100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Free Will? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Wed 11/21/12 08:22 PM
|
|
That is one of the reasons I have lost respect for what we currently call "science." It has placed limits upon itself. Those limits are the limits imposed by logical reasoning. Without those, science would be a religion and our technology would be witchcraft. Don't be too hard on science. More recent developments in physics it make free will mathematically provable. (Thank you once again Mr. Heisenberg.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
That is one of the reasons I have lost respect for what we currently call "science." It has placed limits upon itself. Those limits are the limits imposed by logical reasoning. Without those, science would be a religion and our technology would be witchcraft. Don't be too hard on science. More recent developments in physics it make free will mathematically provable. (Thank you once again Mr. Heisenberg.) Not all scientists fall into that "hard logic" category. There are some exceptional thinkers in science. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not all scientists fall into that "hard logic" category. There are some exceptional thinkers in science. Well, you gotta remember...scientists are people too...They all make mistakes on their bad hair days...some are crooked & unethical...some have big egos...etc. We just have to remember not to revere them like gods...There's nothing I hate more than argument by authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a quote from Stephen Hawking. “Do people have free will? If we have free will, where in the evolutionary tree did it develop? Do blue-green algae or bacteria have free will, or is their behavior automatic and within the realm of scientific law? Is it only multicelled organisms that have free will, or only mammals? We might think that a chimpanzee is exercising free will when it chooses to chomp on a banana, or a cat when it rips up your sofa, but what about the roundworm called Caenorhabditis elegans—a simple creature made of only 959 cells? It probably never thinks, “That was damn tasty bacteria I got to dine on back there,” yet it too has a definite preference in food and will either settle for an unattractive meal or go foraging for something better, depending on recent experience. Is that the exercise of free will? Though we feel that we can choose what we do, our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets. Recent experiments in neuroscience support the view that it is our physical brain, following the known laws of science, that determines our actions, and not some agency that exists outside those laws. For example, a study of patients undergoing awake brain surgery found that by electrically stimulating the appropriate regions of the brain, one could create in the patient the desire to move the hand, arm, or foot, or to move the lips and talk. It is hard to imagine how free will can operate if our behavior is determined by physical law, so it seems that we are no more than biological machines and that free will is just an illusion.” It's my thought if we humans do have free will it developed along with language. This is quite interesting to me because I just happen to be thinking deeply on this subject. There is a very simple thought experiment which proves (to me) that that predetermination in all it's forms has to be an illusion. (Let me know if you like me to post it) Basically, predetermination inevitably leads to self-contradiction. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is quite interesting to me because I just happen to be thinking deeply on this subject. There is a very simple thought experiment which proves (to me) that that predetermination in all it's forms has to be an illusion. (Let me know if you like me to post it) Basically, predetermination inevitably leads to self-contradiction. Of course we'd like you to post your thought experiment. We're always happy to hear a good argument for (or against) free will. If we couldn't sit around here debating the arguments, it would be a very boring thread. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 11/22/12 04:35 AM
|
|
Those limits are the limits imposed by logical reasoning. Without those, science would be a religion and our technology would be witchcraft. Indeed, without logic (esp. dialectical) we would be floundering in an age of superstition. Deductive reasoning requires logic to determine causality. It's the foundation for all critical thinking and to reject logic as a limitation is to impose a limitation. If the rejection of logic 'opens one's mind' to that which is theoretically 'illogical', it would actually become restrictive to the learning process. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Thu 11/22/12 10:05 AM
|
|
Those limits are the limits imposed by logical reasoning. Without those, science would be a religion and our technology would be witchcraft. Indeed, without logic (esp. dialectical) we would be floundering in an age of superstition. Deductive reasoning requires logic to determine causality. It's the foundation for all critical thinking and to reject logic as a limitation is to impose a limitation. If the rejection of logic 'opens one's mind' to that which is theoretically 'illogical', it would actually become restrictive to the learning process. No one is rejecting logic. But to use only logic that is restrained by what you can see, hear, measure and perceive is to throw imagination out the window. Where competition and logic are pitted against creativity and imagination competition and logic loses. A computer can be perfectly logical according to its programming. It can even be programmed to appear to be creative, but the only creativity a computer has is what its creator/programmer created it to have. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All choices you make are somehow affected by other things in your life. I think what matters (to us) is whether 'will' is 'free' in the sense that no fellow being is ever going to completely predict all things inside your mind with only somekind of shadow of your mind running in some device and noting the signals your nerves might carry by only noting the environment you are in, without taking direct signals inside your brain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think it may be possibe but it would be so complex n resource consuming that.. Oh wait !
