You are crazy... LOL, enjoyed the this and the discussion.
undergroundman
· 2 years ago
That's not a solution.
The truth is that you don't know the future. In a sense, you can decide the future - because nobody knows what the future will be, and you have the power to look ahead, evaluate your free will (or lack thereof), look at the consequences, and make a decision.
Think about that. If you think it's totally out of your control, it is. If you don't, it isn't. There's something to be said for those self-help books and motivational speakers who say "you decide what you want to be."
It's a laborious process to exercise rationality in your actions, but when you do, you are exercising free will.
This is called deterministic compatibilism.
Simple Mind
· 2 years ago
Arguing whether free will exists or not is pointless. If it doesn't exist and every decision you make is, in fact, shaped by some entity or system too complex or powerful for you to understand - then it doesn't matter if it exists or not because you think it does. The same goes for the argument about natural determinism. I can still choose between A and B in any given situation, even if that it a choice between living or dying.
Ultimately, free will is about perception of choice rather than the ability to choose.
zhasper
· 2 years ago
You just told me I have no free will, now you ask me to choose to act as though I don't know something.
Hrm.
Navid
· 2 years ago
Meditations upon the nature of whether or not free will is the case is both a waste of time and without purpose. As any philosopher would agree, there are always those that agree and disagree with a given theory, and none would consider either side of the argument as true. Unless provided with scientific evidence for or against free will, it would not be impossible to deny a particular position upon the matter. Overall, it is my belief that we do have a degree of free will, and not absolute free will. Overall, one must ask the following question: how would an agent without a capacity for free will even contemplate it?
Daniel Miessler
· 2 years ago
> As any philosopher would agree, there are always those that agree and disagree with a given theory, and none would consider either side of the argument as true.
This is not the case when it comes to science. If it were then you wouldn't have to go to study for 8-10 years before becoming an independently practicing physician. All opinions are not equally valid in the realm of science, which is what I argue governs the issue of free will.
> Unless provided with scientific evidence for or against free will, it would not be impossible to deny a particular position upon the matter.
I'd argue that we already have that evidence.
> Overall, one must ask the following question: how would an agent without a capacity for free will even contemplate it?
The same way any sentient being with the capacity for reason contemplates anything. Just because the subject is the ultimate hard-wired nature of humans doesn't mean that hardwiring prohibits self-exploration.
Uncle Rich
· 1 year ago
Free will or determinism? Both are true. It depends on your point of view. Just as does the question, Is the earth flat or round? For many purposes, we act as if the earth were flat, even though, in the back of our minds, we know it's round. All the interrelationships in the universe were created at the time of the Big Bang (or in the conditions that caused it) but from an individual's point of view, it seems that we control our actions.
Phili Ekstrom
· 1 year ago
People commonly assume that free will is necessary to justify punishment for offenses committed.
Not so. All that is required is that the risk of punishment be known, and when included in whatever actually motivates people that risk has a significant deterrent effect. Whether that effect is a matter of free choice or is a determined behavior makes no practical and therefore in this case no ethical difference.
Jacob Kline
· 1 year ago
Our brains are nothing but a collection of chemicals sloshing back and forth.
I thank God that your statement does not even qualify as a generalization. Fortunately for you, your brain boasts
several thousand miles of interconnected nerve cells (about 100 billion),
and,
Within the brain and spinal cord there are ten thousand distinct VARIETIES of neurons, trillions of supportive cells, a few more trillion synaptic connections, a hundred known chemical regulating agents, miles of minuscule blood vessels, axons ranging from a few microns to well over a foot and a half in length, and untold mysteries of how—almost flawlessly—all these components work together.[emphasis mine]
Each neuron can make contact with thousands or even tens of thousands of others, via tiny structures called synapses. Our brains form a million new connections for every second of our lives. The pattern and strength of the connections is constantly changing and no two brains are alike. source: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human...
Also, though my quick searching found no source, I recall reading that each connection/synapse was capable of multiplexing something like 16,000 channels, and that each neuron can take on not just two states (i.e. being binary), but some 60,000 states or so. (this second unsourced bit might be more a restatement of the last quoted fact) Well, I intend not, by any means, to shred you for the simple (and intellectually valuable) act of posting your thoughts in public forum. But, I did feel compelled to share what I had read on the matter of human brain complexity.
weasel
· 1 year ago
"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."
