RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   
  Topic: Free Will - does it exist?, And why should we care?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:00   

Richardthughes:
Quote
And the guy spinning the outer arm of a large space station knows what gravity is... except it is centripetal acceleration.


Yup. Just look at how much we've been able to do for fun since defining gravity! But what does that have to do with a squirrel or a raven and THEIR 'knowledge' of gravity from direct experience? I hardly think it's valid to suggest that because a squirrel can't launch itself into space and produce a synthetic gravitational effect while out in space, it must mean the squirrel has no innate 'knowledge' of gravity. Have you ever seen a squirrel examine the treetop terrain and then launch itself from one branch of a tree to another branch on a different tree? I'm pretty sure it's figuring out whether or not it can make the leap without ending up dead on the ground.

In other matters squirrels are not so bright. Like when to run across the road, a situation that doesn't end well for an awful lot of Kamikazi squirrels... §;o)

  
keiths



Posts: 2195
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:12   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 19 2010,13:49)
Hi Richardthughes,
Quote (Richardthughes @ Feb. 19 2010,15:44)
And the guy spinning the outer arm of a large space station knows what gravity is... except it is centripetal acceleration.

However, since space-time is curved the only diffence is one is moving in the space dimension and the other in the time dimension.

Making it essentially the same thing.  ;)

No, both are moving through both time and space.

I think what you were trying to say is that acceleration is indistinguishable from gravity under the theory of general relativity.

--------------
And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G

Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:15   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 19 2010,13:38)
Hi Tom Ames,
 
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 19 2010,15:00)
...many creatures we'd normally not think of as having conscious or free will do in fact punish cheaters...


It is not my intent to jump on your comment here.  There appears to be many people who share this view.

I honestly do not understand it.  How can an animal make decisions and CHEAT yet have it be presumed it isn't conscious and/or doesn't have Free Will?

The only thing that makes any sense is that humans are so prejudice they discount everything that isn't human-like as being inherently inferior.  IOW, humans are "special".

EDIT - I see bfish beat me to it.  It sucks to have work get in the way.

Hi TP,

If you define "cheating" operationally, no invocation of free will is necessary. One definition might come from game theory: cheating is the behavior that, if adopted by all would result in an equilibrium that would be disadvantageous to all.

As a society we may lock up psychopaths because they are dangerous, or because we have some sense that we are applying justice via punishment. Whatever we think our motivations are, this has no bearing on whether the psychopath has free agency.

Also: this thread is suffering a bit from a conflation between two distinct concepts. The first is consciousness, as in conscious awareness of oneself and one's environment. The other is conscious will, as in the ability to effect some outcome within or without oneself. These are not the same ideas. I could be an automaton in my actions, and yet be fully aware of my actions.

In some cases, this literally happens, even to humans: we act in ways that we don't expect or make "choices" that we don't feel are ours. Wegner (see "The Illusion of Conscious Will") has examples suggesting that many more of our actions follow this pattern than we might think.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:20   

Richardthughes:
   
Quote
And if no god...where does morality come from!!!!1111oneoneeleventy


What is that supposed to mean? I consider myself to be a self-conscious agent with a certain amount of freedom to choose my actions. That is what I directly experience myself to be.

So anyone who tells me I cannot be a self-conscious agent with a certain amount of freedom to choose my actions must provide some evidence of that, and it better be darned good evidence - i.e., NOT just their personal philosophy and metaphysics. Since their personal philosophy and metaphysics is of exactly zip importance to me or to science.

Conversely, my self-conscious self sees absolutely no point in trying to convince someone else that they are a self-conscious agent if they honestly don't believe so. For all I know, they might be a Zombie. All I can know for sure is that I'm not. FAPP.

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:23   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,13:31)
But the relative 'morality' of any given culture in any period of time doesn't magically determine whether or not self-consciousness and self-determination exist. It seems to me that all self-aware (conscious) humans who choose their actions - 'right' or 'wrong' in the culture's view - directly experience the existence of consciousness and self-determination.