I think when we reach that level of selfknowledge, all of us will already have become angels n saints ! Good n bad things affects us cause they come and go! Their must be some mechanism behind everything.. So everything must be happening in some way or other.. And therefore their must be a way to replicate it... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 11/22/12 12:34 PM
|
|
Those limits are the limits imposed by logical reasoning. Without those, science would be a religion and our technology would be witchcraft. Indeed, without logic (esp. dialectical) we would be floundering in an age of superstition. Deductive reasoning requires logic to determine causality. It's the foundation for all critical thinking and to reject logic as a limitation is to impose a limitation. If the rejection of logic 'opens one's mind' to that which is theoretically 'illogical', it would actually become restrictive to the learning process. No one is rejecting logic. But to use only logic that is restrained by what you can see, hear, measure and perceive is to throw imagination out the window. Imagination and the creative process require logic as well. You're an artist, therefore you realise the difficulties in representing what lies within the imagination. Logic and deductive reasoning are applied to solve the problem. Leaps in scientific discovery require an imagination. If scientists hadn't imagined it possible, man would never have walked on the moon. Where competition and logic are pitted against creativity and imagination competition and logic loses. Is it a priori that they exist independently? A computer can be perfectly logical according to its programming. It can even be programmed to appear to be creative, but the only creativity a computer has is what its creator/programmer created it to have. True, but we are not computers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I didn't say that you don't need both. You need a reasonable balance of each. When a scientists asks the question "Do we have free will?" He is merely asking the question. He is not making a statement that we do not have free will.
The problem scientists have, is they cannot know or see the will and they can't get a handle on it. The will is directly tied to the consciousness question. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaySinner
on
Thu 11/22/12 01:23 PM
|
|
Those limits are the limits imposed by logical reasoning. Without those, science would be a religion and our technology would be witchcraft. Indeed, without logic (esp. dialectical) we would be floundering in an age of superstition. Deductive reasoning requires logic to determine causality. It's the foundation for all critical thinking and to reject logic as a limitation is to impose a limitation. If the rejection of logic 'opens one's mind' to that which is theoretically 'illogical', it would actually become restrictive to the learning process. We cling to logic and and deductive reasoning because that's the way we make sense out things and it facilitates communication. However, I would like to point out that there is a very important connection between science and superstition. Regardless of whether you value science or religion, both are an attempt by the mind to try to understand reality. We form a model in our minds of what the real world is, often forgetting that the model is only (and always will be) a representation of reality. Here is the simple though experiment I offered to share earlier: Let's assume it is possible to use cause and effect to predict choice. And lets say it is theoretically possible to to collect enough data to PREDETERMINE every choice you will make in your lifetime. But suppose you got access to this predictor. That's where things start to get interesting. This device is really smart. It takes into account its own existence, and it predicts that you are going to gain access to it. It knows that you going to gather information about the choices you're going to make in the future, and it even takes into account that you are, by nature, a contrarian. It already knows you are going to make choices that are contrary to whatever it predicts. Wait a minute! I smell a paradox... (the device must then implode into a black hole before you can access the information). ---- I think the reason we get excited about "finding truth" is that we hope to obtain control by understanding how things "really" work. That's the tie between science and religion that cannot be broken. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Those limits are the limits imposed by logical reasoning. Without those, science would be a religion and our technology would be witchcraft. Indeed, without logic (esp. dialectical) we would be floundering in an age of superstition. Deductive reasoning requires logic to determine causality. It's the foundation for all critical thinking and to reject logic as a limitation is to impose a limitation. If the rejection of logic 'opens one's mind' to that which is theoretically 'illogical', it would actually become restrictive to the learning process. We cling to logic and and deductive reasoning because that's the way we make sense out things and it facilitates communication. However, I would like to point out that there is a very important connection between science and superstition. Regardless of whether you value science or religion, both are an attempt by the mind to try to understand reality. We form a model in our minds of what the real world is, often forgetting that the model is only (and always will be) a representation of reality. Here is the simple though experiment I offered to share earlier: Let's assume it is possible to use cause and effect to predict choice. And lets say it is theoretically possible to to collect enough enough data to PREDETERMINE every choice you will make in your lifetime. But suppose you got access to this predictor. That's where things start to get interesting. This device is really smart. It takes into account its own existence, and it predicts that you are going to gain access to it. It knows that you going to gather information about the choices you're going to make in the future and it even takes into account that you are, by nature, a contrarian. It already knows you are going to make choices that are contrary to whatever it predicts. Wait a minute! I smell a paradox... (the device must then implode into a black hole before you can access the information). ---- I think the reason we get excited about "finding truth" is that we hope to obtain control by understanding how things "really" work. That's the tie between science and religion that cannot be broken. Your argument is very similar to the time traveller's paradox wherein a man goes back to the past and kills his mother before he is born...so he never got born to grow up and travel into the past to kill his mother...so she had the baby and... The problem with such paradoxes is that they don't really constitute proof, only the limitations of the system of reasoning. Kinda nice though...I liked it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It is a lot like 'asking the omnipresent god to make a place where he cant exist' or 'omnipotent god to make a ball that he can't roll' etc. These are obscure, not welldefined ideas. When we try to formalise them, we find fallacius assumptions in them. I guess we are not in a position to scientifically talk about this, yet!