I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe your main premise is incorrect. You say:
"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other. Just because there are trillions and trillions of them doesn’t make their interactions magical (or even special)."
... but this is exactly the problem Einstein had that led him to give the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." The thing is, according to quantum theory, He/She/It does.
Take nuclear decay, for example. You simply cannot predict when any individual atom will decay. You can perform a statistical analysis of any large enough grouping, but for any one atom, there is no telling. There have been statistical analyses done, and they show that the resultant decay follows all mathematical tests for randomness.
Hence the universe is, at a fundamental level, not predictable. The question of free-will vs determinism is a wider issue and I think I personally agree with the person above who said that both are true depending on how you look at it. But I don't think your proof above has a supportable premise.
... unless, of course, I've misunderstood your argument.
Anonymous
· 10 months ago
Weasel - Einstein said that because he was disagreeing with your theory. LOL!
Can someone please explain to me what randomness has to do with the free will debate? Seriously, I'm trying to understand. Make them little words with small logical steps.
Anonymous
· 10 months ago
Anyone? Bueller?
I tried to pry it out of a friend of mine, and he said it was because determinism = predictability, which I don't think is right at all.
Is that all it is? Anyone?
Daniel Miessler
· 10 months ago
Weasel, the problem is that just because the outcomes from our decisions are random doesn't make them any more the result of free will. I'm not trying to prove, necessarily, that the universe is fully deterministic--only that humans are ultimately just variable combinations, and that our "free will" is an illusion.
weasel
· 1 year ago
"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."
I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe that your premise is incorrect. You say:
"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other."
... however this is the same argument used by Einstein in his "God does not play dice with the universe" quote.
Unfortunately for that theory, numerous experiments in quantum physics has shown that He/She/It does in fact play dice. For example, atomic decay is random at the atomic level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
What this means is that although large numbers of atoms may obey a statistical average, there is no way to predict when any given atom will decay. There have been mathematical studies of such decays, using methods which show the resulting number sequences are random.
Hence, at a fundamental level, the universe is not predictable. I don't want to push this argument all the way up to say it is a proof of free will - just that your own argument comes from a premise I don't believe is supportable.
"This is really no different from our inability to predict the weather 100 years ago. And how did we come to be able to do so? We simply became more capable of gathering information about the variables."
What randomness and incompleteness suggests is that there are no hidden variables, and that the universe is not ultimately knowable by anyone.
As far as free will or determinism goes, that is a wider argument. I think I agree with the post above which says that it is a function of how you look at it. Looked at one way, we are prisoners of our genes, of education, etc. Looked at another, we have freedom. It's not a binary on-off switch, but rather a question of interpretation.
sco
· 1 year ago
The variables are so complicated that your train car becomes a myriad of tiny rooms that we can shrink down into and lose ourselves in forever.
Patrick
· 11 months ago
"To discuss the fact that it isn’t real truly serves no practical purpose other than that of an intellectual exercise. Our civilization simply could not advance in any positive way if this way of thinking were used to create policy."
I don't think you under stand what you're talking about here. You can't do anything to change the way you think or how the people around you think. Thats called no free will! A reality you have accepted. Yet at the end you say you want to put truth aside for the good of society. Thats all wll and good but it makes no sense when free will doesn't exist. REAL can't be denied. Your not choosing anything EVER!
Anonymous
· 10 months ago
I get eugenics, but what do you mean by "elitism?"
All Comments
The truth is that you don't know the future. In a sense, you can decide the future - because nobody knows what the future will be, and you have the power to look ahead, evaluate your free will (or lack thereof), look at the consequences, and make a decision.
Think about that. If you think it's totally out of your control, it is. If you don't, it isn't. There's something to be said for those self-help books and motivational speakers who say "you decide what you want to be."
It's a laborious process to exercise rationality in your actions, but when you do, you are exercising free will.
This is called deterministic compatibilism.
Ultimately, free will is about perception of choice rather than the ability to choose.
Hrm.
This is not the case when it comes to science. If it were then you wouldn't have to go to study for 8-10 years before becoming an independently practicing physician. All opinions are not equally valid in the realm of science, which is what I argue governs the issue of free will.
> Unless provided with scientific evidence for or against free will, it would not be impossible to deny a particular position upon the matter.
I'd argue that we already have that evidence.
> Overall, one must ask the following question: how would an agent without a capacity for free will even contemplate it?
