Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Do we all really have free will?
- Thread starter Joel
- 92 comments
- 8,201 views
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
If I'm understanding biocentrism correctly, the notion of choice is personal, and essentially is there only because you can make it. Furthermore, depending on if you make choice 'X' or 'Y,' a separate universe would be created because of it. So, an infinite number of universes exist based simply on choice, whether they are yours or that of others.
Personally, I find the entire theory fascinating.
Personally, I find the entire theory fascinating.
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
I do agree that Lanza's theory on biocentrism is fascinating. It does a unique job of combining modern philosophical and scientific thought with much older traditions. My main complaint against Lanza is similar to that of many of his critics. It is not his theory in itself, it is that he gives his principles of biocentrism without delving into why these things are the case. Unlike many other theories in both the scientific and the philosophic world, it does not replace any specific theory by elimination or evolution. It just simply is an alternative.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 13,899
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
It's not predetermined because the time traveler had to move forwards in time and then back to actually know the choice. At the time the choice is made it is made with freewill.
Or perhaps for the time traveler it's predetermined but for the toast picker it's freewill?
Keef
Premium
- 24,547
- Dayton, OH
- GTP_KeefRacer
- GTP Keef
I think the important question here is, how could a time traveler possibly move forward into time that has not occurred yet?
Traveling backwards in time makes perfect sense. But it seems pretty impossible to go forward. It doesn't exist yet.
Before I can even consider the fact that a person might one day go forward in time and discover that all these decisions everyone makes are predetermined, I ask you lot to explain to me how one might go forward into time that doesn't yet exist.
Traveling backwards in time makes perfect sense. But it seems pretty impossible to go forward. It doesn't exist yet.
Before I can even consider the fact that a person might one day go forward in time and discover that all these decisions everyone makes are predetermined, I ask you lot to explain to me how one might go forward into time that doesn't yet exist.
- 28,418
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
The time traveler issue is confusing the issue somewhat - just like a debate about why God does what he does, it rests on a massive and unrealistic assumption, i.e. that time travel is even possible (in this case), or that God exists (in the latter case). As such, I don't think that it is very useful to assess whether something like free will exists by employing a concept that we know doesn't and probably can't exist.
That time travel (atleast backward in time) is not currently possible is a fact. But that time travel is not possible at all is not as uncertain as it might sound - indeed, time travel is in the unique position of being able to disprove itself by its own central concept. That no futurelings exist is strong evidence that time travel won't ever happen. Assuming it were to become possible in the future to travel back in time, then it would be safe to assume that there must already be people among us that have come from the future. It would also not be beyond the realm of imagination to suggest that someone who had come from the future would be able to prove it somehow, or atleast should be required to prove it before any of their "information" could be regarded with any veracity. But this hasn't happened anywhere as far as we know. So if time travel ever becomes possible, where are all the futurelings?
That time travel (atleast backward in time) is not currently possible is a fact. But that time travel is not possible at all is not as uncertain as it might sound - indeed, time travel is in the unique position of being able to disprove itself by its own central concept. That no futurelings exist is strong evidence that time travel won't ever happen. Assuming it were to become possible in the future to travel back in time, then it would be safe to assume that there must already be people among us that have come from the future. It would also not be beyond the realm of imagination to suggest that someone who had come from the future would be able to prove it somehow, or atleast should be required to prove it before any of their "information" could be regarded with any veracity. But this hasn't happened anywhere as far as we know. So if time travel ever becomes possible, where are all the futurelings?
- 24,120
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
- 4,555
- Australia
Hmmm tough one.
I see it as God allowing for both. If God already knew in advance, it is not him forcing you to pick one over ther other, more you choosing, and feeling like it was you and our freedom allowing you too.
You are not unwillingly choosing one over the other right? No one is forcing you to choose against your will, so therefore I'd say you have free will. You made the choice.
I see it almost like a movie where you know how its going to turn out because you found out before hand. Watching that movie, you can't do anything to alter the course of the characters, yet you still have a vague idea of what happens.
