It's an interesting philosophical idea, but it has no real world applications.
It does. We can test for and try to verify if the three possible escapes from determinism are viable. Or, we can possibly remove from ourselves the perception of free will through surgery.
It does. We can test for and try to verify if the three possible escapes from determinism are viable. Or, we can possibly remove from ourselves the perception of free will through surgery.
Hypothetically let's say that humans evolved to lose the perception of free will. What do you suspect those people will be like?
Personally, I suspect those people will lives much more similar to those of chimps or dolphins.
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 byGhost in the Shelland by the ancient Greeks noted in the article.
Wouldn't this also effectively destroy the concept of "free will," though? If there is no real causality at a low level, but apparent causality at higher levels, then there really aren't any "decisions" to be made and no "will" to exercise.
It's an escape from determinism, but it still doesn't provide for free will.
The random option is also an option, as I noted above. It's possible that "free will" is literally the random behavior of the "ghost" in the machine. The combination of a particular "ghost" and a particular set of memories (perceptual feedback) would equate to a personality. This would also make it theoretically possible to clone memories, but not necessarily the "ghost" part. It also gives us an interesting way to handle legal matters, explored tentatively by Shirow of all people.
When a criminal is convicted of a crime in Masamune Shirow's future world, a detailed technical analysis is conducted upon the subject. If it is discovered that the crime was committed due to a material defect in either the biological or electronic components of the convict's brain, the defect is repaired and the convict is released. If, instead, the crime is determined to have been the result of an individual's ghost, then there is only one cure: the removal of the portion of the brain that communicates with the soul, thereby de-ghosting the criminal and preventing any possibility of future criminal behavior.
I think we're making a big mistake here in assuming that no free will equals "predetermined." Saying something is predetermined means that someone or something predetermined it. I think we need to take a step back and realize that the real argument here is that we are all victims of cause and effect. I love that speech from The Matrix Reloaded by the Merovingian: "You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect."
I love that speech from The Matrix Reloaded by the Merovingian: "You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect."
You know, that speech would have been a whole lot better without a virtual zoom up some poor woman's vagina. Seriously, I watched this move hoping to see at least some attempt at making up for the previous movie, I didn't watch it to see Space Mountain for Gynecologists.
So if we live in a universe where nothing is random, we cannot have free will. If we live in one where some things are random, we could. Am I understanding this correctly?
I think we're making a big mistake here in assuming that no free will equals "predetermined." Saying something is predetermined means that someone or something predetermined it. I think we need to take a step back and realize that the real argument here is that we are all victims of cause and effect. I love that speech from The Matrix Reloaded by the Merovingian: "You see there is only one constant. One universal. It is the only real truth. Causality. Action, reaction. Cause and effect."
This, I think. In other words, you don't decide to pursue a relationship with someone, your brain identifies a person whose sex characteristics are in line with mate preferences hard-coded in your wetware, and then hormonal impulses triggers emotions and mammalian drives pertinent to love. You don't fall in love with a person because of the spin of a given quark at the birth of the universe; at least, not in any way comprehensible or significant to a human brain and lifespan. That being said, deciding to skydive is not a choice made because you "want to be adventurous," but rather because some part of your body will trigger a pleasure response in response to a release of adrenaline, and you are likely aware of this "gift response" on some subconscious level.
The idea of surgically granting "free will" would likely be more akin to the Bene Gesserit inDune, who free themselves from biological shackles by becoming aware of each and every bodily function, and learning how to bend them to their will.
For the love of Pete, I'll never lend you Neuromancer. (She means Neuropath) You will be insufferable to argue with then. I feel like you takes away the wrong things from this type of discussion and uses it to justify a nihilistic attitude towards life. I just say okay, my behavior is probably the result of complex, possibly predetermined interactions on both the micro and macro level, and there is sort of an inertia principle applied to the mind, in that action does not occur spontaneously. So? From the flow of social memes down to atoms bumping into each other, this is not a completely alien concept.
You have used this sort of argument in the past to tell me that anything I do is because my lady chemicals evolved that way. (>_<) I feel sometimes you miss the point.
It's predetermined that you'll turn to page 73 on seeing that message. Also, one could argue that free will is a higher-order manifestation of nondeterministic behaviour at a quantum level. EDIT: It seems Rym already said this, but that's basically my position on the matter.
How is this news? The concept of emergence dates back to Aristotle, complex systems have been studied since the 1750's, chaos theory is over a hundred years old, and even the neuroscience findings that are the basis of this guys article are thirty years old.
If you read this guys article (PDF), you'll see that he spends two and a half pages of a six page article on criminal justice reform. Or rather he doesn't, since he argues in the end that punishment works just as well as an environmental input when there is no free will instead of as a deterrent when there is (free will). Mainly his beef seems to be with too many psychologists spending time in court rooms.
This is a classic case of a known work hazard for people working in the sciences, i.e., that once you have been an expert in your own field (biology, neuroscience) long enough you start getting ideas about being an expert in other fields (law, sociology). Physicists usually fall for philosophy and sometimes, sadly, for religion. It is invariably a sad thing to watch.
Comments
Personally, I suspect those people will lives much more similar to those of chimps or dolphins.
It's an escape from determinism, but it still doesn't provide for free will.
The idea of surgically granting "free will" would likely be more akin to the Bene Gesserit inDune, who free themselves from biological shackles by becoming aware of each and every bodily function, and learning how to bend them to their will.
You have used this sort of argument in the past to tell me that anything I do is because my lady chemicals evolved that way. (>_<) I feel sometimes you miss the point.
Neuropath
Necromancer
Necropath?
Also, one could argue that free will is a higher-order manifestation of nondeterministic behaviour at a quantum level.
EDIT: It seems Rym already said this, but that's basically my position on the matter.
If you read this guys article (PDF), you'll see that he spends two and a half pages of a six page article on criminal justice reform. Or rather he doesn't, since he argues in the end that punishment works just as well as an environmental input when there is no free will instead of as a deterrent when there is (free will). Mainly his beef seems to be with too many psychologists spending time in court rooms.
This is a classic case of a known work hazard for people working in the sciences, i.e., that once you have been an expert in your own field (biology, neuroscience) long enough you start getting ideas about being an expert in other fields (law, sociology). Physicists usually fall for philosophy and sometimes, sadly, for religion. It is invariably a sad thing to watch.