100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: E=M*c2 | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Sun 11/16/08 08:27 PM
|
|
Nice thread. I suspect that I will enjoy this forum more than religion...
Regarding "free" will, with the will being understood as that part of us which determines the choices we make. I am personally a firm believer that no such thing exists. In order to choose anything with intention and purpose, one must have knowledge of that choice. In order to choose "better" one must know of "better". Free... as in completely independent of all influence? Not on your life. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I’m not sure which “belief” you mean, but I think you mean free will, so I’ll take a stab at that. The simplest and clearest example of free will, that I can think of, would be "imagining something that does not currently exist in the physical universe". The imagined thing is not in any way dependent upon anything physical. The decision to imagine it is the exercise of free will - the "cause". Is that what you meant by an example? Yes, the "free will" belief. I apologize for not being specific. Let's see if I understand this now. I'll start with "imagining something that doesn't currently exsist in the universe". Ok, If we go back in time, the day before I came up with the idea of an invention something that never exsisted in the current universe. We'll call this item "X". Next, "the imagined thing is not in any way dependent upon anything physical". If I am understanding this correctly, this would be the actual idea or abstract thought in regards to item X? "The decision to imagine (item X) it is the exercise of free will- the cause". Say I come up with the idea for item X (which never exsisted before in the universe)- just out of the blue? I didn't make a decision to think about it, it was without cognitive effort (intent), and it's not based on any other variables from other sources for the idea of item X (E.G. the idea for a gasoline powered vehicle evolving from the horse and buggy). Basically a "Eureka" moment. "The act of imagining is the effect of that decision, just as the imagined thing is the effect of the action of imagining". If I comprehend this accurately, you're conveying this as a converse theorem; However, I'm still having difficulty factoring the "decision" into the equation (based on the previous paragraph). Am I close here to what you're saying? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the "free will" belief. I apologize for not being specific. Let's see if I understand this now. I'll start with "imagining something that doesn't currently exsist in the universe". Ok, If we go back in time, the day before I came up with the idea of an invention something that never exsisted in the current universe. We'll call this item "X". This may be nit-picky, but if you go back in time, there is no concept of item X. The concept of item X never existed before it was imagined. Next, "the imagined thing is not in any way dependent upon anything physical". If I am understanding this correctly, this would be the actual idea or abstract thought in regards to item X? "The decision to imagine (item X) it is the exercise of free will- the cause". Say I come up with the idea for item X (which never exsisted before in the universe)- just out of the blue? I didn't make a decision to think about it, it was without cognitive effort (intent), and it's not based on any other variables from other sources for the idea of item X (E.G. the idea for a gasoline powered vehicle evolving from the horse and buggy). Basically a "Eureka" moment. Not quite. Free will requires decision. If there is no decision involved, then it’s not what I mean when I say free will. Decision is the “will” part of free will. "The act of imagining is the effect of that decision, just as the imagined thing is the effect of the action of imagining". If I comprehend this accurately, you're conveying this as a converse theorem; However, I'm still having difficulty factoring the "decision" into the equation (based on the previous paragraph). I think I see where the confusion may lie. It is my own fault for giving a poor example. The example I gave was not an example of free will, it was an example of the results or effects of free will. The act of imagining and the imagined things would simply be the “ripples” cause by the exercise of free will. So after pondering it for quite a while, I realized something… The problem with giving an example of free will in response to a request for it, is that any response to the request can be conceived as being other-determined. That is, the very fact that it is a response to the request indicates that it is dependent upon the request, thus implying that the response was the effect of the request and not really free at all. So what am I to do with that? Obviously I could refuse to respond. But that just prompts the exact same conclusion – that the refusal to respond was caused by the request. So in thinking it over, I have decided that I do not know how to give you an irrefutable example of free will. And that’s as close as I can come to an example of free will.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nice thread. I suspect that I will enjoy this forum more than religion... Yes, after some consideration I realized that that would most likely be your position. Regarding "free" will, with the will being understood as that part of us which determines the choices we make. I am personally a firm believer that no such thing exists. In order to choose anything with intention and purpose, one must have knowledge of that choice. In order to choose "better" one must know of "better". Free... as in completely independent of all influence? Not on your life. With your pardon, I will thank you and excuse myself from our debate. Peace. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Mon 11/17/08 12:55 AM
|
|
What if a person was to have all influence stripped away hypothetically? Or never acquired said influences.
Can we imagine a way that could be done? Just to say there is influence does not in itself deny free will, it just says that the free will would almost in every circumstance be hindered by influences, but to be influenced does not dictate the decision, it only has a degree of control based on the degree of the influence, and for yes or no answers if all influence pushes for no, and you still answer yes . . . . So what would an influences less, and/or non influenced persons life be like? It may be dismal but would it be possible? Tackle this issue from the other side. What is influence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
energy comes from........sugar and caffeine
yayyyyyyyyy |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine we could take a snapshot of every location, velocity, and energy of every atom in the universe. Our calculations are absolutely precise. (Quite a stretch here!)
