NationStates Jolt Archive

(if you can even quantify things like choice)

I am sure everyone's heard the stories of Identical Twins separated at birth, who lead very similar lives away from each other, sometimes to the point of living on streets with the same names, and marrying spouses with the same names and buying the same models of cars, working in the same jobs......

Research shows that identical twins raised apart are more alike than they are different. And they're surprisingly more alike than the brothers and sisters they are raised with. "To the extent that identical twins are more alike in these things, we can say with a fairly strong degree of confidence that yes, genes do play a role," says Segal.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/04/48hours/main581771.shtml

it's interesting to me. I have come to believe that everything is a choice, but then again, I was reading a book over the winter that talked about what kinds of genetic factors that may lead you to choose somethings over others.

I had, until I read this book, assumed that most of the choices I couldn't back up rationally or logically, had been made because of environmental factors. Maybe they weren't.

I have been on a mission for a few days (don't know why) to ask everyone I knew 5 questions and write down the answers, so I have and I still can't figure out the answers to some of the questions I have.

I am not going to ask the "big 5" here because it would be too hard for me to keep track of, and also, it doesn't make for good debate since most of the people I asked answered something along the lines of "because I do" so, you guys get the questions behind the reasoning for asking the "big 5"

as far as preferences* do you think they are chosen and to what extent?

if they are not chosen, what determines them?

as far as things outside the sphere of opinion** what do you think is the underlying factor in them? choice? if not, what?

*favorite color, favorite food, favorite movie

** political standpoint, religion, life philosophy.

opinions welcome!

oh, and if anyone actually can explain to me why you like your favorite color....go for it! I asked the 5 year old back when she was 3 and she said
"I like pink because it rhymes with sink and sink starts with an s and I like to eat sausage for breakfast" I asked her again last night why she liked pink and she said "I already told you a long time ago":eek:

If you choose
not to decide
you still have made a choice

Free will, is both a complete illusion and a complete truth. Freedom is one of those AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! topics.

If you choose
not to decide
you still have made a choice

Free will, is both a complete illusion and a complete truth. Freedom is one of those AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! topics.

you two have been........less than helpful with my learnin'

I choose not to understand this topic.



Or do I?



:confused:
you two have been........less than helpful with my learnin'

As I'm going to pretend I just illustrated, we're not smart enough to figure out exactly what we freely choose and what we are influenced to choose by our genetics, our enviroment and our up-bringing(and many other things too, no doubt) and to what extent these things influenced said "choice".

Free will is a silly notion. In any set of given circumstances, we will always make the same choices. However, to cling on to the superstition (on at least some level) is, ironically, necessary for most humans to make their lives seem meaningful.

But is that illusion what we mean by free will? In a way, you have had the freedom to make that decision.

Free will is a silly notion. In any set of given circumstances, we will always make the same choices. However, to cling on to the superstition (on at least some level) is, ironically, necessary for most humans to make their lives seem meaningful.

were one to adequately calculate the mathematics, one could know for certain every single event that would occur in the universe....

Which is to say, while our actions can not be predetermined, what we choose is locked in as a destiny of enviornment and genetics.

Free will is a silly notion. In any set of given circumstances, we will always make the same choices.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

i'm not really sure how far to go with the definition of choice in this. is it supposed to be entirely independent and rational? or can it be influenced by anything. i'd say i have choices in pretty much everything but they are largely influenced by the way i was brought up and the experiences i have had in life. i wouldn't know where to start with genetics, that's a question for actual psychologists and geneticists i'd imagine. i think it would take an extreme effort of will to choose something that goes against the choices that one's upbringing has led one to prefer. there would have to be some rather pressing reason to do it also, why choose something that doesn't sit well with your own personal morals and ethics when there is no clear advantage afterall? that's not to sa our choices are predetermined, but they are rendered somewhat predictable.

If you choose
not to decide
you still have made a choice

Now don't rush your response.:cool:

Free will, is both a complete illusion and a complete truth. Freedom is one of those AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! topics.

We have so little freedom it comes right back around to absolute again.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

evidence is impossible because one can not ever 100% replicate a situation, you right now are different than you were 10 minutes ago, with different experiences which may shape your decisions.

However one makes the choices one does for reasons, a combination of enviornment and genetics shape personality, and personality dictates decision.

Of course not, since it's physically impossible to recreate every variable in a given situation. Biologic fluctuations, atomic movements, cosmic interference, whatever. If everything is the same, you'll have the same outside input and the same neurons firing leading to, ultimately, the same conclusion.

this is putting it better than I did. If all variables remain the same, the end result will remain the same.

Do you have evidence to back up this claim?

Of course not, since it's physically impossible to recreate every variable in a given situation. Biologic fluctuations, atomic movements, cosmic interference, whatever. If everything is the same, you'll have the same outside input and the same neurons firing leading to, ultimately, the same conclusion.

evidence is impossible because one can not ever 100% replicate a situation, you right now are different than you were 10 minutes ago, with different experiences which may shape your decisions.

However one makes the choices one does for reasons, a combination of enviornment and genetics shape personality, and personality dictates decision.
How do you know that?
Of course not, since it's physically impossible to recreate every variable in a given situation. Biologic fluctuations, atomic movements, cosmic interference, whatever. If everything is the same, you'll have the same outside input and the same neurons firing leading to, ultimately, the same conclusion.

How do you know that?

How do you know that?

Common sense. Your brain decides your actions. Your brain is part of the physical world. Thus it would react the same way to the same stimuli and thus so would you.

Free will doesnt exist.

The only freedom one could achieve is if he foregoes the ego.

And that cant be atained easily.

Also, to be truly free, you would need to know how the enviroment, food, relationships, knowledge and everything else that influences you change your behavior. Then you would be able to chose how you want to be influenced and when.

Also, for you to achieve free will, you have to get rid of your feelings.

Common sense. Your brain decides your actions. Your brain is part of the physical world. Thus it would react the same way to the same stimuli and thus so would you.
is there any way to prove that though?

Common sense. Your brain decides your actions. Your brain is part of the physical world. Thus it would react the same way to the same stimuli and thus so would you.

is this assuming that all the molecules involved in the brain's chemical reactions are in the same position and posessing of the same amount of energy as well? i don't think that's testable and since it isn't testable it is foolish to make such a positive assertion.

Common sense. Your brain decides your actions. Your brain is part of the physical world. Thus it would react the same way to the same stimuli and thus so would you.

Your assumptions are large, and your evidence small.

(if you can even quantify things like choice)

I am sure everyone's heard the stories of Identical Twins separated at birth, who lead very similar lives away from each other, sometimes to the point of living on streets with the same names, and marrying spouses with the same names and buying the same models of cars, working in the same jobs......
Yeah, those studies are a load of crap. If you take any two people and begin analyzing their life, you'll find a lot of coincidental similarities, which the researchers then emphasize, and many more differences, which the researchers downplay.
My favorite example of this was in an old Psych textbook, that I regretfully seem to have lost, where they made a big deal out of how a pair of seperated twins put rubberbands on their right wrists, while completely brushing over the little detail that one was kind of, sort of almost a Nazi and the other one was a Jew. But, ignoring minor differences like that, they were totally the same. I mean, the rubber bands, man; that can't just be the natural result of them both being left-handed.

is there any way to prove that though?

is this assuming that all the molecules involved in the brain's chemical reactions are in the same position and posessing of the same amount of energy as well? i don't think that's testable and since it isn't testable it is foolish to make such a positive assertion.

Of course it isn't testable. I said so myself just a few posts back. But again, if all molecules are in the same place, logic dictates that the results will be the same, as the physical world follows the laws of physics.

If an experiment such as this one were possible, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

Of course it isn't testable. I said so myself just a few posts back. But again, if all molecules are in the same place, logic dictates that the results will be the same, as the physical world follows the laws of physics.

If an experiment such as this one were possible, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

Logic and common sense prove nothing.

Of course it isn't testable. I said so myself just a few posts back. But again, if all molecules are in the same place, logic dictates that the results will be the same, as the physical world follows the laws of physics.

If an experiment such as this one were possible, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

i think ifreann said it best. you cannot make such positive conclusions with such huge assumptions and so little actual evidence. logic doesn't come into it and common sense is balls.

Of course it isn't testable. I said so myself just a few posts back. But again, if all molecules are in the same place, logic dictates that the results will be the same, as the physical world follows the laws of physics.

