Free Will

People control the thoughts and behaviours of others all the time.

If we are organic robots we can still do whatever we want, in fact more so than if we have gods telling us what to do.

 

Yes, I get what you are saying. We are basically organic computers then.

What if computers believe that they have free will? What if they think that the instructions they receive are their free will?

 

Random functions are strictly logical yes, and if you don't seed the randomizer then every time you run the application, the program will give you the same results. So what you do is you seed the randomizer with the current clock time in milliseconds. This offsets the algorithm so that in theory, ever time you run the application, the numbers will be different.

So in a computer, the only truly "random" element is the millisecond that the user runs the application.

Heh, this was probably irrelevant, but I wanted to show off (being a programmer and all) lol.

 

The human mind is more complex than any computer we have so far, and each mind is unique, I can't imagine it being awfully predictable or reliable.

 

The human mind is controlled by chemicals and electrical impulses. One could argue that the arrangement of the atoms pre-Big Bang actually predetermines every single moment of our existence.

 

You sure could, all I'm saying is that

is not exactly easy.

 

Well, people are actually pretty predictable. There are many situations where people are predictable given past history of previous interactions. For example, if you were to get on an elevator with everyone facing away from the door towards the back, there's a large chance you will do the same. There's studies on social pressures like this, which conclude that many people follow suit. Another example is there was this study where there were, say, ten people, one of which was the subject and the rest were in on it. They were given a simple task of identifying which line was bigger and one was clearly bigger than the other. The subject went last and all nine of the others said the line that was clearly shorter than the other line was larger. When it was the subjects turn, most of them went with the group and agreed. Social pressures like that are just one area of predictable outcomes for humans. There are many behavioral things that are just as predictable or more predictable. If someone was conditioned at an early age that they were failures at everything, then when they were presented with new challanges, they would find a way to not tackle these challanges. Or when they completed these challanges they would have a very low opinion of whatever it was they were doing. There's tons of situations like this everyday. Think of the closest people you know. You can typically predict how they will react to what is said or a certain situation. INFJs are usually prone to predicting these things well too.

With all of that aside, I believe there are almost too many variables to accurately predict someone's actions 100% of the time, or even more than 2/3 of the time. People are constantly in different states of mind and learning and evolving everyday, so it's hard to pinpoint what someone will do.

As far as freewill, I think it exists, but it takes a lot of discipline to do what you want and go against some of the emotions/logic that are inhibiting you. These are the things that cause predictability.

The brain is a mysterious organ at the moment and there's a lot more too it than we know. I do believe there is a spiritual existence as well as a God, but I don't know that that has much to do with freewill. I just think we are very complex in most cases. I feel like i'm writing a paper so I'll stop lol

 

In order to accurately predict what any person would do, in terms of the chemical and electrical stimuli, it seems to me you'd have to know exactly the quantity of chemical a persons brain releases, the concentration, the sensitivity of the receptors, the conductivity of the neuro transmitters....you'd have to take all of those variables into consideration and into your calculations.

Because we are organic, we are susceptible to alteration by our environments.

 

I have thought about this before. In theory, yes it would mean we have no free will. However, I do not think so.

Strictly from a chemical standpoint, we are so so so so so much more complex then a simple computer, many more pieces go into us then a circut board. We in essence have control over our own chemical systems if we really try. I mean, look at people who meditate at an intense level. They can alter their physical and chemical processes.

Really, even if we exclude god, we still have free will.

 

I've used this scenario in a calvinism v. armenianism debate before and I think is is a very effective arguement for both religious and secular free will discussions.


*edit*

In hindsight I guess I havent added anything to the discussion, I was just showing off while congratulating someones good point. Sorry.

 

Define what "free will" is and I could probably help you more.

If you mean the classical "free will vs determinism" debate, then God isn't necessary to believe in free will. In fact, I don't see how God comes into this besides what the bible claims about people being born with free will.

Plus, there are more ways of looking at it then "robot vs living, breathing organism." You've painted an ugly face on the opposite point of view here. A lot of determinists are soft determinists, basically saying that our inclinations and situations are not always by choice...but we still are responsible for making the choice that we do.

 

Not according to quantum theories.

 

Say if all our actions were predictable/reliable/predetermined even, and there is no free will, the thought of there being no free will is abhorrent, but something being abhorrent doesn't make it any less true. You can't just believe in spirituality because it makes things seem a bit more pleasant, that's delusion.

 

It's hard to say how much "free will" is possible, or if it's even necessary. The whole debate in my opinion is pointless as no side can be proven right. If you say, "Well, see, look, I have the choice to drink this water or not!" then the determinist would just tell you that by your psychological makeup caused you to notice the glass and connect it to your argument, and then whether you actually drank it or not was determined by the same.

Quantum physics, or my understanding of it at least, doesn't prove free will either (and honestly, I'm not that knowledgeable on quantum physics, I just started my self education in physics and quantum is graduate level stuff...). There is so much about the natural world left to explore that physics trying to explain metaphysics in this case just won't work.

This whole debate would be, in my opinion, inconclusive at best. There is no way to prove we have free will, there is no way to prove we don't. The same goes for determinism. If the world is completely deterministic, and we have knowledge of all physical laws, and a supercomputer sophisticated enough to do it: it does seem likely that we could know every event that has ever happened and predict all to come.


And before it's pointed out that if the world is completely deterministic, then no one can be held ethically accountable, think about this:

Say there is a faulty screw in your house that causes a light fixture of some sort to fall on somebody's head. Is that light fixture or screw morally bad? Of course not, it's just physics that caused that. However, don't you still remove the screw/light fixture? If it's dangerous you still remove it and fix it. So if a person is dangerous, you remove them from harming others, and hopefully rehabilitate them back to a state they won't hurt others.

In addition, believing in something because the opposite has unfavorable consequences is a fallacy anyways: Appeal to consequences (In fact, I reread the article and found one of the examples: "Free will must exist: if it didn't, we would all be machines.")

 

Ohh that's what I meant in my last post, thanks for the link.