Free will.
SteveR
Join Date: 2006-12-25 Member: 59239Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2006-12-25 Member: 59239Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Technically speaking, I can't help myself.</div>I don't know how many of you follow Scott Adams blog but it's littered with free will debate.
<a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/11/the_little_robo.html" target="_blank">http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert...ittle_robo.html</a>
<a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/12/best_lawyer_eve.html" target="_blank">http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert...lawyer_eve.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-dilbertblog+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dilbertblog)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Note to the first person who says, “But I can CHOOSE and a robot can’t! Therefore I have free will!” That’s not an argument. It’s a collection of words.]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/12/analogy_police.html" target="_blank">http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert...ogy_police.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-dilbertblog+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dilbertblog)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But unpredictability is a nonsense argument when it comes to free will. I can’t predict the weather with exactness, but weather doesn’t have free will. It’s simply complicated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most scientists (as quoted in the articles you can find linked from free will topics on the blog) argue something along the lines of a binary choice in our world. You are either random or pre-determined. I recommend reading up on those few bits and pieces before imparting your thoughts.
Here are mine:
Initially I was unsure. I would like to be able to choose exactly what I do. But the more the free will debate lodged itself in my mind, the more I would find myself 'testing' it. I was drunk at one point over the christmas holidays. If I am just a complex meat machine, cause and effect determines that I have no control over the effects the alcohol has on my system. I tried to test if I could think and move just as well If I really tried. I tried to play the piano. I tried to play a song I know so damn well that I barely have to be conscious. But thanks to the drinking I had a block at a certain point which I know absolutely fine. I had to get the book out because my brain just wasn't able to find that memory thanks the alcohol and it's predictive affects.
I guess I am just a machine. Obviously my test is only a basic one and not remotely controlled but there could be a way to control it. Get people in various states to be subject to things (drinking isn't a bad model but surely there are more subtle forms of intake) and then get them to do a simple reaction speed test. Drinking is known to affect reactions but if we have free will we could surely disconnect this chain of cause and effect.
So my view is that free will probably is an illusion but It's a sad thing to think. I also find it interesting that people immediately say society won't work. We rely on responsibility as our justice system. People who commit crime aren't responsible. It is a physical and chemical imbalance in our brain. If that's the case, so it is for successful people. If criminals shouldn't be punished they shouldn't be paid loads as they both aren't responsible.
I'll know free will doesn't exist if one day I wake up and genuinely want to have children of my own.
<a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/11/the_little_robo.html" target="_blank">http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert...ittle_robo.html</a>
<a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/12/best_lawyer_eve.html" target="_blank">http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert...lawyer_eve.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-dilbertblog+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dilbertblog)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->[Note to the first person who says, “But I can CHOOSE and a robot can’t! Therefore I have free will!” That’s not an argument. It’s a collection of words.]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<a href="http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/12/analogy_police.html" target="_blank">http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert...ogy_police.html</a>
<!--QuoteBegin-dilbertblog+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dilbertblog)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But unpredictability is a nonsense argument when it comes to free will. I can’t predict the weather with exactness, but weather doesn’t have free will. It’s simply complicated.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Most scientists (as quoted in the articles you can find linked from free will topics on the blog) argue something along the lines of a binary choice in our world. You are either random or pre-determined. I recommend reading up on those few bits and pieces before imparting your thoughts.
Here are mine:
Initially I was unsure. I would like to be able to choose exactly what I do. But the more the free will debate lodged itself in my mind, the more I would find myself 'testing' it. I was drunk at one point over the christmas holidays. If I am just a complex meat machine, cause and effect determines that I have no control over the effects the alcohol has on my system. I tried to test if I could think and move just as well If I really tried. I tried to play the piano. I tried to play a song I know so damn well that I barely have to be conscious. But thanks to the drinking I had a block at a certain point which I know absolutely fine. I had to get the book out because my brain just wasn't able to find that memory thanks the alcohol and it's predictive affects.
I guess I am just a machine. Obviously my test is only a basic one and not remotely controlled but there could be a way to control it. Get people in various states to be subject to things (drinking isn't a bad model but surely there are more subtle forms of intake) and then get them to do a simple reaction speed test. Drinking is known to affect reactions but if we have free will we could surely disconnect this chain of cause and effect.
So my view is that free will probably is an illusion but It's a sad thing to think. I also find it interesting that people immediately say society won't work. We rely on responsibility as our justice system. People who commit crime aren't responsible. It is a physical and chemical imbalance in our brain. If that's the case, so it is for successful people. If criminals shouldn't be punished they shouldn't be paid loads as they both aren't responsible.