I agree with your first sentence. But I think your second sentence essentially says: "All conscious beings who choose their actions experience choice", which to me sounds circular. Furthermore, it elides the differences between consciousness (as awareness) and agency or self-determination (see my post above).

We may be fully conscious and self aware and it STILL may be the case that free will is an illusion.

(And as you say, moral culpability is irrelevant to that question.)

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:26   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,16:20)
I consider myself to be a self-conscious agent with a certain amount of freedom to choose my actions. That is what I directly experience myself to be.

No one is suggesting you don't feel that. I think some postulate 'the illusion of free will'.

If free will is non-deterministic, does it have to be supernatural?

Lots of folks like this because you can get freewill = god with a bit of jiggery pokery. But you might just have a Chinese room in your noggin.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:47   

One problem with discussing free will is the eventual emergence of the "self-evidence" gambit. It's claimed that the reality of free will (definition unexplored) is self-evident from the fact that we're asking the question.

Not only is this a conversation-stopper, it ignores the fact that many things that are "self-evident" (the perfection of the celestial sphere, to give one example) are also WRONG.

At its best, science is a discipline for asking questions about things even (or maybe especially) if the answers are "self-evident".

Am I deliberately typing this sentence and am I conscious of doing so? It seems self-evident to me that I am. But "self-evidence" is not evidence at all. Instead, it's a technique for ending further probing, before the questions get too distressing.

(Closely akin to "self-evidence" is the theological concept of "natural law" which, as far as I can tell, is simply a fancy way of saying "shut up and do what I tell you to.")

Edited by Tom Ames on Feb. 19 2010,14:47

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,16:56   

Tom Ames:
 
Quote
Also: this thread is suffering a bit from a conflation between two distinct concepts. The first is consciousness, as in conscious awareness of oneself and one's environment. The other is conscious will, as in the ability to effect some outcome within or without oneself. These are not the same ideas. I could be an automaton in my actions, and yet be fully aware of my actions.


The conflation of consciousness itself with free agency is the result of the ongoing scientific effort to define and quantify consciousness, and the fact that this quest has drawn the attention of some philosophers who insist that neither of these things exist in reality. So we shouldn't be trying to define and quantify it. IOW, the subject of free choice presupposes the existence of self-consciousness, and consciousness itself. If consciousness doesn't exist - is an illusion - then the question of whether or not our will enjoys degrees of freedom is irrelevant. If consciousness does exist, then the question is relevant.

Deal is, free agency is a subdivision of consciousness - a single quality. I think everybody here acknowledges that we don't enjoy all that much freedom of action, given the various limitations of our form and abilities, as well as behavioral programming we've learned and assimilated during our lives in time. We know we can't [rationally, normally] choose to fly off the top of a tall building. But I've met more than a few toddlers who were absolutely convinced that if they just tried hard enough, they could fly.

Learning our limitations is evidence of self-consciousness. Limitations affect our freedom of action (and options of choice), but limited options doesn't mean our choices aren't free. Quite a few people trapped in the upper floors of the Twin Towers on 9-11 chose to fly, even knowing very well they'd be flying to their death. None of them could have known the building would later implode and wipe out all physical evidence of their existence, so "leaving a corpse to bury" is an unlikely motivation [I think they just chose how they would die]. How was their choice to fly not free?

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,17:06   

Richardthughes:
Quote
If free will is non-deterministic, does it have to be supernatural?


Of course not. Unless I consider myself to be supernatural. But that would be pretty hard, since while I don't actually remember being born in the usual way, I was assured by my parents that I indeed was born just like other people are born. They offered a birth certificate as evidence of that. And while there are some people out there who don't believe that a birth certificate is good evidence of birth, I'm not one of 'em. If people are natural organisms, then so am I.

And because I am perfectly comfortable with the idea that I am a natural organism (classified: Human) who got here in a natural way, I am inclined to believe that my consciousness is as natural as I am. If I were thinking thoughts and doing things that I did not recognize as originating in myself, then I'd be seeking medical care. Or a tin foil hat to keep 'em out. Or maybe an exorcist!