The same way any sentient being with the capacity for reason contemplates anything. Just because the subject is the ultimate hard-wired nature of humans doesn't mean that hardwiring prohibits self-exploration.
Free will or determinism? Both are true. It depends on your point of view. Just as does the question, Is the earth flat or round? For many purposes, we act as if the earth were flat, even though, in the back of our minds, we know it's round. All the interrelationships in the universe were created at the time of the Big Bang (or in the conditions that caused it) but from an individual's point of view, it seems that we control our actions.
People commonly assume that free will is necessary to justify punishment for offenses committed.
Not so. All that is required is that the risk of punishment be known, and when included in whatever actually motivates people that risk has a significant deterrent effect. Whether that effect is a matter of free choice or is a determined behavior makes no practical and therefore in this case no ethical difference.
I thank God that your statement does not even qualify as a generalization. Fortunately for you, your brain boasts
and,source: http://www.brainsource.com/amazing%20brain.htm
Also,
Each synapse is not a simple switch but changes the strength of the signal it passes on according to the history of its use.
source: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human...
Also, though my quick searching found no source, I recall reading that each connection/synapse was capable of multiplexing something like 16,000 channels, and that each neuron can take on not just two states (i.e. being binary), but some 60,000 states or so. (this second unsourced bit might be more a restatement of the last quoted fact)
Well, I intend not, by any means, to shred you for the simple (and intellectually valuable) act of posting your thoughts in public forum. But, I did feel compelled to share what I had read on the matter of human brain complexity.
"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."
I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe your main premise is incorrect. You say:
"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other. Just because there are trillions and trillions of them doesn’t make their interactions magical (or even special)."
... but this is exactly the problem Einstein had that led him to give the famous quote "God does not play dice with the universe." The thing is, according to quantum theory, He/She/It does.
Take nuclear decay, for example. You simply cannot predict when any individual atom will decay. You can perform a statistical analysis of any large enough grouping, but for any one atom, there is no telling. There have been statistical analyses done, and they show that the resultant decay follows all mathematical tests for randomness.
Hence the universe is, at a fundamental level, not predictable. The question of free-will vs determinism is a wider issue and I think I personally agree with the person above who said that both are true depending on how you look at it. But I don't think your proof above has a supportable premise.
For example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompletenessofquantum_physics
... unless, of course, I've misunderstood your argument.
Can someone please explain to me what randomness has to do with the free will debate? Seriously, I'm trying to understand. Make them little words with small logical steps.
I tried to pry it out of a friend of mine, and he said it was because determinism = predictability, which I don't think is right at all.
Is that all it is? Anyone?
"So for the purposes of the rest of this piece I’ll assume that you do agree with my main premise."
I'm not sure if this is the sort of critique you want, but I believe that your premise is incorrect. You say:
"I believe that the world unfolds according to the dynamics of a nearly infinite number of variables interacting with each other."
... however this is the same argument used by Einstein in his "God does not play dice with the universe" quote.
Unfortunately for that theory, numerous experiments in quantum physics has shown that He/She/It does in fact play dice. For example, atomic decay is random at the atomic level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay
What this means is that although large numbers of atoms may obey a statistical average, there is no way to predict when any given atom will decay. There have been mathematical studies of such decays, using methods which show the resulting number sequences are random.
or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incompleteness...>
Hence, at a fundamental level, the universe is not predictable. I don't want to push this argument all the way up to say it is a proof of free will - just that your own argument comes from a premise I don't believe is supportable.
"This is really no different from our inability to predict the weather 100 years ago. And how did we come to be able to do so? We simply became more capable of gathering information about the variables."
What randomness and incompleteness suggests is that there are no hidden variables, and that the universe is not ultimately knowable by anyone.
As far as free will or determinism goes, that is a wider argument. I think I agree with the post above which says that it is a function of how you look at it. Looked at one way, we are prisoners of our genes, of education, etc. Looked at another, we have freedom. It's not a binary on-off switch, but rather a question of interpretation.
The variables are so complicated that your train car becomes a myriad of tiny rooms that we can shrink down into and lose ourselves in forever.
I don't think you under stand what you're talking about here. You can't do anything to change the way you think or how the people around you think. Thats called no free will! A reality you have accepted. Yet at the end you say you want to put truth aside for the good of society. Thats all wll and good but it makes no sense when free will doesn't exist. REAL can't be denied. Your not choosing anything EVER!