<!--QuoteBegin-SteveR+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(SteveR)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you could convince the world free will doesn't exist and nothing would change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It would change plenty of things for me. As I said before:
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
Certain words and concepts would become pointless entirely.
How about: "Courage" - If free will does not exist then no one is courageous or a coward, they can't help themselves. They're not choosing a path of strength and bravery, the path chose them. Pointless.
If we could TRULY convince the world that Free Will is false, and they actually believed it wholeheartedly, I feel NOTHING would change at all. The reasoning behind this is that the illusion of Free Will is so strong, it doesn't even matter if it exists or not because you wouldn't feel one iota of difference. It's not as if as soon as the knowledge of determinism became accepted, that eveyone would simultaneously stop caring or living.
The fact is, no one knows their own future. This is what allows words like Courage to exist in a deterministic universe. People might not be choosing their fate, but they sure as hell feel like they are. And there really isn't any point talking about things you can never experience, because at that point, it all becomes theory.
<!--quoteo(post=1596939:date=Jan 9 2007, 08:08 PM:name=Quaunaut)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Quaunaut @ Jan 9 2007, 08:08 PM) [snapback]1596939[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Semantics-whoring. Boo-hoo, no, I suppose one can never be certain of anything beyond all doubt, but there are varying degrees of certainty. I don't "know" if I drop a ball, it will behave according to the law of gravity. I don't "know" whether or not the Giant Radioactive Space Hamster exists. We have observed balls dropping millions, billions of times, without fail. We have never once observed a single Giant Radioactive Space Hamster. But if you think both of these statements are equally valid, then you are a ###### moron. I don't know how to put this in simpler terms and whether or not you truly believe all opinions are equal, or just have a reading comprehension problem.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I called a spade a spade, so what? So far all you have done is whined about my barbaric, uncivilized behavior instead of trying to show that your argument is not ridiculous. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Here was your original post: <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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. <b>But this would require an existential thought from the Robot- a purpose for the piece. A reason to name. A reason to make.</b> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What is a purpose and reason if not an inclination? Let's say that humans produce art for reason X. Now lets say a dog is fetching a ball for reason Y. Or maybe a robot is producing a painting for reason Z. Why should reason X mean that humans are exercising free will, while reason Y and Z mean the dog and robot are not? Why does the human reason for doing something inherently trump the dog reason? It doesn't. Humans are just another animal, with greater intellect that gives us more methods of pursuing whatever nature has built into us. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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? <b>Once again, just because we are capable of highly complex thought processes has no real bearing on free will.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Are you arguing against yourself now? So either we (Being all humans, dogs, robots, whatever) all have free will (Since we only differ in quantity of intellect), or none of us do. Crotalus makes a fair point about quantum mechanics, and I will conceed that is <b>possible</b> one random element that can't be predicted. But that doesn't mean it is actually random; we once had no idea how some things such as, say, the weather, chemical reactions, etc functioned. Just because we cannot find some order in something does not necessarily mean it is pure chaos. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What incredible growth? Biologically, we change very little each generation. We are only where we are because we have the means to communicate ideas and concepts that can be passed down. Intuition is from instinct, unconscious processing of information. We may not be able to replicate it just yet, but there is no logical limit that prevents us. Humans are only robots, built with biological parts instead of metal and silicon. We have been programmed, so to say, by millions of years of evolution. We have built-in instructions - eat, sleep, ######, mate. Even our intellectual abilities emerged as a means to achieve those ends. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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--> Might as well not believe in gravity because it's "unprovable".
<!--quoteo(post=1597203:date=Jan 10 2007, 03:37 PM:name=Crotalus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crotalus @ Jan 10 2007, 03:37 PM) [snapback]1597203[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> The fact is, no one knows their own future. This is what allows words like Courage to exist in a deterministic universe. People might not be choosing their fate, but they sure as hell feel like they are. And there really isn't any point talking about things you can never experience, because at that point, it all becomes theory. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perception is <b>real</b>ity. Free will is perceived, therefore it <b>is</b>. (i.e. "it exists")
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and we can never uncover the illusion of it being anything other than a duck even if we want to - it's a duck.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1596955:date=Jan 9 2007, 11:57 PM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 9 2007, 11:57 PM) [snapback]1596955[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> 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'll find that a lot of people think the purpose of punishment is to dissuade people from certain actions, and if possible to rehabilitate them. I couldn't care less whether murderers get punished. What I care about is fewer people murdering, and punishment achieves that result.