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,17:21   

Hi Tom,

At least one thing has gotten cleared up.  It isn't that you think humans are conscious and have free will but animals don't, you are arguing there isn't such a thing as consciousness and/or free will.

Or at least there is insufficient empirical evidence to support the claim.

This takes us back to the basic metaphysical assumptions.

I suggest you have the following assumptions...

1. reality in inherently logical.

2. there is only one reality

3. science is an instrument by which the one and only reality can be known


Not everyone makes these assumptions.  For example...

1. My reality is what I understand reality to be

2. Other people can, and do, understand things differently than I do

3. Science is like a game with rules.  It is a helpful tool in generating commonality between different people's realities.



The only thing I KNOW is real are my thoughts.

My body may be a Matrix-like illusion.  You all may be in on a wide conspiracy to test my resolve.

I continue to play by the science game rules because they have been helpful in assisting me in creating my reality.  My presumption that others are like me is also helpful as long as I guard against letting them do my thinking for me.

Because if I no longer understand what and why I think what I do, I am no longer me.

While this is hyperbole, it gets to the crux of the problem.  If everything we think is an illusion, then reality is an illusion for all practical purposes.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,17:23   

"where consciousness is concerned, the existence of the appearance is the reality." - John Searle.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,17:24   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,17:06)
Of course not.... [snip]

So nature, operating alone could make consciousness?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Albatrossity2



Posts: 2780
Joined: Mar. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,17:24   

I'm sticking with my definition
 
Quote
Free will is a theological construction invoked to explain behaviors which have a perfectly acceptable natural explanation.

and I'm still waiting for heddle to tell me how moving a highlighter across a desk, or taking a sip of coffee can be accomplished by predetermination or coercion that does not involve a supernatural explanation.

--------------
Flesh of the sky, child of the sky, the mind
Has been obligated from the beginning
To create an ordered universe
As the only possible proof of its own inheritance.
                        - Pattiann Rogers

   
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,17:25   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,14:56)
IOW, the subject of free choice presupposes the existence of self-consciousness, and consciousness itself. If consciousness doesn't exist - is an illusion - then the question of whether or not our will enjoys degrees of freedom is irrelevant. If consciousness does exist, then the question is relevant.

I agree. But quite often when the question is asked "does free will exist?" the respondent will answer as if the question is "does consciousness exist?"

They are, as you say, related, but they're not the same. We can't imagine having free will without consciousness. However, consciousness does not imply free will.

I interpret most of the discussion here to be an exploration of the extent to which we exert free will, if indeed we exert any.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,17:56   

Tom Ames:
Quote
I interpret most of the discussion here to be an exploration of the extent to which we exert free will, if indeed we exert any.


I'd suggest that the discussion here is itself evidence of free will by all the participants. It seems highly doubtful to me that some disembodied spirits are using us all to have their own discussion of a subject they probably already know about. What would be the point of that?

My grandson just informed me I've been 'volunteered' for a game of Monopoly this evening. I hate Monopoly, almost as much as I hate Risk. Because I never win, and it's no fun to play a game you never win. Now, I'll probably have to play anyway, but not because "I" volunteered myself or because it was my idea. And surely not because I desire to play Monopoly (Star Wars version). But because my grandsons are wanting to play and they need somebody willing to count out the money and keep up with the deeds. How "free" a choice is it? We'll see after I field my alternative suggestion of playing War On Terror instead...

I don't know if you noticed my "FAPP" closing to the 16:20 post, iterated again later by TP in his 17:21 post. "For All Practical Purposes."

It may well be that we're completely wrong about the nature of space-time, matter/energy, and existence itself. I am aware of some of the strangest directions that current physical theory could take us in, and am personally quite thankful that most scientists avoid that sort of speculation wherever possible. I see this whole bruhaha about the existence or non-existence of consciousness and free will as just another of the speculative tangents that can be argued from the science, but are much better left to stew in their own juices.

