.

does that make any sense?

 

[Pegasus]

^Yeah, I understand. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[doesntmatter]

we're racking up posts here.

i'm don't think i'm disputting the fact that determinism can exist, just that it wouldn't have an effect on humans free will. by the fact that humans can't understand determinism ( what "would" or "could" have an effect on the outcomes/predictions.)

the way i see it determinism would only work in a world that could be completely understood at every level buy humans assuming that the very outcomes or predictions could be understood by humans aswell. it doesn't make sense to me

however your rebuttle has been very interesting. i appreciate it.

 

[elemenohpee]

doesntmatter: Being able to predict things has nothing to do with free-will or determinism. All it is is a way to visualize how a deterministic universe would work. Whether or not we could actually know everything (which is impossible) does not affect the truth or falsity of determinism.

 

[qwedsa]

i disagree that humans can't control their actions. no matter what the will, they still have to act on it.

no one has said we can't control our actions! ive said this multiple times

the point is that even the process of choosing 'what to act on' is itself only a description of an abstract level of groups of atoms acting in harmony with the laws of nature

if by free will you mean the ability to choose our actions, then computers have free will in the same manner, the only difference being who/what is the programmer

the way i see it determinism would only work in a world that could be completely understood at every level buy humans assuming that the very outcomes or predictions could be understood by humans aswell. it doesn't make sense to me

whether the universe functions in a deterministic manner does not depend, in any way, on whether we can understand the universe or not. the universe can exist without us, right?

 

[Dyno_oz]

whether the universe functions in a deterministic manner does not depend, in any way, on whether we can understand the universe or not. the universe can exist without us, right?

Whether the universe fits the deterministic model is irrelevant. The universe itself apears to be dead and incapable of action.

In some way, I agree that human beings live subject to certain natural laws - but they are different to scientific laws.

 

[Pegasus]

See, what people versed in science don't realise that scientific laws are more like guidelines - some can be bent, others broken - under the right INNER conditions.

If you grew up in India, there's a good chance you would seen people peforming miracles on the street. Ones outlook on those laws you hold so dear would be very different.

 

[qwedsa]

In some way, I agree that human beings live subject to certain natural laws - but they are different to scientific laws.

no. unless you're about to walk through a building.. we are bound by scientific laws. because we are made up of natural material, and natural material follows natural laws

any other kind of law would be A. made by humans B. subjective and C. breakable

Whether the universe fits the deterministic model is irrelevant. The universe itself apears to be dead and incapable of action.

this is getting sorta silly. the universe is incapable of action? what do you mean by this?

 

[Dyno_oz]

qwedsa, what I meant by that was, you can't use the universe as an analogy for a human being. Yes, casual matter, unbound to a living, willing being follows the laws of physics. But from what I have read, there is more to a human being than meets the eye - or the laws of physics.

Imagine you had the good fortune to see someone bend scientific laws.

Like a man walked on water like it was land - or sunk into solid land like it was water - or they willed themselves to float in the air.

Would you believe me that a human being can transcend the laws that deal with casual matter?

See, a person like this would change Schopenhauer's saying: 'man does what he wills out of conditioning - he CAN will what he wills under certain inner conditions.'

I have not seen it done, but have read books written last century of first hand accounts where things like this have been observed - by a westerner.

The book is named: Life and teaching of the masters of the far east - by Baird T. Spalding (6 vol. set)