|
Yes, this is a thread on TL that involves religion, but I hate to think that our policy should be to blindly close every such thread. Sam Harris is a writer whose books are both insightful and have sparked many good discussions in the past and as long as the thread doesn't derail I'd like to leave it open. This should be the basic premise for every such thread, no matter how high the odds of it derailing. In that light, these posts that just predict the downfall of this thread (whether it be pre-determined or not) are 1) Not contributing to the discussion 2) Backseat moderating 3) Annoying 4) Actually contributing towards derailing it. I'll keep 2 daying people for this. |
On March 05 2012 23:51 Deleuze wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:43 Chibithor wrote:On March 05 2012 22:45 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:39 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:29 radscorpion9 wrote:On March 05 2012 22:25 ooni wrote:Here is how I see it... HERE WE GO Imagine a machine that can predict the future by 100% or very close to it it should be considered 100%, let us say this machine exists and figures out the outcome by "pre-determined" data. IF (<- note the big if) a such machine was possible to build and one does the opposite, that person would have acquired "free will" (if one defines free will as changing the course of the future by a choice). If you are going to argue, "you do not have all the data, the data of the last choice was not included..."; That does not matter since everything is supposely 'predetermined', the last choice should have been predicted by the data at that point. If it cannot be predicted by the machine 2 possible futures exist depending on the person's choice  Well I believe humans or other animals with lessor intelligence is a crappier version of this machine. They can predict somewhat what will happen and act upon it, and has the free will to not to act upon it or act differently. What if that machine told the person what kind of sandwich they would have the next morning. If everything is determined, would it be fair to say that the person will always have that sandwich? If the machine told me which sandwich I was going to eat, do I believe that I would be physically incapable of choosing otherwise? I was thinking of that a while ago. Not sure if its 100% logical. (The reaction to hearing the data should have also been factored in, right?) No that's the thing, the person could choose otherwise, it is a possible scenario. Thus a machine that supposely determine the future (which is possible because everything is supposely "predetermined") is only one scenario, if it wants to be 100% correct it will need to produce 2, an alternative future depending on the choice the person makes. The reaction after hearing the data is not a data that is required, since everything is predetermined, it should be obvious for the machine to figure out what the decision will be (that decision should be predetermined). Oh btw, could someone debunk this idea? I always want to hear the people's thoughts on it. Assuming a person would not follow the machine's predictions, I guess it'd go into an infinite loop First it would calculate the first prediction, say: The person will eat in the next five minutes. Then it would calculate the reaction of the person to said prediction: The person will not eat in the next five minutes. Then it would either A) Calculate the reaction to the upper prediction, and the reaction to this prediction and so forth. or B) Discard the first predictions altogether. Since the first prediction is now false and will not be sent out by the machine, the second one is false as well, as it relies on the person seeing the first result. After this, maybe it'd give an error or start over. Or it could just predict that the nonsense above would happen and not bother with it at all. I'm kind of rambling about stuff I don't know much about, so there are probably errors in my train of thought, but whatever. You wanted thoughts, here you go! It is a record that breaks the record player.
I presume your almost direct quote means you have read GEB 
To elaborate the point: such a machine cannot exist, because self-referential feedback loops "break" computation. The most famous instance of this, is of course, the Halting problem, which was used to show that not everything is decidable.
|
On March 06 2012 00:23 Tachyon wrote:
It's sad that some people get so defensive and ironic when they're faced with the idea that free will doesn't exist. If those people bothered to try to understand the reasoning behind the claim, maybe they'd learn something.
Don't blame them.
They can't do anything about it. No free will and all.
|
On March 06 2012 00:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 00:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I always liked Compatibilism and the idea that determinism and free will are actually not mutually exclusive.
This specific argument for determinism seems entirely dependent on an idealized scientific holism, which quite frankly, probably isn't going to ever happen. Take away that assumption and it looks like the entire argument falls apart aside from being piece of metaphysical speculation filled with assumptions that needed scientific holism to be more than such. Compatiblism is semantics. It waters down the definition of free will to make it compatible with determinism. If the universe is deterministic, I would be a compatiblist by definition. What is scientific holism, and how does it relate to my argument? My argument is that free will is not consistent with the laws of physics, it's got nothing to do with viewing things as wholes.
