By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - How to disprove free will using basic logic

 

Do you agree with me?

Yes 9 12.00%
 
No. You are wrong but I can't prove it 11 14.67%
 
No. You are wrong and I w... 25 33.33%
 
I'm just confused... 10 13.33%
 
See results 20 26.67%
 
Total:75
Netyaroze on 16 April 2012
Jay520 said:
I'm not too familar with quantum effects so I won't debate that. It just doesn't seem possible that are brains form in a way other than the two ways I listed.


I agree with point 1 and 2 but still doesnt mean we dont have a free will. If there is a uncertainty principle in our brains we can come to different conclusions each time. Particles on quantum level are said to take every possible path. And we just get to see one result. Thats why they look random to us. The other results are seen in another reality. That means you ultimatively took every possible decision each time somewhere. 

An interesting fact is reality is influenced by  the concious mind. If you watch something or not makes a difference on how lifeless stuff behaves.

 

We cant answer the question if we have a free will or not. Not without understanding how the world even works. We know the basics but the truth is Humans just dont get the reality yet. I am not satisfied with maybe explanations tbh. Thats why I gave up on thinking to know the truth about questions like this.



Around the Network
Netyaroze on 16 April 2012
Sal.Paradise said:
Netyaroze said:
Sal.Paradise said:

Quantum effects are only significant on a microscopic level. On a macroscopic level their effects are 'averaged out' in the thermodynamic/entropic soup, thus we have common properties for materials etc etc.

Translated: I don't think quantum theories are significant enough in this debate, but that I haven't really read much on that strand of the issue. 


Several hypotheses have the brain working with quantum effects:

 

http://machineslikeus.com/testable-quantum-effects-in-the-brain.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_brain_dynamics

But aslong as we dont have a theory for everything in physics and know how the brain works. Its all just guessing. Nobody has the slightest idea if we have a free will or not. There are so many holes in the knowledge about us and the universe that a fundamental question like this cant possibly be answered.

 

Hm, those theories seem in their infancy but it's very nice to know about them, thankyou! Quantum really does pop up everywhere. 

And I completely agree with you, the question is unanswerable, and so we need to simply assume that our internal thoughts are our own in order to keep a sense of moral responsibility in society.

The concept of 'Free Will' is an anthropocentric concept anyway, so as long as we all act according to our internal desires we can be considered free. 


Those are not even theorys yet too much stuff we dont know. 

I agree with how you think about the matter. Its the "healthiest" way for our society to think about it.



antunesaa on 17 April 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
pezus said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


I have said a few times that I don't actually believe in randomness (but had to include it as it's still possible through quantum mechanics). So, no.

Exactly. Now, let's all get back to what we were doing. This thread will get us nowhere, as it's impossible to prove or disprove anything concerning free will and such. It's a bit like a discussion about a god's existence.


The whole point though is that it doesn't matter if everything is determined or random since both cases would mean that you don't have a free will, as explained in the OP.


You realize that, if true, the impossibility of choosing between alternatives implies that you have no reason, right? Unless you're prepared to assume a magical law that forces material processes in your brains to engender true thoughts. But even the "assume" part is tricky because it suggests free will... And the "magical" part is probably more unpalatable to you than the existence of a mind out of space and time whose thoughts have made free will possible, aka God or whatever people have called it.



Dr.Grass on 17 April 2012
Jereel Hunter said:
I suggest everyone use their free will and bail from this discussion. The argument is entirely flawed.


Agreed. It's just word jugglery. And poor word jugglery at that.



Dr.Grass on 17 April 2012

The OP leaves no room for a definition of 'free will'.

Therefore any argument based on the OP is pointless. You must first define it. The problem comes in that free will is directly related to consciousness. Since there is absolutely no framework in modern science that can accommodate consciousness, the argument is pointless from a mechanistic point of view.

If you believe there is only mechanistic laws, random fluctuations and the combination of the two, then the very existence of an 'observer' - i.e. you - is illusion.

Going down the route of saying the complexity of our neural networks leads to the emergence of consciousness implies that the exact same phenomena can be simulated in a computer program. I am eagerly awaiting the day when a computer program becomes aware of itself to the extent we are - it won't happen.



Around the Network
IIIIITHE1IIIII on 17 April 2012
antunesaa said:
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:


The whole point though is that it doesn't matter if everything is determined or random since both cases would mean that you don't have a free will, as explained in the OP.


You realize that, if true, the impossibility of choosing between alternatives implies that you have no reason, right? Unless you're prepared to assume a magical law that forces material processes in your brains to engender true thoughts. But even the "assume" part is tricky because it suggests free will... And the "magical" part is probably more unpalatable to you than the existence of a mind out of space and time whose thoughts have made free will possible, aka God or whatever people have called it.

Of course. It is our intincts that makes us want things.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 17 April 2012
Dr.Grass said:
The OP leaves no room for a definition of 'free will'.

Therefore any argument based on the OP is pointless. You must first define it. The problem comes in that free will is directly related to consciousness. Since there is absolutely no framework in modern science that can accommodate consciousness, the argument is pointless from a mechanistic point of view.

If you believe there is only mechanistic laws, random fluctuations and the combination of the two, then the very existence of an 'observer' - i.e. you - is illusion.

Going down the route of saying the complexity of our neural networks leads to the emergence of consciousness implies that the exact same phenomena can be simulated in a computer program. I am eagerly awaiting the day when a computer program becomes aware of itself to the extent we are - it won't happen.


That is where you are wrong. It is possible to create a computer that is smarter than humans, it just haven't been done due to its complexity and limited technology.

 

Edit: Also, I have explained the definition of free will several times already.



Zkuq on 17 April 2012

It would be a good idea to say what the entity that makes the decisions precisely is first - and then you would have to define 'decision'. I don't see how debating this thing makes any sense when all we have are some blurry concepts.



IIIIITHE1IIIII on 17 April 2012
Zkuq said:

It would be a good idea to say what the entity that makes the decisions precisely is first - and then you would have to define 'decision'. I don't see how debating this thing makes any sense when all we have are some blurry concepts.


Read through all comments before posting; I have already explained that.



Dr.Grass on 17 April 2012
IIIIITHE1IIIII said:
Dr.Grass said:
The OP leaves no room for a definition of 'free will'.

Therefore any argument based on the OP is pointless. You must first define it. The problem comes in that free will is directly related to consciousness. Since there is absolutely no framework in modern science that can accommodate consciousness, the argument is pointless from a mechanistic point of view.

If you believe there is only mechanistic laws, random fluctuations and the combination of the two, then the very existence of an 'observer' - i.e. you - is illusion.

Going down the route of saying the complexity of our neural networks leads to the emergence of consciousness implies that the exact same phenomena can be simulated in a computer program. I am eagerly awaiting the day when a computer program becomes aware of itself to the extent we are - it won't happen.


That is where you are wrong. It is possible to create a computer that is smarter than humans, it just haven't been done due to its complexity and limited technology.

 

Edit: Also, I have explained the definition of free will several times already.

You say you don't believe in God because there's no proof, but you also say, '' It is possible to create a computer that is smarter than humans'', for which there is even less proof. No program has ever gone beyond input -> output, and there is nothing to suggest that there ever will be. There is no such thing as AI. Moreover, a computer being more 'intelligent' is such a hazy definition once again. Will it ever be conscious? No.

@EDIT. That's supposed to be in the OP. You expect everyone to go through all 100+ posts?