[Hiro]

Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is a To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to begin with. The To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. can answer your question as stated, for example. Read Talbot's 'The Holographic Universe' for one source as to why your statement is not true - reference the rats experiment. That experiment is also online, as that's where I read about it first. There are additionally related experiments if you wish to search regarding brains and memory. There's plenty more material available to undermine your statement starting with the understanding that your framing of the statement comes from a To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. framework. Happy hunting.

I still don't see how this creates free will or choice. The external CPU would still be the source of hidden information, and every person would just be a process in the CPU running through algorithms. Reality would be deterministic, and therefore no such thing as free will. If we don't assume an external CPU and that reality is ONLY a sum of processes that behave like a computer, it still doesn't produce independent will. Your current thoughts and traits are the sum of everything that just happened, and what you will do is based off a series of algorithmic responses. There's no choice in the matter.

[RBM]

I edited an addition to the quote you seem to reply to. I'm assuming the 'this' you state in

	I still don't see how this creates free will or choice

Is the conjecture I mention. I'm not sure, though. At any rate, if you want further comment check out my 'edit to add' first.

[Hiro]

	Without free will, consciousness would only be a deterministic script or purposeless process and therefore could not evolve by making profitable choices.

I disagree with this statement. Why couldn't it evolve? A script doesn't have to be set in stone, and could be accommodating. We have made an AI script that adapts to it's user input, so why couldn't the theoretical VR that we live in do so? Evolution is just gradual adaption over time.

I still don't see how free will is necessary. As I said before, I believe that the illusion of free will could be part of the system, but the belief that you're acting freely doesn't mean that you are. Random processes that produce an appearance of free will doesn't mean that there is free will there.

[Purgatid]

	Originally Posted by Hiro
	I'm arguing that there's no true choice by the way, not that there isn't an illusion of choice. It's easy to see where the illusion could come from if it's subtly based on probability.

This is basically my assessment as well. It doesn't matter if there's true chance or not, free will is either influenced by one or the other - it's not a function on its own. I've started to think about Will as a reaction rather than a stand alone function. It's another link in the chain of cause and effect. Unless of course there's a system outside of ours, that influences ours, but that doesn't operate through the same rules. We can't make any statements about such a system since we have no knowledge about it (and possibly - our submission to physical laws and chance might make it impossible for us to understand), and as such it may very well have a profound impact on will and free will, regardless if it's a deterministic universe or not.

I guess I might be repeating myself here - but unless one introduces super abilities, there cannot be free will. In a greater consciousness system as the one RBM suggests, we have functions that do not operate because of the system that we perceive. As opposed to RBM though, I am not convinced that there is a virtual reality.

[Uncle Mort]

	Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is a To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. to begin with. The To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. can answer your question as stated, for example.

If virtual reality is true then that would reinforce determinism. SIMS is a virtual reality but the actions are totally constrained by the program. As would our reality.

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Uncle Mort To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If virtual reality is true then that would reinforce determinism. SIMS is a virtual reality but the actions are totally constrained by the program. As would our reality.

Hahaha you getting clooooooser. Also, remember, you and I are likely using different definitions for free will.

RE: Sims program constraints
You miss a distinction: the Sim still has free will to do whatever is NOT constrained by the program.

Our real life program constraint is otherwise called physics.

[Uncle Mort]

Closer to what?

SIMS have no free will, everything is constrained by the program.

We have no free will, everything is constrained by physics

[RBM]

	Originally Posted by Uncle Mort To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Closer to what? SIMS have no free will, everything is constrained by the program. We have no free will, everything is constrained by physics

Oh well, I was
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, you are still a mile away, a
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Of course that's just your personal situation and has no bearing on the system itself, which I what I thought the topic of the thread was. Guess I'm 0 for 2 in this thread.

[Hiro]

Originally Posted by RBM To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Oh well, I was To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. , you are still a mile away, a To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. Of course that's just your personal situation and has no bearing on the system itself, which I what I thought the topic of the thread was. Guess I'm 0 for 2 in this thread.

Could you at least explain why he's so far off? So far you've just been linking us to things, which we respond to, and say why it doesn't produce free will. If you have some form of reasoning that leads to the conclusion, I'd be glad to look at it. I'm not opposed to the idea of everything being a VR, I just can't see how it actually would change the free will debate.

