echoes

Because we can identify and monitor most of the relevant variables with the billiard balls, but we don't have enough knowledge of the human brain to do anything similar. The behavior of billiards balls can be analyzed with relatively simple physics equations, while we can't do that to the same degree with the human brain.

[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: echoes ]</p>

excreationist

raistlinjones:
...If this is true, why can't we predict human behavior in the same way that we predict how objects (like billiard balls) will interact with each other?...

Well it is just easy for us to predict how hard spherical objects on a flat surface interact... on the other hand, it is hard for us to predict how a tumbling, falling flat cylinder (a coin) or a cube (a dice) will interact with a flat surface... !

Also, remember that we have about 100 BILLION neurons that are connected to thousands of others that store and process a life-time of learnt patterns... that is even more complex than a coin or a dice!

I think we just make decisions based on what seems most desirable for us, though we mightn't know exactly why we chose it at the time... (we can have fetishes/phobias that were learnt in childhood, etc) Sometimes we make hasty decisions and I think that is just based on the first idea we have about something, rather than us evaluating more possibilities to arrive at a better decision.

Liquidrage

That is not a detailed enough definition to use as a foundation for your claims.

You need to expand upon the mechanism used to make the choices and what makes the choice yours as opposed to someone elses.

I am very surprised no one argued with you over this as you mentioned earlier. In any free will discussion the definition to be used is paramount. Definitions for free will are like fingerprints. Everyone has their own.

The Cromwell Institute

Hmm. I'm having trouble figuring out a detailed definition of free will here [maybe it's too late at night for me]. Could some of you post your definitions of free will so I can get a better handle on the problem?

Keith Russell

Greetings:

I don't believe that free will is based completely on knowledge. We have imagination as well; the ability to generate abstract concepts from remembered concrete perceptial data. Even if we do not have direct perceptual awareness of multiple options in a given situation, we can often formulate other options based on imagination applied to principles which the current situation might have in common with other situations we have already faced.

Free will applies only to the will. It does not and cannot apply to the body; we might want to move our hands, but disease, damage, or the lack of certain learned dextrous skills, can prevent our bodies from doing exactly what we wish.

Also, as an earlier post stated, the environment can also interfere; the example given was desiring to type during a power outage.

Again, free will only applies to the will; it cannot apply to the body (which is tied to the will, but also subject to the environment), and free will can certainly not apply to the environment itself; typewriters and/or power companies certainly included.

Keith.

Ierrellus

The Cromwell (Oliver?) Institute,

From a genetic evolutionary POV, the more complex an organism is, the further apart its somatic need signal and active response to the need are.
This is the distance between instinctual activity and reflected activity. The activity that can be considered before being done, which is an attribute of organisms with enlarged cerebral cortexes, is free will. Options indicate free will.

In some churches in the South, the handling of rattlesnakes as proof of God's protection of "His" own is still a staple of religious gatherings. The snake can be hypnotized to some extent by the rhythmic music and swaying dance, but it still remains an organism motivated by instinctual drives.

In the instances in which the snake bites the worshipper, only the snake was actually being what it was.

Ierrellus
PAX

sweep

I think i almost grasp what you are writing about ierrellus. That is a tight definition. if you could elaborate i would be very interested to read more...

In relation to your ideas on 'the complexity of the organism' i would like to expound in my own way, and find out if it fits with your view.

Take a bee, for example- it has a highly specific regime, and become autonomous as soon as
it hatches. The behaviours of the bee are relatively easy to code, and the mechanisms by which it reacts to danger depend upon the presence of pheromones, i believe. Humans are subject to complex stimuli in life and take years of nurturing before they are able to act competently and are able to avoid danger.

keith mentioned the will, which is an important part of the humans life. We have to evaluate the potential an ongoing situation holds, in terms of danger. Emotional centres allow us to feel fear, and frame a situation in light of distrust. In times where the neocortex does not recognise a situation, i think it is easy for our emotions to take over.

Although the limbic system is a common feature in many specimens, and determines us in many ways, it does yield a freedom that the insect does not possess. I find it curious that a fly reacts readily to a rolled newspaper whereas a wasp will go about it's investigation, unaware that it is about to be squished. *please note that i do not kill any life, when i can help it*-

in other words the more i notice, the freer i am. The less i notice the more slugs get stuck to the sole of my boot.

Cromwell, i already posted my definition. Are my posts all written in gibberish?

snatchbalance

The Free Will/Determinism Debate

I hesitate to write this, but alas, I have no choice.
I will stop now.
Could I have done otherwise?

sb

[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Keith Russell

Snatch:

I have been involved in debates of free will many times, and (as I believe in free will) my opponents most often do not.

I find it more than odd that people who reject the idea of free will would want to debate it. If, when presented with their evidence against free will, I decide to accept their point-of-view, won't the very act of my deciding to reject free will prove that I chose to act freely, proving my point, rather than theirs?

Keith.

Liquidrage

You need to define free will.

I guess you believe it is our job to decipher your definition of free will from the following statement you made,
"won't the very act of my deciding to reject free will prove that I chose to act freely, proving my point, rather than theirs?"?

That fact that you can make choices is evidence for your ability to make choices.
If you define free will as the ability to make choices then it would be evidence of free will.

However, and this is crucial, that is not the common definition of free will. Nor would anyone attempt to argue that we make choices.

If you define free will as simply the ability to make choices then there is no arguement or need for discussion.

It is only when the common definition of free will is used (go use a dictionary if you disagree with this), meaning the ability to make choices "that are unconstrained by external circumstances", is there a subject worthy of debate.