Of course this slightly contradicts the notion of people asking God for guidance, where some of them hope for a physical sign and all of that, but I think its related to inner peace and a refreshed spirituality to help one through their day.
So. Yes - free will is free I reckon. You make the choice. God may have already known the out come, but he was not physically or spiritually forcing you to to make that choice.
I agree with Touring Mars on this. We are relying on concepts (to prove pre-determination) that are themselves the subjects of great debate. On the basis of God or time travel, I personally feel that this is somewhat missing the point as well, but it does help us to estimate a strong unlikelyhood of pre-determined outcomes (where choice is present, of course), because quite simply, unless you believe in (a future-spotting) God or time travel for whatever reason we have not considered (but which I'd love to hear about, in another thread!), there is no reason to believe they are even true!
I purport that free will does exist, but is never free from influence (whether it be the choice of games console or the choice to breathe), and as such is in the purest form, not 'free'. But to a certain degree, whenever you have more than one option, you have the choice to calculate or instinctually decide which option you will choose. Therefore, you have exercised 'free will' (or at least as close as you're going to get to it). It really boils down to what you consider 'free will' to be. A choice that you are free to make based on the factors and influencing forces at work? Or a will that is completely without influence or interference? Or even a 'free choice' that can (or cannot) be seen by any concept of 'outside perspective'? Here we unfortunately run into another dead end, which is fate. This, without any way of knowing the future however, is a totally pointless* concept much like our clairvoyant Gods and time-travellers.
I don't wish to insult anyone's intelligence, but if I may, I would like to stress to each individual considering this matter, that they are absolutely clear with themselves on the concepts involved with free will. 'What is free will?', consider the two words 'free' and 'will' seperately as well. 'Is there more than one type of free will, and are any or all of them correct?' Of course, 'Does it (or God and time travel for that matter) even exist?' If so, 'What is your God and how does it relate to time travel and fate, and vice versa?', 'Is it compatible?', If a concept doesn't fit, don't be afraid to consider the possibility that it is a fallacy.
*Mostly and currently pointless concept, and not necessarily 'totally'.
I purport that free will does exist, but is never free from influence (whether it be the choice of games console or the choice to breathe), and as such is in the purest form, not 'free'. But to a certain degree, whenever you have more than one option, you have the choice to calculate or instinctually decide which option you will choose. Therefore, you have exercised 'free will' (or at least as close as you're going to get to it). It really boils down to what you consider 'free will' to be. A choice that you are free to make based on the factors and influencing forces at work? Or a will that is completely without influence or interference? Or even a 'free choice' that can (or cannot) be seen by any concept of 'outside perspective'? Here we unfortunately run into another dead end, which is fate. This, without any way of knowing the future however, is a totally pointless* concept much like our clairvoyant Gods and time-travellers.
I don't wish to insult anyone's intelligence, but if I may, I would like to stress to each individual considering this matter, that they are absolutely clear with themselves on the concepts involved with free will. 'What is free will?', consider the two words 'free' and 'will' seperately as well. 'Is there more than one type of free will, and are any or all of them correct?' Of course, 'Does it (or God and time travel for that matter) even exist?' If so, 'What is your God and how does it relate to time travel and fate, and vice versa?', 'Is it compatible?', If a concept doesn't fit, don't be afraid to consider the possibility that it is a fallacy.
*Mostly and currently pointless concept, and not necessarily 'totally'.
Last edited:
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
" If God did not give humans free will than God would play a direct role in every decision made by humans." From the third meditation of Rene Descartes on the epistemological theory of rationalism.
So that takes care of any question about free will in the case that God exists.
Now another case is posited where the world is not only without God, but is with unknown forces or demons. I haven't heard of any legitimate course in Philosophy that studies such a case. If there is one, I'd like more details.
I'm not a Philosophy major. But I've had my boots on the ground investigating unknown forces for many decades. I've encountered them up close and personal. One less skeptical than myself might be led to believe in supernatural forces, beings or demons. I'm not convinced by any theory or experience that I've had that this is the case. I believe the best knowledge is empirical, so I'm using my steel chisel and 4 lb hammer to chip away at the shroud of mystery that obfuscates truth and reality. The shape of it is being slowly revealed. There is a poorly understood force and it is spiritual.
