|
Post by Dario on Aug 6, 2005 13:19:14 GMT
So I guess they are not as pessimistic and minimalistics about human life as we are, penguin Maybe its time to give them your's definition
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 9, 2005 11:02:31 GMT
This the best definition of free will that I can think of: The capacity to consciously control what we like and dislike and what we do and don't doI don't think that humans have free will (nor do they have a soul). This is because the decision making process in the brain is automatic, and we can't control any of the inputs into the decisions. If any of you can think of a manifestation of free will, I'll try to show that it isn't
|
|
|
Post by Frosty on Aug 9, 2005 17:55:56 GMT
How about the following scenario: "What should I have for dinner tonight. Let me think... I know, I'll have microwave lasagne this time. My brains say I should go for the chinese as I prefer it but I can always have it tomorrow. I decided to do this only to try to prove to MrTPenguin that I am capable of making conscious decisions and that there are more than the basic instincts and inputs that control them."
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Aug 9, 2005 18:13:47 GMT
NIce definition MrTP... i liked it In practical point of view (not philosophical) we have an ocean of opportunities beside us But yes... according to your definition (very exact btw. i liked it) most of us DOES NOT have a free will So we cant use 'em Ok i'll try to manifest I am playing worms with a very tough opponent And i decide to play risky... i am trying close-to-impossible tricks, risky knocks ... etc It was an act of my free will I've made a decision to RISK when situation was forcing me to PLAY STRICT [very poor example... just wanna keep the ball rolling ... waiting for a guy in msn to start playing ]
|
|
Jigsaw
Member
Inevitability
Posts: 643
|
Post by Jigsaw on Aug 9, 2005 20:46:46 GMT
I could either write this post or not, I've choosen to do it, there you go
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 9, 2005 20:58:19 GMT
Pretty good and concise definition of free will, MrTP. But I disagree with the paragraph that follows it. I don't know about the soul thing, as I'm not really a religious person, but I do believe there's much more to the human mind than the brain. But this is just a belief, which, just like yours, cannot really be supported with scientific arguments, at least at this stage of our evolution. However, even if we limit ourselves to the brain, there's a very important point to be made here: we don't know what the processes in the brain are; we don't know how it ultimately works; we just have a very primitive idea of some of the things that are going on inside our brains. So, saying that the brain processes are automatic and we don't have control of the inputs is a bit of a leap, to say the least .
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 9, 2005 21:28:29 GMT
I'm glad you all like my definition. My replies: FrostyWe make decisions based on inputs. If you reach a decision, and then suddenly change it to prove that you've got free will, then all you've done is add a "proving free will factor" at the eleventh hour, so there's nothing mysterious involved. khamskiWhen you're playing a game of worms, two of the main input factors for your style of play are the quality of the opponent and the importance of the game. Your brain must decide how many risks you should take to optimise the chance of winning. So when you choose your level of "riskiness", you're striking a balance between extremes, not making a condition-free decision. JigsawYou decided to post it. The factors into the decision included: have I got time to post it? how curious am I as to what Penguin will say? will it raise a laugh? etc. It's actually harder to argue against free will for abitrary decisions than for "big" ones, so I'm sorry for not giving a more thorough answer. mieluYou're right - we don't know how the brain works, although we can make simplified models and also do simple experiments. In my preferred model of the brain there are two groups of inputs: sensory inputs and internal "will" inputs. The latter is essentially a "hierarchy of needs", with base needs at the bottom and ambition and fulfilment at the top. (If you know about Robotics, then this is just like Subsumption Architecture.) Crudely speaking, this hierarchy is enforced by the sensations of pleasure and pain. The brain, if thought of as being just a big network of neurons, combines these inputs in complex ways, and the limbs etc receive the output signals. Human beings are locked in an ongoing optimization problem: maximise the good and minimise the bad. The "half second delay" - the measured time interval between a limb starting to move and the brain activity corresponding to the decision to move it - suggests to me that consciousness (and moreover, the sense of conscious control) is an illusion. I can't see how or where the soul can sit in this model. I think someone would need to write a book to explain all this stuff thoroughly, but I hope these medium-sized posts provide the essentials. Please harass me if anything is unclear! I'll come to the "meaning of life" later
|
|
|
Post by Frosty on Aug 10, 2005 0:32:38 GMT
If you reach a decision, and then suddenly change it to prove that you've got free will, then all you've done is add a "proving free will factor" at the eleventh hour, so there's nothing mysterious involved. Thanks Penquin. Interesting. You said that I added this "proving free will factor". I therefore must have "decided" to add that factor, or are you saying that this factor was somehow already there? In any case, I don't think the fact that there are conditions or "inputs" that we take into account when making these decisions prove in any way that there is no free will. Of course we think of different scenarios and outcomes of our decisions, but humans are capable of weighing them up consciously rather than automatically. I'd guess that something like 99% of all the things we do happen automatically but what separates conscious beings from robots is that last 1% of conscious decision making. Or you being aware that your are making that decision. With the capacity of self-awareness comes also the capacity of free will.
