This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Definition of Free Will

edited January 2009 in Flamewars
I just wrote a short blog post on this topic. Excuse my poor English, I'm not a native speaker. ^_~
www.makushimirian.comI'm sure that a lot of people have already written their thoughts on this topic, but I'd just like to add mine.

I personally believe that we aren't able to make truly free decisions at any given moment. On a fundamental level the brain has to obey the rules of physics, of which one is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Same goes for decision making - you can't just suddenly make a decision, it has to root from somewhere in your brain. These roots are predetermined. Predetermined by the biological build of your brain, your genes, the way you got brought up and the situation your in at the exact moment your making your decision. So how can we possibly decide free? If all these roots that lead to our decision are predetermined our perception of free will would just be an illusion.

I just find it a very interesting thought.
What are your guys thoughts?
«1

Comments

  • We're all fleshy robots.
  • edited January 2009
    I just wrote a short blog post on this topic. Excuse my poor English, I'm not a native speaker. ^_~
    I'm sure that a lot of people have already written their thoughts on this topic, but I'd just like to add mine.

    I personally believe that we aren't able to make truly free decisions at any given moment. On a fundamental level the brain has to obey the rules of physics, of which one is that energy cannot be created or destroyed. Same goes for decision making - you can't just suddenly make a decision, it has to root from somewhere in your brain. These roots are predetermined. Predetermined by the biological build of your brain, your genes, the way you got brought up and the situation your in at the exact moment your making your decision. So how can we possibly decide free? If all these roots that lead to our decision are predetermined our perception of free will would just be an illusion.

    I just find it a very interesting thought.
    What are your guys thoughts?
    You've landed on the precise reason that I do not technically believe in free will. If thought is just the emergent behavior of a complex system of biochemical interactions, then there's no way for us to actually have what we consider to be "free will." Every thought you have is pre-determined and reactionary.

    However, as a good friend of mine put it, that's not a terribly practical way to live. We all have the illusion of free will, so it's best to behave as though it actually exists.

    I still think it's important to remember that free will is a myth, though. It serves to explain a lot of human behavior, and being able to trace the logical routes behind a person's thoughts leads to a greater understanding of that person and their motivations. Do this enough and you'll figure out that most people actually think pretty much the same way, but wind up coming to different conclusions based on external variables. People are scarily easy to figure out if you just listen closely.

    Thought: Given "cogito ergo sum," the only logically valid conclusion is that god exists and we are all it. In other words, we are all the No-God, or rather the No-God is that thing which comes before all of us, that which underlies us and ties our existence together.
    Post edited by TheWhaleShark on
  • I am preparing to read the post, but I will be disappointed if it doesn't include the phrase "emergent behavior of a complex system."
  • edited January 2009
    If all that is true, is it possible to fashion an algorithm that will predict human behavior? How would the algorithm be scaled? Would it only be good for predicting the behavior of an arbitrarily large collective or could it predict individual behavior?

    Has anyone else been noticing these scientist dudes who say they can "read" a person's thoughts with an MRI machine?
    We're all fleshy robots.
    . . . or clockwork oranges?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • I see, you know of Wolf Singer.
  • edited January 2009
    If all that is true, is it possible to fashion an algorithm that will predict human behavior? How would the algorithm be scaled? Would it only be good for predicting the behavior of an arbitrarily large collective or could it predict individual behavior?

    Has anyone else been noticing these scientist dudes who say they can "read" a person's thoughts with an MRI machine?
    The main problem is that although our decisions are predetermined, the brain still has an unbelievably complex way of getting to that decision.
    Post edited by kiwi_bird on
  • You could only predict human behavior if you could process all of the input that would affect it. Getting perfect information is impossible; getting near-enough perfect information to make an informed "mind-reading" is implausible in real time without a quantum computer.
  • We're all fleshy robots.
    Were this thread a pre-recorded prime-time show on television I would start cursing and doing the Robot after that comment.

    In light of the topic I agree with TheWhaleShark's explanation. As for HungyJoe's topics, if we can predict human behaviour given proper input, we would require information about the nature and nurture of the subject. It could be able to scale to large crowds, but then you'd have to either average all the information into a single entity, the large crowd, and predict its behaviour, or you'd have to predict the behaviour of every person in the crowd.

    Another topic, with the 'knowledge' that humans do not have a free will, are robots then human? If we were to make a robot out of flesh, muscle, nerves and program its brain, would it be a robot or a human? If we are able to predict a person's behaviour when having access to all the nature and nurture information of this person, wouldn't we be able to make an exact copy of a person at a specific point in time? Would this clone then be that person?
  • Another topic, with the 'knowledge' that humans do not have a free will, are robots then human? If we were to make a robot out of flesh, muscle, nerves and program its brain, would it be a robot or a human?
    Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 2, Episode 9, "The Measure of a Man."

    Watch it. Love it. Learn it.
  • Another topic, with the 'knowledge' that humans do not have a free will, are robots then human? If we were to make a robot out of flesh, muscle, nerves and program its brain, would it be a robot or a human?
    Star Trek: The Next Generation, Season 2, Episode 9, "The Measure of a Man."