Determinism rejecting free will is semantics in the same exact way and expects an unrealistic definition of free will, hence why it doesn't exist. Not necessarily though because if you're a deterministic individual who doesn't believe in free will you're not a compatibilist, the definition of compatibilism is that the universe is deterministic but we still have free will.
Scientific holism is the assumption that all science is capable of being unified, eventually we will be able to explain all phenomena in chemistry through pure physics in how particles interact, then biology, and continue to build up until we will eventually be able to explain everything through physics up to the point where human behavior can be mapped out and predicted. It relates extremely well to your argument since it's based on the fact that human behavior can be explained by particle interactions. If they can't be, then your understanding of the laws of the universe which are based on scientific holism won't fit so well anymore (which is more of an assumption than an understanding anyways).
Even if science is holistic (which again, we don't know whether it is or not but it sure as hell isn't right now), it doesn't necessarily follow that the laws of the universe force one to reject free will.
|
There is no doubt that humanity has always been influenced by history and genetics, that is, most of our decisions are really products of generations and generations of experience and conditioning. I have faith however that there is a quantum of human experience that is above and beyond all these contingencies, one that truly experiences free will, such as when a man chooses to do something is against his interests, something irrational.
|
On March 06 2012 00:00 Rye. wrote:So many misguided posts. The argument about predicting the particles in our bodies is flawed. You cant do it. Quantum mechanics allows for things to happen that shouldnt be possible. And therfore are unpredictable. more detailed reading can be found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_tunnelingBecause of this phenomenon it becomes impossible to predict a particles motion with 100% certainty. You dont know when its going to tunnel, it just suddenly does. Physicists use statistical probabilities when dealing with sub atomic particles. Radiation is the perfect example. You can watch a single a uranium atom for a long time, and never know when it is going to decay. It doesnt give any clues, it just suddenly decays. Someone said Show nested quote +To argue free will, you need to argue that the brain is magical and disobeys the strict laws that the rest of the whole universe follow. Well... the laws arnt strict. When dealing with subatomic particles, you have to use probabilities. So lets say you can predict the behaviour of a particle to 99.999999999999% accuracy. You have 2 particles, each has a 99.999999999999% predictability. When looking at them interacting with each other this becomes. 0.99999999999999 * 0.99999999999999 = 0.99999999999998 as you can see, the probability has decreased. Now do that calculation for the billions and billions of particles in your body. I think you'd end up with a tiny tiny number. (This is a simplified example. the real statistics would be impossible to calculate, but would still result in a number close to 0) Perhaps this is purely due to our lack of understanding of the universe. But whilst it is the current theory, unless some amazing physicist comes up with a better model, we're going to have to stick with it.
Random quantum fluctuations is a long way from free will. Are you saying that these fluctuations can be guided by our free will? If so, then why can't they be predicted.
On March 05 2012 22:29 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:25 ooni wrote:Here is how I see it... HERE WE GO Imagine a machine that can predict the future by 100% or very close to it it should be considered 100%, let us say this machine exists and figures out the outcome by "pre-determined" data. IF (<- note the big if) a such machine was possible to build and one does the opposite, that person would have acquired "free will" (if one defines free will as changing the course of the future by a choice). If you are going to argue, "you do not have all the data, the data of the last choice was not included..."; That does not matter since everything is supposely 'predetermined', the last choice should have been predicted by the data at that point. If it cannot be predicted by the machine 2 possible futures exist depending on the person's choice Well I believe humans or other animals with lessor intelligence is a crappier version of this machine. They can predict somewhat what will happen and act upon it, and has the free will to not to act upon it or act differently. What if that machine told the person what kind of sandwich they would have the next morning. If everything is determined, would it be fair to say that the person will always have that sandwich? If the machine told me which sandwich I was going to eat, do I believe that I would be physically incapable of choosing otherwise? I was thinking of that a while ago. Not sure if its 100% logical. (The reaction to hearing the data should have also been factored in, right?)