Now Hobbes "rejects free will in favor of determinism, a determinism which treats freedom as being able to do what one desires". This conflicts with my experience as far too materialistic and pessimistic. He reduces humans to the level of soulless slaves.
So the question of free will in the case without God is, as you say, unresolved for now.
Respectfully,
Dotini
- 13,881
- Ireland
- driftking18594
- CiaranGTR94
If I had a time machine, I'd go back in time, not forward. Besides, I'd like to see what would happen if I killed Hitler in 1915, before he ever joined the Nazis, and led Germany on a relentless journey to self-destruction and partition.
ON-TOPIC: Our free will is all curbed in some way. For example, if I wanted to steal a car, I can't do it if I don't want to end up sharing a cell with a drug dealer or armed robber. If I wanted to suddenly gun out of my driveway in my mother's Nissan Tino, I can't do it if I don't want to go to prison. If I wanted to sell drugs, chances are I'd get gunned down by someone working for a multi-million euro drugs empire.
ON-TOPIC: Our free will is all curbed in some way. For example, if I wanted to steal a car, I can't do it if I don't want to end up sharing a cell with a drug dealer or armed robber. If I wanted to suddenly gun out of my driveway in my mother's Nissan Tino, I can't do it if I don't want to go to prison. If I wanted to sell drugs, chances are I'd get gunned down by someone working for a multi-million euro drugs empire.
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
Compatibilist determinism aside, I stumbled across something interesting:
As per a summary of Ayn Rand's precepts, "if it is true that man has free will and is responsible for his conduct, it cannot also be that there is a condition such as dementia that robs a man of his capacity for choice." [>]
This implies that a man, whose mental faculties deteriorate through no fault of his own, is ultimately responsible for the effects of that deterioration—and for his resultant decisions as affected by that deterioration.
Assuming this is correct, how is one to bear responsibility for that which we are not 'allowed' to decide?
As per a summary of Ayn Rand's precepts, "if it is true that man has free will and is responsible for his conduct, it cannot also be that there is a condition such as dementia that robs a man of his capacity for choice." [>]
This implies that a man, whose mental faculties deteriorate through no fault of his own, is ultimately responsible for the effects of that deterioration—and for his resultant decisions as affected by that deterioration.
Assuming this is correct, how is one to bear responsibility for that which we are not 'allowed' to decide?
- 28,418
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
Why would you assume it to be correct? To say that people are responsible for their own dementia is absurd and bizarre, and as far removed from reality as you can possibly get. Daniels is right - such an attitude is disgusting.
- 21,286
- GR-MI-USA
- YSSMAN
- YSSMAN
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
Well if one were to take a hard deterministic approach to free will then it would be plausible to "free" (lol oh irony) everyone of responsibility for their actions. If I decided to murder my neighbor I could just claim that I had no choice in the matter because I have no free will, and thus was forced to.
- 28,418
- Glasgow
- GTP_Mars
"I have no free will", I sang
As I flew about the murder
Mrs. Richard Holmes, she screamed
You really should have heard her
I sang and I laughed, I howled and I wept
I panted like a pup
I blew a hole in Mrs. Richard Holmes
And her husband stupidly stood up
As he screamed, "You are an evil man"
And I paused a while to wonder
"If I have no free will then how can I
Be morally culpable, I wonder"
I shot Richard Holmes in the stomach
And gingerly he sat down
And he whispered weirdly, "No offense"
And then lay upon the ground
"None taken", I replied to him
To which he gave a little cough
With blazing wings I neatly aimed
And blew his head completely off
As I flew about the murder
Mrs. Richard Holmes, she screamed
You really should have heard her
I sang and I laughed, I howled and I wept
I panted like a pup
I blew a hole in Mrs. Richard Holmes
And her husband stupidly stood up
As he screamed, "You are an evil man"
And I paused a while to wonder
"If I have no free will then how can I
Be morally culpable, I wonder"
I shot Richard Holmes in the stomach
And gingerly he sat down
And he whispered weirdly, "No offense"
And then lay upon the ground
"None taken", I replied to him
To which he gave a little cough
With blazing wings I neatly aimed
And blew his head completely off
Excerpt of the lyric to the song "O'Malley's Bar", taken from the album Murder Ballads by Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds:
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
On the subject of free will, I have to ask two questions:
-Are people machines or not?
