ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 5:15 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Free Will
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 9:12 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Okay, I know this topic may have been covered in a few other places, but I figured I might as well give it its own thread.

This thread revolves around a simple question: does free will exist?

My views on this are kind of complicated and not quite fully resolved, but for purposes of debate I'll be arguing against free will. This is not to say that I believe in predestination, i.e. that all our actions have been determined since the beginning of time. Quantum physics just won't allow for that. Rather, I believe that our minds are subject to chance. However, a radioactive atom is also subject to chance. Does that make a radioactive atom conscious?

If we analyze cognitive processes using the laws of physics, it becomes clear that human "choice" is determined by physical processes in the brain. These processes are in turn governed by two things: a) outside circumstances, and b) random quantum ev ents inside the brain. "Free will" enters into the picture nowhere.

Thoughts, anyone?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 9:33 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I myself have mixed feelings on this topic, but I can argue some points from both sides, so I think I'll just sit back and play devil's advocate here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 11:26 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 10551
Location: Bris-Vegas Australia
I believe in free will, except I think that our minds have limitations on what level of "free" we can accept.

Example: I can look at underage hentai pics and not throw up, however I wouldn't have sex with a 12 year old no matter what happens.

This is due to social conditioning and a personal sense of morality and accountability, my free will can't break that because its so ingrained in me, however other issues aren't as ingrained and over time I could change for Example: Smoking, I can't stand smoking and smokers, however over a period of time(say a couple of years) I could gradually become a pack-a-day man, this is unlikely but what I don't like can over time change.

Essentially my argument is that we don't have free will in a total sense(ie I can't go out and have sex with a ten year old while watching a pirate DVD because my brain would stop me before I got out the door) but in a limited sense which changes over time as society changes and our place within it moves.
We still have choices to make, and based on our background and other issues we make them, however not all our choices are as free as we want them to be because there are somethings we, as individuals, just cannot do.

Actor.

_________________
"Why can't we go back to living like cavemen? I know it was a rough and ready existence - the men where always rough and the women were always ready! " - Santa.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 11:37 am 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 05, 2003 7:12 pm
Posts: 731
Location: Central Coast, Colanirfia
I think "free will" is an oxymoron. True freedom is complete chaos, but will implies some sort of order, even if it's random like yelling "vagina vagina vagina!"

If you want, you can classify the random quantum phenomenae that occure inside the brian as free will, but when you get down to that scale, you're dealing with infantismal (sp?) micro-parts of a human mind, and the mind as a whole is barely recognisable.

_________________
Quote:
"In real life, you don' have a Subterfuge skill above one." - Phill
"What?! You spent THREE YEARS believing that I didn't masturbate!" - Steven


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 11:48 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Those are good points, assuming that free will exists. What the debate is really getting at is if there truly is free will. I'll present a little argument against free will. Its the incompatibility argument, and the starting basis of the free will problem:

To start, a few basic principals:
Principal of Causation (PC)
C1: The cause of an event is itself and event.
C2: If A is the cause of event B and A occurs, B must follow.
C3: Causes preceed effects.

And another principal that I'm sure we can all agree on:
AE: All actions are events.

Now the principal of Free Will:
F1. If person S does A freely, then it is possible for S not to do A.
F2. S does A freely if and only if S could have done otherwise.

Now, suppose that S is an arbitrarily picked agent and A is some arbitrarily picked choice of S.

1: A is an event. (AE)
2: A has a cause, B, that occired. (PC)
3: B is an event that happened. (C1)
4: If B occured, A must occur. (C2)
5: A must occur.
6: It is not possible for A not to occur, as it has been shown that A must occur.
7: Therefore, S doesn't do A freely.

If S doesn't really do A freely, then an incompatibility is shown between free will and the principal of causation. Generally there are two standpoints after this.

Incompatabilists - They are incompatable, so one argument must be discarded.

Compatabilists - We need a modified veiw of free will so that the contridiction will not be found.

The incompats have 2 major groups, Determinists and Libertarianists.

Determinists: The principal of causality is a conerstone of science, so free will must be discarded. There is no free will.

Libertarianists: All actions are not events, and the principal AE is actually incorrect.

