Free will and quantum mechanics?
Peter Ericson
I'm thinking about writing a piece on free will and quantum mechanics (i.e.,
whether the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics could account for free will
given that we have one in the first place). I have read a couple of shorter
discussions on this topic, but I'm interested in your suggestions of books,
papers, articles, etc. that discuss free will and quantum mechanics. Also,
I'd like to know your opinion on the topic.
Thanks,
[--------------===|===--------------]
Peter Ericson
http://www.pericson.com/
[--------------===|===--------------]
"Anybody who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it."
--Niels Bohr
Immortalist
Peter Ericson <usenet...@pericson.com> wrote in message
news:urMI8.876$t4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
> Hello,
>
> I'm thinking about writing a piece on free will and quantum mechanics
(i.e.,
> whether the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics could account for free will
> given that we have one in the first place). I have read a couple of
shorter
> discussions on this topic, but I'm interested in your suggestions of
books,
> papers, articles, etc. that discuss free will and quantum mechanics. Also,
> I'd like to know your opinion on the topic.
>
Rabbits do it to, they have circuits in their brains that have the purpose
of randomizing movements so that animals following them can detect no
pattern and hence cannot catch them by predicting which way they will move
next.
In javscript we do this by the function
x=Math.random(1000);
which will return any number between 1 and 1000 but you must add the round()
or floor() or ceil() to get an integer with no decimal points.
Quantum indeterminancy may or may not have an influence on possible actions,
thoughts or movements, can take but circuits in the mammilian brain can do
so also.
Leonardo Dasso
"Peter Ericson" <usenet...@pericson.com> wrote in message
news:urMI8.876$t4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
>
> I'm thinking about writing a piece on free will and quantum mechanics
(i.e.,
> whether the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics could account for free
will
> given that we have one in the first place). I have read a couple of
shorter
> discussions on this topic, but I'm interested in your suggestions of
books,
> papers, articles, etc. that discuss free will and quantum mechanics.
Also,
> I'd like to know your opinion on the topic.
>
> Thanks,
>
perhaps unnecessary to write the piece. Furthermore, if -as it seems
from your post- you are not very familiar with the subject, why would
you want to write such a piece?
regards
leo
Dan Fake
news:urMI8.876$t4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
>
> I'm thinking about writing a piece on free will and quantum mechanics (i.e.,
> whether the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics could account for free will
> given that we have one in the first place). I have read a couple of shorter
> discussions on this topic, but I'm interested in your suggestions of books,
> papers, articles, etc. that discuss free will and quantum mechanics. Also,
> I'd like to know your opinion on the topic.
Quantum, Quantum, Wherefore Art Thou, Quantum?
(Top Posts - Science - 032501)
First off, thanks to "A Brief History of Science",
by John Gribbin, for most of the information referred
to in this post.
http://shop.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/ISBNinquiry.asp?isbn=0760710651
- - - - - - -
The world of the Very Very Very Very Very Tiny:
Quantum Physics refers to the theoretical world of the sub-
atomic and atomic realm.
How big a world is that?
Well, the largest atom is 0.0000005 mm across
(that's 5/10,000,000ths or 1/2,000,000ths of a mm across).
Put another way, 2 million of the largest atom would fit into a
millimeter.
Put another way, since an inch is 25.4 times larger than a milli-
meter, 50.8 million of the largest atom would fit into an inch.
So, we're talking a Very Very Very Very Very Tiny world here.
When it comes to anything quantum, any mention of quantum,
be it quantum physics or quantum theory, or quantum mechan-
ics, keep in mind you're talking about a Very Very Very Very
Very Tiny world, beyond which quantum theory does not apply
(not directly, anyway).
- - - - - - -
Free Will and the quantum world?
Excerpt from page 77 of "A Brief History of Science" ...
"Choreographers may not always like it, but individual human
beings have free will. We are free to make mistakes, or to follow
our own whims about what to wear. Some physicists believe that
free will can be traced back to the uncertainty built into the laws
of quantum mechanics."