For All Practical Purposes of existence here in 4-D space-time, we are conscious agents with certain degrees of freedom of choice and will. Unless we are suffering some organic issue that renders us unable to exercise such things, we should properly operate as if we do enjoy these things. Evolution obviously designed us so (no matter who did or didn't design evolution). I presume there is survival value in experiencing ourselves as conscious agents with free will.

Worse, that makes my belief in consciousness and free will perfectly natural. §;o)

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:12   

Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 19 2010,17:47)
One problem with discussing free will is the eventual emergence of the "self-evidence" gambit. It's claimed that the reality of free will (definition unexplored) is self-evident from the fact that we're asking the question.

Not only is this a conversation-stopper, it ignores the fact that many things that are "self-evident" (the perfection of the celestial sphere, to give one example) are also WRONG.

I believe Rich was making just this point, which Joy missed spectacularly.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:21   

Lou:
Quote
I believe Rich was making just this point, which Joy missed spectacularly.


"Point" being [Tom Ames]:
Quote
Not only is this a conversation-stopper, it ignores the fact that many things that are "self-evident" (the perfection of the celestial sphere, to give one example) are also WRONG.


Well, since I never believed in anything resembling "the perfection of the celestial sphere," I wouldn't consider that notion to be "self-evident." At least, not as self-evident to me as my self is. Nor would I expect you to externalize what is to be self-evident either, since the only thing that can be self-evident to you is your direct experience of reality. You don't experience a "perfect celestial sphere." Do you?

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:23   

SWING....and a miss

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:31   

rhmc...

I don't know why, but every time I see your moniker I think of Dudley Dooright. With a big-brimmed hat, riding a moose...

No, "rhmc" isn't "rcmp." But I just can't help myself... is that some disembodied spirit (who used to be a clown) taking over my mind?

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:40   

Quote (rhmc @ Feb. 19 2010,19:23)
SWING....and a miss

Fortunately, this isn't baseball.

--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:46   

Okay, just consider that "perfect celestial sphere" for a moment. Let's simplify it to "the earth is flat." Since what passed for human science once believed these things self-evident.

Is it self-evident that the earth rotates, and revolves around the sun? Or is it self-evident that we have day/night cycles and seasons? I'd say the latter is self-evident, since most people experience day/night and seasons where they exist, directly. The stories we invent from our minds to explain what is self-evident changes with our level of psychological sophistication and the extended range of (invented) tools at our disposal.

Yes, the information comes in via sensory (or expanded technological) data our brains process and analyze, but processed data is all we have for the purpose of experiencing the exterior world. We need nothing more than a mind to experience our 'selves'. Which I posit must then be the most self-evident phenomenon we ever get to 'know' for sure.

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5455
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,18:49   

As if I could resist, and as if you couldn't see it coming...

Quote
The Outlook wasn't brilliant for the Mudville nine that day:
The score stood four to two, with but one inning more to play.
And then when Cooney died at first, and Barrows did the same,
A sickly silence fell upon the patrons of the game.

A straggling few got up to go in deep despair. The rest
Clung to that hope which springs eternal in the human breast;
They thought, if only Casey could get but a whack at that -
We'd put up even money, now, with Casey at the bat.

But Flynn preceded Casey, as did also Jimmy Blake,
And the former was a lulu and the latter was a cake;
So upon that stricken multitude grim melancholy sat,
For there seemed but little chance of Casey's getting to the bat.

But Flynn let drive a single, to the wonderment of all,
And Blake, the much despis-ed, tore the cover off the ball;
And when the dust had lifted, and the men saw what had occurred,
There was Jimmy safe at second and Flynn a-hugging third.

Then from 5,000 throats and more there rose a lusty yell;
It rumbled through the valley, it rattled in the dell;
It knocked upon the mountain and recoiled upon the flat,
For Casey, mighty Casey, was advancing to the bat.

