100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Does randomness allow free will? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I do not agree that determinism means no choice. Straw lots and lots of straw. Well, you seem to always be demanding empirical explantions. You talk about straw. Where's the empirical evidence for a mechanism of choice in a totally deterministic world. From whence would such free 'will' choice arise. Are you suggesting some mysterious spiritual essence as the source of that? I'm just asking. Not arguing. From my point of view, even for 'spirits' to implement their free will throught physical bodies the physical universe would need to allow for that. So from my point of view quantum randomness is indeed the mechanism that allows for that. In fact, when we include quantum entanglement and the concept of e-bits (which are actually being USED in modern technology), then not only does randomness occur, but it's clearly that the randomness can be 'overridden' by quantum entagnlement. Therefore, I not only see randomness as a mechanism for 'free will' but I also see quantum entanglement as a mechanism for implementing that 'free will'. It all makes perfect sense to me. I'm just trying to share why it makes so much sense. If you don't think it makes sense that's fine. But you haven't offered a better explanation. Or if you have, I've missed it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well we do not call prisoners free, even thought they are free to make choices within the confines of there prison . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 07/28/09 02:39 PM
|
|
Ive not made up my mind on this, and really do not make a habit of making up my mind on questions of absolutes that are subjective in definition, and objective in phenomena. The only thing I've made up my mind on is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM makes perfect sense to me. That's really all I'm saying. I'm merely saying that it makes sense to me. And I'm trying to share the reasons why I feel this way. I'm not trying to "convice" anyone of anything. Why should I care how other people want to view reality? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Tue 07/28/09 04:16 PM
|
|
Again I am awaiting a positive definition of free will.
Free of what? Free from what? Nothing is free from everything. I think just like many facets of consciousness are really just illusion, so is the idea of free will. Yes we make choices, yes its really us doing it, can it be determined why we made that choice, my answer is yes even if it is just pointing at the metaphorical die I think that answers it. Ive not made up my mind on this, and really do not make a habit of making up my mind on questions of absolutes that are subjective in definition, and objective in phenomena. The only thing I've made up my mind on is that the Copenhagen Interpretation of QM makes perfect sense to me. yup that carries, we get it, in fact many many posts, and many many threads ago you made that clear. That's really all I'm saying. Ok I'm merely saying that it makes sense to me. Ok And I'm trying to share the reasons why I feel this way. Ok I'm not trying to "convice" anyone of anything. Me either. Why should I care how other people want to view reality? I cant answer that one for you Me I do not think a conflict exists between determinism and the idea of free will. My explanation is that we do not need a mechanism for free will beyond the relationships established in the development of the brain from day to day. Dan Dennet's book consciousness explained helped me get a lot of that out of the way. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow what a difficult question that is. Do we have free will?
It seems in some things we do and others we do not. Then we have to look at demographical areas around the world and their circumstances. Also what is after life when we pass away, do we have free will there? Then we have to figure out what "free will" are we talking about? What a direct and simple question, yet so difficult to answer. What it is worth, there will be alot of different conclusions and interpertations to answer such a question |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Abracadabra
on
Tue 07/28/09 05:35 PM
|
|
Again I am awaiting a positive definition of free will. Free of what? Free from what? Nothing is free from everything. Free from pre-determinism. Me I do not think a conflict exists between determinism and the idea of free will. From my point of view, they are totally contradictory concepts. Bsed on my "definition" above. If my very definition of "free" is being "free" from determinism, then there can be no such thing as "free will" in a deterministic world by the very definition of what it means to be "free". If you are speaking of a different kind of 'free will', then you're the one who would need to define that concept. If you're waiting for a definition, then you haven't even decided what the concept even means to you. My explanation is that we do not need a mechanism for free will beyond the relationships established in the development of the brain from day to day. Dan Dennet's book consciousness explained helped me get a lot of that out of the way. Well, if that development occurs in a totally predetermined universe, then you must somehow accept that a pre-determined development equates to "free will". Still seems like a contradiction in terms to me. But if it makes sense to you, It's not my intent to argue with you. I'm just saying that your description thus far doesn't make any sense to me. I haven't read Dennet's book, but if he believe that universe to be compeltely deterministic then any development of the brain must also be pre-determined by the previous state of affairs. So where would "free will" come into play? Free from what? Certainly not free from being pre-determined if the starting premise is that the world is deterministic. It also seems like you're confused because you say, "I am awaiting a positive definition of free will." I'm not waiting for any such definition. My definition of free will is 'free' from being determined. Therefore, my very definition of 'free will' denies that free will can exist in a totally deterministic universe by definition. If you haven't yet defined your terms, then how could you even address the topic? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the best beginning would be to define what is meant by 'free will'...   OMG not this again. I think we have discussed 'free will' to death a few times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What happens to you is life. How you choose to deal with what happens is free will. That's illogical. "Life doesn't happen TO YOU." You are life. Death happens to you. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Again I am awaiting a positive definition of free will. Free of what? Free from what? Nothing is free from everything. Seriously? The bottom line is that "the will" is not simply "freedom of choice." A person who does not believe (or understand) that all things arise from a single point of consciousness, will never understand what 'the Will' even is. It is not a question of whether is 'free' or not. The Will is the intent of consciousness. If a person uses their will to direct their lives and their attention and their thoughts they are said to have "free will." BUT THE WILL IS JUST THE WILL. It is the power of self direction. The more conscious you are, the more you have the power to direct your thoughts and your attention. If you are not using your Will, you are simply following your programing. To use your will is to use your power. To develop your will is to develop your power. A person who uses their will, thinks for himself, directs his attention, and has the power to change his attitude, or his mood, or his feelings about something or his entire life. It is the power to decide, the power to choose what to think about and what to do. It matters not if you are a prisoner. You got to be a prisoner because you probably did not use your will to direct your life. You reacted, and became a victim of circumstance. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What happens to you is life. How you choose to deal with what happens is free will. That's illogical. "Life doesn't happen TO YOU." You are life. Death happens to you. Death is the last thing that happens to that part of you which is anchored to THIS reality. However to say that life does not happen. The first thing that happens is you are 'created' in the womb. other things that happen:... birth, intake of knowledge (may occure at any time), growth, and so forth... But you are right. You are life... Death will not stop that life... by the image you come from you are imortal... Death is a change of state. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there is no contradiction between randomness and free will
random stuff happens over which you have no control the weather for instance but you can walk out in the rain, stay in, dance, play cards, read a book, or post on mingle2. go ahead. make your own day.  it is totally up to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is a big difference between able to be determined and being pre-determined.
It is also a key in the compatabilism viewpoint. James, you may find the earlier link I posted interesting. Jeremy, Nice post regarding Bohm... It has peaked my interest to further investigate his views through his works rather than another's interpretation of his works... That thought has reminded me of an earlier time when I was actively reading Einstein's Relativity theories, and the later contradictions caused by my use of his own spelling and wording in an earlier thread. I was accused of some curious things among some of which I found amusement in the fact that I was being ostracized for 'wrongful' wording and spelling. It was an interesting reflection, indeed! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps the best beginning would be to define what is meant by 'free will'... OMG not this again. I think we have discussed 'free will' to death a few times.  Yes, I agree I am even getting tired of reading people discussing it. Its being discussed to death just like the evolution topic was
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am secretly mesmerizing you mirror....
Fading.... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... You have no free will! 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am secretly mesmerizing you mirror.... Fading.... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... you must read... You have no free will! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Wed 07/29/09 07:40 AM
|
|
So if I create 20 questions and can with a 100% accuracy know your answers . . . is that pre determinism?
If I get one wrong is that not? If I feed you chemicals that I know will make you crazy, and you go crazy was that pre determined? I think pre determination is just like free will except the other way and that you can never nail down if you are actually looking at it. Probabilistic determinism. I roll a 6 sided die, I can determine that you will roll (1-6) 100% of the time . . . I tell you what become god, or call him up if he speaks to you, and then let me know, otherwise much like Mirror I am done with the topic. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
creativesoul
on
Wed 07/29/09 09:07 PM
|
|
So if I create 20 questions and can with a 100% accuracy know your answers . . . is that pre determinism? No. If I feed you chemicals that I know will make you crazy, and you go crazy was that pre determined? No. Probabilistic determinism. I roll a 6 sided die, I can determine that you will roll (1-6) 100% of the time . . . All possible outcomes are known. Although that particular outcome depends upon other physical laws which have yet to have been determined before the roll. It is possible to roll a 6 every time. The odds never change 1/6. I tell you what become god, or call him up if he speaks to you, and then let me know, otherwise much like Mirror I am done with the topic. Um....  ???
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food for thought...