If an experiment such as this one were possible, we wouldn't even be having this debate.

I don't understand you "logic dictates" people when you talk about stuff like this....I mean you can't test your "theory" so it's basically like faith or something right?

No. Idea. What. You're. Saying.

But I guessed that you meant, which is what we might use to compare how similar I am to someone else.

Voted in the poll.

Am very confused.

I don't understand you "logic dictates" people when you talk about stuff like this....I mean you can't test your "theory" so it's basically like faith or something right?

yes. faith in 'logic'.

We have as much freedom of choice as we allow ourselves. People in control of their lives have more choice than those who don't.

i think it's often a combination of 'free will', environment and genetics. for instance the choice of a partner. i'm obviously free to choose whoever i want (as long as they're willing too :p), nobody is forcing me to marry somebody else.
but my environment is also very important because it defines what's attractive. in prehistoric times curvier women were probably more attractive (if you can judge that by their sculptures at least) but where i live fat is seen as unsexy.
and it's also partly genetic, i'm probably programmed to be attracted to healthy women, wich can take good care for my children (in contrast to healthy men for instance although you could argue that this is also influenced by the society you live in).

so i guess it's a combination of your own choices (wich are mostly influenced by previous experiences, education for instance), your environment or the society you live in and genetics.

...it's physically impossible to recreate every variable in a given situation. Biologic fluctuations, atomic movements, cosmic interference, whatever. If everything is the same, you'll have the same outside input and the same neurons firing leading to, ultimately, the same conclusion.

How do you know that?

Common sense. Your brain decides your actions. Your brain is part of the physical world. Thus it would react the same way to the same stimuli and thus so would you.

Common sense. Pfft.

Common sense told us that the earth was flat and that the sun orbited the earth. Don't expect it to be anywhere near right on anything as broad as the idea of free will. We don't know everything about everything that is in this particular concept, so therefore the conclusions we draw about it are sketchy and vague at the very best, if they are accurate at all.

Quantum Mechanics tells us that at the subatomic level, everything is inherently random. One of the underlying things about the universe is its NOT being in a stable pattern. Things happen out of nowhere all the time.

So tell me: What is stopping our brains from going down a different quantum route, firing off a different neuron, and choosing a different path?

(Obligatory joke: I hereby name this question Schrödinger's Lobotomy. :))

Free will doesnt exist.


A firm of solicitors round the corner from where I work used to run a free will service, so I am pretty sure it exists.

A firm of solicitors round the corner from where I work used to run a free will service, so I am pretty sure it exists.

ZING!

In my mind, choice has to involve conscious thought. So no, you can't choose to like a given food, or what colors you like, or who you are attracted to. You can only choose what you do about those things. I didn't choose to be attracted to my husband - that just happened. I did choose to date him, to become engaged, and then to marry him. I didn't choose to like purple and largely dislike orange. But the fact that I feel that way has led me to pick out more things that are purple, and less that are orange, when I am decorating, picking out clothing, etc.. And so on...

As for where these preferences come from - that is the billion dollar question, isn't it? I think there are many variables involved - and they probably interact with each other in complex ways. Past experience, social factors, environmental factors, genetic factors, differences in perception, wanting to be like others, wanting not to be like others, etc., etc., etc could all factor in.

Logic and common sense prove nothing.

Now you're debunking logic? What point is there then of me giving any sort of scientific evidence? You DO know that the scientific method is dependent on the logical premise of "if 'A' then 'B'? That's what reproducibility is.

I guess I can't blame you though. Your need to believe in free will is overriding your rational thought. :p

But, if we are still interested in evidence, you don't really have to look very hard. There are thousands of documented cases of altered behavioral patterns resulting from various brain pathologies. How can there be such a thing as free will if all it takes is a little brain tumor to completely alter our personalities? Our brain dictates our actions, not the other way around. There are numerous reports to back this up, among the the experiments of Libet (1983).

On that note, what evidence is there of free will?

Free will is a silly notion. In any set of given circumstances, we will always make the same choices. However, to cling on to the superstition (on at least some level) is, ironically, necessary for most humans to make their lives seem meaningful. Not quite. What about "Once bittern, twice shy" ? You suppose that we are robots and can not learn from our mistakes.

Now you're debunking logic? What point is there then of me giving any sort of scientific evidence? You DO know that the scientific method is dependent on the logical premise of "if 'A' then 'B'? That's what reproducibility is.

I guess I can't blame you though. Your need to believe in free will is overriding your rational thought. :p

But, if we are still interested in evidence, you don't really have to look very hard. There are thousands of documented cases of altered behavioral patterns resulting from various brain pathologies. How can there be such a thing as free will if all it takes is a little brain tumor to completely alter our personalities? Our brain dictates our actions, not the other way around. There are numerous reports to back this up, among the the experiments of Libet (1983).

On that note, what evidence is there of free will?

What about the fact that you are writing down your own opinions in opposition to others? Is that not your own free will? Really without wanting to be insulting, this is really rather pretentious.

Not quite. What about "Once bittern, twice shy" ? You suppose that we are robots and can not learn from our mistakes.

I am? If we make a mistake and learn from it, our neurons reorganize themselves to the new pattern. Even robots do that. In fact, they most likely do it better, considering that many humans continue to do things that they rationally know are bad for them, i.e. smoking.

What about the fact that you are writing down your own opinions in opposition to others? Is that not your own free will? Really without wanting to be insulting, this is really rather pretentious.

Just following the ultimate result of my brain activity. My brain has decided that the topic of free will is interesting to me, and intellectual debates get my endorphines burning. :)

I feel that we are preprogramed to think and act a certain way, and our experiences, being mostly random (you're never fully in control of world around you), shape who you will ultimatley become.
I, myself, obstain from most things that people seek out in their lives. Why? useally the idea of "free will" enters my realm of thought, and I spite it, maybe I seek individuality, Maybe I'm self-destructive, But the fact is: I'm responding to a catalyst, something that denotes free will.
I believe in free will because the theory validates me, be that there is evidence to counter. But, that is the redeeming fact of life for me; nothing is black and white. life is incredibly complex, and no simply answer can describe it.

Common sense. Your brain decides your actions. Your brain is part of the physical world. Thus it would react the same way to the same stimuli and thus so would you.

Common sense is not that common... and it's rarely 'sense'.

by simple math, if all variables remain the same then the outcome will remain the same.

If every single part of the universe is duplicated to retest, the results will be the same. They have to be. Each action has a perfectly predictable reaction, if you know all the variables that affect that.

Free will isn't about having control over what you like and don't like --- those things are largely chemical and genetic.

Free will is having the ability to decide what to do about those things. It's about not being a slave to your emotions... And many people seem to be just that.

In my mind, choice has to involve conscious thought. So no, you can't choose to like a given food...

While I'm not arguing here with your general trend... I'm really not sure this part is true.

I have decided to 'like' some foods I didn' previously like. You could call it 'acquiring a taste', maybe...?

Not quite. What about "Once bittern, twice shy" ? You suppose that we are robots and can not learn from our mistakes.

that's nonsense.

Each action that occurs sets in motions reactions to that, and reactions to those reactions, and so on.

One of the reactions to an action (which is itself a reaction to a preceding action) is that my brain, having experienced such, learns certain things, and thus recalls them.

You are interpreting his and my comments wrongly. It is not "a human will always make the same choice over and over and over again, when faced with a similar problem". No, that's silly.

It is, if you replecate EVERYTHING. Every atom, every subatomic particle, ever spin, every direction, every speed, if you were to take an exact copy of the universe, down to every single particle, at that exact moment of my choice, I would make the same choice again.

Effectively, if you give me the option of a coke or a pepsi, I will make a choice. If you "rewind" the universe, until just before I made the choice, replicating EXACTLY the conditions, I will make the same choice. Over and over and over again.

It doesn't mean "I will always take coke over pepsi", it means, if we could rewind the universe to the point before i made that choice, I will keep making it.

Common sense is not that common... and it's rarely 'sense'.

And shallow rhetoric has little merit in a debate.

Are we to continue swapping one-liners, or shall we perhaps adress the points of my posts.

(No offense, GnI, I just feel like being an ass right now. :D)

that's nonsense.

Each action that occurs sets in motions reactions to that, and reactions to those reactions, and so on.

One of the reactions to an action (which is itself a reaction to a preceding action) is that my brain, having experienced such, learns certain things, and thus recalls them.

