Free Will is just an idea, or an expression. I suppose it's technically true, we all have the free will to choose to do (or attempt to do) whatever we want, but practicality and consequences are what limit us.
I could choose to throw my laptop against the wall right now in an act of free will, but then I'd break it and be without it, so I don't really consider myself free to do that.
I'm free to run for President of the US once I'm 35 years old, but I don't have the money to run a campaign so I'm not really free to do that.
It's just...another form of hope that everyone's supposed to adopt as a true statement. We're all free to do what we want, but not really. Not unless you're ok with fucking yourself over somehow.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
Free Will :confused:
its maybe the father of this movie orca ? :biggrin:
Free Will is the possibility to choose the lesser of two evils
•
ZackT Wrote:Free Will is just an idea, or an expression. I suppose it's technically true, we all have the free will to choose to do (or attempt to do) whatever we want, but practicality and consequences are what limit us.
I could choose to throw my laptop against the wall right now in an act of free will, but then I'd break it and be without it, so I don't really consider myself free to do that.
I'm free to run for President of the US once I'm 35 years old, but I don't have the money to run a campaign so I'm not really free to do that.
It's just...another form of hope that everyone's supposed to adopt as a true statement. We're all free to do what we want, but not really. Not unless you're ok with fucking yourself over somehow.
I believe what you are speaking of here is called 'existential angst' and differs from what I am talking about in the sense that I am asking if we are not in actually bilogic robots and isn't 'free will' just an illusion?
Thank you very much for posting after I was such a jerk last time you posted on a thread I started.
•
nullnaught Wrote:Well, in what way are you saying the robot does not have free will; does it not choose, or is it not a somehow "free" choice. If the latter, what definition of "free" are you using?
(I love it when you play the devils advocate  )
It only chooses the data a coder will place there for it in the boundaries of mathematical logic.
It is programed ,it has no other choices than the data permits.
Unlike living creatures the A.I. does not have an internal map of the universe that is made up of perception,experience, pain,smell,sound and vision ( although vision in it self is based on perception.)
It only can operate via the data that has been programed into it.
Thus the A.I. is totally reliant on it's programing and does not have any other choice.
With me, I have a choice , I can choose to sit on ice although my eternal map of the universe will warn me that doing so will not be exactly a pleasant experience.
I still have the freedom to do either do so or not do so.
Granted , the code of ethics that is in place for us via laws , can be restrictive for our own benefit , as I am of mind that if man was left to no laws we would self destruct in an instant.
Now that being said , If i were a murdering narcissist and choose to follow my hearts desire and lead a complete hedonistic life style ,( as in if it feels good do it )that is my choice , my free will ,and the only thing that will stop me is the law or death.
My choices are not per-programed ,I know what the consequences of my actions will be , yet I will continue doing what my heart desires.
•
Rainbowmum Wrote:(I love it when you play the devils advocate )
It only chooses the data a coder will place there for it in the boundaries of mathematical logic.
It is programed ,it has no other choices than the data permits.
Unlike living creatures the A.I. does not have an internal map of the universe that is made up of perception,experience, pain,smell,sound and vision ( although vision in it self is based on perception.)
It only can operate via the data that has been programed into it.
Thus the A.I. is totally reliant on it's programing and does not have any other choice.
With me, I have a choice , I can choose to sit on ice although my eternal map of the universe will warn me that doing so will not be exactly a pleasant experience.
I still have the freedom to do either do so or not do so.
Granted , the code of ethics that is in place for us via laws , can be restrictive for our own benefit , as I am of mind that if man was left to no laws we would self destruct in an instant.
Now that being said , If i were a murdering narcissist and choose to follow my hearts desire and lead a complete hedonistic life style ,( as in if it feels good do it )that is my choice , my free will ,and the only thing that will stop me is the law or death.
My choices are not per-programed ,I know what the consequences of my actions will be , yet I will continue doing what my heart desires.
I would like to differ first on your perception of A.I.; I don't believe it is approached in the fashion that you think. I believe it is aproached in exactly the way you describe humans as making decisions.
but let me do something awful. Let me digress purposely from the main thrust of my response to ask you a question a little off the last mark.
There are prothstetics that return information from sensors in the prosthetic and wich take impulses from the muscles so that you can control a fake hand with your brain and feel it as well. It is not as sophisticated as nature - yet. The same is true with fake eyes. We can take signals generated by electronic sensors and feed them into the brain where a visual is then created in the brain itself and the person can see. Not as well with the natural eye - as yet. So there is no reason to suppose sometime in the future the following can take place: my brain could be replaced bit by bit. First the eyes, and the nervous system up to the pons; then the olfactory nerves and facial nerves and taste buds; etc. until we start replacing parts of the brain proper. Begin with the cerebelum and you have fine motor controls done by a chip. move onto the left temporal lobe and you replace speach and other closely related functions and so on and so on. Until finaly there is no part of me left.
Brain surgery is done with the subject awake and answering questions so as to be sure they are fully conscious and functioning while it proceedes. They only go to sleep afterwards to heal. So one could be awake and aware for the entire process. So when there is no me left, yet with out a break in consciousness at any time, is the computer wich is then me conscious? It would put together the world in precisely the same way as me. Have my memories, etc... - not theoretically impossible.
What of it?