    Watch it. Love it. Learn it.
    Also, read everything by William Gibson.
  • Watch it. Love it. Learn it.
    Star Trek
    HAHAHAHAhaha-oh... You're serious.
    Also, read everything by William Gibson.
    I might someday, in the meantime, what are the answers you folks give, as was the entire point of that question!
  • HAHAHAHAhaha-oh... You're serious.
    as silly as Star Trek usually is, that was a surprisingly good episode.
  • I will be disappointed if it doesn't include the phrase "emergent behavior of a complex system."
    I'm saving that for FNPL.
  • HAHAHAHAhaha-oh... You're serious.
    as silly as Star Trek usually is, that was a surprisingly good episode.
    Okay, I'll consider. Star Trek, and similar shows, aren't really my thing. I'll watch the episode that's on when there's absolute crap everywhere else. Though this is rarely the case if I watch TV. It just doesn't attract me that much.
  • You could only predict human behavior if you could process all of the input that would affect it. Getting perfect information is impossible; getting near-enough perfect information to make an informed "mind-reading" is implausible in real time without a quantum computer.
    Here's what I was talking about. These guys can identify thoughts without a quantum computer. It's the same idea as the "fleshy robot" - within an acceptable variance, specific thoughts have specific MRI signatures. A computer can analyze those signatures and identify specific thoughts.
  • Jason likes to dress up in his starfleet uniform and ask his wife for Earl Grey tea. Hot.
  • edited January 2009
    Earl Grey tea. Hot.
    I never watched those Next Generation shows, and that is partly the reason why - that haughty, high falutin', rotty tooty, bald bastard that thought he was so special with his damned Earl Gay Grey. If you're going to be all uppity about your tea, at least drink something that's not one of the most popular, vulgar types there is. "Oh yes, Cap'n, I'll get your damned Earl Grey tea - from the Flavia machine."

    Like all true Americans, Captain Kirk drank coffee.
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • However, as a good friend of mine put it, that's not a terribly practical way to live. We all have the illusion of free will, so it's best to behave as though it actually exists.
    Strangely enough this is the same reason that I don't believe in Time and yet still wear a watch.
  • edited January 2009
    Jason likes to dress up in his Starfleet uniform and ask his wife for Earl Grey tea. Hot.
    I would take it in the ass from Picard. He's that awesome.

    Joe. come visit me. We'll marathon the series, and by the end you'll be pine for the awesome that is my bald captain. He's a man's man. Kirk was a trained ape next to Picard. Also, a poor actor.

    I love modern Shatner, especially on Boston Legal. But would Shatner be secure enough in his manhood to do this?
    Post edited by Jason on
  • and by the end you'll be pine for the awesome that is my bald captain.
    Tried that line once; that's how I got my 12th restraining order. Well, that and the ensuing demonstration.
  • edited January 2009
    I would take it in the ass from Picard. He's that awesome.
    He might be, but that "Earl Grey tea. Hot." thing is infuriating. It's so stuck up and snobby; but Earl Grey tea is so common, it's like being snobby about McNuggets. "McNuggets. Honey mustard sauce."

    Also, "Picard" sounds an awful lot like "retard".
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
  • I would take it in the ass from Picard. He's that awesome.
    He might be, but that "Earl Grey tea. Hot." thing is infuriating. It's so stuck up and snobby; but Earl Grey tea is so common, it's like being snobby about McNuggets. "McNuggets. Honey mustard sauce."

    Also, "Picard" sounds an awful lot like "retard".
    Stop talking about my Jean Luc! He is a shining ray of loveliness and requesting a beverage the way one prefers is not snobby. Also, Earl Grey is not common in a lot of American homes because they prefer the bitter black sludge that is called "coffee".
    Seriously, though, don't be talkin' 'bout my man. I will cut you 'til you wish I no cut you.
  • He might be, but that "Earl Grey tea. Hot." thing is so infuriating.
    What do you expect? He's British. French. Brench. Whatever.
  • I would take it in the ass from Picard. He's that awesome.
    He might be, but that "Earl Grey tea. Hot." thing is infuriating.
    Excuse me, it's "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot." You have to get the diction right.
  • All Star Trek sucks, so you're both wrong.
  • He might be, but that "Earl Grey tea. Hot." thing is infuriating. It's so stuck up and snobby; but Earl Grey tea is so common, it's like being snobby about McNuggets. "McNuggets. Honey mustard sauce."
    Hopefully you do agree that Earl Gray tea is nice.
    All Star Trek sucks, so you're both wrong.
    Seconded. Earl Gray is still nice tea though.
  • edited January 2009
    All Star Trek sucks, so you're both wrong.
    Eat poop. The original series was fun, Next Generation was pretty great, Deep Space Nine and Voyager were okay, and we do not speak of what came after. I am not saying any of the ST stuff was spectacular, but decent entertainment at the very least.
    You don't like Firefly, so on the spacey-type TV shows, you get no say.
    EDIT: This ends heya!
    Post edited by Kate Monster on
  • All Star Trek sucks, so you're both wrong.
    Sedentary peoples' opinions don't count.
  • All Star Trek sucks, so you're both wrong.
    Sedentary peoples' opinions don't count.
    Exactly. Does there exist in the world a non-sedentary Star Trek fan? I think not.
  • edited January 2009
    I would take it in the ass from Picard. He's that awesome.
    He might be, but that "Earl Grey tea. Hot." thing is infuriating.
    Excuse me, it's "Tea. Earl Grey. Hot." You have to get the diction right.
    That's even more stuck-up. Gah!
    Also, Earl Grey is not common in a lot of American homes because they prefer the bitter black sludge that is called "coffee".
    Earl Grey is about as common as dirt. In my opinion, if you can get it from a Flavia machine, it's not good tea.

    "Tea. Lipton. Hot." - that's what he might as well be saying. Doesn't sound so high-falutin' now, does it?
    Post edited by HungryJoe on
Sign In or Register to comment.