There was ease in Casey's manner as he stepped into his place;
There was pride in Casey's bearing and a smile on Casey's face.
And when, responding to the cheers, he lightly doffed his hat,
No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Casey at the bat.

Ten thousand eyes were on him as he rubbed his hands with dirt;
Five thousand tongues applauded when he wiped them on his shirt.
Then while the writhing pitcher ground the ball into his hip,
Defiance gleamed in Casey's eye, a sneer curled Casey's lip.

And now the leather-covered sphere came hurtling through the air,
And Casey stood a-watching it in haughty grandeur there.
Close by the sturdy batsman the ball unheeded sped-
"That ain't my style," said Casey. "Strike one," the umpire said.

From the benches, black with people, there went up a muffled roar,
Like the beating of the storm-waves on a stern and distant shore.
"Kill him! Kill the umpire!" shouted someone on the stand;
And its likely they'd a-killed him had not Casey raised his hand.

With a smile of Christian charity great Casey's visage shone;
He stilled the rising tumult; he bade the game go on;
He signaled to the pitcher, and once more the spheroid flew;
But Casey still ignored it, and the umpire said, "Strike two."

"Fraud!" cried the maddened thousands, and echo answered fraud;
But one scornful look from Casey and the audience was awed.
They saw his face grow stern and cold, they saw his muscles strain,
And they knew that Casey wouldn't let that ball go by again.

The sneer is gone from Casey's lip, his teeth are clenched in hate;
He pounds with cruel violence his bat upon the plate.
And now the pitcher holds the ball, and now he lets it go,
And now the air is shattered by the force of Casey's blow.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the sun is shining bright;
The band is playing somewhere, and somewhere hearts are light,
And somewhere men are laughing, and somewhere children shout;
But there is no joy in Mudville - mighty Casey has struck out.

"Phin"


--------------
“Why do creationists have such a hard time with commas?

Linky“. ~ Steve Story, Legend

   
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:01   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,16:46)
Okay, just consider that "perfect celestial sphere" for a moment. Let's simplify it to "the earth is flat." Since what passed for human science once believed these things self-evident.

Is it self-evident that the earth rotates, and revolves around the sun? Or is it self-evident that we have day/night cycles and seasons? I'd say the latter is self-evident, since most people experience day/night and seasons where they exist, directly. The stories we invent from our minds to explain what is self-evident changes with our level of psychological sophistication and the extended range of (invented) tools at our disposal.

Yes, the information comes in via sensory (or expanded technological) data our brains process and analyze, but processed data is all we have for the purpose of experiencing the exterior world. We need nothing more than a mind to experience our 'selves'. Which I posit must then be the most self-evident phenomenon we ever get to 'know' for sure.

Let's please not get caught up in the detail of my example. My point was simply that a claim of self-evidence is not sufficient warrant for belief.

BTW, I don't believe that the earth rotates because it's "self-evident". I believe it because there is actual evidence that it rotates, and because the balance of that evidence outweighs the "self-evidence" of a stationary earth.

Similarly, I see this discussion as a plea for EVIDENCE of free will, rather than claims that the existence of free will is "self-evident".

I know that unconscious will exists--we all engage in this all of the time. What I'd like to know is whether or not free will, in the sense of consciously decided initiation of an action, also exists, or if it's simply an illusion.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:19   

Tom Ames:
 
Quote
Let's please not get caught up in the detail of my example. My point was simply that a claim of self-evidence is not sufficient warrant for belief.


The simple claim, of course. Lots of things we believe are "self-evident" are no such thing. Consciousness isn't one of them, IMO.

 
Quote
BTW, I don't believe that the earth rotates because it's "self-evident". I believe it because there is actual evidence that it rotates, and because the balance of that evidence outweighs the "self-evidence" of a stationary earth.


But my point is that you personally do not directly experience the earth's rotation. You believe it rotates because you believe the extended technological evidence that it rotates. FWIW, so do I.

A "stationary earth" is not self-evident and never was. What WAS evident, and no doubt contributed to the misconception that the sun orbited the earth, is that lots of people were [relatively] stationary on the earth.