•
So what you are basically saying( correct me if I am wrong) is that your personality , your internal map of the universe that is comprised of all your experiences , perception, superstitions, likes and dislikes ,reactions to certain situations and learn t behavior will at some point be transformed to programmable data, that can be uploaded or downloaded and stored , perhaps on a hard drive like in the television series Dollhouse.?
Your theory is plausible to a certain degree, I can not argue with that, however if you will allow me the privilege of playing the proverbial fly in the ointment.
Let us say that I was born with complete Achromatopsia and Astigmatism ,how would my perception work in a body that has perfectly working non colorblind eyes.
Surely the perception would be slightly if not completely different?
What happens when the program has a major syntax error as it can not compute the data without fault?
•
I agree that to an extent, we're all programmed to make decisions in a certain way. Free Will is something that exists in that sense, that we do have the capability to disregard that programming if we think it's worthwhile.
But we still generally don't because it can be very bad for us if we do.
Not always, of course. But that's a whole other discussion to be had on what we should ignore from cultural programming.
•
Freewill and causation and predestination and all of these things have been a matter of some minor debate for, oh at least 10 thousand years.... A short time
There is no easy answer, thus philosophical students still debate this in class, Clergy stand on pulpits and 'debate' it to the the laity.
On one hand we have to accept that no man is an island - this means that no one is outside of everything else. We react as much as we act. If I hit your shin with my cane (accidentally I swear ) your reaction will be to grab the tender spot, say ow. This is predicable behavior given an outside stimulus.
We humans are also blinded to possibilities, we can not see all possible outcomes of any given situation, thus we act on a thing is more of reaction, reaction based on what we do know and what previous experience has programmed us to do.
This sort of reactive behavior is linked to cause and effect.
To a point we are animals capable of reasoning. Thus when I smacked your shin with my cane you could react by not reacting, ignoring the pain, or you could react by taking my cane from me and beating my shin in kind. Here is where the 'free will' thing comes into play. You can break your own programing, choose to react or not react or react in a way that is unexpected such as beating an old crippled elf with his own cane
Free will is not an absolute, nor is predestination. We have wiggle room, working within a cause and effect frame work with the ability to use our own will to change the outcome based on our behaviors.
We have the ability to become more than our basic programing.
As applied to humanity, we are the first species (perhaps the only ones ever on earth) that have the ability to change our course down the path of history by exercising our ability to choose.
•
ZackT Wrote:I agree that to an extent, we're all programmed to make decisions in a certain way. Free Will is something that exists in that sense, that we do have the capability to disregard that programming if we think it's worthwhile.
But we still generally don't because it can be very bad for us if we do.
Not always, of course. But that's a whole other discussion to be had on what we should ignore from cultural programming.
I see what you mean about cultural programing and resisting it. Like resisting the idea "queer" means 'bad' to somebody of my generation, perhaps. What I am thinking though is beyond even that.
I start from this perspective: We have a brain that is structured first by our genes and then by hormones before we are born. Our brain would be like a computer, because it is run on a lot of little ones and zeros adding up to remarkable results like the internet. So our brain is like a computer with our neurons and their connections like the memory and programs in a computer. We are born with a lot of things "hard wired" in. Like infants look for a smiling face at birth and bond with the barers thereof. Then we have experiences that alter that wiring wich makes the whole thing very complex. Too complex for humans ever to predict what they will do, but that does not mean not determined. Because in any circumstance there is: 1, your genetic makeup; 2, your experiences; and 3. what you actually do. So you have one actual past and one actual action and one actual brain with a precise brain state in between. So you have a caused system. Your past and your biological makeup at birth cause you to believe what you do right now, and thus make the decisions from there.
Then I go one step further. I state because things are caused (there is one past, present and future) our behaviour must be determined. Something, even something apperently random, causes each thing. And even if you have actually random rather than appearently random events - say in the brain to cause 'random' decisions - how does that create free will. I can get a computer to act at random. that doesn't imply more will, it implies less.
Is that clear? I would like to answer any questions you have about this.
•
You know, I've thought about that before too. The idea that we aren't completely in control of our lives like we may think we are, but we're actually just reacting to everyone else and everything else. But then I continue on that line of thinking and say that everyone is reacting to everyone else's reactions. Which makes you question, who or what is really in control of anyone or anything?
And in that line of thinking, I believe the answer would be no one and nothing. Nature and people just react to each other and we think we're so awesome because we can put some thought in to our reactions, but really we're just doing random stuff.
I dunno. There's a lot of stuff in life we have no control over that we are forced to just react to. And I agree that plenty of stuff can be traced down to our genetics. I have a predisposition for addiction, apparently inherited from my dad. So maybe that's why I ended up being so addicted to playing games (specifically World of Warcraft). After all, it's REALLY REALLY HARD for me to ignore the impulse to play, even when I know I have more pressing matters to tend to.
I AM capable of doing other things even when I want to just play my game, but unless it's terribly important, I try to put it off until the very last minute or perhaps not do it at all. I suppose it's an example of me not having a free will, but rather just doing what I feel compelled to do.
But I still maintain that because I am capable of going against my "natural" disposition, that is where we find our free will. The world's so big, everything is a reaction to something whether we know it or not. But we have the choice on how we react, even when we limit ourselves to certain choices.
•
|