Yes, exactly. So first the machine calculates sandwich "A". Then it calculates your response to its response, to make sandwich "B". Then it calculates your response to its response, which is to make sandwich "C". It keeps calculating, and eventually it comes up with a sandwich idea so compelling, that you can't help but make it, even though you are defeating the idea of free will. On the bright side, you get an awesome sandwich.
|
Basically, it seems the question boils down to :
Is the universe deterministic or not.
If yes : There is no free will.
If not : There is free will.
Personally, I cant answer this question. And i'm not sure anyone on this planet can.
|
On March 06 2012 01:08 Tyrran wrote:
Basically, it seems the question boils down to :
Is the universe deterministic or not.
If yes : There is no free will.
If not : There is free will.
Personally, I cant answer this question. And i'm not sure anyone on this planet can.
If yes, there still can be free will.
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
|
I am skeptical on either side of this issue, given the sheer ammount we do not know about our universe.
Physicalism certainly does seem to be the most consistent with currently understood and accepted scientific advances, so I'd lean more strongly towards that.
|
On March 06 2012 01:08 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 01:08 Tyrran wrote:
Basically, it seems the question boils down to :
Is the universe deterministic or not.
If yes : There is no free will.
If not : There is free will.
Personally, I cant answer this question. And i'm not sure anyone on this planet can.
If yes, there still can be free will. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism
Sure, as long as you're fine with changing the meaning of free will to something almost, but not completely opposite.
|
Just because there seems to be a reason for everything doesn't imply wether our world is deterministic or not.
You can fabricate a reason for an event but this doesn't mean that it actually happened for this reason.
Have you ever annoyed someone by continuing to ask them "Why?" until they rage? You can always continue asking for a reason, then for the reason of the reason etc.
This either leads to an infinite loop if there is a reason for everything or it stops if there is no reason for something.
However, when you reach the point, when you are unable to name the reason for something, you can't say wether there actually is a reason for it or not, you just don't know.
The point I am trying to make with this is, that due to our limited knowledge, we can't decide wether everything is truely deterministic or not, therefore you can't rule out free will, no matter how hard you try. You can assume, that everything is deterministic, but you don't know.
|
So far I read only the (very short) chapter on free will in my copy of the Moral Landscape.
That is a point where Sam Harris actually changed a belief of mine. After thinking about it, I agree that the philosophical concept of free will doesn't make sense.
It doesn't mean the world is deterministic. It doesn't mean a man is not responsible for his actions. I just means, there is no free will in the sense that we author our choices.
|
David Wong, editor of Cracked.com, wrote a thing on this back when he had his own website, PointlessWasteofTime.com. It is funny.
|
On March 06 2012 01:07 Hypertension wrote:Yes, exactly. So first the machine calculates sandwich "A". Then it calculates your response to its response, to make sandwich "B". Then it calculates your response to its response, which is to make sandwich "C". It keeps calculating, and eventually it comes up with a sandwich idea so compelling, that you can't help but make it, even though you are defeating the idea of free will. On the bright side, you get an awesome sandwich.
Which is exactly the way Philip K. Dick wrote minority report : There are 3 precogs, 2 out of 3 predict John Anderton will be a murderer. First one predicts he will be framed and will kill in reaction to a false situation. Second one predicts he will know of the first prediction and make an inquiry, thus not killing. Third one predicts that upon descovering the contradictory report, he will make the decision to kill in order to end the system. In the end he has no free will, but a good sandwich.
Note that the movie describes the opposite conclusion: He knows he is framed, he knows he has been foretold to kill, but the final choice remains his and he is free not to. The system ends because his choice not to kill proves free will still exists and may contradict the expected result.
