Victor Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 There is no free will in the sense of free from material, objective, constrained, physical reality. Whatever mind executing choice does so engulfed and delimitated by physical/material reality, because mind is an emerging property of complex organisms; organisms which are themselves composed of only physical/material stuff. Whatever laws and properties, whatever principles of cause and effect govern the interactions of matter and energy, do the same for the matter and energy where any Mind is operating upon. But there is free will in the sense that a sufficiently intelligent and healthy mind existing within an organism is independent enough and capable to pursue preferred states (to identify properties of itself and its environment, and hopefully other beings as well, and to select a course of action out of a plethora of possible candidates based on the expected outcome and its virtue and value).
Mark Bernhardt Posted February 6, 2013 Posted February 6, 2013 I think this is a subject that was closed by Stefan due to a lot of previous debate and conclusions. Thats a great thought and you should check this out http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2010/04/1236/ and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anBxaOcZnGk Thanks for the brain food!
Rick Horton Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 I think it's kind of a simple debate, although frustrating if over done. Since I think therefore I am, and I know in my reality that I must make choices, I therefore have free will.
batou Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 A computer program also makes choices (for example an if then, else statement). By your logic it has free will.
Rick Horton Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 No. Not really. A computer doesn't really make choices does it? Anyhow, if they do, they still don't have self awareness (unless there is some new computer that does) I have self awareness so I have free will because I know "of" my possible multitude of choices, options, that I could choose, and I think about those ideas and decide. You know, again, I think therefore I am, and so I know I can make choices, therefore I have free will.
batou Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 A computer makes choices based on data (data, variable states), just as we do. If something then something else something else The difference is that our choices (the if then) and the data (the something) that we gather are of a much higher complexity than what a computer usually has to work with. But we could, if we were smart enough, write a program that would be just as self aware as we are and just as smart. I have self awareness so I have free will because I know "of" my possible multitude of choices, options, that I could choose, and I think about those ideas and decide. [/font]We could already maybe say, that there are programs that are "self aware," these are programs that recursively modify their own code. Everything that they do happens deterministically. You know, again, I think therefore I am, and so I know I can make choices, therefore I have free will. [/font]I'm sorry, but this does not follow, unless you can prove that free will comes from self awareness (or whatever you are trying to say by I think, therefore I am)
Rob_Ilir Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 People who do not believe in free will, do not need to listen to any otheropinions.I think it's in the same boat as ancap/ancom over "ownership", youare saying that a toothbrush is free will, but a waterfall is not.
Rick Horton Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Right. I agree. And one cannot, and doesn't have to prove they have free will to anybody, since both proving that and existence it's self are inherent to the observer. Just saying, and understanding, that I know I make choices is enough for me fundamentally and totally to make it true. This is because in my experience of reality I have to make countless choices everyday whether I want to or not, sometimes not, but I always choose from multiple possibilities. I know this as myself, the one who is thinking. What cannot be proven is the existence of anybody else outside of my experience. But proving my own experience, and the apparent rules and laws within my experience is futile. I think therefore I am. I can't think of a more rational approach than that, but it's not that I'm the best self communicator, although I practice constantly.
Rick Horton Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 It fits in, although I'm not sure how. I just feel it does from a gut feeling. But just knowing, "knowing" I have a group of possibilities, and then choosing from those does give me at least a good lattitude for choice making, and the possibility to let that extent of free will carry myself to a different state than a mere deterministic conclusion. It's not a perfect concept, surely, but y'know, it's philosophy so discussion brings clarity, or at least tries to get closer to the truth. As I see things at this point, here, free will is just self evident. It's an axiom.
batou Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Repeating the same things again won't make them any more true. Once you use gut feelings as your arguement, then what you are saying stops being philosophy. Could you explain how are your choices different from what a computer program does? People who do not believe in free will, do not need to listen to any other opinions. Why not? Care to explain more?
Rob_Ilir Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Repeating the same things again won't make them any more accurate. Once you use gut feelings as your arguement, then what you are saying stops being philosophy. People who do not believe in free will, do not need to listen to any other opinions. Why not? Care to explain more? The opinion of others are considered not to be the free will automatically, making the non free will point somehow. I consider it a free will in itself, to even bring this topic up, becouse we all know there is something to put a flag on if got right, but its like string theory and other free will make beliefs.
Rick Horton Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 Repeating the same things again won't make them any more true. Once you use gut feelings as your arguement, then what you are saying stops being philosophy. Could you explain how are your choices different from what a computer program does? People who do not believe in free will, do not need to listen to any other opinions. Why not? Care to explain more? Well, the 2nd quote was somebody elses, but I'll address the first. The difference is that I have no way of knowing a computer's experience of reality if it has one at all, but I do know mine, and the choices I make are choices I'm aware of that have options. Depending on what I choose I get a different result. It's impossible to rationally argue any of this, because none of this is at a point where science can give an answer. As far as gut feelings go, I think they are valid in being a prime motivator of the initiation of truth. I agree that it's not good enough, but it's the first prod in a certain direction most of the time. I could have used the word hunch, maybe. From following my hunch further I'm confident that the best answer at this point is that I experience the ability to choose, and that experience is definitely a part of my reality. The reality. The only provable reality. I have to make choices, so in that way free will is determined to happen. I don't however find there to be any reasonable explanation that could be put forward to conclude that our decisions were always going to be the ones we chose. In hind-sight, yes, but in real time there's no explanation yet put forward that choices are illusions, or something like that.