"Determinism, Freedom, and Awareness" by Victor Daniels Abstract The "freedom vs. determinism" controversy is a long-standing one among both philosophers and psychologists. Here a resolution to the problem is presented that is based on the simple and well-known statistical concept of "degrees of freedom." It is shown that in the larger gestalt of the situation, our consciousness and behavior are both determined in the ways that psychoanalysts and behaviorists have argued, and are free in the ways that existentialists and humanists have argued. Gestalt therapy uses the tools of focused awareness to help people become aware of internal and external determining tendencies and, when they wish, increase their freedom of choice in situations where formerly they experienced little or none. "Is our behavior free, or is it determined? The question, typically posed in precisely this dualistic fashion, is a well-worn bone on which both philosophers and psychologists have gnawed for years, decades, centuries, even millennia. Here I will offer, I believe, an elegant solution to the controversy. Psychoanalysts insist that that much of our behavior is determined by experiences of infancy and early childhood. Behaviorists maintain that most of what we do is controlled by the cues and reinforcers in our environment, which include the behavior of others. Existentialist philosophers and psychologists, and humanistic psychologists take precisely the opposite position, as in Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that even a man standing before a firing squad may choose to face death in a brave manner or a cowardly one, and in that sense is free. With such radically different points of view, how are we to tell who is right? Ironically, a definitive answer to this dilemma can, I believe, be found not in the statements of either philosophers or psychologists but rather in a simple equation known to every beginning statistics student. The equation is simplicity itself: df = ( n-1). In words, "degrees of freedom equals n minus one, where n is the total number of possibilities in the situation--in this case the number of options that someone can perceive and carry out. When there is only one possibility, then n=1, and (n-1)=0. Since the number of degrees of freedom equals zero, we can say that the person's behavior is totally determined. Driven by irresistible inner or outer forces, or both, or she has no freedom, no choice in the matter at hand. If, however, someone perceives just two possible courses of action, which after all is a fairly common occurrence in the context of the human condition, then n=2 and (n-1) = 1. The person has one degree of freedom. But perhaps we have a person endowed with a remarkably flexible personality in a situation that offers a multitude of possibilities. Perhaps, indeed, Flexible Frances perceives a hundred possible actions among which she can choose. Then n=100, (n-1) = 99, and Frances is considerably freer than most people most of the time. The obvious next questions are, "What are the implications of this startlingly simple formulation," and "What is its utility?" The fascinating implication is that the psychoanalysts, behaviorists, existentialists, and humanists are all entirely correct. More than a little of our behavior is indeed determined early in life and reenacted again and again thereafter, often in the forms of complexes or neuroses which may seem compulsive in their character--the "unfinished business" that haunts us until we come to terms with it in therapy, counseling, or some other healing or transformative context--or until we die. A good deal of our behavior is also fairly rigidly determined by environmental cues and reinforcers as simple as a red or green traffic light or a restroom sign that says "Men" or "Women," or as complex as the mixture of personalities in a given situation and the political or religious ideologies and agendas they espouse. Both Freud and Skinner were right. On the other hand, as Soren Kierkegaard, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir, Rollo May, James Bugenthal, and Carl Rogers all emphasized, in every moment we have a chance to act differently than we have acted in similar situations in the past. And as yogis, Buddhist teachers, George Gurdjieff, and Fritz Perls and his compatriots pointed out, the more we cultivate our ability to notice what factors in our past or in our environment are influencing us at any given moment, and how we are responding to them either internally or externally, the better able we become to broaden the range of choices available to us. Personal freedom can be learned, developed, and cultivated. In a Gestalt working session, a person may be asked to exaggerate some act in order to enhance her awareness of it, which in turn opens up the possibility of doing something else. She may be asked to stop doing something she has always done, in order to discover alternatives. She may experiment with acting in ways that had been forbidden, and hence were threatening and "off limits." She may let go of a facade and find her authentic self. And so on almost ad infinitum. So the larger Gestalt of the "freedom vs. determinism" issue is that the question cannot be answered abstractly except in such general terms as those offered just above. In real life it must always be answered concretely, in reference to a given person in a given situation. We can ask how many degrees of freedom that person has, what internal or external conditions are limiting him or her, and what he or she might do to open up a broader range of possibilities if that's desirable. So the next time you hear the tired old argument about whether our actions and consciousness are free or determined, just ask, "Whose?" "When?" "In what situation?" Then an answer becomes possible. And that answer can't be found by logic or argument, but only by examination of the particulars. \ e-mail: daniels@sonoma.edu Victor Daniels is Professor of Psychology at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California 94928 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The problem with chasing your tail...