This statement is accompanied by a drawing of 11 dancers,
10 with blonde hair, 1 with red hair, 10 not wearing glasses,
1 wearing glasses, 10 smiling, 1 smirking, 11 with a red outfit,
10 with red slippers, 1 with rather odd-looking blue shoes.
Another comment on the page refers to Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle in the following manner:
"Unfortunately many textbooks, even at university level, say
that the uncertainty is a result of our human limitations, and
the fact that our experiments cannot make measurements that
are sufficiently precise. This is not true! Uncertainty is a real
feature of the quantum world, and this is what makes the
quantum world run in accordance with the rules of probability."
My comments:
1) The statement that "some physicists believe...." leads one to
conclude that some physicists don't believe that free will can be
traced back to the uncertainty built into the laws of quantum
mechanics. I have yet to find anything that connects the world
of the Very Very Very Very Very Tiny (1/50.8 millionths of
an inch) to a free will philosophy in the macro world.
Any relation of the quantum world to anything of a philosophical
or theological nature outside of the quantum world is purely
conjecture free of evidence and will, in all likelihood, never be
proven (IMO).
2) The effort to connect the free will of humans to the uncertainty
in the world of the Very Very Very Very Very Tiny is flawed at
best and is not based on science but, instead, is based on the
desire of humans to perceive that they have free will (IMO).
From an old Newsweek article on scientists believing in a "per-
sonal God" (by Sharon Begley):
"... For Billy Crockett, president of Walking Angel Records
in Dallas, the discoveries of quantum mechanics that he reads
about in the paper reinforce his faith that 'there is a lot of mys-
tery in the nature of things.' For other believers, an appreciation
of science deepens faith. 'Science produces in me a tremendous
awe,' says Sister Mary White of the Benedictine Meditation
Center in St. Paul, Minn. 'Science and spirituality have a com-
mon quest, which is a quest for truth.' ..."
So, one must ask, why is "Quantum whatever" being used in
theoretical science in conjunction with the big bang, by some
Christians and some scientists to explain free will, by some
Christians to reinforce religious faith? Is "Quantum whatever"
whatever you want it to be or is it simply a basic building block
of matter, with its own rules separate from anything and every-
thing beyond its Very Very Very Very Very Tiny realm?
I suspect the latter is true.
- - - - - - -
Origins of Quantum Mechanics: From an article at
http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/quantum/inthebeginning.jsp
"ONCE upon a time, Newton prevailed, and the world was a safe
place for all of us. When you hit a plain, old-fashioned billiard ball,
you could predict how fast it would move and in what direction.
And when the billiard ball came to rest, you knew exactly where
it was. These simple notions seemed obvious, necessary even.
Most people believed that for physics to work, it had to be based
on such solid and unshakable foundations.
Then on 19 October 1900, physicist Max Planck made a ground-
breaking presentation to the German Physical Society. Planck
was a sober man and, at 42, a little long in the tooth for a revolu-
tionary. But his discovery was to turn the classical physics of the
billiard ball on its head."
Well, one of the reasons I posted this excerpt was that I was born
55 years to the day after Max Planck's ground-breaking presenta-
tion to the German Physical Society. Just a coincidence but in this
odd world of "Quantum whatever", I certainly got a kick out of that
fact.
Also of note, the physics of a billiard ball are in no way impacted
by "Quantum whatever" (just for the record).
- - - - - - -
And It Gets Even Tinier: From "A Brief History of Science", page
81, "... atoms are mostly empty space, with the mass concen-
trated in a tiny central nucleus."
From "A Brief History of Science", page 84, "... theorists are now
developing models that describe the entities we used to think of
as particles in terms of tiny loops of vibrating material, prosaic-
ally dubbed 'string'. These loops would be incredibly tiny. It would
take a hundred billion billion of them to stretch across a single
proton, so there is no hope of probing them directly by experi-
ments."
- - - - - - -
Albert Einstein's comments: From an article (Is QM a Complete
Theory) at http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-5.html :
"Einstein did not believe that God plays dice and thought a more
complete theory would predict the actual outcome of experiments.
He argued that quantities that are conserved absolutely (such as
momentum or energy) must correspond to some objective element
of physical reality. Because QM does not model this he felt it must
be incomplete. It is possible that events are the result of objective
physical processes that we do not yet understand. ..."
