rebelnerd

choice:
1. a choosing; selection
2. the right or power to choose
3. a person or thing chosen
4. the best part
5. a variety from which to choose
6. an alternative

Webster's New World Dictionary

Would #6 describe your definition? If so I will concede your point. As in a plant seeking the sun as opposed to shade, which is an alternative. However I would argue that the plant is not aware on a concsious level of this alternative being chosen, it is merely reacting to light. (Granted by you later in the post.)

I can work with metaphors as long as they are defined as such. I prefer the term decision in programming myself. But the decision is made by the programmer, not the computer, it (the computer) is merely following instructions given to it by the code.

Agreed


If you change the wording to read:

A system can have goals and alternatives (as in definition #6 above) such as a plant does with no sentience going on at all.

Then I am in agreement with you, semantics aside of course.

Filo

excreationist

Demosthenes:
Well personally I don't really feel a need to be *truly* in charge in of my own destiny... but on the other hand I've got to make sure I don't feel too powerless, otherwise I wouldn't bother making good decisions about my life and I'd just drift through life.

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: excreationist ]</p>

Kent Stevens

What I am mainly meaning by choice is that alternatives exist. There are different possibilities. There is branch or a fork in the road of which only one alternative is taken. Because there are alternative possibilities there is unpredictability. Choice does not exist when there is only one possible outcome. Choice does not exist where there is perfect predictability.

Now many different systems experience unpredictability. Earthquakes and volcanic euruptions are unpredictable in nature. The weather is also unpredictable.

People are unpredictable but I do not think we warrant the special feature of "choice" unless we allow other unpredictable systems the same feature.

If there was an earthquake tomorrow of severe magnitude we would not say that the Earth chose to cause this earthquake. We can just simply say that there was this earthquake and can ignore the word choice altogether.

When people do certain things we can just ignore the word choice. We can talk about intended actions without the use of the word choice.

I think of ourselves as determined just as any other dynamic system is also determined. The Earth does not choose to produce Earthquakes. The weather does not choose to create storms. These things just happened.

I would suggest that when we get up in the morning that this just happens. We could do something else but so could any unpredictable system. By talking about choosing this or that we are missing out on the fact that we are determined systems. We only have only one single past just like any other system has. We are free only in that another external systems do not completely determine our fate.

I am not about removing the word choice from languages but I want to suggest that if it is used it can be applied to other unpredictable systems as well.

rebelnerd

I disagree w/regard to sentient, living systems.

Yes you can, but it is only a semantical difference.

I chose to respond to this post. I agree that there is some amount of determinism to our actions, though to what extent gets back to the nature vs. nurture argument IMHO.

I disagree, I get up in the morning because I am still alive and ambulatory.

So let me get this straight, when I typed this just now, by thinking I chose to do it, I missed out on the fact that it was determined? I would agree that it was very likely given I had responded to earlier posts and was likely to do so again, but I disagree that it was determined in a predestinded sense.

I think we are going around in semantical circles here. Sidestepping the free will issue, I feel that sentient systems (humans, higher mammals, etc.) can make choices in their actions to a greater or lesser degree depending on their intelligence and experience. I agree that there are alternatives available to systems such as plants seeking sun. I disagree that there are alternatives available to non-living systems, I believe that the course of non-living systems (the weather, tides, earth's orbit, etc.) are determined.


Filo

excreationist

Kent Stevens:
What about when people spend minutes or hours or days worrying about what to do? How would you describe what they are doing? I would say that they are in the process of making a decision - or a choice... they are weighing up their options (though ultimately one would be inevitable - the one they eventually decided to do).

Bill

But this is exactly the point against which I argue: NO HUMAN DECISION IS EVER FREE OF COERCION!

I am constantly coerced by the physical needs of my own body. I am constantly coerced by the obligations I have assumed within the overall structure of human society. And I am constantly coerced by the siren song of pleasure, beckoning me to ignore those needs and obligations in order to pursue an unattainable life of pure pleasure.

These forces push and pull at all of us or we would not be able to call ourselves "human." Those who cannot respond to those coercions have no will left at all (they are in a coma or otherwise incapacitated from thinking). All acts of human will take place against a background of constant coercion from inside and outside of our own bodies. There is not one single thing that we can will to do or not do which is not a product of our own internal "balancing act" between all of the sources of coercion which simultaneously operate upon us.