 
Quote
Similarly, I see this discussion as a plea for EVIDENCE of free will, rather than claims that the existence of free will is "self-evident".


Evidence is present in the fact that I am still here and not playing Star Wars Monopoly with my grandsons. I'd go ahead and accept your presence as evidence of your freedom of will.

 
Quote
I know that unconscious will exists--we all engage in this all of the time. What I'd like to know is whether or not free will, in the sense of consciously decided initiation of an action, also exists, or if it's simply an illusion.


What qualifies as "unconscious will?" Automatic, unconscious levels of my consciousness keep my heart beating, but is that really a will, or just a function?

And if you think unconscious will is an actual phenomenon, doesn't it then follow that conscious will is an actual phenomenon? And if it's an actual phenomenon, why does it not enjoy some degrees of freedom?

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:22   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,19:31)
rhmc...

I don't know why, but every time I see your moniker I think of Dudley Dooright. With a big-brimmed hat, riding a moose...

No, "rhmc" isn't "rcmp." But I just can't help myself... is that some disembodied spirit (who used to be a clown) taking over my mind?

you may think of me as "who IS right" rather than dudley do right.

(as an aside, to me the name Dudley brings to mind Dudley Morton, known to many as "Deadly Dudley")

personally, i tend to agree with Tracy P. Hamilton in "I have not read philosophy (translation: bullshit) on free will, but most of the intarweb arguments are looking at the matter from the wrong perspective."

your blatherings have not changed my view.

  
Thought Provoker



Posts: 530
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:24   

Hi Tom,

Ok, I'll bite.

What would constitute evidence of free will?

The ability to think and act illogically?

An aversion to constantly responding the same way to the same stimulus and acting on it?  (getting out of the rut)

An inability to falsify the hypothesis with even a simple example of Artificial Intelligence?

I suspect you are requesting evidence of a mechanism.

Predictably, I am going to suggest evidence exists for macro expressions of quantum effects in living entities.

Furthermore, I suggest that Quantum Mechanics is the only known mechanism where two mutually exclusive "realities" can exist at the same time (quantum superposition).

If Free Will exists, it has to be able to be illogical, otherwise it would be deterministic and algorithmic and, therefore, not "free".

I suggest there is plenty of evidence of life thinking and acting illogically.  Quantum Physics would be the obvious source for non-deterministic yet non-random effects.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:26   

rhmc:
Quote
your blatherings have not changed my view.


I may well be blathering. Seems to be something my consciousness is good at. But now I've just gotta ask...

What is your view?

  
rhmc



Posts: 340
Joined: Dec. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:29   

Quote (Joy @ Feb. 19 2010,20:26)
rhmc:
 
Quote
your blatherings have not changed my view.


I may well be blathering. Seems to be something my consciousness is good at. But now I've just gotta ask...

What is your view?

i am not here to educate your ilk.

  
Joy



Posts: 188
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:39   

rhmc:
 
Quote
am not here to educate your ilk.


LOL!!!!! Wow. Now a question about what you believe requires an "education?" Because what you personally believe must be the 'correct' view? That's positively discussion-ending!

I guess the rest of us will just have to carry on without your great junior-godling level wisdom and knowledge, then. S'alright by me.

BTW, did you intend "ilk" to designate "family," "class" or "kind?" I don't know about you, but I am human. Homo Sapien Sapien. What are you? [rhetorical question, don't bother]

  
Tom Ames



Posts: 238
Joined: Dec. 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 19 2010,19:56   

Quote (Thought Provoker @ Feb. 19 2010,17:24)
What would constitute evidence of free will?

I don't know what such evidence would look like. There is copious evidence for non-conscious or automatic action, though. Which makes me think that free will, even if true, should not simply be accepted as a given. Even if it makes us feel good to believe in it.

It's a lot like god, actually.

--------------
-Tom Ames

  
  142 replies since Feb. 18 2010,12:30 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (5) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]