You are interpreting his and my comments wrongly. It is not "a human will always make the same choice over and over and over again, when faced with a similar problem". No, that's silly.

It is, if you replecate EVERYTHING. Every atom, every subatomic particle, ever spin, every direction, every speed, if you were to take an exact copy of the universe, down to every single particle, at that exact moment of my choice, I would make the same choice again.

Effectively, if you give me the option of a coke or a pepsi, I will make a choice. If you "rewind" the universe, until just before I made the choice, replicating EXACTLY the conditions, I will make the same choice. Over and over and over again.

It doesn't mean "I will always take coke over pepsi", it means, if we could rewind the universe to the point before i made that choice, I will keep making it.

Otherwise, it wouldn't really be possible to actually go back in time.

*nod*

Depends what you mean by free will.

Your assumptions are large, and your evidence small.

Actually, it's the other way around. Can you tell us what about this situation makes us suspend cause and effect? Because absent that, everything we know about the nature of things suggests that if inputs are the same and the machine we put them into are the same the outputs will be the same.

You are asking him to disprove something we have no evidence for, the ability to take the same inputs and create a different output, essentially that we are a random number generator (which incidentally isn't actually random). And if choice is not random, but instead the effect of our experiences and a function our bodies (the only we have any evidence for) then it's not random and thus predictable (assuming we had enough information).

You are interpreting his and my comments wrongly. It is not "a human will always make the same choice over and over and over again, when faced with a similar problem". No, that's silly.
it.

Actually making the same choice over and over and expecting a different result, is defined as insanity.

(if you can even quantify things like choice)

I am sure everyone's heard the stories of Identical Twins separated at birth, who lead very similar lives away from each other, sometimes to the point of living on streets with the same names, and marrying spouses with the same names and buying the same models of cars, working in the same jobs......


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/04/48hours/main581771.shtml

it's interesting to me. I have come to believe that everything is a choice, but then again, I was reading a book over the winter that talked about what kinds of genetic factors that may lead you to choose somethings over others.

I had, until I read this book, assumed that most of the choices I couldn't back up rationally or logically, had been made because of environmental factors. Maybe they weren't.

I have been on a mission for a few days (don't know why) to ask everyone I knew 5 questions and write down the answers, so I have and I still can't figure out the answers to some of the questions I have.

I am not going to ask the "big 5" here because it would be too hard for me to keep track of, and also, it doesn't make for good debate since most of the people I asked answered something along the lines of "because I do" so, you guys get the questions behind the reasoning for asking the "big 5"

as far as preferences* do you think they are chosen and to what extent?

if they are not chosen, what determines them?

as far as things outside the sphere of opinion** what do you think is the underlying factor in them? choice? if not, what?

*favorite color, favorite food, favorite movie

** political standpoint, religion, life philosophy.

opinions welcome!

oh, and if anyone actually can explain to me why you like your favorite color....go for it! I asked the 5 year old back when she was 3 and she said
"I like pink because it rhymes with sink and sink starts with an s and I like to eat sausage for breakfast" I asked her again last night why she liked pink and she said "I already told you a long time ago":eek:

Your 5 year old was rationalising. She's got a firm handle of the process of extrapolation, and was running with it. You'll get a more realistic answer out of her later. :)

A lot of our preferences are unconscious, and heavily programmed - if not all of them. Example: we find certain people attractive when we meet them - a lot of that is because we look for symmetry, a lot of it is about how we react subconsciously to smell (pheremones, for example... and evidence suggests that we 'smell' the same factors that make bodies symmetrical). We also tend to be attracted to genetic structures fairly dis-smilar to our own (again, maybe this is mainly 'smell'... since that is our most subconscious sense).

The logic behind it is clear - hybrid vigour is profitted when dis-similar genepools meet, so it is a survival characteristic... and symmetry seems to suggest health, so that suggests fertility and good genes also.

The question then - is: does this kind of programmed response define our ENTIRE response, or can it be affected in other ways. (I can answer that a bit - the biological cues were among the last things my wife and I noticed about each other... since we were originally introduced digitally).

We can certainly expect 'trends' that are heavily influenced by genetic triggers of some kind. Unfortunately, actually digging any deeper into it is hard - because we have several thousands of years of accumulated religious and/or cultural baggage directly on top of the genetic responses - often designed for no other reason than to stop us making naturally attractive choices.

I don't understand you "logic dictates" people when you talk about stuff like this....I mean you can't test your "theory" so it's basically like faith or something right?

We can support it with evidence of cause and effect. There are many things we can't test in an absolute sense. It doesn't mean that we don't have evidence.

then it's not random and thus predictable (assuming we had enough information).

As I said earlier, if one could, somehow, know every single variable about the universe. The location, energy, velocity, spin, and all other details about every particle in the universe one could predict, with absolute certainty, every single thing that would occur until the end of time.

I am? If we make a mistake and learn from it, our neurons reorganize themselves to the new pattern. Even robots do that. In fact, they most likely do it better, considering that many humans continue to do things that they rationally know are bad for them, i.e. smoking.Free will is also the ability to choose illogically, the ability to err.

Free will exists, in several ways:
- To our limited ways of measuring the world and its variables knowing the future is impossible and we don't know the choices we're going to make in the future or how our choices shape the future. Therefore describing choice as anything but free is ridiculous: Yes, environment affects descision making, yes, genes affect descision making, yes, upbringing & childhood affects descision making, yes, the chemical coctail (food, liquids, gases, hormones, etc..) in your body affects your descision making, yes, the length of your friggin' finger nails affects your descision making, heck, even minute quantum fluctuations in void energy billions of years & lightyears away probably affect your descision making but as long as we don't know how then the question of not having free will is often completely moot (mental defects or demon possessions aside ;))

- In case of a perfect prediction of the future - omniscient being, perfect simulation - we can in certain scenarios always choose to do things differently in the future...For example, you're sitting on a couch, you ask the machine/god(s)/God(s) whether you'll be sitting on that couch a minute from now, depending on the answer you can choose to act differently: Stand up, walk away or remain sitting...unless your freedom of choice is somehow deprived eg. sudden paralysis, death, spontaneous combustion, roof collapse, etc..

Note that in the latter example, a machine could be (pre-)programmed to go against prediction and that there's a limit to freedom of choice, if you ask whether you'll be sitting on the couch 1/10th of a second away you can't 'change your fate' while a computerized robot might, but even then there's a timelimit - albeit shorter - to this freedom of choice. Infact, if you splice time small enough there's absolutely no room for conscious choice, but conversely there must be some room for change.

However, there's a twist to this...if the machine/god decides to either withold information (eg. a sealed envelope) or lie to the person asking the question then the prediction can be fully correct but revealing the answer to the person would destroy the predicted future (unless freedom of choice is deprived). OTOH an observable ''time window'' which opens up to the future view of the couch would be impossible to do accurately, even to an omnibeing/machine, because such a window would have no option to lie or withold information.

I therefore think that the freedom of choice almost necessarily must spring from an inherent immeasurability of current state of matter/space independently enough: Either the state cannot be measured accurately enough and/or that knowing the state changes/defines the local future (ie. no one can be a prophet in his/her own land/time ;)).

Sometimes, what is counter-intuitive is right, right?

It's only counter-intuitive if you don't know all the variables.

Please provide me an instance when 2 + 2 did not equal 4.

And shallow rhetoric has little merit in a debate.

Are we to continue swapping one-liners, or shall we perhaps adress the points of my posts.

(No offense, GnI, I just feel like being an ass right now. :D)

No offense taken. But, why use a long response, when a concise, precise response said all that needed to be said?

Let me elucidate: if the basis of our argument is that it is 'common sense', or something that 'everyone knows' (another favourite)... perhaps we should examine how reliable those sources are. While they may be good measures of trends in thought within a culture, the concepts we consider 'common sense' or 'what everyone knows' actually have no empirical assurance of quality. Sometimes, what is counter-intuitive is right, right?

Ohhh I love this debate, it's sooooo interesting.

Freewill or determinism?

Bah I'm gonna say both. Yes your genetics has a lot to do with the choices you will make, but we can step beyond genetic pre-determiniation.

Genetics may suggest that you put tomato sauce on your bacon sandwhich instead of brown sauce. But experiment with it. Decide to forego your useual choice in sauce, and instead determine to have the othet one.

