Don't we just execute programs? Free will is an illusion.

Re: Don't we just execute programs? Free will is an illusion


Would an affirmative answer to this question have a different effect on the way you live your life than a negative answer? Would either answer, if it turned out to be true, change the way you live your life at all? Just curious.

aperson

Yes, free will is an illusion. So it it's counterpart determinism. They are merely two sides of the same coin if you chose to look at the world non-dualistically.

So it might be that we just 'execute programs'.
But shapeless asks a good queston. Would knowing that this was so (if it was) change anything?

This topic has been discussed ad infinitum and as nauseam on other threads in the past. Define 'life'. Define 'free will' in the context that you are using the expression. Certainly humans have the power to make some choices. Do viruses? Do bacteria? What is 'free will' to you? (Btw, religion has nothing to do with it. The question is fundamentally philosophical; bringing theology into it would only muddy the waters.)

As Merry Andrew said, whether human beings possess "free will" depends on your definition. IMO, most of us do have free will, but in varying degrees since it is affected by mental ability, social conditioning, and age.

Robots and lower animals without limbic systems in their brains cannot make decisions based on feelings but can only react as programmed. Programs (or instincts which are the biological equivalent) produce a specific and immediate output for a given input.

Our brains, however, have the ability to generate a state of consciousness which allows us to delay and modify instinctive/programmed responses. Our brians do not produce an immutable output because pre-existing decision-making pathways (neural networks) can be altered by the decision-making process itself. Every time we think about something, we strengthen or diminish the synaptic connections involved and may even make new ones.

Consciousness allows us to analyze the situation, recall past experiences in similar situations, generate possible responses, predict the positive and negative effects of each alternative course of action, consider ramifications of actions and reactions, imagine how we (and others whose needs and feelings we care about) will feel as a result, assign weights to every aspect of the outcome, and choose the best course of action to produce the desired result.

We may dither when we cannot decide on the value to assign to conflicting interests or do not have sufficient data to predict future outcomes with sufficient confidence. We may question our own motives and do some soul-searching before deciding. We may choose non-optimal actions if the dominant part of our brain gives more weight to biological urges vs intellect, the desire for immediate gratification vs long-term good, or the desire to help (or hurt) others vs self-interest. We may even allow the desire for social approval (which affects self-esteem and attractiveness to potential mates) to outweigh everything else .

Some people, whether due to biological makeup, training, or self-determination, are able to override instincts and do what they "know" is right. Others do not seem to be able to do so. Do you think that some people are endowed with more free will than others, or is it something that everyone has but some "choose" not to use? If someone smokes, overeats, or molests children while admitting that they "know" they shouldn't, are they exercising free will to make bad choices or unwillingly following predetermined programming?

Thanks all.

Shapeless and Cyracuz,
Hell no, but if you don't want to delve into the utterly useless philosophical questions of life, then you shouldn't have posted in the first place. I think it's important to ask yourself about this stuff. If scientists "proved" that free will is an illusion, the law in terms of crime and punishment would/should not change. Just because you were always bound to murder Jimmy, doesn't mean you're not guilty of doing so.

Terry and Andy,
If I made two identical universes, and free will was existent (and chaotic theory thingamabobby was not), then the two universes should come out completely differently. This is the sort of free will that I am talking about. To me, having the ability to make choices is very different to having free will. You can "choose" to murder Jimmy, but that doesn't mean that you had the ability to choose not to once the choice has been made (sorry if I'm not explaining this well; try to make sense it).

Life, I have already defined. Life is the term people use to make animals and people more special than a rock or star. What I'm saying is that we have defined the line between life and, uh, non-life; that we have created the group called "life". It's sort of like "planets". What is a planet and what is not is up to us to decide. There is no clear line. When defining hydrogen from helium there is.

People might say that God made life and birdies and woof-woofs and that they are very special and one of God's creatures and that rocks are not one of Gods creatures. (Personally I think my pet rock Woody is one of God's creatures but hey, that's not up to me to decide.