Now we use those values as our input to a computer model of the universe. We run the simulation for 5 minutes. Is it possible, running the exact simulation for the same amount of time with the same input values, that you can get different outcomes? In my opinion - nope, that's not possible. The calculations will look at 1's and 0's and produce an outcome. People's brains existing inside the simulation may think they're making a "free choice", but in reality, from the second they make that choice, they were always predestined to have made exactly that choice. In making a decision, you change the probability to 100% that you would choose that decision. :) So making a "choice" in itself means we have no free will. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Of course - my little experiment above would take a frame of reference existing outside of our universe. Then you have the whole problem of "changing values by measuring them" so you could never get an accurate picture of the universe. A little uncertainty at the beginning could butterfly-effect itself into totally different outcomes for the simulation.
So I'm both saying that free will doesn't exist, and that from our point of view, it absolutely does exist. :) To me, the universe is deterministic, but from inside the universe, it would be impossible to realize. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
energy comes from........sugar and caffeine yayyyyyyyyy  QED http://www.mtv.com/videos/movies/191872/bouncing-off-the-walls.jhtml#id=1575259 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In regards to going back in time: I returned to this forum to view comments. Noticing in re-reading my previous comments that I had misspelled the word "existed" several times (which I have no excuse for, other than sheer stupidity). Obviously the desire to edit was overwhelming; However, the "edit" icon had disappeared... only to prove that time travel is possible and unfortunately limited here. Where is Sam Beckett (the main character from the television show "Quantum Leap) when you need him in puting things right that once went wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
beeorganic
on
Mon 11/17/08 10:14 AM
|
|
Imagine we could take a snapshot of every location, velocity, and energy of every atom in the universe. Our calculations are absolutely precise. (Quite a stretch here!) Now we use those values as our input to a computer model of the universe. We run the simulation for 5 minutes. Is it possible, running the exact simulation for the same amount of time with the same input values, that you can get different outcomes? In my opinion - nope, that's not possible. The calculations will look at 1's and 0's and produce an outcome. People's brains existing inside the simulation may think they're making a "free choice", but in reality, from the second they make that choice, they were always predestined to have made exactly that choice. In making a decision, you change the probability to 100% that you would choose that decision. :) So making a "choice" in itself means we have no free will. You raise an interesting point. While I understand and mostly concur with your comment, I was pondering how would you factor in the variable if one does not make a choice (which is also considered a "choice"/option)- from an individual perspective. In a binary system of 1's and 0's one is provided with two options; However, if neither is selected would your simulation stop or go into an infinite loop at the point a choice (between a 1 and 0) wasn't made? Perhaps making no choice at all would be the only example of "free will" (as per your given model)? Even though I believe that "no choice" by the individual would be cancelled out by inertia (the decisions/choices of others). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/17/08 10:02 AM
|
|
What if a person was to have all influence stripped away hypothetically? Or never acquired said influences. Can we imagine a way that could be done? Just to say there is influence does not in itself deny free will, it just says that the free will would almost in every circumstance be hindered by influences, but to be influenced does not dictate the decision, it only has a degree of control based on the degree of the influence, and for yes or no answers if all influence pushes for no, and you still answer yes . . . . So what would an influences less, and/or non influenced persons life be like? It may be dismal but would it be possible? Tackle this issue from the other side. What is influence. I don't think influence has anything to do with free will. The simple fact that you can make a decision is free will. Whether or not that decision is "influenced" is irrelevant. In fact, the very act of debating the existence of free will is an example of free will. What bothers me most is the practical implications of a belief in absolute determinism. Where does that put ethics? What happens to personal responsibility? Should anyone be held accountable for there actions? ("The deterministic universe made me do it!") From an ethical standpoint, I see the denial of free will as being not only the empitome of irony, but the purest form of personal irresponsibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine we could take a snapshot of every location, velocity, and energy of every atom in the universe. Our calculations are absolutely precise. (Quite a stretch here!) Ummm...... Now we use those values as our input to a computer model of the universe. We run the simulation for 5 minutes. Is it possible, running the exact simulation for the same amount of time with the same input values, that you can get different outcomes? In my opinion - nope, that's not possible. The calculations will look at 1's and 0's and produce an outcome. People's brains existing inside the simulation may think they're making a "free choice", but in reality, from the second they make that choice, they were always predestined to have made exactly that choice. In making a decision, you change the probability to 100% that you would choose that decision. :) So making a "choice" in itself means we have no free will. If you computer model did not include free will as an input parameter, then no, your output would not show any results that indicate free will. So you've proved that if you start with deterministic input, you get deterministic output. I could have told you that would happen.