K

Thomas:

I believe chimps have as much free will as we do. I think our actions are determined by the stimuli our brains receive acting on our current brain state (which is the result of our "genetically inherited and environmentally affected" brain structure and the sum of our past experiences). If that is free will, then I believe they have it as well.

Theli

Our actions are not mechanically determined inside us, but the clock's actions is.
This is the difference between running a scripted program, and responding to external input.

Theli

And how does a coin constitute a 100% free choice maker, while the chimp's brain doesn't?
The only difference is that the process of the coin is so much simplier that it couldn't even begin to be considered a choice.

tronvillain

K:
As I said, choice involves identifying the available options and then selecting one, and so the alarm clock does not in any sense have a choice. Yes, a human's choice will have only one possible outcome (assuming strict determinism rather than probalistic) which is determined by their state, but that is not the point. I have never denied it.

K

Theli:

The clock does respond to external inputs. The setting of the current time is an external input. The setting of the alarm time is another. The enabling of the alarm is a third. Even the power from the wall is an input (the behavior changes significantly depending on whether or not it receives power).

If you like, you can replace the alarm clock with a smoke detector.

K

tronvillian:

The way you spelled it out is very close to the way I would have because you included the part about one possible outcome. I think the definition is misleading without it.

Theli

The difference is that the course of actions is directly set by an external source and not influenced. There is no process inside the clock that can make it disregard the input, unless it's unable to function.
Comparing that to a human, noone would claim that if I was stabbed in the back I choosed to die. It simply rendered me unable to choose.

The clocks "action" of counting time would be better compared to instict than choice.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

John Page

I argue that the chimp's brain is involved in a cause/effect relationship with the outcome, whereas the coin is not. The coin doesn't 'decide' in a mental activity sense but the outcome (heads/tails) is likely disconnected from the options avaiable, i.e. does not have a causal relationship/connection with them. Thus, the coin driven decision appears random w.r.t. the bowls of candy. (Unless the chimp has learned how to bias the outcome of the coin toss etc.)

Free will... free from what? If free will operates then how does it do this? I suggest we have the appearance of free will because we don't properly understand the mechanism of mind. Seems we used to think the weather was determined by the gods - our all-purpose surrogate cause.

Cheers, John

K

Theli:

But if our actions are governed only by our brain state and our external inputs - as I was claiming - then we can not disregard the input either. We may think we've disregarded an input, but our brain has really used it in determining its output.

Theli

Influenced, not governed. It's not even close to the "tight grip" input has on a clock. As I said, there is no process inside the clock that chooses wich action to take after the input. It's more instinct than choice.
To avoid refering to every process/effect (like a rock falling) as a choice we should use complexity and type of process as criteria.
It's a question of where we draw the line.

[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>