If you can do this, you have proved that free will can overcome genetic predetermination, and thus freewill surly does exist.

Going further, the simple act of chooseing one thing over another is free will,
the freedom of choice is freewill. We all overcome natural genetic dispostion everyday, we do it with the ower of our consciose, we freely excersie our will to achive what we wish, we do indeed have freewill.

As I said earlier, if one could, somehow, know every single variable about the universe. The location, energy, velocity, spin, and all other details about every particle in the universe one could predict, with absolute certainty, every single thing that would occur until the end of time.
You are familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle, among other things, correct? If so, you'd know that what you propose is impossible, therefore not testable, and a matter of religion or philosophy, not science.

You are familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle, among other things, correct? If so, you'd know that what you propose is impossible, therefore not testable, and a matter of religion or philosophy, not science.

I am aware, hence the:

if one could, somehow, know

Frankly speaking there are far other problems with the concept of knowing all variables of all particles in the universe. Heisenberg is the least.

No offense taken. But, why use a long response, when a concise, precise response said all that needed to be said?

Let me elucidate: if the basis of our argument is that it is 'common sense', or something that 'everyone knows' (another favourite)... perhaps we should examine how reliable those sources are. While they may be good measures of trends in thought within a culture, the concepts we consider 'common sense' or 'what everyone knows' actually have no empirical assurance of quality. Sometimes, what is counter-intuitive is right, right?

Of course. I'll give you that. I know I said 'common sense' at first, but later went over to the line of logic. (I was a bit time-pressed at the moment of posting.) Common sense, like anecdotal evidence, is perilous at best as proof. But now we're on a bit of a tangent.

While I'm not arguing here with your general trend... I'm really not sure this part is true.

I have decided to 'like' some foods I didn' previously like. You could call it 'acquiring a taste', maybe...?

Did you choose to like them? Or did you choose to eat them even though you didn't like them and, in the process, become accustomed to them? Did you really sit down and think, "I'm going to like this food now," and have it happen?

Much of what was listed in the OP is both beyond my conscious control and also not genetic.

For example, I don't believe for one tiny instant that my favorite food was coded in my DNA. I absolutely believe that my environment, coupled with my physiological make up, leads me to prefer certain flavors over others, and my emotional fondness for several foods also lends a hand in determining what I prefer to eat.

My preferences are as individual as I am. My DNA is unique. My experiences have been unique. Whether or not I consciously choose all the elements of my personality is (to me) pretty irrelevant.

I can influence some things consciously. For instance, I've put a lot of energy into learning to speak more expressively and effectively. My lack of religious beliefs is largely due to my upbringing, but is also the result of conscious contemplation on my part. Etc.

It's only counter-intuitive if you don't know all the variables.

Please provide me an instance when 2 + 2 did not equal 4.

Base 3? =)


You are familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle, among other things, correct? If so, you'd know that what you propose is impossible, therefore not testable, and a matter of religion or philosophy, not science.

It is not testable by science, but it is part of the philosophy in which the scientific method is based. The method assumes determinism as an axiomatic premise.

As strange as this may sound, I do generally choose a speech pattern when dealing with strangers that I think will make them less likely to be hostile. Living in the tri-state area, this means I can typically do the various New York, and legitimate Jersey accents (and no the Joisey accents you people think are real), a faux British accent, a faux southern accent, etc.

I also tend to be less precise in my speech when speaking to people I feel are more likely to be less precise in their speech.

Ohhh I love this debate, it's sooooo interesting.

Freewill or determinism?

Bah I'm gonna say both. Yes your genetics has a lot to do with the choices you will make, but we can step beyond genetic pre-determiniation.

Genetics may suggest that you put tomato sauce on your bacon sandwhich instead of brown sauce. But experiment with it. Decide to forego your useual choice in sauce, and instead determine to have the othet one.

If you can do this, you have proved that free will can overcome genetic predetermination, and thus freewill surly does exist.

Going further, the simple act of chooseing one thing over another is free will,
the freedom of choice is freewill. We all overcome natural genetic dispostion everyday, we do it with the ower of our consciose, we freely excersie our will to achive what we wish, we do indeed have freewill.

Think bigger. What is it that makes you 'decide' to forego your ordinary preferences? We're not just talking genetics, but the molecular structure of the universe. Your brain is wired a certain way at one point in time to make you choose a certain path. There has been research indicating that the brain can make decisions before you're aware of them, and then 'ret-cons' to make you think you made the choice actively.

Did you choose to like them? Or did you choose to eat them even though you didn't like them and, in the process, become accustomed to them? Did you really sit down and think, "I'm going to like this food now," and have it happen?

I have had both things happen. Some foods I became tolerant of through exposure. One food I came to like because someone I respected liked it. Another food, I literally sat down with the intention of deliberately liking it. Now, it is a favourite.

It's only counter-intuitive if you don't know all the variables.

Please provide me an instance when 2 + 2 did not equal 4.

Well, first - that would be a learned or observed response... not 'intuitive'... I can easily provide what you ask, however, by limiting the scope.

I have a machine that instantaneously accelerates me to the speed of light. I have another identical device. The two are pointed directly at each other, and are about to be accelerated to maximum speed. What will be the resultant velocity of the colliding bodies?

Once you've worked out the resultant velocity for two bodies, we can look at four, yes?

AM I mostly Nature or Nurture? That's an excellent question. I don't know what is the more disturbing notion: That I am genetically this way, or that this could have happened to anybody. :p

Well, first - that would be a learned or observed response... not 'intuitive'... I can easily provide what you ask, however, by limiting the scope.

I have a machine that instantaneously accelerates me to the speed of light. I have another identical device. The two are pointed directly at each other, and are about to be accelerated to maximum speed. What will be the resultant velocity of the colliding bodies?

Once you've worked out the resultant velocity for two bodies, we can look at four, yes?

I am unsure what you are trying to ask, two machines pointing at you each accelerating you to light in the opposite direction?

I see what you mean, however. And your answer is 0. Likewise 4 objects colliding would be 0.

However this is not a matter of 2 + 2 = not 4 (or 0) as velocity is a vector, as such the value of the velocity is directional dependant. If two objects both traveling at c are heading right towards each other, then their velocities are c and -c, since for whatever object with the velocity of c, the other object will have a velocity of -c for traveling in the opposite direction.

and it is fairly obvious that c and -c = 0

I am unsure what you are trying to ask, two machines pointing at you each accelerating you to light in the opposite direction?

Two machines, opposing one another. Distance irrelevent. Both achieve an instantaneous velocity of 'c'. Estimated point of impact, obviously halfway between the two machines. (My presence is as a reference point, it doesn't affect the result - it's just for a witness perspective).

Machine One -----> collision point <----- Machine Two

What is the resultant impact velocity of the two machines, at 'collision point'?

As strange as this may sound, I do generally choose a speech pattern when dealing with strangers that I think will make them less likely to be hostile. Living in the tri-state area, this means I can typically do the various New York, and legitimate Jersey accents (and no the Joisey accents you people think are real), a faux British accent, a faux southern accent, etc.

I also tend to be less precise in my speech when speaking to people I feel are more likely to be less precise in their speech.

I don't actively change my speech pattern very often (and it sounds contrived when I do). But I pick up subconsciously on the speech pattern of others. If I am around many people with a given accent, I will begin to pick up their inflections and even phrases - without meaning to. I've been around the Southern accent the most, so I fall into that one most quickly, but I've been known to rather suddenly find myself speaking with a slight British, Indian, Irish, etc. accent simply by being around people with those accents (or, in the case of Irish, watching several Irish movies in a row).

I am unsure what you are trying to ask, two machines pointing at you each accelerating you to light in the opposite direction?

I see what you mean, however. And your answer is 0. Likewise 4 objects colliding would be 0.

However this is not a matter of 2 + 2 = not 4 (or 0) as velocity is a vector, as such the value of the velocity is directional dependant. If two objects both traveling at c are heading right towards each other, then their velocities are c and -c, since for whatever object with the velocity of c, the other object will have a velocity of -c for traveling in the opposite direction.

and it is fairly obvious that c and -c = 0

Wrong, actually. Intuitive - but utterly wrong.

If I collide two cars, both travelling at 60 mph, your 'logic' suggests they would have an intrinsic collision velocity of zero.

Wrong, actually. Intuitive - but utterly wrong.