When you said might as well not believe in gravity because it's unprovable, what do you mean by unprovable? Kinda of a side topic here, but to what degree is gravity unprovable? I know they are called "scientific theories" for a reason, but i'm curious to know how unprovable gravity is.
<!--quoteo(post=1597368:date=Jan 10 2007, 09:03 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Jan 10 2007, 09:03 PM) [snapback]1597368[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I think you'll find that a lot of people think the purpose of punishment is to dissuade people from certain actions, and if possible to rehabilitate them. I couldn't care less whether murderers get punished. What I care about is fewer people murdering, and punishment achieves that result. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not if free will doesn't exist. You can't dissuade anyone who is "fated" to kill. Therefore punishment does not achieve your desired result, therefore punishment is futile. Though we can't stop punishing people either. It seems (if free will does not exist) we are just fated to punish those who are fated to kill.
As I said before, this creates a sad mess for society. Life is futile and hopeless without free will.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1597426:date=Jan 10 2007, 10:37 PM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 10 2007, 10:37 PM) [snapback]1597426[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Not if free will doesn't exist. You can't dissuade anyone who is "fated" to kill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yes, you can. The punishment (or threat of it) influences a complex series of brain processes that result in the person "deciding" not to kill. I'm not sure how you even arrived at that conclusion...
Edit: Perhaps it is the use of "fated". The application of this term assumes a completely deterministic universe, something outside the scope of the free will discussion, but in such a universe, the number of killers is still reduced by punishment because many potential killers are actually "fated" to be dissuaded.
The realization that there is no free will or that the universe is completely deterministic (whether true or not) does not change anything in reality. Whether by "choice" or by deterministic series of brain processes, the same decisions are made.
Sarisel.::' ( O ) ';:-. .-.:;' ( O ) '::.Join Date: 2003-07-30Member: 18557Members, Constellation
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1597438:date=Jan 10 2007, 11:09 PM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a_civilian @ Jan 10 2007, 11:09 PM) [snapback]1597438[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes, you can. The punishment (or threat of it) influences a complex series of brain processes that result in the person "deciding" not to kill. I'm not sure how you even arrived at that conclusion... <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Likewise a fated complex series of brain processes also results in another person completely ignoring the punishment (or the weight of it as a threat).
Pretty useless arguing about free will because you can't really measure it with much certainty. Maybe everything is a script, maybe not. There isn't any observation that cannot be argued to have been "fated".
I'd also like to add: killers may be innocent because they aren't responsible for their actions (without free will), but then knowing that they are likely to kill again and that imprisoning them prevents other people from dying - this is also a pre-determined response for which we aren't responsible (without free will). We're innocent of wronging the killers, since we are protecting ourselves in a pre-determined response to the killers' pre-determined actions. Do you see now why this discussion is pointless?
However, we should not revile murderers, merely reform them. After all, they were fated to murder just as we are fated to reform them. Then again, if we revile them that is also our fate.
...
You know what? This whole fate thing sucks, I'm going with free will. I'm making my own decisions from now on and until you can prove that I don't.
Uhm, well slightly unrelated note but from what I've read and heard most murderers are actually not very likely to commit murder again, long prison sentence or short.
<!--quoteo(post=1597438:date=Jan 11 2007, 12:09 AM:name=a_civilian)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(a_civilian @ Jan 11 2007, 12:09 AM) [snapback]1597438[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yes, you can. The punishment (or threat of it) influences a complex series of brain processes that result in the person "deciding" not to kill. I'm not sure how you even arrived at that conclusion...
Edit: Perhaps it is the use of "fated". The application of this term assumes a completely deterministic universe, something outside the scope of the free will discussion, but in such a universe, the number of killers is still reduced by punishment because many potential killers are actually "fated" to be dissuaded.
The realization that there is no free will or that the universe is completely deterministic (whether true or not) does not change anything in reality. Whether by "choice" or by deterministic series of brain processes, the same decisions are made. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you dissuade someone who was "fated" to kill, then he wasn't "fated to kill" at all, he was "fated to become dissuaded". Which puts him in a separate category which does not affect the tally of those who are in fact "fated to kill".
