Material Beings
The_Finch
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8498Members
Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8498Members
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Free-willed spirits or Meatbags?</div> Consider this:
It's possible to alter your mood with chemicals, be they cocaine or prozac. Through various training exercises, it's possible for you to learn hopelessness. By tinkering with your brain, it's possible to remove memories and actually prohibit the formation of long-term memory encoding, meaning that you'll never remember anything that happened more than 60 seconds ago. By punishing you, it's likely that your aggression will increase. Did you know that the answer you give can be altered based on how the question is asked? How about the fact that it is possible to alter and even fabricate entirely false memories.
Now consider why we think of ourselves as independent beings with free will, seperate from the hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and other elements that compose us.
I propose that we are not free willed beings, but we behave as if we are because of various social requirements.
First, in order for society to have a justice system, we must hold people personally accountable for their actions. If our behavior is the result of how our behavior is rewarded or punished, then our behavior is the result of society. Our parents, teachers, friends and even total strangers shape who we are and the consequential actions that we take. However, for the justice system to work, we can't go around punishing hundreds of people for every crime. So, we use the concept of free will to hold the single person accountable
Second, we don't like to think that we're responsible for the "moral failures" of others. If you were Hitler's second grade teacher, would you think that you had a hand in his final solution? That perhaps something you said or did influenced him in such a way as to think that killing millions of people is a good idea? No. You wouldn't like that responsibility for others actions, thus free will becomes the culprit.
Third, how much do you really know about how you and the universe work? Do you know much about biology, behavioral psychology, quantum physics and sociology? Most people don't know much about any one of those, let alone all of them. We use free will to explain choices that other people make. Choice that we wouldn't make ourselves.
I say that we are not free-willed beings. Who we "are" can be changed quite readily based on the actions of those around us. Our attitudes can be altered chemically. Damaging or removing part of the brain can permanently change our past and our future.
It's possible to alter your mood with chemicals, be they cocaine or prozac. Through various training exercises, it's possible for you to learn hopelessness. By tinkering with your brain, it's possible to remove memories and actually prohibit the formation of long-term memory encoding, meaning that you'll never remember anything that happened more than 60 seconds ago. By punishing you, it's likely that your aggression will increase. Did you know that the answer you give can be altered based on how the question is asked? How about the fact that it is possible to alter and even fabricate entirely false memories.
Now consider why we think of ourselves as independent beings with free will, seperate from the hydrogen, nitrogen, carbon and other elements that compose us.
I propose that we are not free willed beings, but we behave as if we are because of various social requirements.
First, in order for society to have a justice system, we must hold people personally accountable for their actions. If our behavior is the result of how our behavior is rewarded or punished, then our behavior is the result of society. Our parents, teachers, friends and even total strangers shape who we are and the consequential actions that we take. However, for the justice system to work, we can't go around punishing hundreds of people for every crime. So, we use the concept of free will to hold the single person accountable
Second, we don't like to think that we're responsible for the "moral failures" of others. If you were Hitler's second grade teacher, would you think that you had a hand in his final solution? That perhaps something you said or did influenced him in such a way as to think that killing millions of people is a good idea? No. You wouldn't like that responsibility for others actions, thus free will becomes the culprit.
Third, how much do you really know about how you and the universe work? Do you know much about biology, behavioral psychology, quantum physics and sociology? Most people don't know much about any one of those, let alone all of them. We use free will to explain choices that other people make. Choice that we wouldn't make ourselves.
I say that we are not free-willed beings. Who we "are" can be changed quite readily based on the actions of those around us. Our attitudes can be altered chemically. Damaging or removing part of the brain can permanently change our past and our future.
Comments
If you were to argue <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=free%20will' target='_blank'>free will</a> defined by:
<span style='color:#FFFFFF'>2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.</span>
then I don't see how you could get anywhere. For example:
a) My neighbor is playing crappy music loudly.
b) I desire punching her in the face repeatedly.
c) My apartment consists of four walls.
d) I cannot punch her through said walls.
Therefore by a-d, my actions are restricted <!--emo&:angry:--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/mad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='mad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
Of course, by that definition, free will is a dumb idea and only for those with no grasp of reality whatsoever. You could make a better definition, though.
While I don't like the idea, that doesn't necessarily make it false. I'm curious to see what people think about free will.
EDIT: just to clarify, the loud music isn't coming from my underpants.
By your explanation my actions would be predermined by the way I have been affected by other people. That, to a certain degree, is of course true, since the process of learning consists of looking at the actions of people that came before you and making your choices depending on this input, combined with daily life.
I am, however, still free to ignore any input given to me. I could simply choose to ignore all my needs and just sit there and die. Now if that isn't free will... <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/wink-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Note to self: Need to learn to place all words in sentence and not only think about them
Like everything in life desicions are made up of what you want to do and how it will effect others. This doesn't mean we have no free will, just means that our desicions are influenced by others, not controlled.
I don't belive in fate persay, or not any fate that can be read. If fate exists I can not know about it, because if I know about it, I can use my knowlage of the event's I am fated to be tied into to change the outcomes that fate has predicted. That being said, my model allows for fate to exist, it just dictates that it is by definition unknowable to humanity, and in being unknowable is irrelevent.
I don't think we can really understand free will in its context to humanity until we can find the random number generators in the brain. If they are indeed random, then free will is theoretically possible, if they are simply psuedo random, then it free will is probably a construct of understanding.
There is no such thing as random. A dice roll is a matter of physics.
There is no such thing as random. A dice roll is a matter of physics. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
You obviously haven't studied too much quantum physics. Electron location is a true random, you can't possibly calculate the true location or state of being of an electron, because to do one throws the other off, and not only that, but if you put an electron into a situation where it has to choose to be at either one location or the other, then it will be at both locations until you acctually look at it to determine which location it is in. True random numbers definately do exist.
I don't belive in fate persay, or not any fate that can be read. If fate exists I can not know about it, because if I know about it, I can use my knowlage of the event's I am fated to be tied into to change the outcomes that fate has predicted. That being said, my model allows for fate to exist, it just dictates that it is by definition unknowable to humanity, and in being unknowable is irrelevent.
I don't think we can really understand free will in its context to humanity until we can find the random number generators in the brain. If they are indeed random, then free will is theoretically possible, if they are simply psuedo random, then it free will is probably a construct of understanding. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Dice are influenced by outside restrictions, surely? Assuming I have a sentient die, it cannot roll itself, and it doesn't choose which side it lands on.
I think your model is pretty solid.
Regardless of whether or not there is free will, we must live as if there were. The consequences of accepting complete determinism includes there being no fault, and quickly eliminates any discouragement for committing murder, etc.
And of course, if someone tries to use that as a court defense, the judge can merrily do horrible, horrible things to punish the crim, and claim that he has "no choice" since it was predetermined. It works both ways <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Either way, Kent pretty much nailed the problem, as an incorrect construction eliminates correct but out-of-the-box answers.
Cool. Just curious as there's a character in there that refers to anything non-robotic as "meatbags". <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Regardless of whether or not there is free will, we must live as if there were. The consequences of accepting complete determinism includes there being no fault, and quickly eliminates any discouragement for committing murder, etc.
And of course, if someone tries to use that as a court defense, the judge can merrily do horrible, horrible things to punish the crim, and claim that he has "no choice" since it was predetermined. It works both ways <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Either way, Kent pretty much nailed the problem, as an incorrect construction eliminates correct but out-of-the-box answers. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I have to correct you on this. Maybe it will be possible in the future, but due to Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle, finding the exact location of an electron at any given time is based on percentages, not solid fact. Even if it were 99%, that still leaves uncertainty, which as we both know is the whole point of this issue.
<a href='http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/208/jan27/hup.html' target='_blank'>Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle</a>
My thoughts on free will are that we know where the balls are positioned, we know where the cue stick is, we know where we are aiming; why can't we figure out what will happen next? We can predict the motion of a throw of the dice. Heck, we have physics engines on computers that can do this for us.
However, a human brain is very complicated. It is not yet easy to deduce what happens next, so making predictions on behavior is not an easy task to do. It's a bit like prediciting the weather in that respect. With better technology, I feel it is possible to predict the future. However, there will always be a bit of randomness we can't account for. However randomness is an illusion for things we cannot yet predict.
"Free will" is what everybody likes to believe because they like to think they are in control of things. In a sense, they are, since nobody else can tell a person what choices they make. Being able to predict those decisions is in no way shape or form shooting down free will.
In effect, no scientific model of anything will ever be completely perfect, but rather just an approximation. You can get good approximations, but that's not the same and knowing what will happen.
Indeed, the only being that could possibly know and influence everything is something equivalent to God, and the idea that God would run around ordering people to murder each other is unsettling and problematic. For that matter, why would he want that kind of control? Wouldn't it defeat any purpose of us existing?