While the analytical parts of our brain consist of a myriad of "inference engines," all analyzing the current state of affairs from their own perspectives (see, for instance, Boyer's book, <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=836" target="_blank">Religion Explained</a>), the operational parts of our brain, which comprise our "will," consist of entirely similar sorts of analysis engines which are, in these cases, analyzing the various coercions that operate upon us for the purpose of causing us to take (or fail to take) some action or another.

The strongest web of coercive forces that operates upon each of us is the web of social responsibilities we assume when we take our place as functional members of human society. As children, we are coerced by our parents, teachers, and friends. As we grow and become adults, the web changes to "significant other(s)," children, perhaps parents, employer(s) (if any), and friends and acquaintances. All of these groups coerce us in various ways, and the only way that you can escape these sorts of coercions is to renounce social relationships altogether and become a total hermit. But even in this case, your ability to become "a total hermit" is severely constrained ("coerced") due to the very nature of our modern social order. The coercions from your basic bodily needs will require you to make various arrangements with others to take care of your various needs (water, food, shelter, etc.) before you can renounce social relationships altogether.

And what have you accomplished if you succeed in renouncing all social relationships and becoming a total hermit? You have actually lowered yourself down to the level of an animal! You can then be somebody's "kept pet" or you can be a "wild animal," but you have not really gained anything in the way of "free will" because "free will" does not truly exist! Unpredictable complexity is not, in my opinion, "free will." If it were, then the weather would have "free will," and that is a silly assertion! (As others have noted in this thread.)

The weather is a perfect example of "an ecology with complex interrelating elements with emergent complexity properties playing an important role." But most weather scientists believe that, sooner or later, humans will manage to appropriately model the weather so as to (finally) achieve accurate weather forecasts. Yes, we keep discovering additional (previously unconsidered) complexities as we delve deeper into the processes that occur. But who honestly believes that there is no limit to this sort of "deeper delving" process? Ultimately, is there not a limit of just how deep we need to go before we are (finally) able to model the entire set of "complex interrelating elements with emergent complexity properties?"

So it is with the human mind. We have a finiate number of nurons in our brains, and each nuron has a finite number of functional states, with a finite number of paths from state-to-state. It is an interesting and complex problem, but it is clearly a FININTE problem, just as analyzing the weather is also a FININTE problem. Inadequate current resources for performing the appropriate analysis does not operate to grant us "free will" any more than it so operates to grate "free will" to the weather!

== Bill

Bill

I think that this statement confuses matters more than it needs to. No, I would never assert that "our 'past' contains our 'future'" because our "future" can obviously contain new influences which are not present within our past.

More properly, our present ability to will to do (or not do) any particular action is constrained by the sum total of our past experiences. Our future ability to will to do (or not do) any particular action will be constrained by the sum total of our then current past experiences, which might include new external influences of various sorts. I could not disagree more strongly.

If it were, in fact, possible for an individual "to 'wipe clean' his 'supposed past'" that individual would become exactly what most people mean when they use the words "idiots [who are] unable to do anything." They would not be capable of "normal functioning" beyond the most basic level of automatic bodily functions (heart continues beating; bowels continue moving; etc.). These are exactly the attributes of complete "idiots [who are] unable to do anything." (Your words.)

Such a person has no will whatsoever! Our past experiences contain (and include) all of our language and thinking skills, which are developed throughout our childhood. A person "wiped clean" of those language and thinking skills would not have a conscious mind. All that would be left would be the innate functions of a pre-born baby (language and thinking skills begin developing prior to birth, in the mother's womb!), and those functions are nothing that is properly identified with the word "will" ("free" or not). This assertion is entirely meaningless gibberish!

Yes, humans perceive time; but time (along with our three dimensions of space) exists whether or not humans are here to perceive it. Time is one of many things that humans perceive.

And when you assert that "One's 'past' may or may not dictate ones 'present' depending on one's 'relationship' to that 'past'" I must assert in return that I cannot disagree more strongly until and unless you explain further what you really mean by this gibberish sentence!

