Soul, Determinism, Free Will...

[HydrogenBond]

Free will is the ability to freely chose between alternatives. Say if one has a choice between an apple or orange. If one could pick either, they have free will under this circumstance. If one is biased ,one way or another, then something else, inside, is chosing for you. You still have choice, but not free choice, since the alternative is not free, but has a cost.

 

The highest form of free will is able to overcome free will. For example, say one had two girlfriends and wanted to chose between the two. If it is so close, such that either choice has no cost. Because it is so close, rather that use free will, one waits for an impulse to help decide, so free will does not cause one to make the wrong long term choice. What could be free today may not be free tomorrow. One then decides to reason the pro and cons. One then makes their choice. This choice is not at a cost, nor is it free. But it is a choice that is priceless, because it edifies.

 

Free will has a time element to it. If one only looks in terms of an impulse or small time frame free will is fine.. The free will that overcomes free will never has a cost down the line, since it uses time projection too.

[wigglieverse]

"Quantum" information could blow a bit of a hole in the "time element" thing. They have already managed to 'observe' a computed result without running the algorithm to 'compute' it. In fact, if it had 'run' they would not have been able to 'observe' the answer...How does that fit with your "model"?

Free will is the ability to freely chose between alternatives. Say if one has a choice between an apple or orange. If one could pick either, they have free will under this circumstance. If one is biased ,one way or another, then something else, inside, is chosing for you. You still have choice, but not free choice, since the alternative is not free, but has a cost.

Also there is an absolute cartload of brand new math which in itself looks like it could lead to some pretty exciting stuff (help us to get a better grip on quantum "reality").

If they can 'store' and manipulate quantum states reliably (and this is getting closer as I sit typing), there's a whole brave new world of "information teleportation" and devices that will make our current computers look like the first hand-helds (fingers).

[REASON]

Free will is the ability to freely chose between alternatives. Say if one has a choice between an apple or orange. If one could pick either, they have free will under this circumstance. If one is biased ,one way or another, then something else, inside, is chosing for you. You still have choice, but not free choice, since the alternative is not free, but has a cost.

 

So in regards to my example, I gather that you would argue that choosing among two seemingly equal paths would be a choice of free will because there is no bias, and therefore no cost with the decision.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Reason, that is the best illustration against determinism that I've seen yet.

 

But I think determinism is still applicable. If you choose the path for any reason, it is obviously determined. But if you choose not to come up with a reason to choose a path, then you have still made a choice, even if you didn't make that choice consciously. There was a reason, be it your personality or the situation, why you chose not to choose. Remember, there are an unimaginable number of variables that go into every action. Just because we can't calculate it, doesn't mean its uncalcuable.

[wigglieverse]

Just because we can't calculate it, doesn't mean its uncalcuable.

What about "random" events? Didn't Heisenberg say something about the ability to measure anything at very small scales? Why shouldn't this (Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle) extend to our 'macroscopic' view? We only think we see solid objects, but their 'solid' boundaries are seething with activity, and not well-defined edges at all...

Or does our 'view' --being what we believe it is-- offer the 'real' perspective, so the macroscopic world of "big things" is the true one -and the atomic level doesn't matter? (he he)

[Kriminal99]

But what could have possibly been the motivator, conscious or subconscious, and based on previous experience, that would drive me toward a particular decision to choose one of two equal paths, where there is nothing hinging on it except to keep moving?

 

I could have sworn my last post was longer specifically with the intention of preempting this question... I must have ran out of time to finish it and deleted it or something...

 

It could be high variance and still deterministic. Like choosing a lotto ball from one of those vacuum machines. A deterministic system, with a hard to predict result. An illustration:

 

Someone asks you where you want to eat. Someone says Chinese food, but you got the stomach virus after the last time you ate Chinese. Then you remember your friend pretending to throw up at the local Mexican restaurant where you had a really good time. You suggest Mexican because you associate it with a good time. Someone else says they are not in the mood for the large crowd that will be there on live band night. A friend then talks about Britney spear's latest mishap. Then you subconsciously remember being abruptly awoken from a great dream that your mind did not have time to delete before you were able to think about it long enough to commit to memory. In this dream you were in California Pizza kitchen and you ran into Jessica Simpson who thought you were attractive (and relate to Britney Spears). For some reason the idea of CPK pops into your head and everyone agrees to go there.

 

So in the hiking scenario, perhaps the arrangement of trees on one path reminds you of a scene in a romance movie you saw that liked and had a significant impact on you.

 

And yes, a lot of Free Will advocates specifically define free will as the choice between seemingly equal alternatives. I once read a paper by this guy in the highest possible IQ society (Of which there are only a few members) who attempted to limit Free will to choices between different beneficial paths that were controlled by a "quantum switch". He argued that the "quantum switch" was the realization of a person choosing.

 

The truth is, it is hard to prove that either of these is the case for sure. In introspection, I feel as though I can either

 

A) remember a path of thought for a choice that perhaps bounced back and forth until time ran out

 

:phones: Just had an instinct that one choice was better than the other which I attribute to evaluation of past experiences

 

or C) a combination of both

 

Thus, I lean towards determinism in the case of two choices. Also because again I don't know what it means for a choice to not be deterministic.

 

Yes I agree with Inter. He is simply using the contextual definition of Free Will, something I support doing. That is he says free will is choosing to eat when you are hungry, even if it is because your feeling of hungriness overpowered your other motivations and forced you to do it. This view of Free Will is more concerned with preventing other people from stopping you doing what you feel like doing.

 

 

For fun:

This viewpoint is talked about in the sequels to the Matrix, which confused the heck out of a lot of people. In these the oracle kept telling Neo that he had chosen a path already, and that life consisted of understanding why he would choose the paths he would. At the same time the highly rational architect was unable to fully calculate Neo's choices as part of his Matrix model.

 

It wasn't fully explained if it was because Neo deterministically chose to see the matrix for what it was, thus removing the Architect's ability to influence Neo's behavior... if Neo's choices couldn't be understood by the architect... or if it was implying Neo's choices were somehow indeterministic.

 

I feel it was not the latter, since the Oracle implied his choices were predetermined and she was supposed to be the authority on that subject.

 

Just about every character in these movies was a proponent of a different philosophical belief set, save the odd character that was used for little other than Neo/Morpheus/Trinity fodder.

 

Morpheus believed in fate, and always acted upon what he intuitively felt was the implied course of action by any given set of circumstances with 100% faith in his decision.

[wigglieverse]

can I believe that God is justified

If you replace 'God' with 'the Universe', your argument is certainly still valid.

[Inter.spem.et.metum]

Again, just because we are not aware of why things happen doesn't mean there isn't a reason. In fact, it's impossible. There is no such thing as a "random event". For every action there is an opposite but equal reaction. The same is true in reverse. For every reaction there is an opposite but equal action.