EDIT: Revised - In such a world "dissuasion" wouldn't exist at all. Since no one could be separated from his or her pre-determined path.
a_civilianLikes seeing numbersJoin Date: 2003-01-08Member: 12041Members, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead
edited January 2007
Dissuasion would exist - it would simply be part of a person's (pre-determined) history. A person can be dissuaded; if that happens in a deterministic universe, then we know he was "fated" to be dissuaded. A person can be "fated" to kill, but that does not mean he <i>is not capable of</i> being dissuaded. Rather, it simply means that in this universe, it just so happens that (by whatever series of events) this person <i>will not</i> be dissuaded.
About the issue of innocence, there really is no sense in appealing to a higher morality; moral systems are only creations of society. A criminal <i>did</i> decide to murder someone, whether by free will or by his biological programming. Therefore he is guilty. One might invoke a "higher" moral system to judge him innocent because he did not "freely decide" to kill someone, but such a moral system is meaningless when there is no such thing as "free decision".
Edit: Both of these are essentially issues of semantics. I am simply using the words "dissuade", "capable", "innocent", etc. in the only reasonable senses for inhabitants of a deterministic universe. An outside observer might indeed use them in the way you have, but for the inhabitants, those senses do not make for useful terms.
Woah woah woah woah woah woah <b>woah</b>. Slow down there cowboy. Let's have a quick lesson on what fate is.
Fate is totally, utterly different from determinism. Fate says that you're going to commit a particular act in the future. Determinism says that if you're moving at 10m/s in a particular direction with nothing slowing you down, you're going to be doing 10m/s in the next instant. Determinism says that if you get two hydrogen atoms, an oxygen atom and a little heat you're going to get a water molecule.
Fate is a wishy-washy abstract concept that implies some mysterious force that guides you to a particular, unavoidable result despite what you choose to do. It implies some intelligent other being that can write the narrative of your life to steer you towards a particular outcome.
Determinism and choice aren't mutually exclusive. It's just that a "choice" comes about as a result of the current electrical and chemical balance in your brain. If the world was magically wound back in time until the point of your birth, and then we waited until the 12th of Jan, 2007, you would be exactly the same as you are now. You will have made the same choices you made in the previous incarnation of your life. You would have walked the same roads, met the same people, seen the same things, smelt the same smells. Every little bit of stimuli you received from when you were born to now will have been exactly the same, thus resulting in you making the same choices. Is this fate? Are you "fated" to be sitting in front of your computer debating free will on the internet? No. It's merely the end result of every particle in the universe having its little influence on you and your consciousness.
Woah woah woah woah woah woah <b>woah</b>. Slow down there cowboy. Let's have a quick lesson on what fate is.
Fate is totally, utterly different from determinism. Fate says that you're going to commit a particular act in the future. Determinism says that if you're moving at 10m/s in a particular direction with nothing slowing you down, you're going to be doing 10m/s in the next instant. Determinism says that if you get two hydrogen atoms, an oxygen atom and a little heat you're going to get a water molecule.
Fate is a wishy-washy abstract concept that implies some mysterious force that guides you to a particular, unavoidable result despite what you choose to do. It implies some intelligent other being that can write the narrative of your life to steer you towards a particular outcome.
Determinism and choice aren't mutually exclusive. It's just that a "choice" comes about as a result of the current electrical and chemical balance in your brain. If the world was magically wound back in time until the point of your birth, and then we waited until the 12th of Jan, 2007, you would be exactly the same as you are now. You will have made the same choices you made in the previous incarnation of your life. You would have walked the same roads, met the same people, seen the same things, smelt the same smells. Every little bit of stimuli you received from when you were born to now will have been exactly the same, thus resulting in you making the same choices. Is this fate? Are you "fated" to be sitting in front of your computer debating free will on the internet? No. It's merely the end result of every particle in the universe having its little influence on you and your consciousness.
--Scythe-- <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds like free will to me. :\
EDIT: You say that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. If this is the case then I have no point to argue. I believe in free will and I don't disagree with anything that you just said.
My responses would be directed towards those individuals who believe free will DOES NOT exist. It sounds like you do. [believe it exists]. You just believe in free will + determinism, which I may believe in myself. (but this whole determinism concept is new to me, so I won't hold any position on it just yet.)
I don't get what your saying, Scythe. Both Einstein and Newton wanted to believe in Determinism. In their description, a Deterministic universe is one where there is a starting point, cause, and an ending point, effect. Newton argues that once the initial setup of the Universe is complete, all other processes follow it to the inevitable end. Basically, the Universe is just a super complex line of falling Dominoes. This means that in a Deterministic system, if one knows the exact location and momentums of all particles in the universe, he would be able to predict infintely far into the future based on the collisions of the particles.