-Are quantum mechanics truly random?
With the first question, I'm wondering two things; if it would be possible to trace the reason behind the thought processes of an individual all the way back to the beginning of time, and if people are merely very complex systems that react to stimuli in certain ways. For [simplified] example:
Big Bang -> particle in position X -> gravity/electric force at position X -> planet forms at position X -> life forms on planet -> life creates activity along with non life (meteor shower/volcano) -> long chain of cause and effect from activity -> stimuli seen by individual -> individual uses brain that formed as it did only because all the particles in the universe could only take one set of paths through time -> individual takes action (makes choice).
In that case, the individual's response/choice can be likened to a computer running a program because someone clicked open. The motion of the entire universe was such that the universe at the time of the individual's choice was the only possible arrangement of the universe at that time (or, perhaps if there is free will, the universe could only take one outcome until life/free will formed, then becomes random based on choice). The individual himself, because he is a physical system built to take in and process stimuli has a predictable (even if it's extremely complex to work out) response. There is no free will here, just particles acting naturally. What I don't know is if the universe can be that way.
The second question ties in with the first. If quantum mechanics are truly random (and it seems it is, I'm just relying on the fact that nothing can be known with 100% certainty) then the situation in my example can't happen, and free will can arise in one of two ways:
-Free will as it is commonly understood, through consciousness (whatever consciousness is) and thought process.
-Free will through random particle behavior, though this might be an illusion, ie like a computer that is built to act randomly. This also reduces consciousness to a side effect of a complex enough system (which could negate the first way of obtaining free will).
It's a bit rushed, but I'm a little pressed for time.
-Are people machines or not?
-Are quantum mechanics truly random?
With the first question, I'm wondering two things; if it would be possible to trace the reason behind the thought processes of an individual all the way back to the beginning of time, and if people are merely very complex systems that react to stimuli in certain ways. For [simplified] example:
Big Bang -> particle in position X -> gravity/electric force at position X -> planet forms at position X -> life forms on planet -> life creates activity along with non life (meteor shower/volcano) -> long chain of cause and effect from activity -> stimuli seen by individual -> individual uses brain that formed as it did only because all the particles in the universe could only take one set of paths through time -> individual takes action (makes choice).
In that case, the individual's response/choice can be likened to a computer running a program because someone clicked open. The motion of the entire universe was such that the universe at the time of the individual's choice was the only possible arrangement of the universe at that time (or, perhaps if there is free will, the universe could only take one outcome until life/free will formed, then becomes random based on choice). The individual himself, because he is a physical system built to take in and process stimuli has a predictable (even if it's extremely complex to work out) response. There is no free will here, just particles acting naturally. What I don't know is if the universe can be that way.
The second question ties in with the first. If quantum mechanics are truly random (and it seems it is, I'm just relying on the fact that nothing can be known with 100% certainty) then the situation in my example can't happen, and free will can arise in one of two ways:
-Free will as it is commonly understood, through consciousness (whatever consciousness is) and thought process.
-Free will through random particle behavior, though this might be an illusion, ie like a computer that is built to act randomly. This also reduces consciousness to a side effect of a complex enough system (which could negate the first way of obtaining free will).
It's a bit rushed, but I'm a little pressed for time.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Sorry you are pressed for time, Exorcet! Some day if you are lucky, then you will be retired like me. I strongly recommend it!
To briefly address your issues:
#1) People are not machines, so no to all your associated questions.