But you guys sure have some free will! Nothing seems to stop you from coming here to? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
DaySinner
on
Thu 11/22/12 02:38 PM
|
|
Thanks.
Yes, you got it! The problem with time travel is also predetermination. To me it makes more sense to say that there is a reasonable expectation that the universe will obey the law of physics, and what we observe may resemble predetermination. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Thu 11/22/12 03:33 PM
|
|
I didn't say that you don't need both. No, you suggested it is a limitation, and I stated that to reject it, or not to employ it (to be more specific) is more of a limitation. My statement adds to my point, it doesn't accuse you of rejecting logic. You need a reasonable balance of each. Granted. The problem scientists have, is they cannot know or see the will and they can't get a handle on it. That is a superficial generalisation at best. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We cling to logic and and deductive reasoning because that's the way we make sense out things and it facilitates communication. However, I would like to point out that there is a very important connection between science and superstition. Regardless of whether you value science or religion, both are an attempt by the mind to try to understand reality. We form a model in our minds of what the real world is, often forgetting that the model is only (and always will be) a representation of reality. The connection you mention is not so important I feel. True, religion and logic both wish to determine causality, that is where the similarity ends. One determines causality through preconceptions based upon a dogma, while the other observes and notes said observations while forming and reforming hypotheses as new information comes in. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
JustDukkyMkII
on
Thu 11/22/12 04:14 PM
|
|
Thanks. Yes, you got it! The problem with time travel is also predetermination. To me it makes more sense to say that there is a reasonable expectation that the universe will obey the law of physics, and what we observe may resemble predetermination. Getting back to the paradoxes for a moment, they arise from an unstated assumption...That each cause has a unique effect and each effect has a unique cause. Suppose we generalize causality and instead of simply saying A causes B and that B is caused by A, we say Ai causes Bj and Bj is caused by Ak for some index values (i,j,k,l) in (n,m) where k may or may not equal i and j may or may not equal k and where n is the number of possible causes of effect B and m is the number of possible effects of cause A. We now have a situation that doesn't look like a simple linear causal chain, but rather a series of possible cause/effect branches with a number of possible effect/cause roots. Looked at in terms of time, The future has a multiplicity of probable outcomes from any choice made today and the present can be seen as a convergence of any number of possible pasts. Is it now possible for the man to go back into one of his pasts and kill (one of) his mother(s) without ending his unique(?) existence?...No, because he obviously came from a possible future in which his assassination attempt failed. It is not possible for him to kill her, because that would have eliminated the possibility of his ever having been born to do it. Looked at in terms of free will, any cause can have more than one effect and any effect can have more than one cause, which implies that "choices" exist that we are free to will ourselves to make. As a result, we are morally responsible for our actions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. Yes, you got it! The problem with time travel is also predetermination. To me it makes more sense to say that there is a reasonable expectation that the universe will obey the law of physics, and what we observe may resemble predetermination. Getting back to the paradoxes for a moment, they arise from an unstated assumption...That each cause has a unique effect and each effect has a unique cause. Suppose we generalize causality and instead of simply saying A causes B and that B is caused by A, we say Ai causes Bj and Bj is caused by Ak for some index values (i,j,k,l) in (n,m) where k may or may not equal i and j may or may not equal k and where n is the number of possible causes of effect B and m is the number of possible effects of cause A. We now have a situation that doesn't look like a simple linear causal chain, but rather a series of possible cause/effect branches with a number of possible effect/cause roots. Looked at in terms of time, The future has a multiplicity of probable outcomes from any choice made today and the present can be seen as a convergence of any number of possible pasts. Is it now possible for the man to go back into one of his pasts and kill (one of) his mother(s) without ending his unique(?) existence?...No, because he obviously came from a possible future in which his assassination attempt failed. It is not possible for him to kill her, because that would have eliminated the possibility of his ever having been born to do it. Looked at in terms of free will, any cause can have more than one effect and any effect can have more than one cause, which implies that "choices" exist that we are free to will ourselves to make. As a result, we are morally responsible for our actions. I like the way you are laying it out. You are reminding me of the study of complex systems, and sensitive dependence on initial conditions. The problem with making good guesses far into the future is that you can get radically different results depending on what assumptions you make (i.e. deciding what your variables are going to be) and the initial values you apply to them. So predicting choice might be similar to trying to predict the weather. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 IMHO theory one is the only one that makes any real sense. Theory three is a possible outcome to quantum theory, but I find it difficult to fathom billions of universes splitting apart every time someone changes their mind. Theory two has already been argued very well and IMHO can be dismissed. The reason I like theory one is because if the past cannot be changed and if by going into the past you cannot change the present then there is no evidence that we can change the future from the present any more than we could change the past. |
|
|
|
|