From this a good deal of sub arguments ensue, but I have to get back to cleaning...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 12:48 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 351
Location: Orlando, FL
can you summarize that, because I don't feel like de-coding an outline.

_________________
<center><i>Don't touch the pretty, fucker.</i></center>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 12:50 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 15, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1771
Location: The butt of the joke Powers:Levitation, yeah.
krylex wrote:
Proof that you can bully people around with numbers and logic.
It was very pretty Kry, I loved it.

On the Compatabalist side of the argument, watch the Matrix Reloaded. The film is a big discussion of the subject, intermingled with random kung fu scenes. The Oracle [who can 'predict' the future] asks Neo if he would like a cookie.
[Rough transcript]
Oracle: Would you like a candy?
Neo: You already know if i'll take it or not, right?
Oracle: Of course.
Neo: So what choice do I have in the matter?
Here Neo agrees that if event A must take place (his taking of the candy) then he cannot effect B, his decision over weather or not to take the candy.
Oracle: Your going to take the candy, but you don't know why your going to do it, it's the why you have yet to understand.
Here the Oracle is discussing the nature of free will, that it may not be the ability to choose yes or no.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 1:50 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Angel On Crack wrote:
can you summarize that, because I don't feel like de-coding an outline.


Basically it is saying that free will cannot work due to a contradiction with causual relationships.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 2:16 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Krylex, your outline is nice, but the assumptions it has are invalid if you take into account modern physics. According to quantum physics, there is such a thing as random chance - in other words, there are events (such as the decay of a radioactive atom within a given time frame) where one event does not automatically cause another, but rather, a particular state has a chance of causing any one of various different other states. This doesn't eliminate the problem of free will, as I've said; a slot machine is no more free than a clock. However, it does make your proof invalid, or at least in need of revising.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 2:47 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 351
Location: Orlando, FL
Ahhh... I will have to get back to this... mrrp... very interesting theories

_________________
<center><i>Don't touch the pretty, fucker.</i></center>


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 3:46 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Icy, there may be such things as random chance, but casual relations still are relevant in everything save quantum physics. Suppose anyways that there is random chance, its hardly not free will, as it is random and not a free choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 25, 2003 4:02 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
krylex wrote:
Icy, there may be such things as random chance, but casual relations still are relevant in everything save quantum physics.


But our brain may rely quite heavily on quantum physics. If this is the case, our decisions may be governed by chance.

Quote:
I Suppose anyways that there is random chance, its hardly not free will, as it is random and not a free choice.


Uhm, did you actually read my post? I made the exact same point you're making. I just said that your particular proof was invalid because it assumed a world based on determinism rather than chance.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 6:28 am 
Offline
n00b
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 20, 2003 11:26 am
Posts: 11
Location: Toronto ON
I have mixed feelings on Free Will, but I usually lean towards the "No Control" Aspect.

For example, we think that we are choosing our own paths, believing we
are the "puppetmasters," but, there is also the chance of a higher power controlling our thoughts, making our decisions for us. So we may not be the <b>"puppetmasters,"</b> <i>but we may actually be the <b>"puppets."</i></b>

The truth is, that this debate will lead into religious, moral, and even scientific aspects.

Look at some third world countries. The government controls what they wear, what they eat, and sometimes, what they do. Does this seem like those people have "free will?"

Then again, look at the G8 countries. We can choose they way we live and (usually) won't get contradicted for it. We have free will.

Free will may exist, but not for all of us.

_________________
<font size=3><font color=blue>
Under the Sea!
Under the Sea!
There'll be no accusations,
Just friendly crustaceans,
Under the Sea!</font>


Last edited by angryblackmage on Wed May 28, 2003 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 8:05 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
I don't see how we can sit here discussing free will when we as human being do not really understand how the human brain works except at some very basic levels, ne?

Isn't any scientific claim for a yes/no on free will going to be based on that? "Our brain may rely quite heavily on quantum physics..." says Icy, but for now arguing about free will is like a bunch of renaissance-era scholars trying to figure out how a quantum computer works. Eventually you get to the point where you know how to manipulate it, and how it interacts with outside stimuli, but we don't have much of a clue on how it really works, internally. And it is my claim that until the brain is understood better, the arguement is senseless from a scientific standpoint.