#2) Quantum mechanical actions are likely not fully random. There is some indication that quantum events in the past can be changed by decisions made in the present. Sounds weird! So not only is the future not cast in stone, neither may be certain aspects of the past. Hopefully the mighty Famine or others can shed further light on this.
#3) The question of consciousness, one of my all-time favs! My very brief put is that free will as commonly understood does not arise through the phenomenon of consciousness.
#4) No, because in my view consciousness is not a side effect or epiphenomenon, as Daniel Dennett and others have argued seductively but wrongly.
Highest regards,
Dotini
- 7,527
- Exorcet
- OE Exorcet
Indeed, but for now, multitasking and procrastination serve me well lol.
I'm not so sure this can be brushed aside so easily. About the only things separating us from computers (for example) is consciousness. You could theoretically make a computer that mimics a brain, but would it be conscious or not?
- 24,120
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
I find it rather perplexing that you are judging what Ayn Rand herself thought based on a summary review of her personality which itself is based on a biography written after she has been dead the better part of 40 years.
I agree that she was a conflicted person in many ways but I really would have a difficult time reading this slanted character sketch as gospel truth (and make no mistake, the first 2 paragraphs definitely indicate a slant). I've read a bunch of her nonfiction and I'm well aware of some of the more sordid aspects of her personal life, and I'm not buying this wholesale.
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
I think that there are going to be varying levels of acceptance to the idea of the "human machine". While yes, there are many similarities between how a complex computer can operate and the function of the human brain, it is important to not forget about the consciousness and the soul.
Your question about whether that computer itself would have consciousness is a tough one. Because, as well as other reasons, we have no empirical evidence of such a complex robot yet. That is not to say the idea isn't plausible but its just not in the scope of our understanding yet.
I think it is very common for humanity to feel that who we are and what we are made of is somewhat special and unique. That we, as conscious living humans, have some sort of "upper hand" on other things. This idea has been echoed throughout time from such things as the Earth being the center of the universe, to more modern ideas of biocentrism. I think it is only natural for humanity to think in this fashion, because at the present time we are the only KNOWN things in the universe to have the "higher" qualities that we possess. The idea of consciousness and soul would overlap greatly with the "do you believe in God thread" because such things are just as empirical as spiritual matters.
- 1,015
- Canada
- DismissiveClOCK
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
Great stuff you got going here, WVUscion. You are a great addition to this forum!
I would beg to differ, or at least question you more closely on that part about humans being the only known things in the universe that have the "higher" qualities that we possess. I.e., what did you mean by "higher" qualities? Is this consciousness, or more than that alone? Am I forced to deny that dogs, cats and birds lack consciousness?
Yours,
Dotini
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
As with many things I think that it is up to interpretation of what types of advanced thought are the bare minimums to count as "consciousness" and "soul". This point is where I think it would be necessary to diverge away from using both terms together. In my opinion at the very least, it would seem plausible for one to hold a consciousness, but not a soul. Dogs, for instance. They obviously have a primal thought process going on at all times. They react to stimuli, and arguably would be able to make "decisions" such as peeing on the carpet and so on.
The difference between us and dogs is what I will loosely call the "soul". Obviously my usage of the word soul is not meant to spark a debate into what a soul actually is, or whether or not we have one. It is simply a placeholder to a meta concept in which otherwise would be hard to describe. Moving along, this "soul" is what allows us to be held accountable for the decisions we make. As a human race, we can rightly punish an individual for murder because he coherently does, or should anyway in the case of insanity, know the difference between right and wrong.
Furthermore, I think one of the best examples that sets us apart from other animals is what we are doing right at this moment. Humanity has the ability to critically think and strategize on a level that is much higher then any other known species. This hopefully would explain what "higher" means a bit better. Ever since the dawn of time humanity has grasped their critical thinking skills and used them to their advantage over the "lesser" species.