I'll know free will doesn't exist if one day I wake up and genuinely want to have children of my own.
Comments
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
So my view is that free will probably is an illusion but It's a sad thing to think. I also find it interesting that people immediately say society won't work. We rely on responsibility as our justice system. People who commit crime aren't responsible. It is a physical and chemical imbalance in our brain. If that's the case, so it is for successful people. If criminals shouldn't be punished they shouldn't be paid loads as they both aren't responsible.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They may not be "responsible" per se, since there really is no choice in the matter, but the justice system still serves to prevent future crimes, dole out compensation, perhaps rehabilitate criminals. If somebody argued that they were fated to commit a crime, the obvious retort would be that they were fated to be punished.
When you "make" a decision, a choice, it is the end result of complex brain chemistry, neurons fired, etc. It might be marvelously unpredictable (Bad input data, "randomness"), but you could no more affect the final outcome than you could will your heart to stop.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe. Because somehow that marvelous complexity is comforting enough to allow me to consider a completely freewill-free world (deterministic or random). However, I do take issue with your contention that I am unable to will my heart to stop. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
To quote the last comic of The Invisibles: "Came here, put here, same thing."
i like how t-rex puts it.
Just because everything you do from now until you die is predetermined doesn't mean you have no choice over what you do. It's just that every choice you make has been preempted by the current chemical balance in your brain. You still make a choice, but it's the only choice you're capable of making in the situation.
--Scythe--
Scythe, what you've said is close to an argument someone else made to say we have choice... only one. He argued that if you were hungry you would eat, and if your choices are an apple, some dirt and a mouldy plate of food you would choose the apple.
OT: dinosaur comics are great but annoys me that it's always the same picture!
1. Multiple Universe
This theory basically says it is possible to go back in time and alter your future. However, you actually don't have any free will because whenever you do this, you are just jumping onto a alternate time mural. You are still confined to the already painted mural. It's also possible to understand this as a tree, you start at the trunk and branch out into any possible universe. When your travel back in time, you are regressing back to the trunk, and choosing an alternate branch.
2. Static Universe
There is only one timeless Universe, and it's just there. Everything in the Universe is closed, and planned out. You have no hope of changing your future, because it's already happening right now. That means if whatever is happening right now is a direct result of what happened in the past, so if you tried to kill your dad, you might've actually propagated your own birth.
However, how would we ever disprove Free Will? Obviously, we can see that the brain is a collection of molecular reactions.
Classical Physics says that the Universe is ENTIRELY deterministic. That means the Universe starts at one configuration, and ends at a predictable one. If you know the exact locations of all the particles in your brain, than you can calculate the velocities and momentum of these particles and their collisions anytime into the future to see what emotions or thoughts you WILL have in the future.
Quantum Mechanics tells us that at the core, the Universe is ENTIRELY probablistic. This would allow truely random "dice rolls" to influence your brain. But then again, this ish is happens on the smallest level possible, so it might be a moot point because it's too small to effect brain chemistry.
There's also the concept of souls, and if that was true, then science will have no way of proving that.
Why? 'cause I can.
What? You're gonna prove me wrong? Oh. Right.
My own arguments to it, are simply in art. Maybe its because no one has tried, but I've yet to see a good piece of art made completely from a computer, or a robot. Art that can be appreciated. But this would require an existential thought from the Robot- a purpose for the piece. A reason to name. A reason to make. All of which would require free will from the base level. Now, you could say that a robot could always do the same motions to make the same piece as, say, the Mona Lisa, but that has no actual bearing on anything- in the end, it all comes down to, "Would it be art?"- and art, from its base level, is a very human thing. I reckon that a computer-originated piece of art, it would feel "wrong", whether we knew of the computer making it, or not.
But in the end, I could be wrong. Or right.
2. Therefore, free will exists.
I'm sorry, that is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You are equating inclination with free will. A human could want to produce a piece of artwork, but doesn't make it any more capable of free will than, say, a dog wanting to fetch a ball. In any case, I expect that silicon will rival carbon sometime in the future.
The main thing here is that it doesn't matter whether you think you've got free will or not, because it's impossible to find out through self-introspection. That's because determinism is something you would be COMPLETELY unaware of. It's like trying to feel the 5th dimension, it might be there, but it doesn't matter how hard you think about because you will never be able to "feel" it.
