|
| Thread: Free Will |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted December 06, 2010 08:09 PM |
|
|
|
SwampLord
Supreme Hero
Lord of the Swamp
|
|
posted December 06, 2010 08:36 PM |
|
|
To be quite frank, any kind of research down this path scares me.
If there really is no such thing as free will, is that really something we want to find out? Would you want to know that every action you take is simply based on something in your genetic makeup? I sure as hell wouldn't. Free will, the idea that we have power over ourselves if nothing else, is a powerful and wonderful idea. In some ways it's crucial to the core of our existence; even if we lose control over everything else in our lives, even if everything else spirals into chaos, you've still got control over what you do.
If it turns out that that's all just because of a series of genes, quite frankly, that would be an utter catastrophe. I can't even imagine what it would be like to know that every action you take is based on something in your genetic makeup and that you'll always respond to something in a certain way. That's simply terrifying on so many levels. On a personal level, the idea that we don't have control even over ourselves is horrifying. On a bigger level, if those in power, whether they be governments or individuals, are able to manipulate the populace simply by knowing what actions they will be predisposed to...well, that's alarming to say the least.
This is a branch of research best left alone, in my opinion. Nothing good's going to come from proving free will doesn't exist, but a whole mess of bad things could. Leave well enough alone.
|
|
bLiZzArdbOY
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted December 06, 2010 08:47 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Another question: is it fair to label something a sin/immoral if you're predisposed to it because of your genetic makeup? Something to ponder over.
Can't it already be assumed that genetics predisposes everything? Scientists are merely confirming what can already be safely assumed.
How does the cause of why people do what they do change the fact that it is socially beneficial to discourage and/or condemn certain behaviors while it is likewise beneficial to encourage and reward other behaviors? Accepting or condoning certain actions on the grounds that it was genetically predisposed precludes the notion that social engineering can still stop or minimize those actions.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 06, 2010 09:17 PM |
|
|
I don't see the problem, actually.
It's just that sexual morals in our society suck, since they try to force people into following a certain behaviour. Since a couple thousand years, actually.
One thing is clear: if a sizable part of the population is genetically inclined to a behaviour differing from morals, then it's obviously the morals that are wrong, since they are against the "nature" of people.
And free will - is it really free will to follow societal morals? OR indoctrination, education, a mix of reward and punishment to train children like dogs?
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted December 06, 2010 09:39 PM |
|
|
The problem with free will is that the concept is usually ill-defined.
If you define free will as acting independently of any determinations, then that basically means random action which - while free - doesn't seem to have too much to do with will. Additionally, there hasn't been a strong case against determinism since Democritus (and no, quantum physics isn't one). Basically, what you need is an actual workable definition of free will.
Kant had a decent idea of where this needs to go, having pointed out the difference between negative ('freedom from') and positive ('freedom to').
As for morality, it is a common misconception among philosophers and non-philosophers alike that the assumption of determinism automatically refutes ethics of any kind.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 06, 2010 09:56 PM |
|
|
Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. Suppose you would sit down and think, "I could punch myself in the face right now. I will!" or "I won't!" and then do whichever you decided. Obviously, you had free will there. You chose what you were going to do. Equally obviously physical processes lead you to make whatever choice you made.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted December 06, 2010 10:10 PM |
|
|
Quote:
is it fair to label something a sin/immoral if you're predisposed to it because of your genetic makeup?
If labeling something as a sin/immoral affects a person's behavior, then the effect on their behavior must also be genetically predisposed.
It's not a one-sided issue. You can't say that certain behavior patterns are genetically predisposed and then turn around and say that the influence of society, teachings and upbringing are not also genetically predisposed.
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted December 06, 2010 10:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. Suppose you would sit down and think, "I could punch myself in the face right now. I will!" or "I won't!" and then do whichever you decided. Obviously, you had free will there. You chose what you were going to do. Equally obviously physical processes lead you to make whatever choice you made.
I'm generally inclined to agree, but I can't do so without asking about the underlying definition of free will. It is, after all, more a philosophical term than anything else, and philosophy is tricky like that when it comes to definitions.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 07:42 AM |
|
Edited by markkur at 07:43, 07 Dec 2010.
|
[quoteAnother nail in the coffin of free will? What do you think?
<IMO> Close but no cigar. Environments and will-power are always going to be huge when it comes to being Human. There is always some "Blanket-finding" that tries to blurr the distinctions but given some time the "new-findings" soon have anti-finding scientists that dispute the validity of the findings and it also becomes clear that "many" parts make the whole.