<b>One CAN'T believe in Free Will and Determinism at the same time, because Determinism states that there is already a future planned out, and it CANNOT be changed no matter what.</b>
<!--quoteo(post=1597931:date=Jan 12 2007, 08:44 AM:name=Crotalus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crotalus @ Jan 12 2007, 08:44 AM) [snapback]1597931[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> <b>One CAN'T believe in Free Will and Determinism at the same time, because Determinism states that there is already a future planned out, and it CANNOT be changed no matter what.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I disagree with that statement.
The future never changes. What allows free will to exist is our "real-time" perspective as humans. We are choosing "as we go along" even though in reality we have already chosen. (This doesn't cheapen the choice and it doesn't make it any less of a real decision on our part.)
Yeah, but this is a matter of personal definitions. It seems your definition of Free Will differs from mine, even though we are agreeing or arguing for the same cause? Determinism at a basic level basically means your future has already been planned out, you can't effect it.
When someone says they believe in Free Will, I interpret them as saying "I believe that the future is completely effected by random influences at this very moment." However, it seems your trying to say "I believe in Free Will because even if it only exists as an illusion, it's very definition satisfies this claim on a personal level." I mean, I guess believing in both Free Will and Determinism works out fine according to your definitions.
<!--quoteo(post=1598235:date=Jan 13 2007, 01:00 AM:name=Crotalus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Crotalus @ Jan 13 2007, 01:00 AM) [snapback]1598235[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Yeah, but this is a matter of personal definitions. It seems your definition of Free Will differs from mine, even though we are agreeing or arguing for the same cause? Determinism at a basic level basically means your future has already been planned out, you can't effect it.
When someone says they believe in Free Will, I interpret them as saying "I believe that the future is completely effected by random influences at this very moment." However, it seems your trying to say "I believe in Free Will because even if it only exists as an illusion, it's very definition satisfies this claim on a personal level." I mean, I guess believing in both Free Will and Determinism works out fine according to your definitions. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I see what you mean. I'm a Christian, so I believe in God and I believe God knows everything, including the future. This means, technically speaking, that we have already made our decisions (from His viewpoint). However, we exist within the constraints of time and that means we make decisions / choices on a real-time basis.
And just because God knows the decisions we will make this does not affect our accountability concerning those decisions, since we chose them in the "real-time" environment.
I think free will is the only way to go. We are where we are in life today because of the decisions we have made. We have to take ownership over our lives as humans. The idea that we can't help ourselves is devastating to human morality, responsibility and accountability.
Everyone has a choice to make.
I'll end with a quote from Switchfoot - "This is your life, are you who you wanna be?"
"A finite state machine (FSM) or finite state automaton (plural: automata) is a model of behavior composed of a finite number of states, transitions between those states, and actions. A state stores information about the past, i.e. it reflects the input changes from the system start to the present moment. A transition indicates a state change and is described by a condition that would need to be fulfilled to enable the transition. An action is a description of an activity that is to be performed at a given moment."
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1599711:date=Jan 17 2007, 08:51 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 17 2007, 08:51 PM) [snapback]1599711[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> "A finite state machine (FSM) or finite state automaton (plural: automata) is a model of behavior composed of a finite number of states, transitions between those states, and actions. A state stores information about the past, i.e. it reflects the input changes from the system start to the present moment. A transition indicates a state change and is described by a condition that would need to be fulfilled to enable the transition. An action is a description of an activity that is to be performed at a given moment."
sounds like a human. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not quite. Humans can read and write (most of us) and that makes us much more like Turing machines than finite state machines.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1599743:date=Jan 17 2007, 10:51 PM:name=Black_Mage)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Black_Mage @ Jan 17 2007, 10:51 PM) [snapback]1599743[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> reading and writing are simple IO functions. also: who says a FSM can't include a UTM? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Computational Complexity theory says. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Seriously, the only difference between a Turing machine and a FSM is that IO. FSM can't have infinite IO by definition.
FSMs can't even count. Turing machines can compute anything that is computable.