- - - - - - -
Quantum Theory or Quantum Fact? : From an article at
http://www.mtnmath.com/faq/meas-qm-14.html :
"There is a certain Alice in Wonderland quality to arguments on
these issues. Many physicists claim that classical mathematics
does not apply to some aspects of quantum mechanics, yet there
is no other mathematics. The wave function model is a classical
causal deterministic model. The computation of probabilities from
that model is as well. The aspect of quantum mechanics that one
can claim lies outside of classical mathematics is the interpreta-
tion of those probabilities. ..."
- - - - - - -
Conclusion:
Whenever you read about "Quantum whatever", keep in mind
you're talking about the world of the Very Very Very Very Very
Tiny, a world with its own rules apart from those generally recog-
nized in the macro world.
You're talking about a world which cannot be measured in a stan-
dard way because any standard measurement method directly
impacts that world (i.e., the world of atoms cannot be measured
directly as any direct atomic measurement causes atoms to re-
spond to the method used to measure them; the only thing that
can be measured in the atomic world is the movement of parti-
cles; the direct state of any particle cannot be measured at any
point in time).
Whenever you read something of a philosophical or theological
nature trying to relate a "Quantum whatever" with the macro
world, take it with a Very Very Very Very Very Tiny quantum
portion of a grain of salt, for whatever that's worth.
- - - - - - -
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Dan Fake, Pro-Humanist FREELOVER
(Freethinking Realist Exploring Expressive
Liberty, Openness, Verity, Enlightenment,
& Rationality)
http://danfake.home.att.net
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Immortalist
Leonardo Dasso <Lda...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:ad0ggo$t9mq2$1...@ID-102497.news.dfncis.de...
Trial and error processes require some sort of feedback and then
modification and further feedback and so on... which is the essence of
learning.... for what? who knows
> regards
> leo
>
>
Mike Dubbeld
Hi Peter,
My point of view is from Yoga. Only from the perspective of the mind
do 'we' have free will. The soul - created in the image of God is
all-knowing. Because the mind does not know the future it appears to
be making choices. So from the perspective of the mind we have free
will. Society/Government and the Christian Church all in a sense
'bank' on the notion of free will. If someone commits a crime and are
found guilty they go to jail. No one says 'Well he was going to do this
anyway' and take no action because the perpetrator did not have free
will. So you can say from a practical standpoint free will exists.
Free will became a major issue in the West due to the Church and
its dealings with witch's/witch-burnings. People accused of witchcraft
entered a pact with the devil 'pactus implictum' I believe. The Church
deemed people had a choice in dealing with the devil. Free will never
became an issue in the East at all. In Yoga and most Eastern religions
the Law of Karma is found along with transmigration of the soul/
reincarnation. This law says that all actions result in causes and death
only delays the actions which will have to be brought about in the next
incarnation. You are the creator of all you attract - everything you have
done has led to what you are doing this very instant. The same is true
for everyone and everything at every point in time. The mind only
appears to be making choices because it does not know the future.
Either way -with or without free will it changes nothing. Whatever
transpires has already been determined long ago. All things are known
to a soul liberated from nature. The past, present and future are an
open book for the Enlightened. From the time of Plato onward
in the West the soul has been mistakenly identified with "the rational
principle."
My sources on this for witchcraft The Teaching Company audio/CD
course Great Ideas of Philosophy and Great Ideas of Psychology by
Professor Daniel Robinson Georgetown University. The Yoga part
try 'Yoga the Ultimate Spiritual Path' by Swami Rajarshi Muni or
'Meditation and Mantras' by Swami VishnuDevananda or for a scholarly
work that includes a vast array yogic ideas 'The Yoga Tradition' by
Georg Feuerstein (no e on the end of Georg).
From Quantum Reality by Nick Herbert -
A visitor to Niels Bohr's country cottage asked him about a horseshoe
nailed above the front door. "Surely, Professor Bohr, you do not really
believe that a horseshoe over the entrance to a home brings good luck?"