Metric Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 A computer makes choices based on data (data, variable states), just as we do. If something then something else something else The difference is that our choices (the if then) and the data (the something) that we gather are of a much higher complexity than what a computer usually has to work with. But we could, if we were smart enough, write a program that would be just as self aware as we are and just as smart. I have self awareness so I have free will because I know "of" my possible multitude of choices, options, that I could choose, and I think about those ideas and decide. We could already maybe say, that there are programs that are "self aware," these are programs that recursively modify their own code. Everything that they do happens deterministically. You know, again, I think therefore I am, and so I know I can make choices, therefore I have free will. I'm sorry, but this does not follow, unless you can prove that free will comes from self awareness (or whatever you are trying to say by I think, therefore I am) Yes, this is an excellent point, along with the OP. Sure, there is something you can call "free will," but it could equally well apply to a deterministic computer. If the computer has a basic model of itself, its environment, and it acts in the world to fulfill its preferences (making a rational calculation of "if I do X, then the outcome is better for me than if I do Y"), then it can be said to have free will. It's just a matter of having reasonable definitions.
Rick Horton Posted February 7, 2013 Posted February 7, 2013 I think I agree on this regard if this is what we are calling choice, and free will. We have limitations. Computers have limitations, etc.... I do think that in order to have something called free will it's essential to know you have free will. The self awareness principal seems like it gives the idea it's real meaning. Awareness plus choices, plus decisions equals free will. I'm not saying that's concrete, but it does seem right, and important in this conversation. Being, and feeling present seem to be almost a requirement. I guess because if you aren't aware, free will doesn't come with any responsibilities, and the responsibility part seems to come from the self awareness part in conjunction with the decision part.
Victor Posted February 8, 2013 Author Posted February 8, 2013 A computer, or an amoeba, to a degree (although extremely limited) have some awareness of their environment. A typical computer running windows perceives its environment through its keyboard and mouse, and the intelligence written into its programming is able to perform input-output tasks. An amoeba displaces itself and engulfs its food when it perceives it in the environment. To this day though, computers and amoebas are unable to modify their behavior driven by self-knowledge and self-analysis, and ulterior considerations about their wellbeing. The good for them is written into their intelligence, either by human programming or by the ruthlessness of natural evolution. The concept of Free Will is valid if we are to consider the ability sufficiently intelligent and healthy beings exhibit of being able to separate their decision-making process from their inherited (fixed) intelligence, and allow a process of self-identification and examination to drive aspects of their behavior. Although this only accounts for a subset of the entire individual’s behavior, given the prioritization and capacity to override most of other behavior patterns and outcomes, one cannot avoid realizing that this is the most fundamentally essential characteristic of these beings. Regardless if it’s a great ape, a whale or dolphin, a Velociraptor, a green alien, Skynet or a politician, achieving this capacity takes you into a whole new category. Now, I’ve seen some argue for the invalidity of this concept, basing their logic in the fact that there is no freedom from cause and effect relationships in matter and physical laws. This is, I think, a disappointment reaction at realizing the non-existence of a soul, and some force or realm beyond reality where our mind resides. I think that those who argue for no free will do so from a place of scorn for the material reality of our brains. I think the unconscious processes in their minds go something like this: Our minds are not immortal, and there is no transcendence to interconnectedness with the universe or a god. We are left alone and isolated. As material reality is inferior to the higher realm of goodness and virtue where the mind of gods reside, whatever material process that goes on in the brain cannot be elevated to the level of a mind. The best way to achieve undermining the brain of seemingly self-conscious humans is to state the self-evident claim that there is no freedom from reality, thus there is no choice beyond the materially-physically driven reactions. This does not qualify as mind, so there is no free will. The brain is pathetic and man is doomed to servitude to mater and its inescapable nature. You can easily imagine this as some sort of projection, and also sadly imagine the place where this comes from. I can imagine a child scorning him or herself for being an individual in the face of narcissistic and sadistic parents.
Rick Horton Posted February 8, 2013 Posted February 8, 2013 Right, right, but projection or not, we "are" or atleast I know " I am " and I know this because I'm experiencing "something" for sure, and that experience "is" something. So when I decide, I can safely say that I had to at least think about the possibilities before making a selection. There's no scientific evidence that we don't actually do that, or that "I" don't do that.
LFReasons Posted February 11, 2013 Posted February 11, 2013 Consciousness has a cause, thoughts have a cause, choices have a cause. This does not somehow mean that people cannot be persuaded, change their minds, or think. In fact, arguing for that theist notion of free will would make reason, logic and evidence totally impotent. Logic and reason exist and are valid because the world is deterministic. If it were not, we would not be "free", as we would have no meaningful way to understand or affect the world.
Recommended Posts