If I collide two cars, both travelling at 60 mph, your 'logic' suggests they would have an intrinsic collision velocity of zero.

they would, absolutly, in fact, the cars need not collide to have a total velocity of zero.

Again, VELOCITY is a vector, so objects traveling at equal speeds in different directions have a total velocity of 0.

Now, if you're asking about SPEED, not velocity, the answer is different. But velocity is directional dependant.

they would, absolutly, in fact, the cars need not collide to have a total velocity of zero.

Again, VELOCITY is a vector, so objects traveling at equal speeds in different directions have a total velocity of 0.

Now, if you're asking about SPEED, not velocity, the answer is different. But velocity is directional dependant.

I'm asking about the intrinsic effective velocity of the collision. We are looking for an 'equivalence' in which the orientation of the vectors is actually irrelevent.

One car at 60mph, hitting another car at 60moh with the 'opposite orientation of vector', is (roughly) equivalent to one car at 120mph hitting a stationary object.

EDIT: And, I'm beginning to think you are quibbling, just so as to not have to deal with the whole 'speed of light' thing.

One car at 60mph, hitting another car at 60moh with the 'opposite orientation of vector', is (roughly) equivalent to one car at 120mph hitting a stationary object.

in which case the energy is disbursed throughout the system...I still don't see how this disproves my claim...

EDIT: And, I'm beginning to think you are quibbling, just so as to not have to deal with the whole 'speed of light' thing.

Although for the amusement of it, it is worth noting that to accelerate an object to the speed of light would require infinite energy, and as such, the resultant impact would destroy the universe *nods*

Or, simply, having been accelerated to light, the objects are pure energy, and would pass right through each other.

Yes yes, I'm quibbling, but that's kinda funny....

in which case the energy is disbursed throughout the system...I still don't see how this disproves my claim...


And I don't see you answering the original question...


Or, simply, having been accelerated to light, the objects are pure energy, and would pass right through each other.


Light has no particle characteristics, you say?


Yes yes, I'm quibbling, but that's kinda funny....

Not really.

Light has no particle characteristics, you say?

Light has no mass characteristics, ergo the concept of matter collisions is kind of irrelevant. If you shine a flashlight at me and I shine one at you, the beams don't stop in the middle.

You are asking him to disprove something we have no evidence for, the ability to take the same inputs and create a different output, essentially that we are a random number generator (which incidentally isn't actually random). And if choice is not random, but instead the effect of our experiences and a function our bodies (the only we have any evidence for) then it's not random and thus predictable (assuming we had enough information).

The problem I see here is that the determinists seem to assume that free will means being able to have done other than what you did in a given situation. That's obviously false, because no free will proponent would say that, all factors being equal, you'd choose differently. That would imply that you didn't make a conscious choice but were instead making random choices. The determinists here seem to assume that anything that is not random is determined. However, if free will was random, it would be no more "free" (in the sense that the free willers use it) than if it was determined, because conscious thought would still have nothing to do with it.

What this debate lacks is a proper definition of "free will." It obviously can't be that we can choose all things without influence at all times, because that wouldn't even be an illusion: most people would readily admit that their choices are often influenced by outside forces. It can't mean randomness for the same reason: almost no one thinks their decisions are random. Also, it can't be randomness because decisions are obviously not random; if they were, the world would be a lot more chaotic. I think all free willers assume that there is at least some direction to the choices we make. So I think the definition has to be something along the lines of "free will is the ability of a person to direct some actions without prior determination." This, of course, can neither be proved nor disproved, so we are at an impasse.

I personally think that the majority of our actions are determined by previous decisions we've made at crucial stages when we could go either way. I think that people are, at certain times in their lives, presented with choices where their genetic predisposition, environmental situation, and belief system all combine to a perfect balance. At that point, they become a prime mover unmoved and choose a direction for their lives to follow. These choices are rare, and are many times seemingly insignificant ("where should I put this fork?"), but they all change the makeup of the universe and determine future choices. Free will in this sense is not necessarily driven by reason, but it is driven by humans, all alone, without outside determining factors.

This is not as good as I'd like, but I've gotta go. Hope it helps!

And shallow rhetoric has little merit in a debate.

Are we to continue swapping one-liners, or shall we perhaps adress the points of my posts.

(No offense, GnI, I just feel like being an ass right now. :D)

I like swapping one-liners. Snowblower.

You are familiar with the Heisenberg Uncertainity Principle, among other things, correct? If so, you'd know that what you propose is impossible, therefore not testable, and a matter of religion or philosophy, not science.

Um, no. The fact that we cannot predict the outcome doesn't take away all the evidence that we have of cause and effect. Until we find evidence that cause and effect are occasionally lifted (a premise on which HUP relies) then you've got not one lick of evidence for the idea that there is magical quality in humans that make them rise above cause and effect.

The positive claim is for a human ability to rise above cause and effect. The claim you are attempting to rebutt is supported by the fact that you can never support that positive claim. You've just proven why their claim has no merit.

*snip*

This is not as good as I'd like, but I've gotta go. Hope it helps!

OK. I got some value out of the alignment idea. Your sig is a bit long ....

The problem I see here is that the determinists seem to assume that free will means being able to have done other than what you did in a given situation. That's obviously false, because no free will proponent would say that, all factors being equal, you'd choose differently. That would imply that you didn't make a conscious choice but were instead making random choices. The determinists here seem to assume that anything that is not random is determined.

In the context of determinism, that's actually the usage of random. Random simply means not solely determined.

However, I have never claimed that free will means that. I have claimed the opposite actually. The only thing determinism points to is that our outputs are subject to our inputs. As such, the output will always be the same for the same inputs. That may or may not address one's definition of 'free will'.


However, if free will was random, it would be no more "free" (in the sense that the free willers use it) than if it was determined, because conscious thought would still have nothing to do with it.

Again, you are equivocating. It is not the lay use of the word random.


What this debate lacks is a proper definition of "free will." It obviously can't be that we can choose all things without influence at all times, because that wouldn't even be an illusion: most people would readily admit that their choices are often influenced by outside forces. It can't mean randomness for the same reason: almost no one thinks their decisions are random. Also, it can't be randomness because decisions are obviously not random; if they were, the world would be a lot more chaotic. I think all free willers assume that there is at least some direction to the choices we make. So I think the definition has to be something along the lines of "free will is the ability of a person to direct some actions without prior determination." This, of course, can neither be proved nor disproved, so we are at an impasse.

The problem is that it is a faith statement. Worse it's a faith statement that disobeys everything we know about the universe. Everything we've ever studied has been subject to cause and effect. We've never encountered a situation where we could show that something to not be determined. In science this is the best we can hope for and the best we have ever hoped for in terms of evidence.

Determinism has as much evidence for it as gravity.

Pondering the nice distinction between a random choice and a 'free will' choice, I get to wondering if perhaps the brain could use truly random information (say from quantum events) to seperate itself from the large-scale determinism of the universe.

Of course, employing true random data would seem to simply pollute the functioning of the brain ... but it might be percieved as consciousness. Might even account for the assymetry of time. I dunno?

*snip*

The problem is that it is a faith statement. Worse it's a faith statement that disobeys everything we know about the universe. Everything we've ever studied has been subject to cause and effect. We've never encountered a situation where we could show that something to not be determined. In science this is the best we can hope for and the best we have ever hoped for in terms of evidence.

Determinism has as much evidence for it as gravity.

Science (and more loosly, all thinking) is a search for causes. Failing to find a cause does not prove there was no cause. So to find a situation (an event) and to demonstrate that it had no cause would require that we know all possible causes and can specifically exclude every one. Even then, how do we know that we know all possible causes?

Well, if it's OK for you to use "overwhelming evidence is a proof" then I shall too. Science has never been complete, and never will be. Therefore all possible causes of, say, the decay of a muon, will never be known. We will continue to build more accurate models, but never have a complete and final predictive model.

Light has no mass characteristics, ergo the concept of matter collisions is kind of irrelevant. If you shine a flashlight at me and I shine one at you, the beams don't stop in the middle.

More wriggling.

Science (and more loosly, all thinking) is a search for causes. Failing to find a cause does not prove there was no cause. So to find a situation (an event) and to demonstrate that it had no cause would require that we know all possible causes and can specifically exclude every one. Even then, how do we know that we know all possible causes?