This also means I can't prove or disprove the existence of Free Will, unless someone knows of an obscure scientific experiment that tells us the truth?
1. Robots cannot produce art, but humans can.
2. Therefore, free will exists.
I'm sorry, that is the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard. You are equating inclination with free will. A human could want to produce a piece of artwork, but doesn't make it any more capable of free will than, say, a dog wanting to fetch a ball. In any case, I expect that silicon will rival carbon sometime in the future.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you're gonna be rude, I will be too: Your analogies suck.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Eh, just because humans are capable of complex processes doesn't rule out Free Will. Your arguement about robots not being able to create paintings isn't exactly valid either. I could say that the hammer I just made doesn't have the capabilities to produce art on it's own. Robots are just tools, like anything else. They work down to a simplistic level, so no one expects them to be self aware.
The main thing here is that it doesn't matter whether you think you've got free will or not, because it's impossible to find out through self-introspection. That's because determinism is something you would be COMPLETELY unaware of. It's like trying to feel the 5th dimension, it might be there, but it doesn't matter how hard you think about because you will never be able to "feel" it.
This also means I can't prove or disprove the existence of Free Will, unless someone knows of an obscure scientific experiment that tells us the truth?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Me+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Me)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->My own arguments to it, are simply in art. <b>Maybe its because no one has tried</b><!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm not claiming to know either way, its just what I think. Underwhelmed, learn not to be the reason people stay out of Discussion.
<img src="http://classes.yale.edu/Fractals/MandelSet/MandelGallery/Im51.jpg" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
--Scythe--
Actually I found the thought about inclination rather insightful. If, when trying to gauge artificial intelligence's ability to create art, you limit your examination to AI in forms like traffic analysis programs and fluid dynamics models, then your conclusion is predetermined. Whether AI can create art is a question of whether the effort is spent giving it the ability to be inclined to create art (and optionally whether the effort is spent refining the code to the point where it is indistinguishable from human artwork). And in fact some people have coded AI art programs. They probably aren't all that sophisticated, but they represent a beginning of the field.
Here are some examples of paintings by artificial intelligence:
<a href="http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/aaron/static.html" target="_blank">http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/aaron/static.html</a>
<a href="http://www.scinetphotos.com/auction.html" target="_blank">http://www.scinetphotos.com/auction.html</a>
<a href="http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/KCATaaron/STAFsample" target="_blank">http://www.kurzweilcyberart.com/KCATaaron/STAFsample</a>
(I haven't tested this one since I don't have java installed, but supposedly it creates art for you in real time)
Here are some examples of poems by artificial intelligence:
(from <a href="http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~akurd/e-poets.htm)" target="_blank">http://shakti.trincoll.edu/~akurd/e-poets.htm)</a>
<u><b>Page</b></u> by Ray Kurzweil's cybernetic poet
<i>Sashay down the page
through the lioness
nestled in my soul.</i>
<b><u>I Think I'll Crash</b></u> by Ray Kurzweil's Cybernetic Poet
<i>I think I'll crash.
Just for myself with God
peace on a curious sound
for myself in my heart?
And life is weeping
From a bleeding heart
of boughs bending
such paths of them,
of boughs bending
such paths of breeze
knows we've been there</i>
I wish I could have come up with a way to present those without beforehand revealing they were by a computer, but oh well, heh.
And another thing: the fact that humans create art isn't a direct result of having free will or sophisticated thoughts. For one reason or another through evolution we have been programmed to be inclined to create art; we have the mental capacity to create art; and therefore we do create art. Likewise, machines can be programmed to be inclined to create art and to be functionally able to create art.
If you define art as "from its base level, is a very human thing," it is therefore impossible for any other intelligent being to do anything more than mimic art. However if you define art based on its own qualities, then AI can or will be able to create art, at a time depending on the specifics of how you define the term. At the very latest, when the time comes that AI is able to create expressions that are indistinguishable from human art, those expressions will be art.
On the subject of free will, I find it insufferable to think that we don't have it, so I just choose to believe that we do.
