xeren

dostf,

You attempted to say why Bill was wrong, but you did not give any reasons why he was wrong, you just said that he was wrong because humans MUST have free will. And that simply proves one of Bill's points, humans treasure the idea of free will completely.

As for
"- even in the past many have recognized and sought methods to "defeat" our "programming"- prayer, fasting, narcotics, ritual, "sacred" dance, etc..."

That only means that the brain is extremely complicated, there are no other implications.

Again, thank you

dostf

xeron:

You attempted to say why Bill was wrong, but you did not give any reasons why he was wrong, you just said that he was wrong because humans MUST have free will. (xeron)

- no i did not say humans MUST have free will
- in fact, i agreed that to a large part our actions are influenced by our "programming"
- i also assert that this "programming" is not what defines the human being
- on one level we are "free" to choose whatever information we wish to incorporate into our worldview and live by
- on another level i assert the issue of "free will" is in direct relationship to the "solidness" or "influence" of our combined "attributes"- those attributes that one defines "this is me" by

As for
"- even in the past many have recognized and sought methods to "defeat" our "programming"- prayer, fasting, narcotics, ritual, "sacred" dance, etc..."

That only means that the brain is extremely complicated, there are no other implications.(xeron)

- i am not sure how your response relates to my above assertion
- the point here is that humans have for thousands of years had a innate "sense" that there is more to their lives than their "programming"
- they have tried to "pass" this programming by a variety of methods ,such as those i referred to earlier

Be seeing you...

Mageth

The degree to which an individual (animal) is able to excercise free will is dependent upon its level of intelligence.

I see a potential problem with this argument.

Imagine a person who through some accident becomes completely paralyzed, with no ability to move, speak or communicate in any other way. Imagine the person in a bed in an extended care facility. Imagine that the person's brain is otherwise functioning perfectly - the person retains his/her former consciousness and intelligence.

Imagine a fly on the wall of the room. Is the fly climbing on the wall of the room capable of exhibiting more or less of what is referred to as "free will" than the paralyzed person?

Mageth

A thought experiment that persuades me that free will is an illusion.

Imagine that you went back in time. Not "time travel" in the classic sense, when you as you are now goes back in time, but a jump back to a former point in your life, where everything (your thoughts, your body, the universe and all its components) is exactly identical to the way it was the first time around. Suppose that you jumped back 24 hours. Since everything is the same as it was the first time around, all your thoughts and memories are the same, and so you have no knowledge that you're reliving the experiences.

Since all your thoughts at the moment, and your memory of former experiences, are the same as they were, and assuming all inputs to your senses over the next 24 hours are identical to the first time around, is it possible for you to exercise "free will" and make different choices in the next 24 hours than you did the first time around?

I don't see how it would be possible for you to make any different choices.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

xeren

dostf,

At any one moment in time, when we are making a decision, we can, in our head think about all the choices we have, i don't deny that. But what determines your final decision? The sum of your past experiences your brain has taken in, and the current situation you are facing.

Not to beat it into the ground, but
The ability to view our choices does not give us free will, it only lets us think we have it. We are going to make only one choice at the end of any decision we have to make, and that is the one are brains have decided on based upon our past experiences and what is happening at that moment.

If we are not the "total sum of our programing", then what else could possibly make our decisions for us??

Kent Stevens

I am not trying to eliminate the word choice from all languages. Instead, I am saying the most correct thing to say is that people and other animals simply do certain things. You do not need to necessarily use the word choice. If you do not want to use phrases like the weather chose to be fine today, then to be entirely consistent you might not want to use phrases like I chose to get out of bed today.

However, if we use the term choice we should realise that it can then be applied to basically all systems. So then we can then talk about computers selecting responses in games. We can then talk about washing machines choosing the amount of water that might be required in a given wash. We can talk about plants choosing to grow towards the light. To be consistent we would realise that the word choice could be used on all other systems as well. We could theoretically use the word choice on physical systems when there is more than one outcome predicted such as with the weather, lottery, or quantum mechanics.

Some people claim that animals do not have free will. My simple response to this is look at your pet or some elses pet. In terms of animals being bound by instinct, but we are not, I disagree. Have you eaten today or drank fluid? Will you sleep today? And of course you must breathe. In this way you are partly bound by instinct, albeit you are not so tightly controlled by instinct as other animals are.

People can commit suicide and this clearly goes against evolutionary and social drives. However, this just makes people more complicated and unpredictable without making them into a creation separate entirely from all other life forms.

In terms of the argument that we are sentenient and self aware therefore we have free will I disagree. We are also bipedal standing on two legs instead of the normal four but having free will does not necessarily follow. Other animals are self aware and can think also. You can incorporate self awareness and sentience as being a necessary part of choice but I do not think that this is required. Computers at least can make choices and they are not self aware nor are they sentenient.

One of the common objections to determinism is that it turns us into robots. However, I along with Richard Dawkins think that we are metaphoricaly like robots. We are used to fictional robots acting with free will. So the Terminator, HAL, and Data all have free will.

To be strictly correct we can turn the mechanical metaphor around and say that machines are also like life forms. A car is like a living entity in that it monitors itself and tries to keep conditions within an optimum range.

We can get by in lives without using the word choice or using the word with special emphasis. So that if we use the term choice we realise that it can also apply to computers, machines, other animals, plants, bacteria, the weather, and quantum mechanics. The main characteristics of choice is that more than one outcome is possible at a given time.

Demosthenes

No Bill,

I believe that we do have free will. The basics of our biological systems are indeed deterministic, but the interactions among the elements of the brain give rise to emergent complex behavior which we associate with free will. Even though the elements are deterministic, we cannot predict what the outcome will be, the only way to know what the system will do is simply by running it and see what will happen. That's free will.

There's no need to postulate quantum randomness, chaotic noise, or some other exotic means to explain free will.

In every sense we are not robots which merely follow a list of explicit instructions and produce perfectly predictable behaviors. It's the inherent complexity of the system which gives rise to what we call free will. I suspect that by constructing systems of similiar complexities we would see free will coming out of those systems.

[ August 17, 2002: Message edited by: Demosthenes ]</p>

Entropical Paradise

Doesn't this suggest that we would have some degree of choice? If we are not bound by our instincts as strictly as other animals, then, for determinism to remain true, there must be some other factor which fills in this gap to make us as equally determined as other animals. Otherwise, it seems, we do have some degree of choice.

Mageth

Even though the elements are deterministic, we cannot predict what the outcome will be, the only way to know what the system will do is simply by running it and see what will happen. That's free will.

If you conducted the same experiment twice, under exactly the same conditions, would you expect different results?

If not, how is that "free will?"

dostf

xeren:

But what determines your final decision? The sum of your past experiences your brain has taken in, and the current situation you are facing.(xeren)

-I would agree this is often how our decisions are influenced
- however, this statement is "time contigent". Your experiences are rooted in the "past". To whatever degree one associates with ones "past" is the degree to which ones current decisions are influenced. Am "i" the same as 10 years ago? 10 minutes ago? Do all my prior experiences effect current and "future" decisions?
- one might say "freedom" to choose in the moment is often in direct relationship to how we are in relationship to our own "supposed past"-and for that matter "supposed future".

If we are not the "total sum of our programing", then what else could possibly make our decisions for us??(xeren)

- By this statement i assert that the human being is not merely the sum of all attibutes taken together, although people define themselves in those terms ex. i am a white male of irish heritage who is a professor etc...
- our worldview is shaped by these "self imposed" caregorizations -as are our decisions.
- i assert this is a falsity that can be "passed"
- decisions are then made from another perspective not "colored" or "influenced" by our "supposed self"

Be seeing you...