Free Will (hint: you don't got it)

Originally Posted by ConcernedParent

Click to expand...

But there already lies a response and a course of action that you would have taken. Not to mention, what is to happen was already to predetermined to happen by matters of physics, chance, whatever other factors- even if it isn't evident to you yet.

In the case of prior stimulus/response mechanisms, sure. I don't touch hot stoves, because I know what will happen. In the absence of any prior history, though...what else is there for you to draw from in terms of taking your next step?

However, I don't follow how physics and chance, among other factors will always pre-determine a response. Perhaps they'll influence or determine it some of the time, but, chance being what it is (chance-y), maybe it won't. I'm reluctant to allow that it is always the governing factor, though.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

We are using different definitions of free will. I am saying there is no free will even in a situation where there is no macro-precedent to draw from. On a miniscule level, the moving forces in the situation will produce the same result each time, if the instance was repeated a million times. That is my take. It is necessarily true, but only if you agree with the idea that the brain is matter which is bound by known laws of physics.

Hmmm. You know, when Tom Watson was making those runs at the leaderboard in majors from the last few years, I was really happy for him and wanted him to win, particularly in light of his battles with the 'yips'. He and Mac O'Grady were two high-profile cases of what O'Grady called focal dystonia, which manifested in the form of an inability to sink a short (3-foot) putt. Both of these men were pro golfers, among of the finest of their generation, and then one day each just became completely incapable of holing out from short distance: something they'd practiced for years on end and had previously been very proficient at. Watson eventually got his skill back, O'Grady never did (to my recollection).

I think that highlights some of the issues that surround the brain and why I'm reluctant to say that it's strictly governed by the laws of physics - I don't think it functions with the reliability of a switch or circuitboard: memories get lost, buried, distorted. Names come to mind, after the person has passed you by. Sometimes there's a cause, sometimes nothing can be found by the current technology.

Just cause they dont all say it exists in religion, doesn't make it true. Logically explain this to me, if you have a robot that you are controlling and you tell it to break a vase in your house, are you going to yell at it for breaking the vase, no because you are the one controlling it, the same way if you control the robot to mow your lawn, are you going to praise your robot for doing so? If you believe in the reward and punishment of religion you must believe in free will or else the basis for your religion is gone.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Click to expand...

Hmmm. You know, when Tom Watson was making those runs at the leaderboard in majors from the last few years, I was really happy for him and wanted him to win, particularly in light of his battles with the 'yips'. He and Mac O'Grady were two high-profile cases of what O'Grady called focal dystonia, which manifested in the form of an inability to sink a short (3-foot) putt. Both of these men were pro golfers, among of the finest of their generation, and then one day each just became completely incapable of holing out from short distance: something they'd practiced for years on end and had previously been very proficient at. Watson eventually got his skill back, O'Grady never did (to my recollection).

I think that highlights some of the issues that surround the brain and why I'm reluctant to say that it's strictly governed by the laws of physics - I don't think it functions with the reliability of a switch or circuitboard: memories get lost, buried, distorted. Names come to mind, after the person has passed you by. Sometimes there's a cause, sometimes nothing can be found by the current technology.

You are not getting my point, and probably because I suck at explaining things. Too tired to try to explain it again.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

You are not getting my point, and probably because I suck at explaining things. Too tired to try to explain it again.

ha ha I wore you out.

...

Am I right in understanding your point as: thoughts and actions are completely governed by circumstances and chemisty, to a point to where we behave as though we're on rails and our behaviors can be predicted accurately given the environment we're in and our brain chemistry - thus no free will. Aberrations can be explained away through circumstances.

Is that a reasonable (if dumbed-down) summary?

(BTW - Toastmasters.)

It's a stretch to call Strauss American. He was educated entirely in Germany and didn't arrive here until he was nearly 40.

Originally Posted by Thomas

Click to expand...

ha ha I wore you out.

...

Am I right in understanding your point as: thoughts and actions are completely governed by circumstances and chemisty, to a point to where we behave as though we're on rails and our behaviors can be predicted accurately given the environment we're in and our brain chemistry - thus no free will. Aberrations can be explained away through circumstances.

