Free will is an illusion, biologist says

Apreche

http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

Victor Frost

Yeah yeah, So what?

TheWhaleShark

See, I'm not the only one.

Of course, the "So what?" argument is a bitch.

Cremlian

You should have linked to a Pete rant and it would have been much more funny ^_^

Jason

Oh boy, here we go. I can hear Rym's "emergent behavior of a complex system" stuff already.

Rym

This is basically the exact argument, point for point, that I've been making for years now. There is very possibly no escape from the truth that, if causality is universal, then the entirety of the events of this universe were predetermined at its point of origin. "Time" doesn't matter in that case, as the events effectively already happened.

Or in other words, the only choice that was ever to be made came before we ever existed.

Cremlian

Or in other words, the only choice that was ever to be made came before we ever existed.

By Jebus Your lord and savior ;-p

TheWhaleShark

Or in other words, the only choice that was ever to be made came before we ever existed.

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake etc.

It's important to remember this when trying to explain people's behavior, or at times when making decisions. However, even if it's an illusion, we still need to live as though free will exists. It's a matter of practicality.

Rym

However, even if it's an illusion, we still need to live as though free will exists. It's a matter of practicality.

Only personally. For external ideas, we need to personally strive to create the physical feedback looks that will cause the behavior we "desire" in others going forward.

Or, there's another option. Neuropath explores the idea of altering our own brains such that the "conscious" portion is fully aware of the internal chain of causality. You effectively create people who are aware, on a personal, solipsistic level, of their inability to control the actions their body is taking.

Humanity, in the next several hundred years, has an important decision to make. Do we want to be personally aware of the true nature of our being, or not?

George Patches

So fate is real and the entire world is just a big Rube Goldberg machine. Whatever.

Rym

So fate is real and the entire world is just a big Rube Goldberg machine. Whatever.

Of course you responded that way.

^_~

gomidog

You are not a beautiful or unique snowflake etc.

Technically you are genetically unique (and possibly beautiful.)

NerdcoreWannabe

I think free will is a fluid concept. If it were truly based on a set of laws like a processor reacting to events, then monarchies and single point based governments would be far more successful. Because people would fall in line more completely, and those vying for that spot of control would have to be more proficient at their job. Even if they were totally selfish, basic efficiencies would always be met first.

George Patches

Of course you responded that way.

How could I respond differently?

Diddgery

If everything is predetermined, could this explain deja vu?

Starfox

Technically you are genetically unique (and possibly beautiful.)

Not necessarily: identical twins, clones, etc.

If it were truly based on a set of laws like a processor reacting to events, then monarchies and single point based governments would be far more successful. Because people would fall in line more completely, and those vying for that spot of control would have to be more proficient at their job. Even if they were totally selfish, basic efficiencies would always be met first.

I don't think your argument quite follows. Fluid in what way? Why would people fall in more?

Humanity, in the next several hundred years, has an important decision to make. Do we want to be personally aware of the true nature of our being, or not?

I'd take that even further, humanity doesn't have to decide. Just enough scientists. And scientists always answer

Do we want to be personally aware of the true nature of X?

yes.

Erwin

The New Battle Angel Alita has some plot lines involving free will. It is awesome specially because most of the arguments are resolved with speed of light karate fighting :P

Nuri

Rym, if everything is predetermined, then saying we need to strive for anything is silly. Why try to convince us to do what we have no choice about doing? I mean, we're gonna do whatever we were gonna do anyway.

Of course, it was pre-determined that you would tell us to strive for such a thing, which in turn influences us, so I suppose I shouldn't criticize. But I was going to do that anyway, so hey, no problem!

And this is why I say "so what?" in response to all this. None of it makes any real difference in the way we function as a society. If it's true, then we can't change where we're headed, and if it's not true, then it doesn't apply.

GreyHuge

Would it be possible to effectively achieve free will by having a brain function on the quantum level? I understand that this does not necessarily make will free, but could it make it impossible to predict it?

George Patches

Rym, if everything is predetermined, then saying we need to strive for anything is silly.

But you can't not think that way.

TheWhaleShark

But you can't not think that way.

Well, of course you can't. No free will and so forth.

Wyatt

Only personally. For external ideas, we need to personally strive to create the physical feedback looks that will cause the behavior we "desire" in others going forward.

Social Eugenics or maybe Sociological Evolution? Hitler would be so proud.

Rym

Rym, if everything is predetermined, then saying we need to strive for anything is silly.

No, because pre-determination is only proven in the frame of reference beyond our true frame, which is solipsistic. I perceive my own free will with 100% proof. The external world (everything I've ever perceived outside of my own consciousness) can theoretically be proven to be deterministic, again 100%, but only for that frame of reference. The difference between the two frames is the crux of all "will." One escape, for example, from the proofs is to assume that you have free will within your own solipsistic shell, but that the world outside of you reacts in a deterministic manner. This escape only works because there are two separate frames of reference, but only one which can be proven internally.

And this is why I say "so what?" in response to all this. None of it makes any real difference in the way we function as a society. If it's true, then we can't change where we're headed, and if it's not true, then it doesn't apply.

Because we perceive free will, it's still a concern, as there is the last "escape" I noted above. There is only one other escape: that at some low level, there is no causality. i.e., things truly do occur randomly and without cause. This second escape is the one proposed by Ghost in the Shell and by the ancient Greeks noted in the article. A third escape exists if there is a means for the external to interact with our frame of reference. This is likely the proposition in the Prince of Nothing series, also postulated (poorly) by many religions. (Note that this last escape also provides a means to break solipsism: this is important).

So, back to Neuropath. If ANY of these three proposed logical escapes is valid, we have ways to test for it. Our solipsistic frame of reference (perceived consciousness) could possibly direct our body to physically alter our brain to remove any barrier between perception and consciousness. Effectively, we would take the external and bring it within, bridging the two frames of reference. How such a being would function, and whether it would still perceive itself as having free will, could possibly answer as to which if any of these escapes actually leads somewhere.

George Patches

I hate it when the conversations on here get this philosophical.

Andrew

I'm holding off on having an opinion until science can produce a grand unifying theory. There is some sort of disconnect between the seemingly quantum, non-deterministic world and the large scale Newtonian one to the point at which it's near impossible to tell how it is related to our "free will". Whether the bizarre occurrences at the atomic and sub-atomic level have any real effect on our decisions is something which should be studied further, if it's possible.

NerdcoreWannabe

My argument does assume that on some biological level, humans know what works best for them. Ideally speaking, systems like communism or benevolent monarchies should be long-lasting. But people always seem fixated with having a level of freedom. Maybe the argument is flawed as I heavily base it on my perceptions of how people feel about being ruled/controlled.

George Patches

I thing the article is more talking about people being effectively bacteria. Stimulus, response, stimulus, response. But I haven't read it carefully yet, I have work to do.

gomidog

Hey, so will any of you do anything differently after reading this article?

...No, me neither.

MrRoboto

Hey, so will any of you do anything differently after reading this article?

...No, me neither.

No, because the article is right

TheWhaleShark

Hey, so will any of you do anything differently after reading this article?

...No, me neither.

Well, it's not like you have any say in the matter anyway.

Also, no, because I have been espousing this for years.

Victor Frost

Hey, so will any of you do anything differently after reading this article?

...No, me neither.

No, because the article is right

No, because whether the article is right or wrong makes no difference. We will react to situations in however way we react. It's an interesting philosophical idea, but it has no real world applications. Hence my original "So What".