Quote:
Another question: is it fair to label something a sin/immoral if you're predisposed to it because of your genetic makeup? Something to ponder over.
Yes and I'll use myself to make my point. I am part American Indian and it "seems" my red-blood doesn't not like Whisky, just like it is depicted In the old western movies. I never believed any of that when I was younger but then I never really considered it either.
Years ago, I liked the original Jack Black and over time discovered I was playing roulette when drinking it. I discovered I had a 1 in 4 chance of having a night without a hitch which would usually mean when I was really drunk "I could hug a stranger...since everyone was my best friend". But the other 75% of the time, as the old saying goes;, "I hated everything that moved and if it didn't move, I'd move it". This madness on my part ended when I woke up one morning to find that my girl was scared to death of me and would not speak to me, because I had thrown my best friend of a few years through a wall in my home and God knows what else...she did not tell me.
Now whether this is genetic I do not know, but the "Lore" is compelling because of my "experiences". Was it Sin?...yup...immoral?...yes...Not-good? affirmative. Is this an indictment for the rest of the world? No, but it was one for me.
I'll drink a beer, have a glass of wine but I am not doing shots of Jack Daniels or any other Whiskey. I have used my free-will to say; Whatever this is..Wherever this comes from...It's bad thing for me and I cannot risk those around me and I will not chance it.
Good questions
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 07:50 AM |
|
|
There are some who would argue if free will even exists. That regardless of your decision, you were fated to make it from the moment you were born. All the outside forces : Environment, Society, what your parents taught you, etc has set your path in stone. Nothing you did, do, or will do will alter that fact. Even if you built a machine that made 'absolutely random decisions', then luck or fate was already decided and whatever random decision came up was destined.
Some claim it is god, some say fate, some say destiny. Sorry for the thread jack, just feeling philosophical tonight.
____________
Message received.
|
|
Doomforge
Admirable
Undefeatable Hero
Retired Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 09:23 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Scientists find gene that predisposes people to cheating, adultury and promiscuity. Another nail in the coffin of free will? What do you think?
Unless a person is insane/suffers mental problems like psychopathy, everyone is perfectly capable of doing things in whatever way he/she wishes. I may not have any cheating genes at all but I may as well turn into a cheating snow if I wanted to prove you we can all wipe our butts with that gene 
Quote:
Another question: is it fair to label something a sin/immoral if you're predisposed to it because of your genetic makeup? Something to ponder over.
Psychopatic lack of empathy drives people to do things to others because they can't vision any wrong in it by default. But that doesn't matter they can't halt themselves because of other factors. I strongly believe actions aren't determined by a single factor. Hence, no, it's still fair to label it immoral when people act pointlessly wrong.
____________
We reached to the stars and everything is now ours
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 10:02 AM |
|
|
Genetics are the predetermined prophesy that we are SUPPOSED to live. However, every single action that some one ELSO chooses that in any way affect will change the preset that is our mind. The part that I, personally, would rather like to know is how much both these halves of personality, genetics and experience, affects us compared to each other. I would say it is about 30 to 70 percent for genetics compared to experience, respectivly. However, I base this purely on personal observation and mostly on observations of myself.
Free will however, is a result of insight and insight is a very complicated and delicate matter. It is easily fooled and it is hard to come by as it is. My point is that you can only reach a state of free will if you realize that you lack it (free will, that is).
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 10:35 AM |
|
|
I think, that people tend to forget, what is really important, when discussing the problem.
When asking whether everything is determined or not, two views are possible in terms of determination.
1) This simply means that everything will (and has) developed pre-determined, everything had to happen the way it did. And everything that will happen is already determined as well.
This is somewhat based on the idea that there is an all-knowing god: if god knows everything, he knows the future as well; if he knows the future, the future is - obviously - determined.
This is somewhat tricky, because this view works with a couple of intrinsic assumptions about the nature of time (not to mention the concept of god).
2) This is the assumption that the world is wholly and fully based on cause-effect relations. The claim is basically, that if you can detect and name all factors that effect something, you can determine exactly what will happen. Consequently thought through it means, that if you could FULLY describe the state of the universe at one moment, you could exactly determine further development. For the argument it doesn't matter that this would be impossible - it tempts to assume that everything develops like a clockwork without room for randomness and so on.
It should be clear, however, that quantum mechanics killed that view. Not only is it absolutely impossible to determine the exact state of the universe at any one time, also there are things that are not determinable, and there are things that happen truly randomly, following only probability rules.
That means, determination doesn't exist, only probability.
So what about free will? Is that based on probability as well?
Of course.
Same principle.