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 10, 2005 10:53:51 GMT
Of course we think of different scenarios and outcomes of our decisions, but humans are capable of weighing them up consciously rather than automatically. There's an important question that needs to be asked here: is consciousness a mechanism for decision making, or is it just a "window" into the decision making process? I think the latter. Consciousness only involves a tiny amount of the total brain activity (for example, you don't consciouslessly control your heartbeat, or your immune system, etc) so even if we do have conscious control, it's very limited in scope. This is a bold statement, and one I disagree with Being able to say "I think, therefore I am" doesn't prove the existence of free will. Keep the ideas coming in (if only to pass the time between CWT games!)
|
|
Jigsaw
Member
Inevitability
Posts: 643
|
Post by Jigsaw on Aug 10, 2005 11:10:37 GMT
I still think we do have free will - bounded by numerous factors I can either go to school today or not (lets assume its not holidays) if I wont go however, I might miss something crucial for education process, might not finish school, not find a good job in future so I decide to go to school I CAN go out and kill somebody, its within my minds and body capability, I wont do it because I dont want to go to jail, once again my free will is bounded by a social factor poor poor penguin, everyone has a free will and only you dont
|
|
|
Post by khamski on Aug 10, 2005 11:44:19 GMT
that was funny well... Why are we so stubborn in this I_SURELY_HAVE_THE_FREE_WILL statement? Lets observe it from another angle We are all REACTors... We react... And the quality of our life depends on our reaction on everyday situations ("inputs"). Most efficient reactors succeed... Less efficient fail Its like worms... That hotseat 5 sec ticking... You THINK... You are CHOOSING YOUR MOVE... You REACT on the situation on the map... You cant do something stupid like jump in the water Coz its STUPID... Not logical... It leads to your defeat... Bad mood... Possible broken furniture So... Yes... In this game called LIFE we are playing by its rules. We react on day-to-day situations trying to make most efficient moves And iN this process... i repeat IN IT... WE DO HAVE A FREE WILL TO CHOOSE OUR MOVES So the bottom line is... WE CANT CONTROL THE CREATION OF INPUTS (THE SITUATION) BUT WE HAVE A FREE WILL TO CHOOSE OUR REACTIONS
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 10, 2005 15:18:04 GMT
We are all REACTors... We react... And the quality of our life depends on our reaction on everyday situations ("inputs"). Most efficient reactors succeed... Less efficient fail Its like worms... That hotseat 5 sec ticking... You THINK... You are CHOOSING YOUR MOVE... You REACT on the situation on the map... You cant do something stupid like jump in the water Coz its STUPID... Not logical... It leads to your defeat... Bad mood... Possible broken furniture That's true: we have lots of reactive behaviours. Your line about certain "reactors" suceeding and others failing looks to me like the theory of evolution. In evolutionary psychology, they say that the brain comprises a collection of units that work together. These units, like all the other body parts, evolved, so it's easy to see how species' evolved the capability to perform various tasks and react well to various situations, and to adapt to changing conditions. No sign of free will yet... That's something I agree with you on: that life is essentially a game, with a large set of complex and fickle rules. I think the crux of the opposition to my ideas is the belief that we can consciously control our brains. My argument is that we can't, and that our sense of control is illusory. One of my main reasons for thinking like this is that I can't see where this factor could come from, other than the "soul", which I don't believe in. I still think we do have free will - bounded by numerous factors I can either go to school today or not (lets assume its not holidays) if I wont go however, I might miss something crucial for education process, might not finish school, not find a good job in future so I decide to go to school I CAN go out and kill somebody, its within my minds and body capability, I wont do it because I dont want to go to jail, once again my free will is bounded by a social factor I'm now gonna introduce the "motivation theory" factor of my argument. I think that Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs is an accurate representation of human motivation. To respond to your points, Jigsaw, you're brain evidently decides how best to get you higher up the hierarchy, so there are definite built-in reasons for your decisions. Correction: everyone thinks they have free will, whereas I like to think that we don't I actually live my life as though as had free will, coz when I dwell on my (possible) lack of it it makes me feel less-than-human...