An FSM could count so long as you defined a specific range of numbers it could count to while setting up the potential states. Thats basically what computers do, right? I'll set up this 32-bit unsigned integer which will allow the computer to count to about 4,096,000,000, and no higher, and it cant count fractions or negative numbers...but it can count! It just lacks the capability to count to any arbitrary number the way a person could, because its only got a finite number of states by definition, where a human could count to any one of an infinite range of possibilities.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
edited January 2007
<!--quoteo(post=1599774:date=Jan 18 2007, 02:05 AM:name=Cxwf)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Cxwf @ Jan 18 2007, 02:05 AM) [snapback]1599774[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> An FSM could count so long as you defined a specific range of numbers it could count to while setting up the potential states. Thats basically what computers do, right? I'll set up this 32-bit unsigned integer which will allow the computer to count to about 4,096,000,000, and no higher, and it cant count fractions or negative numbers...but it can count! It just lacks the capability to count to any arbitrary number the way a person could, because its only got a finite number of states by definition, where a human could count to any one of an infinite range of possibilities. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, that's all true. What I meant by can't count is that it can't express the natural numbers. Though computers have finite storage space, You could argue that the space is unbounded, meaning that there aren't any practical limits that we know of to the amount of space that would be possible to provide to a computer. You could, for instance, just suspend computation until you have time to manufacture a new hard disk. If the universe is finite then all bets are off <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />.
<!--quoteo(post=1598088:date=Jan 12 2007, 01:28 PM:name=DarkATi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi @ Jan 12 2007, 01:28 PM) [snapback]1598088[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Well, I disagree with that statement.
The future never changes. What allows free will to exist is our "real-time" perspective as humans. We are choosing "as we go along" even though in reality we have already chosen. (This doesn't cheapen the choice and it doesn't make it any less of a real decision on our part.)
Cheers, ~ DarkATi <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That strikes me as a rather, well, useless version of free will. What is it good for if you can't alter the future?
<!--quoteo(post=1599761:date=Jan 17 2007, 11:22 PM:name=moultano)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(moultano @ Jan 17 2007, 11:22 PM) [snapback]1599761[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Computational Complexity theory says. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Seriously, the only difference between a Turing machine and a FSM is that IO. FSM can't have infinite IO by definition.
FSMs can't even count. Turing machines can compute anything that is computable. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> i can define a turing machine inside a (very complex) finite state machine. i can't do the reverse.
"It contains some one hundred billion neurons," - wikipedia assuming a neuron exists in binary (false) that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^22) possible states. assuming a neuron exists in a state defined by one of the nine neurotransmitter classes that i remember from my psych course (also horribly conservative) there are 10^99 states that an average brain can be in.
plenty of space for a turing machine, an abacus, and a year's worth of dirty magazines.
Comments
It would change plenty of things for me. As I said before:
<!--QuoteBegin-DarkATi+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DarkATi)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Certain words and concepts would become pointless entirely.
How about: "Courage" - If free will does not exist then no one is courageous or a coward, they can't help themselves. They're not choosing a path of strength and bravery, the path chose them. Pointless.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
The fact is, no one knows their own future. This is what allows words like Courage to exist in a deterministic universe. People might not be choosing their fate, but they sure as hell feel like they are. And there really isn't any point talking about things you can never experience, because at that point, it all becomes theory.
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. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Semantics-whoring. Boo-hoo, no, I suppose one can never be certain of anything beyond all doubt, but there are varying degrees of certainty. I don't "know" if I drop a ball, it will behave according to the law of gravity. I don't "know" whether or not the Giant Radioactive Space Hamster exists. We have observed balls dropping millions, billions of times, without fail. We have never once observed a single Giant Radioactive Space Hamster. But if you think both of these statements are equally valid, then you are a ###### moron. I don't know how to put this in simpler terms and whether or not you truly believe all opinions are equal, or just have a reading comprehension problem.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I called a spade a spade, so what? So far all you have done is whined about my barbaric, uncivilized behavior instead of trying to show that your argument is not ridiculous.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Here was your original post:
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
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. <b>But this would require an existential thought from the Robot- a purpose for the piece. A reason to name. A reason to make.</b> 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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What is a purpose and reason if not an inclination? Let's say that humans produce art for reason X. Now lets say a dog is fetching a ball for reason Y. Or maybe a robot is producing a painting for reason Z. Why should reason X mean that humans are exercising free will, while reason Y and Z mean the dog and robot are not? Why does the human reason for doing something inherently trump the dog reason? It doesn't. Humans are just another animal, with greater intellect that gives us more methods of pursuing whatever nature has built into us.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
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? <b>Once again, just because we are capable of highly complex thought processes has no real bearing on free will.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Are you arguing against yourself now? So either we (Being all humans, dogs, robots, whatever) all have free will (Since we only differ in quantity of intellect), or none of us do. Crotalus makes a fair point about quantum mechanics, and I will conceed that is <b>possible</b> one random element that can't be predicted. But that doesn't mean it is actually random; we once had no idea how some things such as, say, the weather, chemical reactions, etc functioned. Just because we cannot find some order in something does not necessarily mean it is pure chaos.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
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.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What incredible growth? Biologically, we change very little each generation. We are only where we are because we have the means to communicate ideas and concepts that can be passed down. Intuition is from instinct, unconscious processing of information. We may not be able to replicate it just yet, but there is no logical limit that prevents us. Humans are only robots, built with biological parts instead of metal and silicon. We have been programmed, so to say, by millions of years of evolution. We have built-in instructions - eat, sleep, ######, mate. Even our intellectual abilities emerged as a means to achieve those ends.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
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-->
Might as well not believe in gravity because it's "unprovable".