If all you mean by the above gibberish is that certain past experiences are not retained within our brains, thereby severing the "relationship" to those particular past experiences, in that case, I would agree with you. But the loss of our recollections of those past experiences is itself a caused phenomena, and the result of that loss is part of the cause of our future states, so at least in that sense, our "present" is still dictated by our "past;" but in this case, it is dictated by what we have been caused to forget! First, it is "affects" rather than "effects."

Second, this is more meaningless gibberish, apparently resulting from the same sort of equivocation about which I complain, above. More meaningless gibberish!

You assert that this different mode of living exists, but that it cannot be described in words. Well, this does not constitute "evidence," either scientifically or philosophically! No matter how you phrase it, you can't escape reality.

What you call attempts to "'go past' our 'ordinary' mind or way of thinking" only amounts to a determined attempt to change the direction of the life experiences of the person employing such practices ("prayer, fasting, narcotics, ritual, 'sacred' dance, etc..."). Any decision that any of us makes to engage in any such practice(s) is itself a product of our past experiences and current influences (stimuli).

Yes, you can change from an "ordinary" way of thinking to an "alternative" way of thinking, but that does not in any way affect any issue related to "free will" (except, perhaps, within a deluded mind). Each person's individual brain contains a plethora of different "systems," each operating in parallel.

In the analytical sense, these "systems" constitute numerous parallel "inference engines," each attempting to make some sort of sense from the inrush of stimuli (audible, visual, etc.). This set of systems is what Boyer was dealing with in his book, <a href="http://www.secweb.org/bookstore/bookdetail.asp?BookID=836" target="_blank">Religion Explained</a>. There are, of course, many brain systems that do not deal directly with inferring things from our senses. Some of those systems deal with creating the illusion of our conscious mind. Other systems operate "in the background," creating what we call our "sub-conscious mind."

Brain scans of Buddhists in a "transcendental state" and many similar experiments clearly demonstrate the operation of the areas of our brains when such a state is induced (by meditation, drugs, etc.).

If the outcome of a situation where these alternative areas of our brains are deliberately stimulated into action is something other than what our conscious mind would have expected that the outcome ought to be, that is not in the least a surprising result. We should expect that different brain systems will produce different results; even different TYPES of results! I do not constrain the "state of affairs at the time the decision is made" to meaning only "past experiences." I would also include "present stimuli."

Our decisions are a product of the exact state of the neurons in our brains, plus the current stimuli (sensory inputs) that our brain perceives. That is what I meant. I'm not sure if you still disagree. I presume that you do, but I have no further reply because you offer no further explanation, comment, or criticism. OK, then, I understand. You have an a priori objection to my philosophical position. Such an a priori objection is little more than a belief held to with religious fervor (it does not need to be a "religious belief" for us to decide to hold onto that belief "with religious fervor").

Your view is the product of the natural revulsion that humans have at the truth of the human condition. We seem to feel (naturally; its a survival characteristic!) that "there must be something more to life than THIS!" So, we adopt mystical mental illusions or overt religious views. Both are clearly erroneous, but the combination of the attractiveness of these beliefs and our revulsion at being deterministic organisms existing within a mechanical universe operate (in parallel) to cause us to reject reality and adopt these mental illusions.

I cannot read your statements about "living" as being anything more than exactly this sort of attractive mental illusion. Oh, I would never claim that any field of human inquiry has "all the answers." Human knowledge is naturally limited, and our human brains are quite subject to error, so even many of the answers that we think we have are bound to be discovered later to have been wrong.

Nonetheless, we have no alternative to employing scientific methodology in order to ascertain what "truth" is. In all of human history, there have been only two sources of "truth." Either "revealed truth" from "a mysterious source" of some sort, which I deny, or "scientific truth" from following "scientific method" to its logical conclusion. This latter epistemological standard is the only one to have proved its reliability across thousands of years of human civilization.

Anyway, if you ever do decide that you can (in some way) express in words what "living" means to you, I am certain that scientific inquiry would eventually conclude that "living" (in your terms) is still a product of a deterministic universe and not of your own "free will" (because you no more possess "free will" than I do).

== Bill

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Bill ]</p>

nyx

Bill,

I actually agree with most of what you said in your post to me. I don't think we're free at all.

I do however, believe that there is much more genetic influence in the developmental responses to stimuli.