Also, Scythe when you're posting images bigger than my desktop can you just link them?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Maybe its just me, maybe other people find beauty in those, but looking at those, its easy to understand if they were made by a computer- they certainly aren't complicated pieces in the least, let alone the fact that, at least for me, they don't "feel" right at all. But then again, art itself is something that cannot be proven in any way scientifically, which is why I brought it up in the first place. As the original Dilbert creator said, Religion, when it comes down to it, is a completely standalone endeavor, that is not disprovable by science, nor provable. Arguing about it is a useless time-waster, and I'd think of the Free Will argument the same way. And much the same way as religion, I don't wish to try and prove my point with those who don't want to see it from my point of view. So I just said, thats the reason I thought of it like that. Its validity...well, its certainly possible that we were "programmed" to create art, but it just seems like it wouldn't take on the supernatural position in our heads if so of creating feelings so easily(ignoring the fact that feelings are merely chemicals, as that still has nothing to do with was <i>causes them to be felt</i>).
also (obligatory): photoshop has lensflare. instant art.
I don't always win--those chemicals are pretty darn strong. But the mere fact that I can observe myself fighting againt the biological determinism in my brain is enough to convince me that I have free will.
<img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/marine.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="::marine::" border="0" alt="marine.gif" />
Trolling? Joking? I fail to understand you. Whats so unbelievable about my post? All I'm doing is offering some insight into how my mind works, that might be relevant to the topic.
If you're gonna be rude, I will be too: Your analogies suck.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Brilliant retort. If you put forth a weak argument, you should not be surprised and act affronted when somebody tears them up. My being "rude", real or perceived, has absolutely no effect on my argument - the point still stands. How does art show humans have free will? Your previous attempt at making a connection was inadequate, and I can only assume from the lack of a follow up, you have nothing left to say.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I'm not claiming to know either way, its just what I think. Underwhelmed, learn not to be the reason people stay out of Discussion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, it's just an opinion and that means it is unassailable, amiright?
Opinions are not equal. If one person had the opinion that if you dropped a ball, it would drop, and another person had the opinion the ball would float, you wouldn't go, "Hm, well, they're both opinions, so I guess they're equally valid." ###### no. If you are going to post something with the disclaimer that it is only an opinion, just stop, because all that means is you have no argument.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I know brain chemicals have a very large influence on your thought processes. But I also know they don't entirely determine your thought processes. How? Because I've spent lots of time fighting against my brain chemicals to make a decision.
I don't always win--those chemicals are pretty darn strong. But the mere fact that I can observe myself fighting againt the biological determinism in my brain is enough to convince me that I have free will.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
But in fighting your brain chemicals, guess what form those thoughts take - that's right, more brain chemicals! In the end, humans are only computers with built-in instincts and inclinations that have served to keep our genes alive for the last few hundred thousands of years or so. Our ability to think, to reason, is only an extension of that.
I fail to understand what you mean by fighting chemical processes, while being aware of this. If you could describe your experience in more detail, than I would consider your arguement. But at this point, I don't know what your talking about. I need more proof of your biological determinism. I assume you are talking about you fighting your "urge to reproduce" or something, which seems to be one of the basest of organism programming anyways.
The reason I said that is because I presume the most important piece of coding for my genetics is to ensure their simple survival. But I really, really, really, really do not ever want to have children. For like a ba-jillion good reasons. If I ever actually want to have children then programming wins!
But In the end, I agree with TychoCelchuuu and Scythe. It doesn't really matter either way. It's a convincing illusion.
----------
I choose to eat the apple because I'm hungry (programming)
I choose to eat the apple, even trough I'm not hungry (is this a programming error?)
----------
Another one would be:
I choose to smoke willingly even though I know my health will be affected
I choose not to smoke because I know it will harm me
----------
I think that we create our own programming lines while living out our lives... Meaning that we choose out of our own free will what discision to make. These are then added to our programming lines... Sometimes we can even change our minds about things, probably overwriting some of the previous rules...
And if some of the rules are conflicting with others we've created we are in doubt. Doubting could be considered a programming error. Good thing we have a failsafe though and don't crash when errors ocur <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin-fix.gif" />
If it's all pure dependant on programming I think we wouldn't be this diverse...
And is there anyone who can prove that the chemicals we produce in our mind are either related to our own choice or simply a reaction of outside/inside environment...
Hmm another area which is pretty hard to understand is comedy. Some people don't like the comedy of some standup comedians while others can't get enough of it. I think the changing your mind about things is pretty much the proof that we do have free will. Since if it was programming, changing something would be either impossible or would result in a crash (braindead? <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> )
Brilliant retort. If you put forth a weak argument, you should not be surprised and act affronted when somebody tears them up. My being "rude", real or perceived, has absolutely no effect on my argument - the point still stands. How does art show humans have free will? Your previous attempt at making a connection was inadequate, and I can only assume from the lack of a follow up, you have nothing left to say.
