Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kent Stevens · 09-11-2002, 12:01 PM

Quote:

K, intent appears to imply consciousness, but I don't think that is necessary. I think all that is needed is a drive or motivation to be or do something. Animals are motivated to survive; perhaps a computer game could be motivated to win.

If intent or drive is all that is needed in order to have free will, then that suggests that a variety of animals have free will. But it seems ridiculous to say that snails, ants, or bees have free will. Even a bee may "intend" to land on a bee hive only to be thwarted by a strong wind.

Starboy · 09-12-2002, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Sammi:
Would you think the humans are choosing their responses, even if they were rolling dice to constrain their responses.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Greetings Sammi,

It was asserted that computers couldn�t choose. I pointed out that using dice to make a choice is a way of choosing, and it is a way that a computer could choose. If a person decides to make a choice based on the throw of the die, why isn't that still a choice? If throwing dice is a valid way for a human to choose why not for a machine? It may not be the best way to choose but it is a way of choosing, and it is very easy to program into a computer. Also it clearly indicates a choice of free will since the outcome is not pre-determined or influenced by an outside agent.

Starboy

[ September 12, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

Starboy · 09-12-2002, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kent Stevens:


If intent or drive is all that is needed in order to have free will, then that suggests that a variety of animals have free will. But it seems ridiculous to say that snails, ants, or bees have free will. Even a bee may "intend" to land on a bee hive only to be thwarted by a strong wind.

I don't understand the logic of the argument. If all creatures were thwarted at all times, you might have a point, but if they were able to make an un-thwarted choice just once in their lives, they would have free will. Are you saying that everything that is alive is always thwarted for its entire life?

Starboy

Kent Stevens · 09-12-2002, 07:35 PM

No, not everything alive is thwarted. It is just that if something can experience frustration at not getting what they immediately wanted, this suggests that they have intention. You may not be frustrated but still have intention. Intention was suggested to be what was need for free will to exist.

I do not believe that free will exists, but if you are going to use that term it is very unusual to say that ants or similar animals have free will. But this is getting into a semantic argument over what free will or choice means.

Starboy · 09-13-2002, 08:08 AM

Kent,

Webster�s lists Intention as:

1 : a determination to act in a certain way : RESOLVE

Webster�s list determinations as:

3 a : the act of deciding definitely and firmly; also : the result of such an act of decision b : the power or habit of deciding definitely and firmly

So why wouldn't every living thing on the planet as well as any games with a randomizer have free will?

If you disagree, then it is up to you to list your definitions and explain how it isn�t so, otherwise what I am hearing is just whining.

Starboy

Kent Stevens · 09-13-2002, 05:24 PM

Starboy: It is you who is going against the ordinary perception of how free will applies. You can take a term such as rationality and apply it to a machine, but how can you say that a rock has rationality unless you really redefine what rationality normally means. Similarly it is against normal language usage to say that rocks have free will.

Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
free will
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

free will

\Free will\ 1. A will free from improper coercion or restraint.

To come thus was I not constrained, but did On my free will. --Shak.

2. The power asserted of moral beings of willing or choosing without the restraints of physical or absolute necessity.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, � 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

So free will according to the dictionary can just mean freedom. Freedom does apply to basically all systems in that they can be restrained or coerced. Freedom does exist. But free will is similar to the words soul or god. Both of these words may allude to valid concepts but most of the time they are talking about imaginings. You can find valid concepts under the dictionary definition of the soul. But it is probably a mistake to use the word soul often as it usually implies metaphysical rubbish. Likewise it is probably a mistake to use free will as it usually implies metaphysical rubbish.

I feel like I am defending the normal concept of what a soul means. But, I do not believe that a soul exists and similarly I do not believe that free will exists. So you can stretch soul or free will to mean anything as they do not exist.

I do not want to say that the Internet has free will or a soul. I do not want to say that a snail has free will or a soul. But since this is semantics there is nothing to stop people redefining what soul or free will means, until snails have the above properties.

Starboy · 09-13-2002, 06:20 PM

I would have never though I would hear an atheist arguing for a soul. If we have no soul and we are made just of matter, as is everything else, then what are we but machines? We as humans have defined free will such that we have it. If we can exercise free will than what is so special about us vs. a chimpanzee or a porpoise? Humans have defined free will, we fit the definition and if there is any difference in free will between that of a human and that of an ant it is only a matter of degree and not a matter of kind. If you want to debate that life can have free will and an electron cannot, you may have a point there, but there is no doubt that living things have intent, they intend to live and procreate and in the process of doing this they make choices.

Starboy

Kent Stevens · 09-15-2002, 11:50 AM

There are slight problems with the word choice. For one thing it is difficult to work out what choice applies to and what it does not. Humans might choose but what about ants choosing? Even if ants choose what about plants or bacteria choosing? Do viruses choose when they more often attack the weaker members of a species such as the old and the young? This attacking the weak is similar to what say a lion does through mental choice. Then if life was supposed to have arisen from RNA molecules, were these molecules choosing?