The fact is, no one knows their own future. This is what allows words like Courage to exist in a deterministic universe. People might not be choosing their fate, but they sure as hell feel like they are. And there really isn't any point talking about things you can never experience, because at that point, it all becomes theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Perception is <b>real</b>ity. Free will is perceived, therefore it <b>is</b>. (i.e. "it exists")
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and we can never uncover the illusion of it being anything other than a duck even if we want to - it's a duck.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
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'll find that a lot of people think the purpose of punishment is to dissuade people from certain actions, and if possible to rehabilitate them. I couldn't care less whether murderers get punished. What I care about is fewer people murdering, and punishment achieves that result.
I think you'll find that a lot of people think the purpose of punishment is to dissuade people from certain actions, and if possible to rehabilitate them. I couldn't care less whether murderers get punished. What I care about is fewer people murdering, and punishment achieves that result.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not if free will doesn't exist. You can't dissuade anyone who is "fated" to kill. Therefore punishment does not achieve your desired result, therefore punishment is futile. Though we can't stop punishing people either. It seems (if free will does not exist) we are just fated to punish those who are fated to kill.
As I said before, this creates a sad mess for society. Life is futile and hopeless without free will.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
Not if free will doesn't exist. You can't dissuade anyone who is "fated" to kill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you can. The punishment (or threat of it) influences a complex series of brain processes that result in the person "deciding" not to kill. I'm not sure how you even arrived at that conclusion...
Edit: Perhaps it is the use of "fated". The application of this term assumes a completely deterministic universe, something outside the scope of the free will discussion, but in such a universe, the number of killers is still reduced by punishment because many potential killers are actually "fated" to be dissuaded.
The realization that there is no free will or that the universe is completely deterministic (whether true or not) does not change anything in reality. Whether by "choice" or by deterministic series of brain processes, the same decisions are made.
Yes, you can. The punishment (or threat of it) influences a complex series of brain processes that result in the person "deciding" not to kill. I'm not sure how you even arrived at that conclusion...
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Likewise a fated complex series of brain processes also results in another person completely ignoring the punishment (or the weight of it as a threat).
Pretty useless arguing about free will because you can't really measure it with much certainty. Maybe everything is a script, maybe not. There isn't any observation that cannot be argued to have been "fated".
I'd also like to add: killers may be innocent because they aren't responsible for their actions (without free will), but then knowing that they are likely to kill again and that imprisoning them prevents other people from dying - this is also a pre-determined response for which we aren't responsible (without free will). We're innocent of wronging the killers, since we are protecting ourselves in a pre-determined response to the killers' pre-determined actions. Do you see now why this discussion is pointless?
...
You know what? This whole fate thing sucks, I'm going with free will. I'm making my own decisions from now on and until you can prove that I don't.
Yes, you can. The punishment (or threat of it) influences a complex series of brain processes that result in the person "deciding" not to kill. I'm not sure how you even arrived at that conclusion...
Edit: Perhaps it is the use of "fated". The application of this term assumes a completely deterministic universe, something outside the scope of the free will discussion, but in such a universe, the number of killers is still reduced by punishment because many potential killers are actually "fated" to be dissuaded.