I like the multiple universe solution more though. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having a non deterministic universe where all alternatives do actually occur, spawning each its own universe sounds fun. I am free to make any choice and I do, I did both move and stay still.
|
Did anyone here actually provide even approximate definition of free will they are using? Because if you use the "common sense" definition of free will that people use of course you can create strong argument based on the fact that no known process allows for such an concept and there is no evidence for such a thing. (And not having evidence IS ENOUGH to reject a concept for those who try to argue that we do not yet know enough.) But when you analyze the "common" idea of free will even somewhat indepth it is clear that the whole concept is flawed even in the abstract, logical sense and is just a vague mystic concept.
On the other hand if you consider free will in more a judicial sense , that you have free will when you are not forced to your decision by outside forces and can make a decision in accord with your "nature". Such a definition of free will is easily compatible with determinism. And also I never saw any other definition of free will that makes even logical sense, not even talking about empirical sense.
EDIT: reading more of the thread it seems people more disagree with each others definition of free will and not actually with the factual description of what is real and what is not. The compatibilist definition of free will is just different and frankly I would love to see the "incompatibilist" to even formulate his own definition of free will that would not depend on some mystical concepts.
|
On March 06 2012 00:57 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:51 Deleuze wrote:On March 05 2012 23:43 Chibithor wrote:On March 05 2012 22:45 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:39 ooni wrote:On March 05 2012 22:29 radscorpion9 wrote:On March 05 2012 22:25 ooni wrote:Here is how I see it... HERE WE GO Imagine a machine that can predict the future by 100% or very close to it it should be considered 100%, let us say this machine exists and figures out the outcome by "pre-determined" data. IF (<- note the big if) a such machine was possible to build and one does the opposite, that person would have acquired "free will" (if one defines free will as changing the course of the future by a choice). If you are going to argue, "you do not have all the data, the data of the last choice was not included..."; That does not matter since everything is supposely 'predetermined', the last choice should have been predicted by the data at that point. If it cannot be predicted by the machine 2 possible futures exist depending on the person's choice Well I believe humans or other animals with lessor intelligence is a crappier version of this machine. They can predict somewhat what will happen and act upon it, and has the free will to not to act upon it or act differently. What if that machine told the person what kind of sandwich they would have the next morning. If everything is determined, would it be fair to say that the person will always have that sandwich? If the machine told me which sandwich I was going to eat, do I believe that I would be physically incapable of choosing otherwise? I was thinking of that a while ago. Not sure if its 100% logical. (The reaction to hearing the data should have also been factored in, right?) No that's the thing, the person could choose otherwise, it is a possible scenario. Thus a machine that supposely determine the future (which is possible because everything is supposely "predetermined") is only one scenario, if it wants to be 100% correct it will need to produce 2, an alternative future depending on the choice the person makes. The reaction after hearing the data is not a data that is required, since everything is predetermined, it should be obvious for the machine to figure out what the decision will be (that decision should be predetermined). Oh btw, could someone debunk this idea? I always want to hear the people's thoughts on it. Assuming a person would not follow the machine's predictions, I guess it'd go into an infinite loop First it would calculate the first prediction, say: The person will eat in the next five minutes. Then it would calculate the reaction of the person to said prediction: The person will not eat in the next five minutes. Then it would either A) Calculate the reaction to the upper prediction, and the reaction to this prediction and so forth. or B) Discard the first predictions altogether. Since the first prediction is now false and will not be sent out by the machine, the second one is false as well, as it relies on the person seeing the first result. After this, maybe it'd give an error or start over. Or it could just predict that the nonsense above would happen and not bother with it at all. I'm kind of rambling about stuff I don't know much about, so there are probably errors in my train of thought, but whatever. You wanted thoughts, here you go! It is a record that breaks the record player. I presume your almost direct quote means you have read GEB To elaborate the point: such a machine cannot exist, because self-referential feedback loops "break" computation. The most famous instance of this, is of course, the Halting problem, which was used to show that not everything is decidable.
Yup.The impossibility of such a computer doesn't show that the magical kind of free will must exist or that determinism is false; it just shows that the premise that determinism implies the possibility of a universal prediction computer is false.