In other words, it's just an opinion and that means it is unassailable, amiright?
Opinions are not equal. If one person had the opinion that if you dropped a ball, it would drop, and another person had the opinion the ball would float, you wouldn't go, "Hm, well, they're both opinions, so I guess they're equally valid." ###### no. If you are going to post something with the disclaimer that it is only an opinion, just stop, because all that means is you have no argument.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What you completely fail to comprehend, is that <b>you don't know you're right</b>. You <b>think</b> you are right. Thats an opinion. And your opinion when neither of us know IS equal: Their both worth jack ish. So don't get all high and mighty. It wasn't mistaken that you were rude- perceiving it as anything else is either biased or pompous, take your pick. To imply someone else's views are "ridiculous" is an insult, and is only belittling. Don't mistake it as a valid argument when you don't know any better yourself.
And the reason your analogy sucked, is because I spoke nothing about inclination, or 'wanting', but instead, <b>doing</b>. It hasn't been done yet, unless you'd show me otherwise, which I still honestly want to see.
I didn't make an argument myself, because Crotalus said it better than I did, obviously. Why has what he said first not been discussed at all? Once again, just because we are capable of highly complex thought processes has no real bearing on free will.
On an odd note, I actually was arguing this on the opposite side of the field just a few years ago, a conversation that stemmed from the anime "Chobits"- is it possible to program a robot to be just like a human being? At the time I thought it was certainly possible to get it there. I don't, anymore, if only because humans exhibit incredible growth each and every generation. Not to mention, we sense things that you can't program- intuition is something that you still can't replicate, or begin to even try to explain.
As said before: Who knows? You don't, I don't, so in this case, I'm just gonna choose Free Will, if only because it makes me feel better. If you can even show real evidence that can prove the other way(evidence- not speculation), I'll reconsider. But then again, this is something that is probably unprovable either way.
If free will does not exist then every murderer in every prison is innocent. He never <b>decided</b> to kill anyone. Why should we punish him for obeying his scripted sequence? We would be nothing more than slaves to our own bodies. Victims of fate. In my opinion, a world couldn't get any more dark or grim or hopeless.
One of my favorite books is, "A Clockwork Orange". It raises the question, "If a human is unable to choose, is he really human?" If someone is forced down any given path then he has no ownership over that path. He didn't choose the path, the path chose him.
Everything becomes cheap. Love? Impossible. Generosity? Ridiculous. Life? Pointless.
Of course in the Christian theological realm this is just the old Calvinism / Arminianism debate re-hashed. Reminds me of the shirt.
<img src="http://nextgenerasianchurch.com/files/2006/08/calvinism_thumb.gif" border="0" alt="IPB Image" />
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
Wow, I can't believe how many people have said that they <b>do not</b> believe in free will.
If free will does not exist then every murderer in every prison is innocent. He never <b>decided</b> to kill anyone. Why should we punish him for obeying his scripted sequence?[...]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The answer is obvious in its simplicity: Because we can't choose to do otherwise. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />
Wow, I can't believe how many people have said that they <b>do not</b> believe in free will.
If free will does not exist then every murderer in every prison is innocent. He never <b>decided</b> to kill anyone. Why should we punish him for obeying his scripted sequence? We would be nothing more than slaves to our own bodies. Victims of fate. In my opinion, a world couldn't get any more dark or grim or hopeless.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think you are misunderstanding their 'choice'. Speaking for myself I can accept I don't have free will but it is a very convincing illusion that society is entirely dependant on. F*** society, I think on a personal level it would be hard to live day to day if free will didn't appear to exist.
BUT since I can't tell either way, I'm satisfied by the illusion even if I don't believe it is anything more than that. I think you could convince the world free will doesn't exist and nothing would change.
<!--QuoteBegin-Quaunaut+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As said before: Who knows? You don't, I don't, so in this case, I'm just gonna choose Free Will, if only because it makes me feel better. If you can even show real evidence that can prove the other way(evidence- not speculation), I'll reconsider. But then again, this is something that is probably unprovable either way.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A fair count of eminent scientists on the subject have pretty much narrowed down the debate to the binary choice; pre-determined or random. Neither is very comforting!
<a href="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundamentals/mg19025504.000" target="_blank">http://www.newscientist.com/channel/fundam.../mg19025504.000</a>
Plus, when I read through this I realise I'm contradicting myself. I can't help it, honest!