"No," answered Bohr, "I certainly do not believe in superstition. But
you know," he added, "they say it brings luck even if you don't believe
in it."
Mike Dubbeld
"Peter Ericson" <usenet...@pericson.com> wrote in message
news:urMI8.876$t4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
1Z
> Also,
> I'd like to know your opinion on the topic.
My opinion is that QM removes the major objections to FW without
providing a positive reason to believe in FW -- if one is needed.
For an overview, see:-
http://www.geocities.com/peterdjones
It is particularly important to realise that QM disproves the
usual concept of determinism without actually proving randomness.
Leonardo Dasso
"Immortalist" <Reanima...@yaho.com> wrote in message
news:uf7j641...@corp.supernews.com...
Of course, learning is indeed a worthy aim. However, I find the
intention to write an article about something one knows little about
rather puzzling.
regards
leo
Leonardo Dasso
"Mike Dubbeld" <mi...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:ad0j5f$s6t$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> My point of view is from Yoga.
Please, not the yoga spiel again.
regards
leo
Mike Dubbeld
I agree with Einstein/the Realists. Quantum Theorie(s) are simply
missing something and it may be Gravity and it may be other
dimensions but it will be modeled mechanisticly someday.
"The waveform-attribute connection is without a doubt one of quantum
theory's most unusual features. It seems natural to associate a wave with
each quan since quans show some wavelike aspects. But how can we
justify the association of abstract waveforms with mechanical attributes?"
"What in the world does a momentum have to do with sine waves?"
Nick Herbert Quantum Mechanics p104 The static and dynamic waveform
attribute properties of quans is well known. But there is no real
explanation behind waveform attributes of those properties let alone
the relationship of one to the other. But it is a theory that has a perfect
score ---
"With each success Quantum Theory became more audacious. Quantum
physicists looking for new worlds to conquer turned their sights to the
macrocosm, and now dare to model the birth of the universe itself as one
gigantic quantum jump. Heaping success upon success, quantum theory
boldly exposes itself to potential falsification on a thousand different
fronts. Its record is impressive: quantum theory passes every test we can
devise. After sixty years of play, this theory is still batting a thousand."
QR p94
Nick Herbert Thinking allowed Mishlove Interview:
http://www.intuition.org/txt/herbert.htm
http://www.levity.com/mavericks/herbert.htm another interview
Chapters 1 and 2 with 8 prevalent QM Interpretations.
http://www.kingsu.ab.ca/~brian/templeton/quantum.htm
Quantum theory will likely be explained in terms of symmetry and
the harmony found in music. Other dimensions are involved I believe
also. The whole univese is nothing but vibrations or forces and
interactions between forces. Fermions and Bosons.
Irregardless what is found in QM it will not likely change anything
on the issue of free will. It will likely open up as many or more
questions as it answers. Connecting QM to consciousness is a
separate issue.
Mike Dubbeld
"Dan Fake" <dan...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:hIPI8.10107$UT.6...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Malenor
"Peter Ericson" <usenet...@pericson.com> wrote in message
news:urMI8.876$t4....@nntpserver.swip.net...
>
> I'm thinking about writing a piece on free will and quantum mechanics
(i.e.,
> whether the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics could account for free will
> given that we have one in the first place). I have read a couple of
shorter
> discussions on this topic, but I'm interested in your suggestions of
books,
> papers, articles, etc. that discuss free will and quantum mechanics. Also,
> I'd like to know your opinion on the topic.
>
have free will.
Timo K
> Hello,
>
> I'm thinking about writing a piece on free will and quantum mechanics
> (i.e., whether the indeterminacy of quantum mechanics could account for
> free will given that we have one in the first place). I have read a couple
> of shorter discussions on this topic, but I'm interested in your
> suggestions of books, papers, articles, etc. that discuss free will and
> quantum mechanics. Also, I'd like to know your opinion on the topic.
>
> Thanks,
>
The problem that stays with free will:
When making decision, consious or not, man compares different choises, and
chooses the winner of the comparison (according to hes knowledge and
experiense about the choises).
Man always chooses the choise best by the comparison, the option that he
wants most, he can not choose anything else.