To my mind, a big objection to the word choice is the theory of natural selection. Now selection normally means choice, so perhaps the theory could be refered to as the theory of natural choice. But this sounds like word abuse as there is no cognitive agent or life form choosing. If you use the word select in this way, why not say that the weather selected to be fine today, or that an electron selected a certain state?

One perspective is that all choices constitutes a subset of all alternatives. Each system has alternatives and possibilities, but not every system is said to have choice with those options. Bu the line you draw where you say that a certain system choses is slightly arbitrary. Maybe you could stretch words like selection and result, so that it applied to all systems when one alternative is realised. But the word choice can not so easily be stretched to cover all systems.

Laurentius · 09-15-2002, 03:38 PM

AVE

There are non-believers that would go as far as to dogmatically deny everything that does not match a narrow, neo-mechanicist view on reality in order to pose into "pure" atheists, as if there were such thing - that is they would no longer consider distinctions such as consciousness/unconsciousness, mind/brain, or freewill/causality as being relevant for explaining anything. There's no qualitative difference between all these categories. Everything is a matter of degree. Both a piece of metal and a human are aware, but to different extents... Both a pair of dice and a man are absolutely predetermined in their choice, but to a different degree...

All is matter!
Only quatum mechanics accounts for everything there is!

Maybe these wizards of atheism would make a final effort and demonstrate that there is no difference between the living and non-living.
At most one of degree...

AVE

Starboy · 09-15-2002, 07:38 PM

Laurentius, you forgot to add that atheists are all going to hell.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-12-2002, 07:35 PM	#74
Kent Stevens Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 484	No, not everything alive is thwarted. It is just that if something can experience frustration at not getting what they immediately wanted, this suggests that they have intention. You may not be frustrated but still have intention. Intention was suggested to be what was need for free will to exist. I do not believe that free will exists, but if you are going to use that term it is very unusual to say that ants or similar animals have free will. But this is getting into a semantic argument over what free will or choice means.

09-13-2002, 08:08 AM	#75
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Kent, Webster�s lists Intention as: 1 : a determination to act in a certain way : RESOLVE Webster�s list determinations as: 3 a : the act of deciding definitely and firmly; also : the result of such an act of decision b : the power or habit of deciding definitely and firmly So why wouldn't every living thing on the planet as well as any games with a randomizer have free will? If you disagree, then it is up to you to list your definitions and explain how it isn�t so, otherwise what I am hearing is just whining. Starboy

09-13-2002, 06:20 PM	#77
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	I would have never though I would hear an atheist arguing for a soul. If we have no soul and we are made just of matter, as is everything else, then what are we but machines? We as humans have defined free will such that we have it. If we can exercise free will than what is so special about us vs. a chimpanzee or a porpoise? Humans have defined free will, we fit the definition and if there is any difference in free will between that of a human and that of an ant it is only a matter of degree and not a matter of kind. If you want to debate that life can have free will and an electron cannot, you may have a point there, but there is no doubt that living things have intent, they intend to live and procreate and in the process of doing this they make choices. Starboy

09-15-2002, 11:50 AM	#78
Kent Stevens Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 484	There are slight problems with the word choice. For one thing it is difficult to work out what choice applies to and what it does not. Humans might choose but what about ants choosing? Even if ants choose what about plants or bacteria choosing? Do viruses choose when they more often attack the weaker members of a species such as the old and the young? This attacking the weak is similar to what say a lion does through mental choice. Then if life was supposed to have arisen from RNA molecules, were these molecules choosing? To my mind, a big objection to the word choice is the theory of natural selection. Now selection normally means choice, so perhaps the theory could be refered to as the theory of natural choice. But this sounds like word abuse as there is no cognitive agent or life form choosing. If you use the word select in this way, why not say that the weather selected to be fine today, or that an electron selected a certain state? One perspective is that all choices constitutes a subset of all alternatives. Each system has alternatives and possibilities, but not every system is said to have choice with those options. Bu the line you draw where you say that a certain system choses is slightly arbitrary. Maybe you could stretch words like selection and result, so that it applied to all systems when one alternative is realised. But the word choice can not so easily be stretched to cover all systems.

09-15-2002, 03:38 PM	#79
Laurentius Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Lucky Bucky, Oz Posts: 5,645	AVE There are non-believers that would go as far as to dogmatically deny everything that does not match a narrow, neo-mechanicist view on reality in order to pose into "pure" atheists, as if there were such thing - that is they would no longer consider distinctions such as consciousness/unconsciousness, mind/brain, or freewill/causality as being relevant for explaining anything. There's no qualitative difference between all these categories. Everything is a matter of degree. Both a piece of metal and a human are aware, but to different extents... Both a pair of dice and a man are absolutely predetermined in their choice, but to a different degree... All is matter! Only quatum mechanics accounts for everything there is! Maybe these wizards of atheism would make a final effort and demonstrate that there is no difference between the living and non-living. At most one of degree... AVE

09-15-2002, 07:38 PM	#80
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Laurentius, you forgot to add that atheists are all going to hell.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.