You can't make it stand still long enough to get a good look at it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Food for thought... "Determinism, Freedom, and Awareness" by Victor Daniels Abstract The "freedom vs. determinism" controversy is a long-standing one among both philosophers and psychologists. Here a resolution to the problem is presented that is based on the simple and well-known statistical concept of "degrees of freedom." It is shown that in the larger gestalt of the situation, our consciousness and behavior are both determined in the ways that psychoanalysts and behaviorists have argued, and are free in the ways that existentialists and humanists have argued. Gestalt therapy uses the tools of focused awareness to help people become aware of internal and external determining tendencies and, when they wish, increase their freedom of choice in situations where formerly they experienced little or none. "Is our behavior free, or is it determined? The question, typically posed in precisely this dualistic fashion, is a well-worn bone on which both philosophers and psychologists have gnawed for years, decades, centuries, even millennia. Here I will offer, I believe, an elegant solution to the controversy. Psychoanalysts insist that that much of our behavior is determined by experiences of infancy and early childhood. Behaviorists maintain that most of what we do is controlled by the cues and reinforcers in our environment, which include the behavior of others. Existentialist philosophers and psychologists, and humanistic psychologists take precisely the opposite position, as in Jean-Paul Sartre's statement that even a man standing before a firing squad may choose to face death in a brave manner or a cowardly one, and in that sense is free. With such radically different points of view, how are we to tell who is right? Ironically, a definitive answer to this dilemma can, I believe, be found not in the statements of either philosophers or psychologists but rather in a simple equation known to every beginning statistics student. The equation is simplicity itself: df = ( n-1). In words, "degrees of freedom equals n minus one, where n is the total number of possibilities in the situation--in this case the number of options that someone can perceive and carry out. When there is only one possibility, then n=1, and (n-1)=0. Since the number of degrees of freedom equals zero, we can say that the person's behavior is totally determined. Driven by irresistible inner or outer forces, or both, or she has no freedom, no choice in the matter at hand. If, however, someone perceives just two possible courses of action, which after all is a fairly common occurrence in the context of the human condition, then n=2 and (n-1) = 1. The person has one degree of freedom. But perhaps we have a person endowed with a remarkably flexible personality in a situation that offers a multitude of possibilities. Perhaps, indeed, Flexible Frances perceives a hundred possible actions among which she can choose. Then n=100, (n-1) = 99, and Frances is considerably freer than most people most of the time. The obvious next questions are, "What are the implications of this startlingly simple formulation," and "What is its utility?" The fascinating implication is that the psychoanalysts, behaviorists, existentialists, and humanists are all entirely correct. More than a little of our behavior is indeed determined early in life and reenacted again and again thereafter, often in the forms of complexes or neuroses which may seem compulsive in their character--the "unfinished business" that haunts us until we come to terms with it in therapy, counseling, or some other healing or transformative context--or until we die. A good deal of our behavior is also fairly rigidly determined by environmental cues and reinforcers as simple as a red or green traffic light or a restroom sign that says "Men" or "Women," or as complex as the mixture of personalities in a given situation and the political or religious ideologies and agendas they espouse. Both Freud and Skinner were right. On the other hand, as Soren Kierkegaard, Jean Paul Sartre, Simone De Beauvoir, Rollo May, James Bugenthal, and Carl Rogers all emphasized, in every moment we have a chance to act differently than we have acted in similar situations in the past. And as yogis, Buddhist teachers, George Gurdjieff, and Fritz Perls and his compatriots pointed out, the more we cultivate our ability to notice what factors in our past or in our environment are influencing us at any given moment, and how we are responding to them either internally or externally, the better able we become to broaden the range of choices available to us. Personal freedom can be learned, developed, and cultivated. In a Gestalt working session, a person may be asked to exaggerate some act in order to enhance her awareness of it, which in turn opens up the possibility of doing something else. She may be asked to stop doing something she has always done, in order to discover alternatives. She may experiment with acting in ways that had been forbidden, and hence were threatening and "off limits." She may let go of a facade and find her authentic self. And so on almost ad infinitum. So the larger Gestalt of the "freedom vs. determinism" issue is that the question cannot be answered abstractly except in such general terms as those offered just above. In real life it must always be answered concretely, in reference to a given person in a given situation. We can ask how many degrees of freedom that person has, what internal or external conditions are limiting him or her, and what he or she might do to open up a broader range of possibilities if that's desirable. So the next time you hear the tired old argument about whether our actions and consciousness are free or determined, just ask, "Whose?" "When?" "In what situation?" Then an answer becomes possible. And that answer can't be found by logic or argument, but only by examination of the particulars. \ e-mail: daniels@sonoma.edu Victor Daniels is Professor of Psychology at Sonoma State University, Rohnert Park, California 94928 While that is very interesting, freedom of choice (of action) is not "free will." Freedom of choice and the Will are two different subjects and two completely different things. |
|
|
|
|