[Dru]

i don't even see how these are separate matters... the results of your actions are a reflection of the choices you've made. if you chose to go to Target instead of Wal-Mart, then, no, of course there would be no way you could have purchased the same pair of shoes for $2 less than what you did. because you didn't.

[Hiro]

	Originally Posted by Dru To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	i don't even see how these are separate matters... the results of your actions are a reflection of the choices you've made. if you chose to go to Target instead of Wal-Mart, then, no, of course there would be no way you could have purchased the same pair of shoes for $2 less than what you did. because you didn't.

That's my current view of the situation. Since each choice is dependent on each preceding choice, there was no choice to begin with. That first choice was the product of your surroundings and your internals. Even in the VR case, you are run by a script, and there's still no choice. Maybe after more research into VR I'll find some way it's possible.

[Dru]

life isn't linear. there is no end to the possible paths you could take, and it doesn't follow as if in some kind of script; if flows, ebbs, and you can always change your mind (and therefor the path). there is no end to choices. but my point was that the choices you make determine where you go, and where you are determines the set of choices available to you. but there are always choices even if it doesn't seem so.

if you think all is determined for you, then you are not agreeing that there is little distinction between free will and determinism. you're just agreeing with the determinism part.

[Anza]

What is free will anyway? Seems like an oxymoron to me. Ok, let's assume human beings have free will. Do all other living things have it, then?

[Dru]

anything with a nervous system that includes a brain, yes, though i would think less intelligent creatures (including people) have less faculty for the kind of reasoning involved in allowing for complex choices.

[zibber]

I like how people always talk about atoms and computer models of the universe and so on, when stuff like cultural conditioning, toxic habitual patterns and the like have infinitely more effect on your "freedom of choice" than any of that business. I'd say most people on here have a lot less free will than they could have! (Myself included, mind you!)

[Bardas]

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I like how people always talk about atoms and computer models of the universe and so on, when stuff like cultural conditioning, toxic habitual patterns and the like have infinitely more effect on your "freedom of choice" than any of that business. I'd say most people on here have a lot less free will than they could have! (Myself included, mind you!)

Determinists would argue that "atoms and computer models of the universe" are the root of all of that, and the ultimately decisive factor.

[theiceman]

I believe that it is a mixture of both free will and determinism. There are external forces that can pressure certain things to happen (through manipulation, etc.) but also there are certain decisions that have been made by free will. I believe that there is no black and white answer here but instead there is a shade of grey. As stated earlier, one is too flexible and the other is too rigid and instead people should just appreciate the duality of the universe.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

@ GeniusPr0 - The first example is not hard determinism since Person C would have made his or her (HOH) influence due to the choices HOH brain did in accordance to physical laws. Therefore - the determined outcome has not been changed - the change in itself was included in the outcome. Further - your system is a predictive function trying to determine outcomes - if the system fails to do so, then it is the system that is trying to predict the outcome that is flawed, not determinism. Reason is simple - the system should have taken Person C into account, it did not. Your example has been done already through To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. .

What I'm saying that is, hard determinism is nothing more than a belief similar to that of God in that it can't be proven/dis-proven.

My theory is just the reasoning towards my conclusion, which that of the ultimate picture. Is everything completely determined? Yes, in a sense it is, but to know that... you would have to be God, or "outside the system" in its entirety.

At this time since God cannot be proven or dis-proven it makes just as much sense believing in determinism to me as being an atheist, agnostic or choosing a religious area.

What I also say is that, using deterministic machines we can predict the future, even if it's 80% accurate, we can still make extremely intelligent moves within the universe, thus ultimately controlling it.

This is the highest form of will that exists. In a sense we're doing it right now, day to day. This is on very low levels.

Einstein was right when he said "God does not play dice".

Because.... We do.

Every. Single. Day. In the future we will have the options to no longer play dice on certain subjects.

The second one argues for hard determinism they bring in the concept of God being valid. Hence "Only God knows". I'm not religious but it doesn't take a genius to realize what can be done and what cannot be done.

This brings us to the complete conclusion which is why I posted what I did.

If hard determinism exists, it's completely meaningless to us, unless we're outside the system. Unless the universe self-aware as proposed by Chris Lagan's CTMU, then it would be very meaningful. On a side note -- Religious fanatics believe in hard determinism; Haha to atheists with superiority complexes.

In our REALITY we can control the outcome if we wish. We roll the dice. Right now the dice are pretty big, but they're about to get a lot smaller. Theoretically they co-exist as Limited Free Will and Limited Determinism. This is the only theoretical/scientific solution to the free will vs. determinism debate.

Philosophy has its limits, which is why it's being phased out of certain academic institutes. However, it's still needed and a part of everyday life.

[PlatoHagel]

	Originally Posted by Uncle Mort To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To be honest I am outside my comfort zone. Quantum physics when scaled up does imply that free will is possible. However, somewhere deep down I have this feeling that that quantum physics may only be a manifestation of an underlying deterministic structure that we haven't discovered yet.

Of course I am interested as well.

	"If experimenters have free will, then so do elementary particles."-John Horton Conway

An article that may be of interest.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. -Human free will might seem like the squishiest of philosophical subjects, way beyond the realm of mathematical demonstration. But two highly regarded Princeton mathematicians, John Conway and Simon Kochen, claim to have proven that if humans have even the tiniest amount of free will, then atoms themselves must also behave unpredictably.by Julie Rehmeyer

[Straynger]

	Originally Posted by PlatoHagel To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Of course I am interested as well. An article that may be of interest.

That article was hilarious, those poor bastard experimenters think they've upended an ancient debate, and half the Sci community just isn't convinced and the other half accepts their reasoning but says it proves the opposite of their conclusion, determinism to the hilt heh -- good ol Gerard ’t Hooft

[nettneu]

	Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. does not sway me, unfortunately. People refer to their free will merely because most people are unaware of the processes that lead to choice. That doesn't mean their assessment is correct. People say they "have a cold" and tend to blame it on cold weather as well, that does not make it so.

What you've interpreted isn't what I meant. I wasn't saying "free will exists because lots of people think it does". I was saying that people use the term "free will" to describe something different from the meaning that you've given it - the "will without any limits" thing, and that this is confusing the discussion. When people say "dragon", they mean an animal that flies and breathes fire. If you enter a discussion about dragons and start talking about dragons as if the word meant "hot air balloon", this would confuse the discussion, even though dragons as such don't exist. Likewise,
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
, that is confusing because it's not what the term is generally understood to mean. This has nothing to do with whether what the term is generally used to describe actually exists. It's not a matter of appealing to the majority view of whether free will exists, I was simply saying that words mean what people use them to mean, and it is not helpful to use them differently. That was in no way intended to imply that you have to agree that what they mean is correct.

	Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	If the definition of free is the ability to choose between alternatives, then people at death camps have been free all along. After all, they could freely choose between execution and working to death.

No, I didn't say that the definition of "free" is the ability to choose between alternatives. "Free will", as the term is generally used, involves choosing between the available alternatives. People in death camps aren't free people, but despite that, if they can indeed choose, of their own volition, between working and execution (rather than just doing the work or otherwise purely as a consequence of some controlling physical laws or whatever) they would indeed be said to have free will. Indeed, even someone who was completely restrained and had no ability to move would be said to have free will by those who believe in it, if he could still choose what to think about.

	Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The whole concept of "free" will is just goofy to me. It suggests a force that does not operate within the universe but still exerts function inside the universe.

So what's "goofy" about "a force that does not operate within the universe but still exerts function inside the universe"?. There's absolutely no reason why something operating outside a system shouldn't exert function inside it. For example, suppose I write a computer program to print out "All my behavior is determined by my program". The laws (i.e. the program logic) will not let it print anything else. But then I, who operate outside the program, can go in with a debugger tool and change the program variables so that it prints our "The answer is 42" or "I have free will" or any result I choose.

	Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Only way free will can exist is if one introduces super abilities, such a virtual reality, a soul, a god, or other things that do not abide by the laws of physics.

I would agree that free will, even as I am using the term, requires the existence of something whose behavior is not completely described by the currently-understood laws of physics. But I doubt if there are many physicists who would claim that there cannot be things whose behavior is not completely described by the currently-understood laws of physics. Indeed, it's not clear that the currently-understood laws of physics completely describe anything.

	Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Exerting will isn't something done outside of the universe.

How do you know that?

	Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	When you exert will, your brain is operating with the same mechanisms as the rest of the universe. If someone exerts his will - that is in effect the result of a complex chemical and physical function.

Well, that's true if and only if you believe that the universe is determinstic (and if you use the term "universe" to mean "everything that exists", which is not the only way to use it these days). You seem to be simply restating the determinstic creed. And the complex chemical and physical functions operating at the moment turn out not to have caused me to believe in it.

[Purgatid]

	Originally Posted by Geniuspr0
	In our REALITY we can control the outcome if we wish. We roll the dice. Right now the dice are pretty big, but they're about to get a lot smaller. Theoretically they co-exist as Limited Free Will and Limited Determinism. This is the only theoretical/scientific solution to the free will vs. determinism debate.

Your control is exerted through decisions by a brain which is made out of material that either follows physical laws, or quantum chance - both are properties influencing choice and neither is a property of will itself - therefore, your argument that we exert will is false. Or rather - will is a consequence of either laws or chance, and neither of those properties exist outside of the system. It's not the universe + humans. It's just the universe. Therefore - it's not humans + system. It's just system. It doesn't really matter what provokes a decision from the brain - if it is provoked (and it has to be in order to act) then it is not a free choice. It's an influenced choice. Choice in itself demands that it's not free, because if it is free then there is no prediction, there's no knowledge, and there's no nothing.

The question is - what is will? What is freedom?

	Originally Posted by nettneu
	"Free will", as the term is generally used, involves choosing between the available alternatives.

I think this is where we differ. I recognize the act of choosing as a result of either law or chance, you seem to regard it as something outside of law or chance. When you choose, the question is "is there a reason for your choice?" If the answer is yes (and on a microcosmic scale, there's always law or chance guiding our choices, since our brain is made up of material subject to either or both) then calling it free is not really correct.

Originally Posted by nettneu

So what's "goofy" about "a force that does not operate within the universe but still exerts function inside the universe"?. There's absolutely no reason why something operating outside a system shouldn't exert function inside it. For example, suppose I write a computer program to print out "All my behavior is determined by my program". The laws (i.e. the program logic) will not let it print anything else. But then I, who operate outside the program, can go in with a debugger tool and change the program variables so that it prints our "The answer is 42" or "I have free will" or any result I choose.

I believe I did address this earlier, stating that free will can only exist if one introduces super abilities, such as a soul, a god, a conciousness system, or something similar. You are not moving through a universe where you can make choices within it. You are it. You are a part of it. You're not outside the program, making inputs. You are a part of the program, you're one of the digits and you cannot choose not to be. If you introduce a superability such as a soul, you can most certainly influence the system without being part of it - but the question will still remain - what makes the soul choose one thing over the other? If there is any answer to this - then the choice is deterministic, if there is none - it's chance - and neither is a property of will. The problem with free will is not determinism, chance, or influencing systems. The problem with free will is that the two words exclude one another.

Free:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted."

And will:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"10. to wish; desire; like: Go where you will. Ask, if you will, who the owner is."

Freedom demands lack of authority, lack of interference and restriction. Will has no place next to the word free. What would that mean, "Free Will?" No authority? You've got laws or chance. No interference? You have previous experiences, your knowledge, and your perception. Restriction? Again, physical laws. Thoughts? All rely on either laws or chance. Action? To do without any context in which you act?

It's all bullshit folks. It's bullshit, and it's bad for you.

Originally Posted by nettneu

Well, that's true if and only if you believe that the universe is determinstic (and if you use the term "universe" to mean "everything that exists", which is not the only way to use it these days). You seem to be simply restating the determinstic creed. And the complex chemical and physical functions operating at the moment turn out not to have caused me to type in a post saying that I believe in it.

Save that I have included the possibility of chance, in effect quantum superposition among other things. It doesn't chance anything, so I am indeed restating the deterministic creed in a way. I do not believe there cannot be chance though, but I am saying that whether there is chance or not - your choices are not exempt from the universe. I can prove the influence of physical laws, and I can prove chance. Your only hope to make an argument for free choice is to introduce super abilities, and if you do, I would ask of you:

Prove it.

[Tahiti]

Originally Posted by Purgatid To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your control is exerted through decisions by a brain which is made out of material that either follows physical laws, or quantum chance - both are properties influencing choice and neither is a property of will itself - therefore, your argument that we exert will is false. Or rather - will is a consequence of either laws or chance, and neither of those properties exist outside of the system. It's not the universe + humans. It's just the universe. Therefore - it's not humans + system. It's just system. It doesn't really matter what provokes a decision from the brain - if it is provoked (and it has to be in order to act) then it is not a free choice. It's an influenced choice. Choice in itself demands that it's not free, because if it is free then there is no prediction, there's no knowledge, and there's no nothing. The question is - what is will? What is freedom? I think this is where we differ. I recognize the act of choosing as a result of either law or chance, you seem to regard it as something outside of law or chance. When you choose, the question is "is there a reason for your choice?" If the answer is yes (and on a microcosmic scale, there's always law or chance guiding our choices, since our brain is made up of material subject to either or both) then calling it free is not really correct. I believe I did address this earlier, stating that free will can only exist if one introduces super abilities, such as a soul, a god, a conciousness system, or something similar. You are not moving through a universe where you can make choices within it. You are it. You are a part of it. You're not outside the program, making inputs. You are a part of the program, you're one of the digits and you cannot choose not to be. If you introduce a superability such as a soul, you can most certainly influence the system without being part of it - but the question will still remain - what makes the soul choose one thing over the other? If there is any answer to this - then the choice is deterministic, if there is none - it's chance - and neither is a property of will. The problem with free will is not determinism, chance, or influencing systems. The problem with free will is that the two words exclude one another. Free: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "5. exempt from external authority, interference, restriction, etc., as a person or one's will, thought, choice, action, etc.; independent; unrestricted." And will: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. "10. to wish; desire; like: Go where you will. Ask, if you will, who the owner is." Freedom demands lack of authority, lack of interference and restriction. Will has no place next to the word free. What would that mean, "Free Will?" No authority? You've got laws or chance. No interference? You have previous experiences, your knowledge, and your perception. Restriction? Again, physical laws. Thoughts? All rely on either laws or chance. Action? To do without any context in which you act? It's all bullshit folks. It's bullshit, and it's bad for you. Save that I have included the possibility of chance, in effect quantum superposition among other things. It doesn't chance anything, so I am indeed restating the deterministic creed in a way. I do not believe there cannot be chance though, but I am saying that whether there is chance or not - your choices are not exempt from the universe. I can prove the influence of physical laws, and I can prove chance. Your only hope to make an argument for free choice is to introduce super abilities, and if you do, I would ask of you: Prove it.

Again you're making claims of "outside" the system, which is pointless. This is why this entire concept falls apart. If you're going to say will doesn't exist outside the system, I'm going to say pigs fly outside the system. You're making a postulation at best. I don't understand why you can't see this.

If we live long enough we will be able to control almost everything that happens in the universe. If that isn't an exercise of will I don't know what is. Any claims of what exists outside the system are immediately ignored as they are unprovable to date, and contain absolutely zero merit. You are not God, or rather even, a God.

My solution is an answer concluded by actual testable theory. It's within the universe and it's as good as it's going to get. At least for now that is...

So from this point on, outside the system, pigs fly and ice cream tastes like time mixed with black holes.

[Purgatid]

Your choices are determined either by laws or chance, that is what I am saying. Neither of those are traits of your will. I do not recognize your argument because it suggests that human beings are not part of the system, when they are.

[Tahiti]

If that were completely true and proven then you would be able to tell us what happens during death.

Also your definition of free will probably implies [btrue[/b] chaos.

You're just saying that:

Everything has definable laws ---> everything is deterministic

Free will:

No laws ---> nothing is predictable

No gray area allowed, which isn't really applicable to the real world. We don't live by black and white rules.

Your definitions of absolute are defined in such a way that they aren't compatible. It's actually why philosophy is laughed at. Useless information.

Straight from Wiki

"Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints" -- Wiki

What does this mean to you? It doesn't say all constraints.

Your definition actually defines it in such a way that free will is an unapplicable concept. Oddly enough the word "nothing" has more meaning and use than your definition of free will.

It's why I explain it in such a way that it should be changed to Limit-able Determinism vs. Limit-able Will.

Free Will Vs. Determinism was a stupid argument to begin with.

With your definition of free will there's actually no reason to even discuss anything. It makes me laugh.