The option that man chooses, depens totally on the knogledge he has about
the options.
Now even if QM would provide randomness to the world (which I believe is a
matter impossible to prove, atleast by today) , how would this help?
If your decision would be random, then its not free will, its randomness,
"random will".
If "free will" would mean possibility to choose option other than the
"best", why would man do that?
And wouldn't such men, if ever existed, would have dissapeared in evolution
giving way to people with no free will who choose always the best options.
Can anyone give me a single example where man chooses something else than
the winner of the comparison in hes brains? ,which result depens on hes
knowledge and past experience, which he can not choose himself.
If man can't choose something else than what he most wants, he has no free
will.
Timo K
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> My point of view is from Yoga. Only from the perspective of the mind
> do 'we' have free will. The soul - created in the image of God is
> all-knowing. Because the mind does not know the future it appears to
> be making choices. So from the perspective of the mind we have free
> will. Society/Government and the Christian Church all in a sense
> 'bank' on the notion of free will. If someone commits a crime and are
> found guilty they go to jail. No one says 'Well he was going to do this
> anyway' and take no action because the perpetrator did not have free
> will.
In a civilised country, the sentence is not given to punish, or as a
revenge, its given as a deterrant and a warning example for others.
> So you can say from a practical standpoint free will exists.
Men are externally free to choose what they want.
But even a computer can be externally free to do what it wants.
Changes in external variables change behaviour of both.
But for "free will" one also has to be internally free to choose.
Law system doesn't require internal freedom or free will to work, it is
based on external freedom.
Wordsmith
Personal and social evolution?
W ;)
Immortalist
Wordsmith <word...@rocketmail.com> wrote in message
news:cddcc385.02052...@posting.google.com...
ya!
Trial and error processes require some sort of feedback and then
modification and further feedback and so on... which is the essence of
learning.... for (Personal and social evolution).
> W ;)
Immortalist
Timo K <n...@mail.fi> wrote in message
news:gj1J8.332$z6.8...@reader1.news.jippii.net...
isnt that like saying that human cant make any decision without his body
bein on em and can somebody show me and example of someone making an
decision without thier body?
If any decision about possible choices is a result of what turns out to be
the strongest motive it does not follow that this alone is grounds for the
assertion that the person could have chose otherwise. The free choice part
comes before the strongest motive occurs.
Dont know if I support that just checking the logic bro.
>
Mike Dubbeld
> Mike Dubbeld wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > My point of view is from Yoga. Only from the perspective of the mind
> > do 'we' have free will. The soul - created in the image of God is
> > all-knowing. Because the mind does not know the future it appears to
> > be making choices. So from the perspective of the mind we have free
> > will. Society/Government and the Christian Church all in a sense
> > 'bank' on the notion of free will. If someone commits a crime and are
> > found guilty they go to jail. No one says 'Well he was going to do this
> > anyway' and take no action because the perpetrator did not have free
> > will.
>
> In a civilised country, the sentence is not given to punish, or as a
> revenge, its given as a deterrant and a warning example for others.
>
No it is given to punish. The example is the punishment you are just
playing with words. Ask someone in for 10 years if they prefer to call it an
example or punishment. When you did something wrong in your family did your
parents say 'Now we are going to set an example' or tell you of your
punishment? What if there was no one except you as the only child? Then I
guess there would be no need to set any examples and since punishment would
be 'uncivilized' I guess you could get away with murder. Furthermore and
more important the punishment entails removing or
diminishing the perpetrator's capability to act in the same way again. It is
true what you say/revenge is wrong however the meaning is blurred
simply because irregardless what you call it 'something bad happens' and
people lose sight of what you say. (revenge is wrong you are quite right)
>
> > So you can say from a practical standpoint free will exists.
>
> Men are externally free to choose what they want.
> But even a computer can be externally free to do what it wants.
'Men' never have or ever will perform a free act. The appearance of
freedom belongs to the mind/ego only.
>
> Changes in external variables change behaviour of both.
Changes occur. But not as is not known to God or the free soul.
All things at all times are known to God and the soul. The mind/ego
are unaware of what changes will occur/can not know the future.