Well, if it's OK for you to use "overwhelming evidence is a proof" then I shall too. Science has never been complete, and never will be. Therefore all possible causes of, say, the decay of a muon, will never be known. We will continue to build more accurate models, but never have a complete and final predictive model.

We will never have a complete and final predictive model and overwhelming evidence does support this. That's not an argument that things aren't predictive. It's an argument for our limitations not for the limits of causality. And absent an argument or evidence that shows a limit to causality, then there is no reason, no evidence to assume that it is suspended in humans.

We will never have a complete and final predictive model and overwhelming evidence does support this. That's not an argument that things aren't predictive. It's an argument for our limitations not for the limits of causality. And absent an argument or evidence that shows a limit to causality, then there is no reason, no evidence to assume that it is suspended in humans.

Actually, I don't accept that the physical universe is deterministic, but I'll leave that for a real physicist. If you're arguing that all particle interactions are deterministic but the causes exist only in quantum dynamics, then I'll happily admit I'm out of my depth. That stuff makes my head hurt.

The universe exists. The only complete model of the universe with perfect predictive power (allowing determinism) is in fact the universe itself. The rate of calculation it manages in making that prediction is the flow of time itself.

I'm tired. Sorry if that didn't make sense. I really can't see any useful insight into the functioning of the human brain, or of the 'mind' coming from a deterministic model calculated at the particle level by a computer bigger than the whole universe. That's it, I'm done.

The positive claim is for a human ability to rise above cause and effect. The claim you are attempting to rebutt is supported by the fact that you can never support that positive claim. You've just proven why their claim has no merit.
If neither argument can be proven as more correct than the other, why shouldn't I simply believe the one that makes me think I am happier at any given moment?

If neither argument can be proven as more correct than the other, why shouldn't I simply believe the one that makes me think I am happier at any given moment?

One has evidence and one has none. There is no evidence for something working outside of cause and effect. There is tons of evidence for things operating inside cause and effect. Saying they are equal is like saying that Creation and evolution have equal amounts of evidence.

I think that at least, in the matter of choice, there are two different parts of it. First is "the act of choosing itself", and the other is "the raw material out of which we make choices", which is given to us by various input streams that for the most part are out of our control: our heredity, our upbringing, our education, our genetic makeup.

The "raw material" would be the part of our thought process that's buried in our subconscious, and would be our natural inclinations to do any particular action. In this respect, you could call these natural inclinations "instincts". The instinct for survival, the instinct to eat, the instinct to reproduce; all of these are common to a normal human being who has no psychological problems. If, of course, a person is abnormal (that is, they have psychological problems brought on by genetics, or a traumatic upbringing, or a traumatic event) then of course these instincts will be out of whack. In other words, a healthy fear of something dangerous (like bombs) would be a normal instinct, whereas an irrational fear of something not intrinsically dangerous (like cats or spiders) would be an abnormal instinct.

Like I said, these instincts are largely natural and out of our control. I say largely, because of course there are certain things about the input streams of these instincts that you could control. You cannot decide who your biological parents are, and thus you yourself cannot choose your genetic makeup. If you are an older foster child, then you could certainly have a say in who your foster parents are, and thus have somewhat of a say in your upbringing. You cannot necessarily change your natural right- or left-brainedness, but you can certainly choose what school you attend and therefore, have somewhat of a say in your education.

With all of that said, I again go back to the two parts of choosing: the act itself, and the raw material. I've already stated that the raw material is largely out of our control, but the act of choosing is certainly IN our control, although the raw material out of which we make our choice will affect it, or colour it, just as when you're wearing blue sunglasses you can certainly choose what you look at, though regardless of what you're seeing, everything will be coloured blue. The raw material is the realm of psychologists, whereas the choice itself is purely a moral or ethical or principled one.

For example, take three different men. One has a normal (normal being used in the psychological definition of 'the mind is working properly') psychological makeup, and the other two have abnormal ones, through childhood trauma or faulty genetic makeup or whathaveyou. And let say that these three men go to war.

The first man has a healthy instinct for survival, and hand in hand with it a healthy fear of danger. But he makes a choice based on a certain (what we would call 'good') set of morals, ethics, and principles, and thus performs his duty to his country, and becomes a brave man.

Now take the two abnormal men. We'll say that they both have an unhealthy fear of loud noises, and because of it, have always run away from doing their duty, because obviously war is a very loud event. Say they go to a psychologist, and are cured from this irrational fear. Now they're both in the same position as the first man to make their choice, although the two of them could make two very different choices. One could say "Well, thank goodness I've gotten rid of all that baggage; now I can do what I've always wanted to do and serve my country." And that man will go on to be a brave man as well, based on the choice he's made from the morals and ethics and principles he subscribes to. However, the other might say (based on his morals/ethics/principles) "Well, I'm happy I'm cured, but I'm still very much going to keep on looking after Number One. Screw this war and screw my orders; I'm getting out of here."

If we looked at the two abnormal men before they were cured, and saw them both running away due to their irrational fear of loud noises, how could we say they were making a cowardly choice? They were simply making a choice that neither of them could help making, based on the crossed wires in their psychological makeup. But if we looked at the same men AFTER they were cured, of course we would be justified in saying that the one who performed his duty was a brave man, whereas the one who ran away was a cowardly one. But then again, this would be an example of a moral/ethical sort, and not one of simple preference. So I'll make the following one as well:

Again picture the two abnormal men, but both of these, due to their faulty psychological makeup, inherently think that Coke contains poison as a main ingredient. As a result, They drink Pepsi instead. But again, they go to a psychologist and get cured. Now they both understand that Coke doesn't contain poison, and could never have, since so many people drink it and the Coke Company would certainly be out of business if it did. Now one can taste Coke and say "Oh yeah, this is way better than Pepsi" and continue on drinking Coke because of preference. The other could say "yeah, this tastes alright, but I think that when all is said and done, I still prefer Pepsi."

Sorry for the long post. Does what I said make sense to anyone?

EDIT: I just saw PR's post. Getting near the topic seems like a good idea, so I'll drop the argument over particles and determinism.

None of us have choice, it's merley intertwined with fate.

So tell me: What is stopping our brains from going down a different quantum route, firing off a different neuron, and choosing a different path?

Natural randomness is not personal choice. Personal choice can only occur through our reason, and whether man's reason can rise above natural mechanical causation (while seeming rather improbable to me), is up in the air.

As for everyone talking about cause and effect always applying, that of course is all based on the assumption that Nature itself is uniform; that is, that Nature has always obeyed the laws of physics, and will always continue to obey the laws of physics. We know based on personal experience, and certainly from experience handed down, and certainly also through scientific experiment, that certain laws of physics exist. But ALSO certainly, if the evolutionists are right, then humans have been in existence in the universe for only the tiniest fraction of the entire history of it. If that's the case, then of course to say "because these laws of physics are a part of the universe for the 0.00000000000...(some infinitesimally small number) percent of the time we've been around to observe it, it's always been (and indeed, always will be) that way" would seem rather presumptuous to me.

you two have been........less than helpful with my learnin'

It's simple. Human decisions are based on a number of factors. Upbringing, environment, interpretation of views (can still be manipulated), and perceived available choices.

These factors are what influence the decision making process, and thus, free will is an illusion.

Humans are mostly reactive, not proactive.

Damn physicists. They hate our freedoms.
Yep, that's a joke. Would you believe this old codger missed a night's sleep?

It's simple. Human decisions are based on a number of factors. Upbringing, environment, interpretation of views (can still be manipulated), and perceived available choices.

These factors are what influence the decision making process, and thus, free will is an illusion.

Humans are mostly reactive, not proactive.

You are not the first to do this. I find it puzzling: is it something about this particular subject? The word "free" pushing people's buttons?

"Free will is not entirely free, therefore it doesn't exist."

But surely the free will we are speaking of is a freedom to make personal choices? Of course it will be limited, by our abilities and our environment, even before considering that our choices may be biased in some way.

To me, the difference between a skerrick of free will and complete fatalism is a huge difference, to be nurtured and made wider. It's far more significant to the joy and excitement of being alive than the difference between limited free will and complete godlike knowledge of self and all the universe, even if such a thing were possible.

And if science progresses to the point where the actions of people are entirely predictable, I'll be demanding that science somehow give me free will in some degree, or else it's off to live in a cave for me. I'll sing with the birds and pretend that it really is MY life, and science can go hang.