What makes feeling and emotions more "important" than logic? Of course naturally we as humans think that "thinking" and "feeling" are two separate things (as is evident from the ancient belief that emotions came from a different organ than thoughts), but in reality emotions are just thought processes in the brain.

If we all make decisions according to processes ("analyze the situation, recall past experiences in similar situations, generate possible responses, predict the positive and negative effects of each alternative course of action, consider ramifications of actions and reactions, imagine how we (and others whose needs and feelings we care about) will feel as a result, assign weights to every aspect of the outcome, and choose the best course of action to produce the desired result."), then what makes you think that if we rewound time the outcome would be different? The processes have not changed. The situation has not changed. Surely we would make the same decision?

Free will is an illusion.

I'm surprised that you say this, Aperson. Your postings are usually intelligent and thoughtful, but this statement strikes me as a plea for willful ignorance. If you had a question about the premise behind someone's posting, would you feel obliged to remain silent about it?

Anyway, I tend to regard the proposition "Free will is an illusion" the same way I regard "Your whole life could be a dream" or "The universe might be someone's science experiment." None of those can ever be wrong; consequently, it doesn't mean much to assert that they're right. They're just ways of applying different vocabulary to the same (unchangeable) thing.

Oh, but I do. And so I did.

I like to come up for air now and then, that's all...

That would be true of Tom Cruise and John Travolta if they have obtained "Clear" status. It's actually the reason I'd prefer to keep the glitches. :wink:

Shapeless,
I'm sorry, you are right.

I agree with you on the bit about not being able to prove or disprove these theories, but the difference is that at least with free will we can work out through logic the most likely answer.

It's interesting that you should bring up these two conjectures. I have thought over both "life could just be a dream" and "the universe could be a scientific experiment", and even written short stories based on them. The thing is we can just use Occam's razor.

The problem lies in the verification of either thesis.

Free will or not, there is no way of establishing what we govern/governs us.

"Free will" is a social convention utilised in the regulation of human relationships, including internal conversations of "self with self".It is reified by the legal system.

Those who wish to use the term "illusion" need to examine those particular contexts in which that term would have impact, for example in religion with respect to "relationship with a deity". IMO its use does not necessarily imply the null or alternative hypothesis of "mechanical determinism" because this involves other equally philosophical murky areas like "causality" and "reductionism". The concept of "an event" may also need careful analysis in as much that the segmentation of "reality" is a precondition for the assumption of "non-reality" (=illusion).

Sorry what's "IMO"? I've seen it a couple of times here and there but I don't know what it means.

IMO=In my opinion

IMHO= In my humble opinion

BTW= By the way

While you're at it... I've seen people say "bm"... What's that?

I would say that no matter what the answer is, there's very little free will at best: genes and the environment determine how we end up and what decisions we make - that's what really governs us.

We are biological robots.

bm=bookmark (used to monitor a thread without making a specific reply)

c-logic,

To "govern" implies "control". The pseudo-problem is whether we may be genetically predisposed to say choosing tea over coffee, but the real issue whether "choice" matters at all. This is why the "event window" is important because what appears to be "choice" for a particular "event" may considered as pre-destined by other factors observed by widening the window. This widening is exactly what skilful defense lawyers do in mitigation of a client's actions. It is in these particular contexts (legal etc) that choice "matters". In the case of tea/coffee nobody cares sufficiently to do the widening.

Cool, that makes more sense. I looked up "bm" a while ago on an acronym website, and the definition was "bowel movement".
I wasn't sure what to think of it...



So what so you think about humans as biological "robots"? To what exent do you personally think people have (or are capable of having) free will?

Terry's first post expressed best for me. We have free will up to limits imposed by our genes and environment.

I think it's more reasonable to state it the other way around:
"We are solely controlled by our genes and environment, unless there is a small influence of free will, if any."

We already know that genes and the environment are an enormous influence on human beings.
Free will is a concept that's being highly debated.