The future is a dream just as the past.
>
> But for "free will" one also has to be internally free to choose.
And that one is called a 'mind/ego'
>
> Law system doesn't require internal freedom or free will to work, it is
> based on external freedom.
If 'men' (minds) did not have free will - how could they be held accountable
for their actions. This is the argument the Church used
in conjunction with 'Pactus Implicitus'/Pact with the devil. The
Church decided free will had to exist/'men' (minds) were given the
opportunity to take up with the devil or not. They did so by free will
and so could be held responsible for their decisions. But I believe
that by burning them at the stake the witch could be saved. Hence the
expression 'Let us burn the witches to save them.' The Church bought
into the notion of free will from Plato and Augustine and Aquinas
and others notion of the 'Rational Principle' being associated with
the soul. They were mistaken. The soul has no need of the rational
principle at all. It uses intuition which is far superior to reason.
Unlike reason, intuition does not operate in time and space and is
not subject to the laws of nature. Reason can not look into the future
because it is part of the universe itself/subject to its laws. Yoga
teaches the means to free oneself from nature. The means to do this
is by learning concentration and meditation which in turn lead to
samadhi and Enlightenment/Liberation (from nature).
Mike Dubbeld
>
>
Adrian Durham
*snip*
>If man can't choose something else than what he most wants, he has no free
>will.
I believe that a man can only choose that which he most wants. And,
in fact, it is in principle possible to predict precisely the choice
he will make. Not only that, but I also do not think that uncertianty
is an inherent part of the universe, like a physical phenomenon. In
fact, I do not think that such a thing is possible, but that is
another story.
The point I was going to make was that regardless of the determinism
in the universe, there is still "free will". More precisely people
have wills -- that one chooses to look at them as "free" or not is
irrelevant. As for the moral issue lurking behind the issue of
whether or not one's will is "free", it has less to do with one being
an uncaused cause and more to do with how much the causes of one's
actions are internal (regardless of whether or not the causes of those
causes are external). And, by "internal", I mean internal to their
*mind*, not their body. (And, by "mind", I do not mean "soul" or
"spirit" or any other such metaphysical thing.)
As an analogy, you might have a software package. If this software
package causes page faults and what not, then we think the software is
defective. If you go into the source code and change it so that it
causes those errors, then we do not think that it is an issue with the
software, but rather with your sabotage of it. We do not imagine that
the software cannot possibly cause errors since it is not an uncaused
cause or some such other thing. And we do not say that it wasn't the
program that caused the page faults but rather the programmer that
programmed it, though in some sense that is true. And so it is with
the moral issues surrounding the idea of "free will". And without
those issues, the issue of "free will" is dead.
andy-k
news:3cf5a00d...@news-server.wi.rr.com...
>
> I believe that a man can only choose that which he most wants. And,
> in fact, it is in principle possible to predict precisely the choice
> he will make.
You sound like a determinist Adrian.
> The point I was going to make was that regardless of the determinism
> in the universe, there is still "free will".
Now you sound like a libertarian.
> More precisely people
> have wills -- that one chooses to look at them as "free" or not is
> irrelevant.
Now you sound like you're agnostic on the issue of whether or not there is
any free aspect to the will.
> As for the moral issue lurking behind the issue of
> whether or not one's will is "free", it has less to do with one being
> an uncaused cause and more to do with how much the causes of one's
> actions are internal (regardless of whether or not the causes of those
> causes are external). And, by "internal", I mean internal to their
> *mind*, not their body. (And, by "mind", I do not mean "soul" or
> "spirit" or any other such metaphysical thing.)
What distinction (if any) would you make between "mind" and "self"?
Peter Ericson
the subject is to learn more about it and reach a well-grounded position on
it.
I haven't settled on the issue of free will yet, but I'm more of a
disbeliever than a believer. Though we may not be mechanistic in the
"normal" definition of the word, I believe that we are influenced by so many
things (the environment, our thoughts, how we were raised, etc.) that even
if we had free will, we probably wouldn't use it.
Peter
"andy-k" <and...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:jejJ8.8797$g63.1...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net...