And if science progresses to the point where the actions of people are entirely predictable, I'll be demanding that science somehow give me free will in some degree, or else it's off to live in a cave for me. I'll sing with the birds and pretend that it really is MY life, and science can go hang.

Not science. Psychology. By controlling the environment and available data, it becomes possible to manipulate decisions and eliminate free will.

Taking that time machine thing again:
Say you have some guy choosing which car to buy.
He chooses a car and drives off.
You then take your time machine and rewind time.
If you hit the exact point where he chose the car, there's not enough time for much quantum wackiness and he will probably choose the same one.
Rewind to the day before, though, and all the probability involved in quantum mechanics takes effect and so his brain chemicals will react differently, possibly leading to him choosing a different car.
And so, we're going through the same exact time period twice and ending two different ways.
This would mean determinism is wrong.
The man himself had absolutely nothing to do with his choosing a different car, so free will would be wrong unless you defined it strangely.
So, we end up with randomism (yay, I invented a word!)

Not science. Psychology. By controlling the environment and available data, it becomes possible to manipulate decisions and eliminate free will.

Not until you start ignoring Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle.

Not until you start ignoring Heisenberg and his Uncertainty Principle.

No, it works with the Uncertainty principle. By observing a particle, you, by observing it, alter its behavior, thus can never observe it's original state.

It's the same with humans. An original state human is something I doubt we'd be seeing in anything short of a vegetable.

If you choose
not to decide
you still have made a choice

lol..that sounds so much like P.V.N.Rao, a former PM.

When asked why he did not take any action on an issue, he famously said "taking no action is an action".

Not science. Psychology. By controlling the environment and available data, it becomes possible to manipulate decisions and eliminate free will.

Ach, vhen ve haf our own hospital, zis experiment ve shall do!
*slaps own face*

But do you mean by that "eliminate the possibility of free will" (a disproof of its existence ever) or "eliminate an individual's free will" (a partial proof that free will is a social construct) ?

In any case, I doubt it. The most obvious approach would be sense deprivation (sadistic yeah) but that still leaves the brain with hormones from the bloodstream and the sense of having a physical body (proprioception) ... the knowledge-hungry brain is going to build something out of that, and I doubt you could predict what without using clones for subjects.

EDIT: Sheni, I think you must give credit to Free Randomers for "your" word ;) Randomism is what Randomers do!

None of us have choice, it's merley intertwined with fate.

Yeah, but if you've played God of War 2, you'd know that you could just journey to the Island of Creation and kill the Sisters of Fate, and then that particular problem would be solved. ;)

In the end, it doesn't matter if free will in the sense that most people mean it exists, or if we live in an entirely deterministic universe and everything has been pre-determined by the processes of the universe and its initial conditions.

In the end, our own perception is all we have, and according to our perception, we are making choices. So, as far as we will ever know, we are truly making choices, rather than simply being controlled by pre-set circumstances.

It's kind of like the question, "Do we really exist?" We can never get an absolute answer to that question. But according to our own perception, we do exist, and so the only sensible action we can take is to act as if we do exist.

In the end, it doesn't matter if free will in the sense that most people mean it exists, or if we live in an entirely deterministic universe and everything has been pre-determined by the processes of the universe and its initial conditions.

In the end, our own perception is all we have, and according to our perception, we are making choices. So, as far as we will ever know, we are truly making choices, rather than simply being controlled by pre-set circumstances.

It's kind of like the question, "Do we really exist?" We can never get an absolute answer to that question. But according to our own perception, we do exist, and so the only sensible action we can take is to act as if we do exist.

Of course. Even those of us that do not believe in free will shall continue to live our lives as if it does exist, because that's the way we're wired. On that note, this discussion is pointless. Then again, where would NSG be without pointless debates? ;)

our true selves are defined by our preferences and only by our preferences.

one can igonore this and let the ambient be their default. many do.

i fail to see those who do as distinguished in the way humans claim to be, from any other life form.

or, we can base them upon a combination of the inclinations of our individualy intrinsic spirits and being as brutaly honest and objective with ourselves, as our limited human ability to do so permits us.

it is in the latter course alone that i see and believe there is honor.
that and learning from all the diversity of nature itself that surrounds us,
and the sacredness of the dust beneath our feet, wherever we might happen to be, how most harmoniously to live in and with the places where we do.

to many, undoubtedly these might seem like contradictory impulses.
yet there is no other contradiction nor paradox involved save that between the coerciveness of human society and the diversity of natural reality.

in summary; we can choose to choose, or we can choose not to. our defacto priorities we actualy live by, will also of course, play a roll in how much and how diversely we choose to do so.

yes, there are many factors outside of our own INDIVIDUAL choosing.
many of these are however, the statistical sumation of all our individual choosings, statisticly combined togather.

just as it is these, and not the mysterious hand of some unseen external agency, that in practice, determines the kind of world, we all have to live in.

=^^=
.../\...

If it's not inherited .. I mean like a genetic mental illness etc it's all up to you.. if it IS a inherited problem you still got a choice.. get the hell away from them and seek help.. spiritual, medicinal etc. Some things you can't get away from.. but the people you can. Fleeee! Or have a damn strong support group. I'm sure you all know I wasn't saying leave your family period if you happen to inherit a mental illness.? Nvm.

This is why I fucking hate multi-choice polls.

Also, I agree with those who have stated that every choice we make is actually just a reaction to our experiences, and we have no real choice.

Think bigger. What is it that makes you 'decide' to forego your ordinary preferences? We're not just talking genetics, but the molecular structure of the universe. Your brain is wired a certain way at one point in time to make you choose a certain path. There has been research indicating that the brain can make decisions before you're aware of them, and then 'ret-cons' to make you think you made the choice actively.


I'm well aware that the brain makes some functions automated and beyond the need of the conciosness to control. I think there really are two basic arguements, and both depend on what we mean by the term 'Free Will'.

If we see free will as simple the ability to choose from more than one option, then it is ludicrus to suggest we do not have this ability. We can bring in predetermination on some but not all of these choices.

For example you are trying to cross a busy road, do you wait untill you see a break in the traffic and then just make a run for it, or do you walk down the the pelican crossing, or walk up the other way towards the zebra crossing?

In truth your choice may already be predetirmed, on a genetic level based on how safe you need to feel. Yet even here you can forego your normal choice, and choose a differant ulturnative, in fact at any stage of the choice or the crossing, you can choose to change your mind.

With every desicion we make, there comes a point were you say internaly yes or no. The very fact that this happens means we have free will.

The other way of seeing it is that our genetic predisposition brings us to the choices we make. Do we react with a violent situation with vioolnce, or do we run, or do we try to be the calming influence. All of these can be said to be geneticly predetirmined, yet even here, we have a choice, we can still forgoe our natural programing, for something that feels unnatural to us.

When one joins the aremed forces whilst undergoing the basic training, certian techniues are used to mold the mind of the new recruit into the mind of a soldier. In effect this works with anybody, despite what there genetic preditermiation is. If for example you are naturly arrogant, and prone to question every order given you(both why should I do that, and what is the point of that) then rest assured that armed forces training will modify this behavoiur.

So it is apparent that we can over come our natural tendancies via training, and in accordance with our own wills.

Freewill yeah of course we have it. Of course the other end of the argument is that if we don't infact have free will, then our entire justice system means nothing. I mean of course how can we try a person for doing what has only been predetermined for them, with our current mental health and justice laws, then we can all plead not fit to stand trial.

AM I mostly Nature or Nurture? That's an excellent question. I don't know what is the more disturbing notion: That I am genetically this way, or that this could have happened to anybody. :p

Heh a bit of both. I would say that nuture has a bigger effect than nature though. There was a program the other week called return of the tribe. Anybody see it?

You are not the first to do this. I find it puzzling: is it something about this particular subject? The word "free" pushing people's buttons?

"Free will is not entirely free, therefore it doesn't exist."

But surely the free will we are speaking of is a freedom to make personal choices? Of course it will be limited, by our abilities and our environment, even before considering that our choices may be biased in some way.

To me, the difference between a skerrick of free will and complete fatalism is a huge difference, to be nurtured and made wider. It's far more significant to the joy and excitement of being alive than the difference between limited free will and complete godlike knowledge of self and all the universe, even if such a thing were possible.

And if science progresses to the point where the actions of people are entirely predictable, I'll be demanding that science somehow give me free will in some degree, or else it's off to live in a cave for me. I'll sing with the birds and pretend that it really is MY life, and science can go hang.