The realization that there is no free will or that the universe is completely deterministic (whether true or not) does not change anything in reality. Whether by "choice" or by deterministic series of brain processes, the same decisions are made.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you dissuade someone who was "fated" to kill, then he wasn't "fated to kill" at all, he was "fated to become dissuaded". Which puts him in a separate category which does not affect the tally of those who are in fact "fated to kill".
EDIT: Revised - In such a world "dissuasion" wouldn't exist at all. Since no one could be separated from his or her pre-determined path.
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
About the issue of innocence, there really is no sense in appealing to a higher morality; moral systems are only creations of society. A criminal <i>did</i> decide to murder someone, whether by free will or by his biological programming. Therefore he is guilty. One might invoke a "higher" moral system to judge him innocent because he did not "freely decide" to kill someone, but such a moral system is meaningless when there is no such thing as "free decision".
Edit: Both of these are essentially issues of semantics. I am simply using the words "dissuade", "capable", "innocent", etc. in the only reasonable senses for inhabitants of a deterministic universe. An outside observer might indeed use them in the way you have, but for the inhabitants, those senses do not make for useful terms.
Woah woah woah woah woah woah <b>woah</b>. Slow down there cowboy. Let's have a quick lesson on what fate is.
Fate is totally, utterly different from determinism. Fate says that you're going to commit a particular act in the future. Determinism says that if you're moving at 10m/s in a particular direction with nothing slowing you down, you're going to be doing 10m/s in the next instant. Determinism says that if you get two hydrogen atoms, an oxygen atom and a little heat you're going to get a water molecule.
Fate is a wishy-washy abstract concept that implies some mysterious force that guides you to a particular, unavoidable result despite what you choose to do. It implies some intelligent other being that can write the narrative of your life to steer you towards a particular outcome.
Determinism and choice aren't mutually exclusive. It's just that a "choice" comes about as a result of the current electrical and chemical balance in your brain. If the world was magically wound back in time until the point of your birth, and then we waited until the 12th of Jan, 2007, you would be exactly the same as you are now. You will have made the same choices you made in the previous incarnation of your life. You would have walked the same roads, met the same people, seen the same things, smelt the same smells. Every little bit of stimuli you received from when you were born to now will have been exactly the same, thus resulting in you making the same choices. Is this fate? Are you "fated" to be sitting in front of your computer debating free will on the internet? No. It's merely the end result of every particle in the universe having its little influence on you and your consciousness.
--Scythe--
@DarkATi:
Woah woah woah woah woah woah <b>woah</b>. Slow down there cowboy. Let's have a quick lesson on what fate is.
Fate is totally, utterly different from determinism. Fate says that you're going to commit a particular act in the future. Determinism says that if you're moving at 10m/s in a particular direction with nothing slowing you down, you're going to be doing 10m/s in the next instant. Determinism says that if you get two hydrogen atoms, an oxygen atom and a little heat you're going to get a water molecule.
Fate is a wishy-washy abstract concept that implies some mysterious force that guides you to a particular, unavoidable result despite what you choose to do. It implies some intelligent other being that can write the narrative of your life to steer you towards a particular outcome.
Determinism and choice aren't mutually exclusive. It's just that a "choice" comes about as a result of the current electrical and chemical balance in your brain. If the world was magically wound back in time until the point of your birth, and then we waited until the 12th of Jan, 2007, you would be exactly the same as you are now. You will have made the same choices you made in the previous incarnation of your life. You would have walked the same roads, met the same people, seen the same things, smelt the same smells. Every little bit of stimuli you received from when you were born to now will have been exactly the same, thus resulting in you making the same choices. Is this fate? Are you "fated" to be sitting in front of your computer debating free will on the internet? No. It's merely the end result of every particle in the universe having its little influence on you and your consciousness.
--Scythe--
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That sounds like free will to me. :\
EDIT: You say that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. If this is the case then I have no point to argue. I believe in free will and I don't disagree with anything that you just said.
My responses would be directed towards those individuals who believe free will DOES NOT exist. It sounds like you do. [believe it exists]. You just believe in free will + determinism, which I may believe in myself. (but this whole determinism concept is new to me, so I won't hold any position on it just yet.)
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
<b>One CAN'T believe in Free Will and Determinism at the same time, because Determinism states that there is already a future planned out, and it CANNOT be changed no matter what.</b>
<b>One CAN'T believe in Free Will and Determinism at the same time, because Determinism states that there is already a future planned out, and it CANNOT be changed no matter what.</b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, I disagree with that statement.