Timo K
>>
>>
>> If man can't choose something else than what he most wants, he has no
>> free will.
>>
>
> isnt that like saying that human cant make any decision without his body
> bein on em and can somebody show me and example of someone making an
> decision without thier body?
>
> If any decision about possible choices is a result of what turns out to be
> the strongest motive it does not follow that this alone is grounds for the
> assertion that the person could have chose otherwise. The free choice part
> comes before the strongest motive occurs.
>
> Dont know if I support that just checking the logic bro.
>
Ok, I say it other way.
Man wants what is the winner of the comparison - based on knowledge.
Now the decision is fully based on knowledge, where is the free will?
If you have to move to house A or B, which one you choose?
What can free will do? Nothing. You need to have information about A and B,
and then you compare that information and choose the one ending more on
plus side.
But your comment was good, I realise its hard for me to fit free will on
"right place", as I don't see any place where free will could fit in.
How about this: Does free will somehow use knowledge or not?
If it does, then how does it differ from evaluating the pros and cons?
Immortalist
hmmm, gotta think about that one, but I used to say "free will is an
instinct who's assembly is directed by DNA and social learning. Instincts
man use your instincts and choose the channel you want to watch, I know
there are only this many channels on the tv, coose one"
but lately I would say that you couldn't isolate it down to one variable,
its like the movements of a flock of birds, their local decision about
relations to each othe sums into and mob of birds seeming to act as one
thing. The flock or combined activities decide and it is much more than
picking A and B more like an commitee constantly altering probabilities by
updating flows of information...
Jay Vogelsong
and put them in prison have no free will either. It therefore makes no
sense to even argue such points unless people really do have free will.
I personally like to think people have *relatively* free will, and the
amount of free will they express varies from time to time. If one is
under the compulsion of bad habits, one may have lost one's free will,
but that does not mean one did not have a choice in developing such
habits.
If people are under the compulsion of certain belief systems, they may
have a very hard time reconsidering them.
Jay Vogelsong
> Thank you for your replies! The reason for my thinking about writing about
> the subject is to learn more about it and reach a well-grounded position on
> it.
>
> I haven't settled on the issue of free will yet, but I'm more of a
> disbeliever than a believer. Though we may not be mechanistic in the
> "normal" definition of the word, I believe that we are influenced by so many
> things (the environment, our thoughts, how we were raised, etc.) that even
> if we had free will, we probably wouldn't use it.
"Free will" doesn't mean we can choose anything, only that we have
choice. Even if we are presented with only two alternatives, we are
still able to choose. There does not seem to be any absolute free will,
but their does not seem to be any absolute determism either.
However, since people like to over-simplify (it's easier), they often
prefer one of the extreme positions on the matter.
Quantum mechanics says even the material world is uncertain beyond a
point, and is run by probabilities rather than fixed outcomes. This is
really nothing new, just a statement of common sense IMO.
Mike Dubbeld
"Jay Vogelsong" <nob...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:MPG.176102dea...@cnews.newsguy.com...
> If people who commit crimes have no free will, the people who catch them
> and put them in prison have no free will either. It therefore makes no
> sense to even argue such points unless people really do have free will.
People as minds appear to have it. In reality there is no such thing. Either
way it is usless to even bother with.
>
> I personally like to think people have *relatively* free will, and the
> amount of free will they express varies from time to time. If one is
> under the compulsion of bad habits, one may have lost one's free will,
> but that does not mean one did not have a choice in developing such
> habits.
>
> If people are under the compulsion of certain belief systems, they may
> have a very hard time reconsidering them.
It is one thing to believe something on faith. Quite another on personal
experience.
Mike Dubbeld
Adrian Durham
But here is one to try to keep from being totally rude.
On Thu, 30 May 2002 07:02:22 +0100, "andy-k" <and...@ntlworld.com>
wrote:
>Adrian Durham <adu...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:3cf5a00d...@news-server.wi.rr.com...
>>
>> I believe that a man can only choose that which he most wants. And,
>> in fact, it is in principle possible to predict precisely the choice
>> he will make.
>
>You sound like a determinist Adrian.
>
>
>
>> The point I was going to make was that regardless of the determinism
>> in the universe, there is still "free will".