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ummm...... If you computer model did not include free will as an input parameter, then no, your output would not show any results that indicate free will. So you've proved that if you start with deterministic input, you get deterministic output. I could have told you that would happen. So you're saying free will exists outside of the action of the atoms, impulses, and waves in our brain?! Because I'm saying that if I had a perfect snapshot of your brain, and a perfect model based on time of the future of that brain, then I could predict 100% what your "free" decisions would be. So do you have free will? What if I speed up time on my simulation and see your decisions before you make them? Could you make a decision outside of my prediction? Of course you couldn't - because my model incorporates the stimuli you'll receive and your response to them. We're just dumb animals pulling levers for food/sex/whatever. I mean I realize that no such "perfect simulation" could ever exist due to needing an outside frame of reference - but you're pretty egotistical if you think your brain is some metaphysical powerful object capable of bending the universe to its own will. It's like a single wire on a computer chip thinking it's capable of changing output by choice. delusions of grandeur, my friend.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/17/08 10:30 AM
|
|
Ummm...... So you're saying free will exists outside of the action of the atoms, impulses, and waves in our brain?! If you computer model did not include free will as an input parameter, then no, your output would not show any results that indicate free will. So you've proved that if you start with deterministic input, you get deterministic output. I could have told you that would happen. So really, the debate hinges on a belief as to whether or not anything exists that is not bound by the deterministic rules of the universe. I happen to believe there does and am suffering from delusions of grandeur. You apparently believe there doesn't and are suffering from delusions of inadequacy. And never the twain shall meet.  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/17/08 11:14 AM
|
|
The simple fact that you can make a decision is free will. Whether or not that decision is "influenced" is irrelevant. In fact, the very act of debating the existence of free will is an example of free will. As I consider this debate, the irony of it gets funnier and funnier to me. Think about this statement: "I choose to believe that I do not have free will" 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe in free will. I can imagine however how we could think that and yet it not be true.
Some people believe in religion because it makes then feel better, I believe in free will because it makes me feel better. The only way to know for certain is to have the advantage of a frame of reference not trapped in this 3d universe. I doubt anything is going to prove one way or the other in my life time, so I will just be an agnostic freewillist. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"The jury is still out on free will." I want to throw in my two cents! Schrodinger says that the large scale laws we observe in nature are due to chaos on the smallest scales... so we essentially have order coming from disorder. In one of his books, he talks about how diffusion is a very highly ordered and measurable process even though it's caused by the completely random movement of atoms. In other words - subatomic chaos magnifies into something humans define as "order" - mostly because we ignore the fact that we're completely composed of it. :) We're big, walking, talking versions of the subatomic chaos that confuses us so much. In order to make any kind of deterministic evaluation, I think you would need a completely-removed frame of reference. Existing in and being made of the particles that we view as "chaotic" makes us completely unreliable to define order and chaos. In short - I very much believe in free will. Humans can be just as "chaotic" to the universe as electron clouds. Because we are both made from them AND equally chaotic if we were viewed from a much grander scale. Maybe we make our choices based on unknown and unmeasurable (from our frame of reference) statistical distributions just like electrons do - but hey, that's still free choice by our definition baby! :) I wish I was more eloquent with the ideas I want to express - moral of the story: read Schrodinger. Order from disorder? How? Disorder is a simple signature of events that occur at a range of unknown or unmeasured quantum. Once we 'see' beyond what 'was' known as the limit of science we will find that disorder becomes order. And a new type of disorder will emerge... showing us that there is allways something greater than ourselves. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
SkyHook5652
on
Mon 11/17/08 12:54 PM
|
|
I believe in free will. I can imagine however how we could think that and yet it not be true. Some people believe in religion because it makes then feel better, I believe in free will because it makes me feel better. The only way to know for certain is to have the advantage of a frame of reference not trapped in this 3d universe. I doubt anything is going to prove one way or the other in my life time, so I will just be an agnostic freewillist. In the scientific sense, "proof" dependends on determinism. So how could there be a deterministic proof of a non-deterministic entity? Conversely, how valid would it be to use determinism to prove itself? Proof of free will is an oxymoron. And proof of determinism is circular by definition. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Nathan_W
on
Mon 11/17/08 12:36 PM
|
|
And never the twain shall meet.  Awesome. Actually I do believe in "free will" from our standpoint because we exist inside the universe. But I also believe that an outside observer (impossible as that may be) would be able to calculate our decisions. Maybe I just like thinking that no matter what I do, I was born with actions set in motion to make me do exactly that. It makes every choice you make suddenly the "right" choice.
|
|
|
|
|