To show how little it has to do with free will, consider the fact that it poses just as much of a problem for a simple robot designed to eat a sandwich when and only when the computer predicts otherwise. Of course, a third computer could predict whichever prediction the first makes and also the robot's reaction to it, but there'd be some other record that would break it.
|
On March 06 2012 01:26 Oshuy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2012 01:07 Hypertension wrote:Yes, exactly. So first the machine calculates sandwich "A". Then it calculates your response to its response, to make sandwich "B". Then it calculates your response to its response, which is to make sandwich "C". It keeps calculating, and eventually it comes up with a sandwich idea so compelling, that you can't help but make it, even though you are defeating the idea of free will. On the bright side, you get an awesome sandwich. Which is exactly the way Philip K. Dick wrote minority report : There are 3 precogs, 2 out of 3 predict John Anderton will be a murderer. First one predicts he will be framed and will kill in reaction to a false situation. Second one predicts he will know of the first prediction and make an inquiry, thus not killing. Third one predicts that upon descovering the contradictory report, he will make the decision to kill in order to end the system. In the end he has no free will, but a good sandwich. Note that the movie describes the opposite conclusion: He knows he is framed, he knows he has been foretold to kill, but the final choice remains his and he is free not to. The system ends because his choice not to kill proves free will still exists and may contradict the expected result. I like the multiple universe solution more though. I don't believe in it, but the idea of having a non deterministic universe where all alternatives do actually occur, spawning each its own universe sounds fun. I am free to make any choice and I do, I did both move and stay still.
Multiple universes don't give you free will though. You get to make all possible decisions, but they were still pre-determined by the state of the universe prior, not something you get to "choose".
|
On March 06 2012 00:05 Felnarion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 23:35 paralleluniverse wrote:On March 05 2012 23:13 Felnarion wrote:
I'm not going to descend with you guys into the depths of physics to explain this.
To bring back something I read earlier in the thread...If we are destined to behave in pre-determined ways..What governs them?
Imagine a scenario where someone has a gun to my head and the evildoer demands I move my leg. What if I refuse? This is a possibility. Why would I refuse? If my actions are predetermined, how would I refuse? Surely evolution would show us that I should behave in my best interest, correct? I mean, if evolution is true, then things must, by and large, operate in such a way as to preserve themselves?
So, why can I refuse to move my leg and thus die? Unless we are governed on something else? Maybe we all simply live out of spite. All the things we do are to spite death, except in my scenario, where my "willingness" to spite death is lower than how much I want to spite the evildoer?
I've read the research that actions begin before the conscious brain realizes it. I understand that, but why is it, that once I do realize I am moving, I can stop it? Without free will, how is this possible? Is the argument that evolution and the universe has given us two, completely uncontrollable, competing, "wills" that we are prisoners inside?
For one, I don't believe it. I do recognize that instinct kicks in before the brain realizes it, as an evolutionary response, but the brain has veto power, it's obvious. My consciousness creates justifications for the reasons to not do something. I can operate against, or within, my own interests, on a whim, for any justification.
What purpose would that serve, in evolution? It makes far more sense for there to be an uncontrolled or less-controlled component (instincts, and auto responses) that protect us when we don't have time to consider, and then another, more evolved portion, that allows us to consider. Are you posturing that considering can't exist because of our current flimsy knowledge of physics? I don't accept that, when it goes against everything we all feel.
And even so, even if you are correct, it benefits us not at all to know it. To know that we in fact have no control would unravel our entire existence, and probably be the death of humanity.