|
|
Jigsaw
Member
Inevitability
Posts: 643
|
Post by Jigsaw on Aug 11, 2005 20:28:31 GMT
it doesnt prove that there is no free will, there are people who DECIDE to fuck the hierachy
|
|
|
Post by Mielu on Aug 11, 2005 21:21:15 GMT
The "half second delay" - the measured time interval between a limb starting to move and the brain activity corresponding to the decision to move it - suggests to me that consciousness (and moreover, the sense of conscious control) is an illusion. I'm not sure if this means that the limb moved first or the brain showed activity first, so please clarify that. But anyway, I don't think the fact that there exists a propagation delay within the nervous system proves anything about consciousness. If a limb showed activity before the brain did, that was because of some activity in other parts of the nervous system - the thing is highly distributed. And those other parts can be controlled as well - there are people able to control the flow of blood through their veins, not to mention all kinds of muscles that most of us don't even know exist, and this is a documented fact. The degree of control varies with the individual, but again, I don't think that proves anything about consciousness. I can't see how or where the soul can sit in this model. I think this is where your problem lies: the soul (if you insist on calling it that ) doesn't sit inside any model. A model is inherently a logical construction; the 'soul' is outside the boundaries of logic. Any attempt at trying to explain it from a logical standpoint is just going to fail. Some people see this 'a-logical' aspect as bad, I just see it as different. I believe you're artificially confining yourself to a pretty tight space if you insist on limiting your thought processes to logic; meditate, let your mind fly, and maybe you'll find the meaning of free will and counsciousness in a different and unexpected way.
|
|
|
Post by MrTPenguin on Aug 12, 2005 11:57:26 GMT
there are people who DECIDE to fuck the hierachy Different people have different priorities. For example, intelligent people tend to take their educations more seriously, as they know that the jobs they want require them to be educated, whereas stupid people tend to "doss about" at school, as the don't need the knowledge. Because the hierarchy is enforced by pleasure/pain, it will sometimes be skewed. For example, someone might not write an essay coz he can't be bothered, or maybe he'd rather "do" his bird. In short, people act to gratify themselves, and this hierarchy emerges from these urges. I'm not sure if this means that the limb moved first or the brain showed activity first, so please clarify that. But anyway, I don't think the fact that there exists a propagation delay within the nervous system proves anything about consciousness. The limb moved first. It proves that our sensation of conscious control is either partially or wholly illusory. I'm not sure what you mean by "logical". If you think I'm reducing the brain to a big collection of boolean operations, then you're mistaken. You seem quite confident that the soul (or the spirit, or whatever) exists, and that the fact that my model doesn't accomodate it indicates that my model is flawed. When I construct a philosophical model, I start from nothing and work upwards. I don't start with groundless assumptions, even if they seem "obvious". I believe that this is a trap that many people have fallen into over the centuries. I'm satisfied that my model explains human behaviour well enough to be valid. There is no proof that we have souls, and my model doesn't predict them, so I conclude from that that there's no soul. I might be wrong, but until I find a reason to change my position, I'll stay where I am now. Your line "meditate, let your mind fly" is quite poetic and romantic, but I have to tell you that I think it's a load of mumbo jumbo
|
|