The future never changes. What allows free will to exist is our "real-time" perspective as humans. We are choosing "as we go along" even though in reality we have already chosen. (This doesn't cheapen the choice and it doesn't make it any less of a real decision on our part.)
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
When someone says they believe in Free Will, I interpret them as saying "I believe that the future is completely effected by random influences at this very moment." However, it seems your trying to say "I believe in Free Will because even if it only exists as an illusion, it's very definition satisfies this claim on a personal level." I mean, I guess believing in both Free Will and Determinism works out fine according to your definitions.
Yeah, but this is a matter of personal definitions. It seems your definition of Free Will differs from mine, even though we are agreeing or arguing for the same cause? Determinism at a basic level basically means your future has already been planned out, you can't effect it.
When someone says they believe in Free Will, I interpret them as saying "I believe that the future is completely effected by random influences at this very moment." However, it seems your trying to say "I believe in Free Will because even if it only exists as an illusion, it's very definition satisfies this claim on a personal level." I mean, I guess believing in both Free Will and Determinism works out fine according to your definitions.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah I see what you mean. I'm a Christian, so I believe in God and I believe God knows everything, including the future. This means, technically speaking, that we have already made our decisions (from His viewpoint). However, we exist within the constraints of time and that means we make decisions / choices on a real-time basis.
And just because God knows the decisions we will make this does not affect our accountability concerning those decisions, since we chose them in the "real-time" environment.
I think free will is the only way to go. We are where we are in life today because of the decisions we have made. We have to take ownership over our lives as humans. The idea that we can't help ourselves is devastating to human morality, responsibility and accountability.
Everyone has a choice to make.
I'll end with a quote from Switchfoot - "This is your life, are you who you wanna be?"
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
sounds like a human.
"A finite state machine (FSM) or finite state automaton (plural: automata) is a model of behavior composed of a finite number of states, transitions between those states, and actions. A state stores information about the past, i.e. it reflects the input changes from the system start to the present moment. A transition indicates a state change and is described by a condition that would need to be fulfilled to enable the transition. An action is a description of an activity that is to be performed at a given moment."
sounds like a human.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not quite. Humans can read and write (most of us) and that makes us much more like Turing machines than finite state machines.
reading and writing are simple IO functions. also: who says a FSM can't include a UTM?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Computational Complexity theory says. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Seriously, the only difference between a Turing machine and a FSM is that IO. FSM can't have infinite IO by definition.
FSMs can't even count. Turing machines can compute anything that is computable.
An FSM could count so long as you defined a specific range of numbers it could count to while setting up the potential states. Thats basically what computers do, right? I'll set up this 32-bit unsigned integer which will allow the computer to count to about 4,096,000,000, and no higher, and it cant count fractions or negative numbers...but it can count! It just lacks the capability to count to any arbitrary number the way a person could, because its only got a finite number of states by definition, where a human could count to any one of an infinite range of possibilities.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yeah, that's all true. What I meant by can't count is that it can't express the natural numbers. Though computers have finite storage space, You could argue that the space is unbounded, meaning that there aren't any practical limits that we know of to the amount of space that would be possible to provide to a computer. You could, for instance, just suspend computation until you have time to manufacture a new hard disk. If the universe is finite then all bets are off <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile-fix.gif" />.
Well, I disagree with that statement.
The future never changes. What allows free will to exist is our "real-time" perspective as humans. We are choosing "as we go along" even though in reality we have already chosen. (This doesn't cheapen the choice and it doesn't make it any less of a real decision on our part.)
Cheers,
~ DarkATi
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That strikes me as a rather, well, useless version of free will. What is it good for if you can't alter the future?
Computational Complexity theory says. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> Seriously, the only difference between a Turing machine and a FSM is that IO. FSM can't have infinite IO by definition.
FSMs can't even count. Turing machines can compute anything that is computable.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i can define a turing machine inside a (very complex) finite state machine. i can't do the reverse.
"It contains some one hundred billion neurons," - wikipedia
assuming a neuron exists in binary (false) that's 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (10^22) possible states.
assuming a neuron exists in a state defined by one of the nine neurotransmitter classes that i remember from my psych course (also horribly conservative) there are 10^99 states that an average brain can be in.
plenty of space for a turing machine, an abacus, and a year's worth of dirty magazines.