The twin studies always intrigue me. These separated twins, growing up in different environments, made so many similar choices in life.

Unfortunately, it is a difficult field to study. We have extreme examples like total deprivation or XYY males.

I like to think of us as animals. We have been able to breed very strong traits in many others, why not humans?

This is probably off track from the original subject.

Nyx

Feather

What happens in the brain is simple: molecules pass between neurons (i.e. the neurons "fire") until a particular "firing" results in a configuration of the brain that is more compatible with the particular brain's wiring than others. Then the paths used to "make the choice" in question stop firing in the way they had been.

The whole of which is deterministic, if random (just like Quantum Mechanics).

The question Bill has been asking (and allow me to interject my admiration for his eloquence here <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> ) is simple. Why is it reasonable to simply assume that humans/animals have free will when no other physical system observed in the universe has it?

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Feather ]</p>

sweep

the answer to your question dear feather lies in the observer- please allow me to explain.

i do concede the fact that we live in a billiard ball universe, a chain reaction with a vast and ever expanding number of variables, influencing all matter, be it conscious or no. yet, what i believe to be of primary importance is the fact that all of those influences, in this context, the poster, each and every variable needs a host.

i ask you to consider these three factors.
1. the input
2. the host
3. the output
although all of the various influences acting upon us at every moment cause us to act as we do, the fact is that the information depends on its host in order to be passed on. if i kick my dog enough i will beat 'meanness' into it, bearing in mind that i won't. But then the question arises of the reasons why i would do such a thing. perhaps my friends have taught me to torture animals. perhaps i get a kicking every now and again.

fact: i am doing the kicking. But your friends influenced you so that is the cause, the decision was not yours to make. if we consider the leg that kicks and travel back to the brain we see that it is the information, which is now part of the host that enables the kicking. if that information is not part of the self, then is it safe to say that it is not the self that kicks. in other words the leg needs the brain which, incidentally, holds the information.

Now, bill, has created this thread and it is due to many sources that this information has reached me. And bill has influenced me, and it is the same bill that i attribute as having influenced me. I have considered the source of the information that bill has presented but *IT* did not cause me to change, bill did. Bill made up this thread and it was his CREATIVITY that allowed the information to be constructed as it stands. Bill did rely on the sources and, at the same time, Bill relied on himself to construct the information in the form it reaches you. Further, bill can now work independently of those sources, which have become part of his physical brain. But it is the capacity for assembly, the carrier, the observer, that bears the burden.

Then the question arises: "could we have chosen otherwise?". In many ways we couldn't, for if we cannot then our will is not free, yet in some ways, perhaps we can.

How did i get here, i ask? Well, i was involved in another forum and i saw a thread called: "is there an forum other than this?" One of the replies in the thread mentioned infidels.org. But why did i choose to come here? i chose to come here because i was bored of the other forum. And why was i bored?

There are two answers to this. 1. because i was sitting at the computer again when i could have done something spontaneous like, gone to the seaside, for instance. 2. because i was looking for a way out.

what i am saying is that it is my capacity to learn from my mistakes that frees me from various constraints. But what allows me to free myself? The answer i get to is the ability to LOOK, and my investigations allowed me to make such an observation. Not all observations (or observers) have a big bell on them saying: "LOOK AT ME" unlike many of us, including myself. Sometimes we have to look, and when we do, when we look anew we see more and more&gt; THE OBSERVER

That's is&gt; as is the trend of my recent posts i will end the text will a relevant joke:

[Scene changes to Edmund's quarters, below the prince's house.]

Baldrick is tearing apart some dough. Edmund enters, picks up a tabby cat and punts it high into the air across the room.]

Baldrick: Oh, Sir! Poor little Mildred the cat! What's he ever done to you?

Edmund: It is the way of the world, Baldrick -- the abused always kick downwards. I am annoyed, and so I kick the cat... the cat [there is a mouse `eek!' noise] pounces on the mouse, and, finally,

the mouse--

Baldrick: [startled, jumps] Agh!

Edmund: ...bites you on the behind.

Baldrick: Well, what do I do?

Edmund: Nothing. You are last in God's great chain, Baldrick -- unless, of course, there's an earwig around here that you'd like to victimise.