Yes yes I know, I transitioned from science to religion. But that's hard to avoid when talking about determinism. We can talk about it elsewhere if you like.
Definitely free-willed meatbags.
Either you are a slave to sin/self/world or a slave to God. Both have binding attributes to them, though being a slave to God means you get "freedom in Christ".
And yes I do belive we are just meatbags.
uhm, no
Does your die roll itself?
In effect, no scientific model of anything will ever be completely perfect, but rather just an approximation. You can get good approximations, but that's not the same and knowing what will happen.
Indeed, the only being that could possibly know and influence everything is something equivalent to God, and the idea that God would run around ordering people to murder each other is unsettling and problematic. For that matter, why would he want that kind of control? Wouldn't it defeat any purpose of us existing?
Yes yes I know, I transitioned from science to religion. But that's hard to avoid when talking about determinism. We can talk about it elsewhere if you like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anything that can't possibly be caluculated on any field asside from a probability field in physics, must be a true random. Physics is a science of tied down issues and numbers, the sciences that you are talking about are looser in nature, chemistry, biology and psycology, which function by gathering data on overly complicated processes and reading massive, overbearing mathitmatical trends. Physics does not work this way, physics studies the most precise workings of matter and energy in its simplest form, and it was found that in its simplest form, matter and energy are governed by variable that exist on a truely random scale. You can't predict no matter what you do, where the friggin things are and what they are doing, you can only estimate.
Now it seems unlikely, but suppose the human brain is somehow sensitive to one of these probability locations on some level, that means that on some level, the human brain is acctually NOT a predictable device. You would be able to make probability charts for what humans were most likely to do, but you wouldn't be able to acctually say with certainty. This is problematic, because humans are capable of making signifigant changes to the world around them, and in such, you are not acctually able to predict thier beheivior with exactness. If that is the case, even if you were to go into the brain of every human in america and create a probability of each and every one of them, what they would vote in any given election, you would still be unable to predict the results with guarentee, because there is always the chance that enough of the random factors would lean one way or another to make a real change. The sum of these small inaccuracies could lead to massive consequences to the future, and thus the existance of a predictable world and fate.
Honestly, just the fact that humans can potentially create and understand true random numbers, and then act apon them, scares me a little.
Either you are a slave to sin/self/world or a slave to God. Both have binding attributes to them, though being a slave to God means you get "freedom in Christ". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's an entirely different discussion all together, an intresting one, but probably a little around about the nature of the topic. We're discussing weather free will acctually exists, not the best way to achieve it.
In effect, no scientific model of anything will ever be completely perfect, but rather just an approximation. You can get good approximations, but that's not the same and knowing what will happen.
Indeed, the only being that could possibly know and influence everything is something equivalent to God, and the idea that God would run around ordering people to murder each other is unsettling and problematic. For that matter, why would he want that kind of control? Wouldn't it defeat any purpose of us existing?
Yes yes I know, I transitioned from science to religion. But that's hard to avoid when talking about determinism. We can talk about it elsewhere if you like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anything that can't possibly be caluculated on any field asside from a probability field in physics, must be a true random. Physics is a science of tied down issues and numbers, the sciences that you are talking about are looser in nature, chemistry, biology and psycology, which function by gathering data on overly complicated processes and reading massive, overbearing mathitmatical trends. Physics does not work this way, physics studies the most precise workings of matter and energy in its simplest form, and it was found that in its simplest form, matter and energy are governed by variable that exist on a truely random scale. You can't predict no matter what you do, where the friggin things are and what they are doing, you can only estimate.
Now it seems unlikely, but suppose the human brain is somehow sensitive to one of these probability locations on some level, that means that on some level, the human brain is acctually NOT a predictable device. You would be able to make probability charts for what humans were most likely to do, but you wouldn't be able to acctually say with certainty. This is problematic, because humans are capable of making signifigant changes to the world around them, and in such, you are not acctually able to predict thier beheivior with exactness. If that is the case, even if you were to go into the brain of every human in america and create a probability of each and every one of them, what they would vote in any given election, you would still be unable to predict the results with guarentee, because there is always the chance that enough of the random factors would lean one way or another to make a real change. The sum of these small inaccuracies could lead to massive consequences to the future, and thus the existance of a predictable world and fate.
Honestly, just the fact that humans can potentially create and understand true random numbers, and then act apon them, scares me a little. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure how entirely true this is. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle deals with things on the scale of electrons, when you get up to the scale of synapses and neurons, the uncertainty drops dramatically. I don't have the equations off-hand, but I'd assume it's in the neighborhood of 1x10^-6.