Because of this, humanity undoubtedly asked the question of "why have I been given this special gift, whereas the dogs and cats have not?". While that is an immensely difficult question to answer as a whole, it can be reduced to the idea that humanity MUST be special in some way. This is how centrism came to be. Obviously as we have advanced as a species we have realized that we are less and less important in the scope of the universe, but until humanity finds other species with abilities similar to ours there will always be that feeling in the depths of the psyche that believes that something about this planet, these people, and our development is transcendentally special.
Sorry for the lengthy reply, if anything seems unclear I would be happy to expand further.
Dotini
(Banned)
- 15,742
- Seattle
- CR80_Shifty
That was a great reply in several ways! But when I got to that last sentence, I couldn't help but laughing out loud! Most of us are blundering jackasses, including me sometimes. But occasionally I entertain thoughts that there is a certain eerie charm to centrism. Am I bad?
Yours,
D
Last edited:
- 140
- Dreamweaverx
No I don't think your bad. I think that you entertaining said thoughts just supports what I have said about humanity in general. Of course when I think of these things, and when everyone else does as well it is not intended to be a presentation of fact. However it has gradually influenced opinions for a very very long time.
- 23,800
- Philippines
One caveat. Whether A drops the toast in a Universe without time travel will always remain unknown.
In our original universe, we have this equation:
a + b (past selves of A and B) -> A + B (future selves, post toast incident)
Now if b were to go into the future and view the result of the toast incident, then travel back into the past, you would have:
a + b(X) (representing difference in b due to foreknowledge) -> A + B(X) + b
In other words, the future A + B no longer exists. b's actions have created a new future. And in that future, whatever b did or did not do, a still dropped the toast. But b does not have the power to change the situation. Thus he cannot influence a's actions once he knows the future. Causality is preserved.
Alternatively, if B travels to the past:
a + b -> A + B
turns into:
a + b(x) + B -> A + B(X)
turns into:
a + b(x) + B(X) -> A + B(X) + B(XX)
With B now caught in an unending closed time-like loop.
-----
Quantum interactions are only random if nobody observes them. And they're not so much random as undefined. Observation of quantum effects collapses the wave function and defines them. Note: Schrodinger's cat... whether it is dead or not is only random until you open the box.
It is likely the future is like this, too. It's in this way that b collapses the wave function and make that one future a certainty.
There's already precedent for this in quantum mechanics. Observing the spin or orientation of one of an entangled pair of particles means that you now have knowledge of the spin or orientation of the other particle. And if that particle is one light year away, it would be impossible to know said spin or orientation via other channels (say, a radio burst from the research station where the other particle is being observed) for at least a year. Congratulations. You've just looked into the future!
But there is so far no way for us to use this quantum effect to transmit messages back into the past... because we can only observe these phenomena, not alter them or make them exactly what we want.-
There is no actual physical law that prevents time travel. It's just that all the known mechanisms that permit it are unavailable to us at the moment.
Posted in the other thread... they're spitting out of time in interstellar space, light years from the Earth... which will only reach the point where they come out of the future at the exact moment they travel back into the past.
So... when the first time machine back into the past launches, expect the launch to be preceded by a meteor strike. Or a shower, depending on how large the time machine is. If it's made by NASA, it'll probably be the size of a building. And if they want to make it capable of moving in space to reach where the Earth is in the past... maybe the size of a city (plus reaction mass). Then something goes wrong with the engines and the thing crashlands on Earth, 65 million years in the past, killing off the dinosaurs and blanketing the globe with a fine dusting of iridium ash.
The issue I see with looking at free will in this manner is: if it feels like ice cream, if it looks like ice cream and if it tastes like ice cream... why not call it ice cream?
Whatever process or mixture of processes creates consciousness, it feels real to us, and that's the only thing that matters. Whether we're programs running on a quantum computer, biological mechanisms with an intricately complex biofeedback system that simulates consciousness or otherworldly spirits inhabiting corporeal bodies, we can still feel emotions, we can think, we can rationalize, we can do purposeful action and we can create new things and appreciate things thus created.
Those of us without brain damage, that is...
Given that we think we have consciousness and exhibit all the signs of having it... who's to say it's not there? We pass the Turing test, don't we? (at least I do.)
Last edited:
