Fate; does it exist;fully,in part,or not at all - Page 10

xxkayxx · 03-22-2008, 05:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

Quote:

Originally Posted by xxkayxx

If our minds were so mechanical, then wouldnt people be more or less the same? What i mean is that everyone has their own personality, defined by millions of different traits that make them unique, so i find it hard to believe that our minds are so mechanical, but perhaps you could explain a little bit more?

No, because each of our experiences and paths are different. Look at any two computers at some suburban houses. They may both run windows and may both be intel pentium processors, but they may have drastically different software and certainly have drastically different files/photos/etc on them. Each of the computers behave quite differently due to the path that they have taken since they were fabricated.

The brain is 100 billion neurons with 10000 connections on each neuron. That approximately as many neurons in your brain as there are trees in the amazon rain forest and as many connections between them as there are leaves on trees.

Can you wrap your mind around that? Every component of your brain is a biochemical machine. When you put billions of elements together with millions of sensory inputs about the world, you get a unique machine (even though it may be laid out differently).

Every individual has a unique path in the world. Just like every hurricane has a unique path with a unique history and no two hurricanes are the same. Even though they are formed by uneven heating of the earth's surface etc.

Well, i've got to say, that was very well put, i can can see what you mean. ^^ Perhaps things are easier when looked at in a technical way?

Og · 03-22-2008, 08:12 AM

The other option is a clouded and presupposed attitude where you are looking out of your own distorted world view

All this will end up doing is casting your own psyche onto the cosmos. This is how God arises.

A "technical" world view is not cold and heartless (in my opinion). It's revealing, rich, and wonderful!

to_hobbes · 03-23-2008, 06:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Hi Hobbes
This is because we can identify our own decision making process as it occurs, and when we think about it consciously, we can call it "free will". How much a part of our decision process is our unconscious? I have a choice of whether I listen to my running commentary on life? What do you mean you don't have that voice?....
Being conscious of our own decision making process makes us think we have free will, and this consciousness is an important factor in our mechanical decision making process. So you are conscious of how neural pathways have formed in your brain and they affect your decisions on a day to day basis? .... hmmmn ...

Yes, I think our decision process is influenced by an "subconscious" mind. And you can decide on whether or not you listen to the little voice in your head, or ignore it. But all of these processes are subject to the mechanical process of your brain -- conscious and unconscious, these thought processes are the workings of the brain.

We aren't conscious of the neural pathways being formed. We are conscious of changes in our state of mind. That is, the conscious part of our brain is activated when new or different signals appear from other parts of the brain. How this works, I don't know. I am not up to date on the latest psychological/neurological theories.

The point is, free will is simply our ability to make decisions, which is a mechanical process, but our awareness of free-will as a decision making process is an important part of the process. I like to think of this awareness of free-will (mechanical decision making process) is part of what makes us human.

to_hobbes · 03-23-2008, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Og

The other option is a clouded and presupposed attitude where you are looking out of your own distorted world view

All this will end up doing is casting your own psyche onto the cosmos. This is how God arises.

A "technical" world view is not cold and heartless (in my opinion). It's revealing, rich, and wonderful!

YES! Amen to that!

Oh, uhh...
What's the agnostic analog to "Amen"?

to_hobbes · 03-23-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

Quote:

Originally Posted by to_hobbes

Its just that everyone is expected to do their best at making the right decisions in order to benefit society, because benefiting society helps to ensure survival for yourself and others. Many of the decisions that benefit society are decisions that you make under the assumption that you are accountable for your own actions.

Some very good points, Hobbes. But I tend to take it to a much more elemental level. If there's one comprehensive synopsis of the meaning of life, I don't think you'll find it within the pages of any religious texts. Instead, I think you'll find it in the clearly areligious discoveries of Charles Darwin. It's all about preservation and perpetuation of the human species. When a member of the species does something to harm another member of the species, it can be considered bad or evil. When a member of the species does something to support and strengthen another member, it can be considered good and right. The bottom line, in my estimation, is that we're all in this together, and we're automatically held accountable for our actions because their effect on others has an automatic effect on ourselves.

I definitely agree with you, Skepticologist. I guess you would agree with the question I posted in this thread (is ethics consistent with darwinism).

