Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

I am religious and believe in free will

70 (27.6%)

I am religious and do not believe in free will

10 (3.9%)

I am not religious and believe in free will

113 (44.5%)

I am not religious and do not believe in free will

61 (24%)

Total Members Voted: 249

[Loud Whispers]

Once again the wrong conclusion that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow makes us drones. That our actions are deterministic does not make them meaningless. Our subjective reality is very much real and is as meaningful as you make it to be.
But yes someone CAN stick some electrodes in your head and make you feel/do whatever the fuck he wants.

No, the wrong conclusion is that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow deprives us of free will.

If you willingly throw away your free will, you are nothing more than a drone to be programmed ^_^

And don't even start on subjective reality being real, go huff some paint and the hallucinations you perceive may be as real to you as you think they are, you'll still look completely bonkers to everyone else.

[Antioch]

Once again the wrong conclusion that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow makes us drones. That our actions are deterministic does not make them meaningless. Our subjective reality is very much real and is as meaningful as you make it to be.
But yes someone CAN stick some electrodes in your head and make you feel/do whatever the fuck he wants.

No, the wrong conclusion is that accepting our thoughts obey the laws of physics somehow deprives us of free will.

If you willingly throw away your free will, you are nothing more than a drone to be programmed ^_^

And don't even start on subjective reality being real, go huff some paint and the hallucinations you perceive may be as real to you as you think they are, you'll still look completely bonkers to everyone else.

Well then it just becomes an issue of how you define "free"

Mostly it is accepted that deterministic thought is not considered "free" in this context.

[Loud Whispers]

Well then it just becomes an issue of how you define "free"

Mostly it is accepted that deterministic thought is not considered "free" in this context.

Mostly by determinist drones LOL, they were programmed to

[Egan_BW]

If deterministic thought is not free, what is?

[TD1]

If all factors are the same, the brick will.always fall the same way. However, in practice, factors are almost never the exact same.

And the brick balanced on the top of a pole always falls the same way, no matter how many times it's replaced on its perch in the same place?

In nature, if there's a 50/50 chance, then both may happen. What makes you think you're different? What ability does being clothed in flesh and being sentient give you to transcend the material?

Do you think matter suddenly obeys different laws when something is repeated?

Either the experiment set up is the same or it is different there is no "almost the same".

If the factors were such that it was 50/50, then yes it may fall another way despite being placed in the same place. If something is placed in the exact same place under the same circumstances (for example a cone being placed on its point) then it can fall any which way, not necessarily the same way, or to the same place, every time. It stands to reason, I believe, though I've never researched it very deeply, hah.

[origamiscienceguy]

Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is  man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.

[Rolan7]

I finally voted, and I'm surprised at the poll results.  If there's no God or superwizard guiding our decisions behind the scenes, then our will is free...  Even if our reality is deterministic.

What alternative is there? 

I think what your not quite realizing is that that squishy lump of grey matter is your entire person. Without it, nothing you are exists. Just because its neurological processes (as opposed to what else exactly?), doesn't mean it cannot do free thinking, free decision making and indeed, has free will.

Of course if you set up your concept of free will specifically so that it can only be some magical outside force then yeah of course, magic doesn't exist. I'm not sure what your really trying to prove by redefining the question to fit your answer though.

Of course it does. If I replay my life a thousand times and each time the result is the same, that is not freedom of choice. I have no choice since my path is determined solely by outside stimuli.

If you can know me wholly as a person and then be able to predict every choice I make, then that is not freedom of choice as my path is already determined.

If the stimuli are the same, you make the same choices...  But that doesn't mean your choices are restricted.  Being predictable doesn't mean you aren't free.  Only if you were going to make a choice, and then someone *altered your brain/thoughts*, would your free will be violated.  So, I'd argue that free will can be violated if someone dopes you.  Or if a wizard mind-controls you, or a god.

But being predicted is irrelevant.  Say there's a vote coming up, and someone knows you very well.  Enough to predict which way you'll vote.  That doesn't remove your agency, you're still free to vote in a different way...  You just won't.

Someone mentioned "replaying a situation".  That's some Star-Trek level silliness, where they just kinda "feel" that they're in a time loop.  If a situation is exactly the same, you'll freely choose the same thing.  If there's any difference, you may freely choose something else.

If deterministic thought is not free, what is?

Seriously!

[nullBolt]

Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is  man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.

Humanity is natural selection embodied. We select tools, try to use those tools and rework them to make them better. We can do a thousand years worth of evolution in a single day, if not less.

[Antioch]

If deterministic thought is not free, what is?

Good question. But this is more an issue about what is the definition of "free" than of any characteristic of our thought processes.

So I will conclude:

1. Our thoughts are entirely determined by the laws of physics acting upon the matter/energy that make up our brains.
2. Physics are always the same.
3. Call that free or not, whatever suits you.

[Telgin]

To put a slight spin on this, for those who believe that we have free will: do computers have it too?  If not, what's different between them and us?

If the factors were such that it was 50/50, then yes it may fall another way despite being placed in the same place. If something is placed in the exact same place under the same circumstances (for example a cone being placed on its point) then it can fall any which way, not necessarily the same way, or to the same place, every time. It stands to reason, I believe, though I've never researched it very deeply, hah.

This is really only true for the lowest levels of quantum mechanical systems, and even then we don't know for sure if repeating a moment wouldn't result in the same thing happening since we can't exactly do it in practice.

For macroscopic things at least (say, bigger than an atom), there's really no such thing as a 50/50 chance.  We only make approximations like that because we can't fully model the system.

Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is  man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.

Humans are smart, which is definitely why we were able to advance so quickly, but couldn't a machine be programmed to do the same, in theory?

[Rolan7]

Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is  man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.

The stone age was, in evolutionary terms, yesterday.  There hasn't been time for hardly any macroevolution since then, which is why the "races" of humanity are completely the same species.

A human baby from the stone age raised in modern society would be practically indistinguishable from any other human.  They might look funny, race-wise, but they had the brain and dexterity.  They could be a programmer, or a CEO.

[origamiscienceguy]

Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is  man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.

Humanity is natural selection embodied. We select tools, try to use those tools and rework them to make them better. We can do a thousand years worth of evolution in a single day, if not less.

That's not how natural selection works at all. Natural selection is the theory that each slight change in a genetic code will give the creature a slightly higher or lower chance of survival. Over thousands of years, the gene that has a slightly higher chance of survival will live longer to pass on it's gene eventually giving the whole species this new gene. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you post.

[Egan_BW]

If deterministic thought is not free, what is?

Good question. But this is more an issue about what is the definition of "free" than of any characteristic of our thought processes.

So I will conclude:

1. Our thoughts are entirely determined by the laws of physics acting upon the matter/energy that make up our brains.
2. Physics are always the same.
3. Call that free or not, whatever suits you.

I would agree with that. It's not that I believe that we don't have free will, it's just that I don't think free will makes sense as a concept.

[Frumple]

... yeah, humans haven't really changed much, physically (including the brainmeat), since the stone age. We're still largely the same critter. The rapid technological/methodological development had... very little to do with the human physical form, and most everything to do with our already-there abilities letting us transfer information intergenerationally effectively enough we rather rapidly (in a evolutionary sense, anyway) built the tools that built the tools, as the formulation goes. Natural selection had already selected for the change being discussed, it was just the sort of thing that had delayed effect, building upon itself over time. No natural selection required, that bit was already pretty much done, so far as getting what we do now done.

[nullBolt]

Here's an angle I haven't thought of before. Since change in a species only comes slowly through natural selection, then how did humans go from the stone age to the bronze age to the iron age to the steam age to the information age. There was not nearly enough time for natural selection to bring about these changes, so I think that it is  man's ability to choose that dictated the quick changes through the eras.

Humanity is natural selection embodied. We select tools, try to use those tools and rework them to make them better. We can do a thousand years worth of evolution in a single day, if not less.

That's not how natural selection works at all. Natural selection is the theory that each slight change in a genetic code will give the creature a slightly higher or lower chance of survival. Over thousands of years, the gene that has a slightly higher chance of survival will live longer to pass on it's gene eventually giving the whole species this new gene. Make sure you know what you're talking about before you post.

That's literally how natural selection works, man. We embody it. We can practice natural selection as we go along.

I think it's you that doesn't understand what I'm saying here.

... yeah, humans haven't really changed much, physically (including the brainmeat), since the stone age. We're still largely the same critter. The rapid technological/methodological development had... very little to do with the human physical form, and most everything to do with our already-there abilities letting us transfer information intergenerationally effectively enough we rather rapidly (in a evolutionary sense, anyway) built the tools that built the tools, as the formulation goes. Natural selection had already selected for the change being discussed, it was just the sort of thing that had delayed effect, building upon itself over time. No natural selection required, that bit was already pretty much done, so far as getting what we do now done.

My point is that humans practice natural selection when we build tools and devices.

We, ourselves, select for evolutionary advantages that other species have to breed and die for over millenia.