And that is actually the whole trick, the whole beauty of the concept. Probability means that there is enough coherence to make sure there is a certain order, a certain reliability, but nothing really determined, since at everytime something improbable may. happen, completely altering everything.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 10:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
It should be clear, however, that quantum mechanics killed that view. Not only is it absolutely impossible to determine the exact state of the universe at any one time, also there are things that are not determinable, and there are things that happen truly randomly, following only probability rules.
That means, determination doesn't exist, only probability.
Or it simply proves that we do nut fully understand the universe in one way or another. Maybe quantum mechanics aren't entirly right, something might be missing or something else.
During the time of alchemy a lot of processes were described at random. Not because it actually was random, but because the alchemists didn't know everything about the subject. That's how all the occult got into it to begin with. Some one tried a process and it didn't work. He later did it when it was a full moon and that time it worked! It can be described as random, that the moon contibutes to the process or that one step or ingredient (or alike) was unknown or faulty.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 11:25 AM |
|
|
Oh, but this specific part we do understand. Heisenberg's uncertainty principle has nothing to do with limitations of tools or understanding, it's principal thing.
It's pretty easy to see, you just need to look at mathematics, where something comparable happens:
If you look at the rational numbers, they are infinite - however, seen on a number line, they don't actually build a line. They are determined, and all those infinite determined rational numbers are nothing but unconnected points.
Now add the irrational numbers. The irrational numbers are NOT determined. It is impossible to locate their exact position. You might say, they oscillate around their - hypothetical - abstract value.
This fact, the undeterminable nature of the irrational numbers connects all the infinite points to a dense line and fills the holes. You might say that the fact that it is impossible to determine their exact location, makes things what they are.
So it's indetermination that is "filling the holes", that ensures continuity and so on.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 11:39 AM |
|
|
I agree with JJ except for one part. That 'god' would have to be the predeterminer. Even 'the fates' were known for predetermining man's life span before 'God' was even heard of. Fate, Destiny, Karma..(in Karma there isn't even a 'being' per se).
____________
Message received.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 11:43 AM |
|
|
Still, irrational numbers have en exact value in a sense. It's just that our mathsystem isn't made fo those values. Pi is exactly pi, but when making numbers of it is infinite. Just because we doesn't understand the end of infinity doesn't mean it's not there. Math just isn't absolute.
1/9 is exact. 0.11111... isn't, and it will increase with every decimal we add, but it will never increase. That is a contradiction that, to me, proves the faultyness of our math and even the core of our logic.
We know that there's at least twelve dimensions, yet don't understand much more than three and we certainly don't think of more than four in our day-to-day activities.
As you said yourself: "For the argument it doesn't matter that this would be impossible" (this being knowing every fact).
Fully understanding the universe is impossible, so it will forever SEEM to be random to us. In reality it isn't, but since we cannot predict it and it acts random to us, we should take that into consideration rather than it not.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 12:03 PM |
|
|
@ Mytical
"Fate" is just a name for a force that would determine the course of something.
However, it's actually not necessary to have a force that makes the determination. It's obviously enough, when there is someone who KNOWS what will happen, then this means that the determination "has somehow taken place". It will happen that way, so it's pre-determined, and there is no free will FROM THAT POINT OF VIEW.
@ Shares
There are a few misconceptions of yours. First, Pi has NOT an exact value, in no sense, because pi in itself is a very abstract limes: - the "exact value" is a complete abstract that cannot be determined.
This is different with 1/9, a rational number. This number IS determined, because no matter which digit on the right of the decimal point I name, let's say the 123456789th, I can tell you it's a 1. The seeming endlesseness is a result of the decimal system only. Now tell me the 123456789th digit on the right behind the decimal point of squareroot 11, please.
Pi has been determined for a lot of digits - but that doesn't change the general and principal situation - no matter how small the oscillation pace gets, an irrational number will simply fill the space of indetermination. It's a kind of uncertainty principle as well.
Another example is e. You get the "exact value" for e with this formula: (1 + 1/n)>n at n=infinite.
There is no "exact value" infinite, though, so e cannot have an "exact value" either.
|
|
veco
Legendary Hero
who am I?
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 12:04 PM |
|
Edited by veco at 12:08, 07 Dec 2010.
|
I just wanted to bump in and say that as much as it's uncomforting for me to admit it - Shares makes a very good point.
edit:
okay, I guess not all that good. Now I see the difference.
____________
none of my business.
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted December 07, 2010 12:09 PM |
|
|
I agree JJ. From that point of view there is no such thing as Free Will. I am not sure which 'side' I am on. Free Will or 'Fate'. *shrugs*
____________
Message received.
|
| |
|
|