A baseball, for example, has an uncertainty of around 2e-34. What's crazy is that there's a small possibility that baseball will actually be found across the universe, however rediculously small.
In effect, no scientific model of anything will ever be completely perfect, but rather just an approximation. You can get good approximations, but that's not the same and knowing what will happen.
Indeed, the only being that could possibly know and influence everything is something equivalent to God, and the idea that God would run around ordering people to murder each other is unsettling and problematic. For that matter, why would he want that kind of control? Wouldn't it defeat any purpose of us existing?
Yes yes I know, I transitioned from science to religion. But that's hard to avoid when talking about determinism. We can talk about it elsewhere if you like. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Anything that can't possibly be caluculated on any field asside from a probability field in physics, must be a true random. Physics is a science of tied down issues and numbers, the sciences that you are talking about are looser in nature, chemistry, biology and psycology, which function by gathering data on overly complicated processes and reading massive, overbearing mathitmatical trends. Physics does not work this way, physics studies the most precise workings of matter and energy in its simplest form, and it was found that in its simplest form, matter and energy are governed by variable that exist on a truely random scale. You can't predict no matter what you do, where the friggin things are and what they are doing, you can only estimate.
Now it seems unlikely, but suppose the human brain is somehow sensitive to one of these probability locations on some level, that means that on some level, the human brain is acctually NOT a predictable device. You would be able to make probability charts for what humans were most likely to do, but you wouldn't be able to acctually say with certainty. This is problematic, because humans are capable of making signifigant changes to the world around them, and in such, you are not acctually able to predict thier beheivior with exactness. If that is the case, even if you were to go into the brain of every human in america and create a probability of each and every one of them, what they would vote in any given election, you would still be unable to predict the results with guarentee, because there is always the chance that enough of the random factors would lean one way or another to make a real change. The sum of these small inaccuracies could lead to massive consequences to the future, and thus the existance of a predictable world and fate.
Honestly, just the fact that humans can potentially create and understand true random numbers, and then act apon them, scares me a little. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not sure how entirely true this is. The Heisenburg Uncertainty principle deals with things on the scale of electrons, when you get up to the scale of synapses and neurons, the uncertainty drops dramatically. I don't have the equations off-hand, but I'd assume it's in the neighborhood of 1x10^-6.
A baseball, for example, has an uncertainty of around 2e-34. What's crazy is that there's a small possibility that baseball will actually be found across the universe, however rediculously small. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, we have found specific nerve receptors for several atomic level conditions (heat, light) to some degree there is a substantial measure of uncertiany in those things. For all we know there could be even more precise internal receptors within the body somewhere. Keep in mind, we don't need high uncertianty in the acctual neuron or synaps, we only need a detected uncertianty to cause an action potential.
Either you are a slave to sin/self/world or a slave to God. Both have binding attributes to them, though being a slave to God means you get "freedom in Christ". <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Don't I have free will in deciding whether I want to be "a slave to sin/self/world or a slave to God"?
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Free will is an illusion.
Either you are a slave to sin/self/world or a slave to God. Both have binding attributes to them, though being a slave to God means you get "freedom in Christ".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm curious , are you really happy to sacrifice your pride to be a god's slave though he didn't even make you a perfect creature , or ensured your happyness ?
I'd say I chose to be the slave of my own free will , thank you very much <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Free will is an illusion.
Either you are a slave to sin/self/world or a slave to God. Both have binding attributes to them, though being a slave to God means you get "freedom in Christ".<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm curious , are you really happy to sacrifice your pride to be a god's slave though he didn't even make you a perfect creature , or ensured your happyness ?
I'd say I chose to be the slave of my own free will , thank you very much <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
We were made perfect, we have the same perfection God has. We were given the ability to choose the nature of our being. Where God chose perfection, we chose imperfection, and thus we must overcome the consequences of our original choice if we wish to achive perfection.
God makes a pretty mean curse.
Blame Adam and Eve. They screwed up a sweet deal for the rest of us.
So the world is doomed to get perpetually eviler and eviler, with only the efforts of people who stop at nothing to break the cycle doing any more than making a dent. Theoretically you could just distroy the whole world and start new to break the cycle, which is more or less the eventual plan, but that doesn't mean much for people who don't at least make an attemt to break the cycle in the first place, because whoever is distroying and renewing, isn't going to be planning to keep them around anyways.