Or I could be wrong. Icy can check me on that one, but that was just my 2 cents. Oh, and for a nice philosophical arguement against cause/effect, see Hume.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 10:50 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
I wasn't posting my proof as anything more than a starting point, as we used it in my philosophy class. I saw that we not use quantum physics, however, as it is an unknown to us. It could be that we just lack the proper formula to derive exactly what something will do on a quantum level, so it itself could be determined as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 11:19 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Coulds, woulds and maybes do not matter either in science or a serious debate. Please stick to things that arn't horrible tangents that neither prove nor disprove the existance of free will.

That is all.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 12:27 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
The point is not HOW the brain works. The point is that it obeys the same laws of physics as any other object in the universe. The Renaissance scholars may have known nothing about Quantum Computers, but they would know that a quantum computer, no matter what it was, could not do things which are physically impossible.

The same goes for our brain. No matter how complex our brain is, it still cannot go faster than the speed of light. And it still obeys the laws of causality. The laws of causality do not leave room for free will, no matter how complex a system is. We know that all events are either direct results of other events, or probabilistic outcomes of a previous state. Neither of those involves involves any kind of free choice. The very nature of free will makes it impossible to have unless the human mind is made of a fundamentally different substance than the rest of the universe... i.e. a soul. However, if we take the materialist stance and say that the human mind is made of matter, and thus subject to all the rules that govern other forms of matter, it cannot have free will.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 12:53 pm 
Offline
Native
User avatar

Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 820
Location: An Unforgiving World Overrun by Poverty, Drug Abuse, Nepotism, and Ninjas...
Quote:
The very nature of free will makes it impossible to have unless the human mind is made of a fundamentally different substance than the rest of the universe... i.e. a soul. However, if we take the materialist stance and say that the human mind is made of matter, and thus subject to all the rules that govern other forms of matter, it cannot have free will.


Personally, I <i>do</i> believe that the human mind is made of something different. I do believe in such a thing as a human soul. However, since this, like many other beliefs can't be proven (and the fact I don't really want to go into why I do believe in souls), I'll move on to another point.

If you think about it....do we really know what causes the chemical processes in our brain, when we get right down to it? For example, lets say I was drinking a milkshake. I would think, "Mmm...this is tasty." My senses would tell me what the milkshake tasted like. A chemical process would occur, delivering the information about what it tasted like. Since I found it pleasurable, there would be another chemical process due to emotions, which are in this case, pleasure and contentment.

However, what was it that made me think that the thing even tasted good in the first place? Some people don't like milkshakes, so their chemical processes would be different, since there are different chemicals for different emotions. Something had to cause a difference of opinion. So, the question is...are there chemicals that control our opinions?

Maybe having an opinion is the key to free will. While an opinion could be influenced by external stimuli (other people, outside events) and internal stimuli (chemical processes), it is still an opinion nontheless. A little bit of free will is preferable to having none at all.

_________________
<sarevock> I think my eyes started bleeding.
<NebbieQ> Bleeding is just another word for love.
<sarevock> ¬¬
* sarevock runs away from NebbieQ
<NebbieQ> But I just want to make you love me. ;_;


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: I'll make this make sense through sheer will!
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 4:56 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 22, 2003 1:42 pm
Posts: 1793
Location: Still Alaska
Okay, I'm way too tired to say this right, but even if our decisions are the only real options given to us, why shouldn't we call that free will? Sure, given the exact same circumstances, we'd make the same decisions (excluding quantum chance, which could just be some misunderstood phenomanon, and doesn't really change the idea at all anyways), but we are still making those decisions, right? How is that not free will?

Logically I have to believe in determinism, but it doesn't really get me anything by believing in it, so I ignore it.

Also, refer to the luck thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: I'll make this make sense through sheer will!
PostPosted: Mon May 26, 2003 5:25 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3447
Location: New York
Abunai! wrote:
Logically I have to believe in determinism, but it doesn't really get me anything by believing in it, so I ignore it.


Free will, in my opinion, is the quintessential human delusion. It is one of the few lies that liberates us rather than confining us.

Although, when you get right down to it, everything is an illusion. I've read many convincing philosophical arguments disproving the existence of time, matter, space, and self. Without those three what do we have left?

Nothing.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 86 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group