To finish it up? I can definitely say, from all the things I have witnessed and all the things in the world that are known to us..If we don't have true free-will, we have the most free-will of any object, thing, or being. We're as close as one can get. We should leave it at that. Your action to move or not is the culmination of every prior experience or thought you have had. In it's most basic form, it is the aggregate of the chain of causes and effects that had led the elementary particles that make up the situation you're in to be in that particular configuration at that particular time. But as I've said, the world works "as if" you had free will. I don't get any profound insight on how I should make "decisions" or live my life based on my disbelief in free will. But it's not like I had a choice... The world only works as if you have free will if you still accept it as possible that you do. If I could definitely show people they had no free will, without question, I prove there is no free-will, most people, I think, would shut down in confusion. Why act if you don't control it, why punish or reward if they don't control it, why have the argument about punishing or rewarding when the people who hand out the judgement don't control their thoughts either. I'm not saying everyone would, but that it would fundamentally break down everything we do and know. How can we even trust our knowledge of physics, perhaps these were all things we were predetermined to discover and know, maybe we can't even understand the other concepts, if there are any. Did I accept that theory because it makes sense, or does it make sense because I'm determined to believe it? But physics isn't certain. It's not definitive. The relativity and laws we observe in mass are just "averages" just what will "probably happen" based on probabilities. Quantum forces, which we don't come close to understanding, act beneath it. Perhaps therein lies our answer. Maybe it's an even deeper level beneath that. And to the other guy who pointed out that "We don't always act in our own interests" Yeah, I get that, it's an obvious fact, there was obvious tongue-in-cheek "we all act out of spite" comment afterward, I assume you didn't read it. That, or you thought I really think we all act out of spite.
Turing showed us how rationality can arise from mechanistic processes. Such processes only depend on information about the syntax of our thoughts (our token brain states), but modern logic shows how syntax can mirror semantics. As long as the semantically good inferences correspond to appropriate chains of syntax in the causal order, rationality will follow.
Accepting a mechanistic universe causes no problems for our understanding of ourselves as rational and our beliefs as justified.
|
On March 06 2012 01:16 [F_]aths wrote:
So far I read only the (very short) chapter on free will in my copy of the Moral Landscape.
That is a point where Sam Harris actually changed a belief of mine. After thinking about it, I agree that the philosophical concept of free will doesn't make sense.
It doesn't mean the world is deterministic. It doesn't mean a man is not responsible for his actions. I just means, there is no free will in the sense that we author our choices.
Actually if you look at it rationally, what is "you" ? If you consider yourself as some "soul" directing your body then of course there is no free will, but if "you" consider actually what is you and that is your body and brain as a independent whole then free will can be well defined concept.
You are trying to force a mystical definition of free will and then find out that it does not work. Of course the mystical religious free will does not exist, but that does not mean the concept of free will is always empty.
|
There is something missing from this discussion, and i hate to bring it up because it is kind of 'icky'. I don't want to come across sounding too new age, because i really don't believe in all that stuff.
Even Sam Harris has admitted that there is something magical about 'consciousness' (i hate that word). I guess you could call it 'experience' instead but it has the same effect. This has a massive effect on the idea of free will. Can consciousness affect the universe of stuff, or is it a mere viewer of things.
Well there is a theory, often put forward by Peter Russell, and others who have turned to metaphysics to try and explain things (maybe a bad move), that consciousness is in everything, to some degree. We have a sort of refined version in ourselves. This theory states that consciousness came first, and the universe grew 'inside' it. In such a universe (which obviously we can't prove) free will could definitely be seen to exist, in fact it is almost required to make it work.
|
On March 05 2012 22:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2012 22:05 Tanukki wrote:
The universe is very old and complex, our observational ability isn't good enough to fully predict even the interactions of a couple atoms. I'd say with our current level of understanding, it'd be nothing but hubris to admit to something like determinism. Even if we admitted to it, it wouldn't change anything. Unable to explain the ultimate causes of our actions, we'd still have to rely on the concept of free will. It wouldn't be hubris to say that free will is false, any more than it is hubris to say fairies do not exist or God does not exist. In both these cases, the notion of fairies and God are not supported by evidence and is not consistent with what we know about how the universe works. Free will is the same, there is no evidence that it exists. Further, the existence of free will is inconsistent with everything that is observed and known about how the universe works. The universe works by following unchangeable laws, your thoughts are merely a product of these laws acting on particles, rather than the controller of these particles. I never claimed that the universe is deterministic. Our current understanding is that on the particle level (i.e. the quantum level), the universe is random, but on a macro level it is essentially deterministic. However, a random universe would not save the free will hypothesis, as you still would not be in control of your thoughts, if your thoughts were a product of some universal RNG.
um, Immovable Mover? open a book lol
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