Is that a reasonable (if dumbed-down) summary?

(BTW - Toastmasters.)

The key difference is I am not saying it can be predicted, at least not by humans. It is deterministic, but not predictable by any computer or human. If you understand my POV, you will understand why the Tom Watson example fits neatly within it.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

The key difference is I am not saying it can be predicted, at least not by humans. It is deterministic, but not predictable by any computer or human. If you understand my POV, you will understand why the Tom Watson example fits neatly within it.

How can you say deterministic without also being predictable? Shouldn't one follow the other, even in a simple gedanken experient?

Originally Posted by Thomas

Click to expand...

How can you say deterministic without also being predictable? Shouldn't one follow the other, even in a simple gedanken experient?

I wasn't clear. The way I was using those words, I meant:

Deterministic - In a million repeated runs of the same instance, the same thing would happen every time.

Predictable - able to be predicted by humans or technology that exists today.

My problem with the no free will argument is that you can be in the exact same position as you were a day ago and make a completely different decision. For instance, when I first sat down at my computer today, I checked styleforum first, before checking my emails. Tomorrow, I may check my email first. For these completely illogical, one or the other, pointless choices that really make no difference whatsoever, why would my physical makeup determine which I would choose, and why would it differ from day to day?

Originally Posted by origenesprit

Click to expand...

My problem with the no free will argument is that you can be in the exact same position as you were a day ago and make a completely different decision. For instance, when I first sat down at my computer today, I checked styleforum first, before checking my emails. Tomorrow, I may check my email first. For these completely illogical, one or the other, pointless choices that really make no difference whatsoever, why would my physical makeup determine which I would choose, and why would it differ from day to day?

You are completely not following the argument at all. Please re-read the OP and the cliff notes somebody posted afterwards. I don't mean this as an insult, only that I don't think you read the OP carefully.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

You are completely not following the argument at all. Please re-read the OP and the cliff notes somebody posted afterwards. I don't mean this as an insult, only that I don't think you read the OP carefully.

No, you're right- I didn't get past Thomas' initial response (which was similar to mine, the A vs B when neither really makes a difference) which I see you were not interested in. Will read through the rest and rethink.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

B = The brain is governed by laws of physics
You really need to show how that's true. Or more to the point, brain functioning may be, but you need to show how the mind (thoughts, feelings, motivations, etc.) is governed by laws of physics. It isn't and that's where your basic premise falls apart.

Originally Posted by origenesprit

Click to expand...

No, you're right- I didn't get past Thomas' initial response (which was similar to mine, the A vs B when neither really makes a difference) which I see you were not interested in. Will read through the rest and rethink.

Yeah, the difference would be that in the same instance (literally), you would act the same. Not necessarily in the same general situation. Of course this is nonprovable as we currently have no way of going back in time and testing it over and over at the same instance.

And don't get me started on the whole infinite parallel universes at every moment theory. Sheesh.

Originally Posted by MetroStyles

Click to expand...

I wasn't clear. The way I was using those words, I meant:

Deterministic - In a million repeated runs of the same instance, the same thing would happen every time.

Predictable - able to be predicted by humans or technology that exists today.

Hmmm, that's a hard thing to ponder, because there are too many variables to consider that affect a later outcome. Under those criteria predictability then becomes a near impossibility for the tools we have available to us: too many external stimuli to track, each with its own timeline for when it comes into play. Interactions between people, memories, childhood trauma, PTSD, too many visits to CE (but no need to be redundant here): those all have an effect on the decisions we make over the course of a day.

I was about to ask about decision fatigue, or the existential "f@&k it" that we all go through at times...and I suppose that could be a function of overload...hmmm, gets more interesting the more I think about it.

But, how do you account for, say, T4?

Originally Posted by Slickman

Click to expand...

Just cause they dont all say it exists in religion, doesn't make it true. Logically explain this to me, if you have a robot that you are controlling and you tell it to break a vase in your house, are you going to yell at it for breaking the vase, no because you are the one controlling it, the same way if you control the robot to mow your lawn, are you going to praise your robot for doing so? If you believe in the reward and punishment of religion you must believe in free will or else the basis for your religion is gone.

No.