Yeah wot he said!:D

First read through, your post was like reading the inside of a cereal box. But it rewards closer study, and I answer at some length because it really made me think.

our true selves are defined by our preferences and only by our preferences.

one can igonore this and let the ambient be their default. many do.

Rather awkward dualism, but it's got something.
So selfhood comes from having preferences? The artist or writer expressing their preferences has no more selfhood than the clothes-horse or CSI-fanatic?
And you define both classes in opposition to those who "let the ambient be their default." I doubt that any human really falls that far from their own freedom.
In short, this could have been better expressed as a spectrum than a dualism. As long as no minimum state of selfhood nor any highest state was defined, I would agree.

I fail to see those who do as distinguished in the way humans claim to be, from any other life form.
Fail then. Presumably they don't distinguish themselves. :shrug:

or, we can base them upon a combination of the inclinations of our individualy intrinsic spirits and being as brutaly honest and objective with ourselves, as our limited human ability to do so permits us.

it is in the latter course alone that i see and believe there is honor.
that and learning from all the diversity of nature itself that surrounds us,
and the sacredness of the dust beneath our feet, wherever we might happen to be, how most harmoniously to live in and with the places where we do.

But that's to live as animals do, which you derided in your second paragraph!
(1)To be permeated by the "ambient" preferences of society is to be less than human, and (2) Being permeated by nature and being in harmony with it is high humanity.
Put another way, to tramp in the middle of the herd is to be a mere animal, but to relate directly to the non-human world is honorable.
To be human ... hmm. How to define that without acknowledging society and its formative effect on your own way of thinking? Language alone makes that impossible.

to many, undoubtedly these might seem like contradictory impulses.
yet there is no other contradiction nor paradox involved save that between the coerciveness of human society and the diversity of natural reality.

Your english is difficult to follow, but I rather think I agree.

From inside the house of society (through the window as it were) non-human nature does appear rather boring. It is dumb (doesn't speak our language) and it never posts on youtube.
But that is wrong thinking, based on an individualist approach of looking at one animal, one plant. Life on earth is by definition greater, more complex, more adaptable, and more intelligent than humanity because it includes humanity. The whole must be greater than any one of its parts.
Furthermore, our science and philosophy which we hold so dear is almost entirely built from observations of natural reality. Our individual reasoning or morality (built within society) is pitiful by comparison.
Humanity without the web of life on earth would be as lonely, its existence as futile, as a human without their society.

The "coerciveness of human society" is rather biting. The life of wild animals is rather coerced too I think. Wouldn't you agree that societies differ in their coerciveness, and that some people are comfortable with having their rôle laid down for them? That they in fact prefer to be coerced?

in summary; we can choose to choose, or we can choose not to. our defacto priorities we actualy live by, will also of course, play a role in how much and how diversely we choose to do so.

We cannot choose not to choose. I think Sartre nailed that one.
The rest is very good. Makes my head hurt a bit.

"Above choice is a choice-of-choices, a choice of the method of making choices." and it would follow that one could develop (by a protracted method of small choices) a system which would almost free one from making choices. For instance, the jailbird whose philosophy is formed in an environment of little choice, for whom freedom is very difficult to adjust to, and who re-offends more to be imprisoned again than for material gain.

yes, there are many factors outside of our own INDIVIDUAL choosing.
many of these are however, the statistical sumation of all our individual choosings, statisticly combined togather.

just as it is these, and not the mysterious hand of some unseen external agency, that in practice, determines the kind of world we all have to live in.

I don't agree with "statistically" and I'm sure you'd see that the process of combining the small choices of all humans must be more complex than simply adding them together. Mikhael Gorbachev's decisions, or Hitler's, weigh somewhat heavier than mine.
A better mathematical analogy than Statistics is probably Vectors.

That quibble aside, I agree that human society is something that individual humans have constructed. Those little decisions by individuals stretch back over millennia, and perhaps there's a butterfly effect happening there: one of Ug's kin may have had a far more shaping effect on our society of today than you and I and a million revolutionaries could?

And let us raise our eyes above the wall of this comfortable jail our decisions have built, and see that nature itself built us, that the "invisible hand" you decry may simply be the hand of our mother, so familiar to us that we are simply not seeing it.

=^^=
.../\...

Ooh, look. There's something in the bottom of the box! ;)

More wriggling.

not in the slightest. YOU asked me what would happen if two objects traveling at the speed of light collided.

There are two answers. Either the objects would have infinite mass, and thus infinite kenetic energy, and the collision would destroy the universe OR the objects, thus accellerated to C, would pass through each other, as they would be made of energy at that point.

if you had something better in mind I suggest you clarify your question. The fact that your hypothetical contained errors to obscure whatever "point" it was that you were trying to make is entirely your fault, not my own.

*...*

if you had something better in mind I suggest you clarify your question. The fact that your hypothetical contained errors to obscure whatever "point" it was that you were trying to make is entirely your fault, not my own.

:eek:
You demanded from Grave_n_Idle an instance where 2 + 2 =/= 4
Grave_n_Idle proceeded to build a scenario with an inherent contradiction in it.

You won that point, right there.

GNI had no need to answer your demand. Tactical error, 1 point to you. Just let him sulk, huh? :)

op snip

I think genes play a very important role in our choices. For lack of a better example i see them as the framework, whereas as our experiences fill in the rest. Or maybe.. genes are like the foundation of a building. They give an idea on the type of building, how tall it can it can be, etc.... Experience is the construction of the building itself...

Regarding favourite colour. I have got one. For me its all in the context.

when i was 8 or so i used to say ultraviolet

not in the slightest. YOU asked me what would happen if two objects traveling at the speed of light collided.

There are two answers. Either the objects would have infinite mass, and thus infinite kenetic energy, and the collision would destroy the universe OR the objects, thus accellerated to C, would pass through each other, as they would be made of energy at that point.

if you had something better in mind I suggest you clarify your question. The fact that your hypothetical contained errors to obscure whatever "point" it was that you were trying to make is entirely your fault, not my own.

That isn't actually what I asked at all, now was it? I didn't ask you 'what would happen', and you know that the infinite mass or lack of mass thing is pure red herring.

I have been asking what the effective resultant velocity would be... (and, of course, you quibbled about vectors... which doesn't matter when you are talking about an 'effective' velocity... a point I have tried to clarify.)

So - you still haven't answered the question, and you have continuously avoided even approaching it. I think we both know why.

:eek:
You demanded from Grave_n_Idle an instance where 2 + 2 =/= 4
Grave_n_Idle proceeded to build a scenario with an inherent contradiction in it.

You won that point, right there.

GNI had no need to answer your demand. Tactical error, 1 point to you. Just let him sulk, huh? :)

You have nothing to bring to the table but barbs?

I have started to build a case to illustrate the fallacy that Neo has entered into. He (or she) has deliberately avoided giving the response to the actual questions asked... probably because he (or she) knows an interesting tidbit about bodies moving at the speed of light, and how it impacts the whole 1+1=2, 2+2=4 paradigm.

I think genes play a very important role in our choices. For lack of a better example i see them as the framework, whereas as our experiences fill in the rest. Or maybe.. genes are like the foundation of a building. They give an idea on the type of building, how tall it can it can be, etc.... Experience is the construction of the building itself...
what about identical twins raised apart who have completely different experiences and yet make similar if not the same choices?

Regarding favourite colour. I have got one. For me its all in the context.

when i was 8 or so i used to say ultraviolet
:p when I was about 8 I used to tell people my favorite color was plaid.

what about identical twins raised apart who have completely different experiences and yet make similar if not the same choices?

don't know. But i would say its down the the gene/foundation. If say both twins liked dancing for example, maybe they inherented good motorcontrol or a likelyhood for good motorcontrol. Generally if your good at something, you like it more, and if its found at a young age you good at X the parents might motivate them in that direction.

:p when I was about 8 I used to tell people my favorite color was plaid.

:p

what about identical twins raised apart who have completely different experiences and yet make similar if not the same choices?


:p when I was about 8 I used to tell people my favorite color was plaid.

Our genetic disposition does have an uncany amount of influence on us, but culture and upbringing also plays a massive part.

I wonder how similar two identical twins would be if they grew up in radicaly differant cultures?

Here's a right bugger (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18684016/?GT1=9951) of a twist on this!