>
>Now you sound like a libertarian.
>
I am a compatibilist.
>
>
>> More precisely people
>> have wills -- that one chooses to look at them as "free" or not is
>> irrelevant.
>
>Now you sound like you're agnostic on the issue of whether or not there is
>any free aspect to the will.
>
Well, it is not agnosticism so much as a brouder view than just the
issue of "free will" that adheres to the position of "free will" in
some cases and that of "determinism" in others. More specifically, I
am morally speaking an adherent of "free will" but metaphysically
speaking an adherent of (strict) "determinism". And of course,
entailed in such a position is that the term "free will" means
something different in either case.
>
>
>> As for the moral issue lurking behind the issue of
>> whether or not one's will is "free", it has less to do with one being
>> an uncaused cause and more to do with how much the causes of one's
>> actions are internal (regardless of whether or not the causes of those
>> causes are external). And, by "internal", I mean internal to their
>> *mind*, not their body. (And, by "mind", I do not mean "soul" or
>> "spirit" or any other such metaphysical thing.)
>
>What distinction (if any) would you make between "mind" and "self"?
>
>
Well, they are technically different objects, but to answer your
question, I would claim that we are our minds as opposed to our
brains. The "self" is (we are) completely contained in our mind.
But, I would caution anyone reading that not to construe it as a
belief in our having a disembodied soul or a spirit. I am merely
making the same distinction one makes by identifying the music coming
out of a radio from the radio, itself, or the air -- the medium it
travels in.
andy-k
rebuttal -- I'm just attempting to get a handle on your point of view.
Adrian Durham <adu...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3cfd508e...@news-server.wi.rr.com...
>
> >> I believe that a man can only choose that which he most wants. And,
> >> in fact, it is in principle possible to predict precisely the choice
> >> he will make.
> >
> >You sound like a determinist Adrian.
> >
> >> The point I was going to make was that regardless of the determinism
> >> in the universe, there is still "free will".
> >
> >Now you sound like a libertarian.
>
> I am a compatibilist.
Some concepts are clearly defined and others are not. An example of the
former would be "unique" -- I often hear the expression "almost unique"
which is a self-contradiction. I tend to regard the freedom/determinism
question as just as well-defined, and so any claim that freedom is not
incompatible with determinism seems inconsistent to me. What reasons are
there to regard the freedom/determinism question as *not* a well-defined
problem?
> >> More precisely people
> >> have wills -- that one chooses to look at them as "free" or not is
> >> irrelevant.
> >
> >Now you sound like you're agnostic on the issue of whether or not there
> >is any free aspect to the will.
>
> Well, it is not agnosticism so much as a brouder view than just the
> issue of "free will" that adheres to the position of "free will" in
> some cases and that of "determinism" in others. More specifically, I
> am morally speaking an adherent of "free will" but metaphysically
> speaking an adherent of (strict) "determinism". And of course,
> entailed in such a position is that the term "free will" means
> something different in either case.
You seem to be claiming that metaphysically everything is causally
determined, but also that there is an aspect of our behaviour that is not
causally determined. Why is this not a contradiction?
> >> As for the moral issue lurking behind the issue of
> >> whether or not one's will is "free", it has less to do with one being
> >> an uncaused cause and more to do with how much the causes of one's
> >> actions are internal (regardless of whether or not the causes of those
> >> causes are external). And, by "internal", I mean internal to their
> >> *mind*, not their body. (And, by "mind", I do not mean "soul" or
> >> "spirit" or any other such metaphysical thing.)
> >
> >What distinction (if any) would you make between "mind" and "self"?
>
> Well, they are technically different objects, but to answer your
> question, I would claim that we are our minds as opposed to our
> brains. The "self" is (we are) completely contained in our mind.
Are you claiming that the self is a subset of the contents of mind?
> But, I would caution anyone reading that not to construe it as a
> belief in our having a disembodied soul or a spirit. I am merely
> making the same distinction one makes by identifying the music coming
> out of a radio from the radio, itself, or the air -- the medium it
> travels in.
Are you subscribing to substance dualism here?