Really, the reason I mentioned that in the first place is because I think the concept of free-will is very poorly understood. I think there needs to be some way to account for it in the evolutionary scheme of things. Especially since "free will" is so important to contemporary Christianity, and the term gets thrown around a lot in debate.

romansh · 03-23-2008, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by to_hobbes

The point is, free will is simply our ability to make decisions, which is a mechanical process, but our awareness of free-will as a decision making process is an important part of the process. I like to think of this awareness of free-will (mechanical decision making process) is part of what makes us human.

Hi Hobbes
My understanding of what you are trying to say is the decision making (etc) in a 'mechanical' process and a such we have no free will, but that it is so complicated and the fact that we do make decisions is effectively appears to be free will?

Can you give an example or examples of this dichotomy
Also what is your definition of free will?

to_hobbes · 03-23-2008, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Hi Hobbes
My understanding of what you are trying to say is the decision making (etc) in a 'mechanical' process and a such we have no free will, but that it is so complicated and the fact that we do make decisions is effectively appears to be free will?

Can you give an example or examples of this dichotomy
Also what is your definition of free will?

My definition of free will is this: "the ability for our deterministic mind to make decisions based on input and state data".

I don't really see it as a dichotomy. I think free will is some "high-level" concept that describes a part of our mind (like software), which works on top of the "low-level" hardware of the brain (like hardware). Its more like a venn-diagram where the larger region B contains a sub-region FW (Brain contains a sub-region Free Will). So free will is just a deterministic decision making sub-process of the deterministic brain.

My college philosophy teacher had an example I remember pretty well, a more concrete example. Say every day you wake up and your spouse makes breakfast for you. Every day your spouse asks you, would you like toast or oatmeal? And every day you invariably choose the oatmeal of your own free will. One day, after picking oatmeal yet again, you're spouse says, "I knew you would say that. You always pick oatmeal." So the next day at breakfast, you pick the toast. Did you pick the toast because of free will? ... Or, because your spouse said "you always pick oatmeal"?

So you did choose the toast of your own free will, but if what your spouse said completely influenced that decision, then it isn't really free will is it? Lets say you ignore your spouse and still pick the oatmeal. In that case, whatever it was that caused you to ignore the remark, it was what caused you to pick oatmeal again. No decision is made without some influencing factor, even if the factor is one of which you are not conscious. So where is the "freedom" in "freedom to choose" or free will?

It is this problem that my theory addresses. There is no free will, unless it is defined as the deterministic process in your mind that can make decisions. That, plus the part about the human point of view versus the universal point of view.

romansh · 03-23-2008, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by to_hobbes

It is this problem that my theory addresses. There is no free will, unless it is defined as the deterministic process in your mind that can make decisions. That, plus the part about the human point of view versus the universal point of view.

Thanks for the example ....

Is not the deterministic process in your mind that can make decisions equivalent to no free will?

if so, then the statement becomes There is no free will, unless it (free will) is defined no free will?

to_hobbes · 03-23-2008, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

Quote:

Originally Posted by to_hobbes

It is this problem that my theory addresses. There is no free will, unless it is defined as the deterministic process in your mind that can make decisions. That, plus the part about the human point of view versus the universal point of view.

Thanks for the example ....

Is not the deterministic process in your mind that can make decisions equivalent to no free will?

Yes, unless you re-define free-will to my definition of free-will. Then "free will" by my definition (the deterministic version) describes something that is more real and can be discussed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by romansh

if so, then the statement becomes There is no free will, unless it (free will) is defined no free will?

Right, and this is because there is no free will unless you re-define it to what it actually is. How could it exist in any other way?

This re-defining of free will is actually very important I think. Like I said, free will does not seem to be very clearly defined, despite the fact that people discuss it a lot. Really, "free will" in the ordinary sense (not by my definition) is nonsensical and vague. So if you want to talk about free will at all, you have to re-define it to something that most people think is not free will, which is my definition.

In order for a discussion on free will to make any sense, there needs to be a distinction between the low-level deterministic layer of the brain, and the higher-level deterministic layer of free-will (by my definition), and there needs to be a relationship defined between the two.

romansh · 03-23-2008, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by to_hobbes

.......... So if you want to talk about free will at all, you have to re-define it to something that most people think is not free will, which is my definition.

In order for a discussion on free will to make any sense, there needs to be a distinction between the low-level deterministic layer of the brain, and the higher-level deterministic layer of free-will (by my definition), and there needs to be a relationship defined between the two.

OK I understand now.
But why not call a spade a spade?