Philosophy versus Science, the ultimate experiment.

[Xvito]

That's not really proving that free will doesn't exist. We aren't ourselves, we are what we've become. Some things are obviously not like this, some things we are born with. But my point is that there is no you. Because of this, your actions aren't necessarily your actions but you still chose to make them...

Do we now? How can we tell? On that note, if we are content with our delusion of free will, does it matter anyway?

You can be as certain of having free will as you can be certain of existing. When you choose something it's fairly obvious that you have chosen it... At least you as in, what you have become.

Choice is an illusion. If you were to live your life over & over again, with no memory of the previous times, you would make the same choices each and every time.
So really, do you have choice? Or do you simply have a set path you will follow each & every time?

No I wouldn't... It's called Random Chance. Because unlike God, nature does play with dice.

Your mind doesn't work with random chance.
If you were to pick either red or blue, you would pick the same each time if the situation was repeated and you were unaware of the past situations.
If you had to save either a group of doctors or your girlfriend, whichever choice you made, you would always make. There is nothing random about a persons decisions, well the large one's anyway, as you will always come to the same conclusion.

The same situations would not be repeated.

"If you were to live your life over & over again, with no memory of the previous times, you would make the same choices each and every time. "
That's what I originally said. If you were put in the same situation over & over again, with no recollection of them, you would always make the same decision. How can there be choice if you always will do the same actions? Again, choice is merely an illusion.

Your argument is irrelevant seeing as how we can't be put into the same situation twice.

If we could then, the longer we would rewind time the bigger the difference would be... Learn to quantum physics.

 

[Xvito]

What are you going to base your choices off if not from yourself?

My point is that it's not choice at all.

The amount of choice you can make is based on the amount of neurons you posses.

We're not just the sum of our experiences we are also born with genes and such...

Also, I would like to add that your argument is just a definition of choice. Your saying that choice isn't choice.

 

[Xvito]

That's not really proving that free will doesn't exist. We aren't ourselves, we are what we've become. Some things are obviously not like this, some things we are born with. But my point is that there is no you. Because of this, your actions aren't necessarily your actions but you still chose to make them...

Do we now? How can we tell? On that note, if we are content with our delusion of free will, does it matter anyway?

You can be as certain of having free will as you can be certain of existing. When you choose something it's fairly obvious that you have chosen it... At least you as in, what you have become.

Choice is an illusion. If you were to live your life over & over again, with no memory of the previous times, you would make the same choices each and every time.
So really, do you have choice? Or do you simply have a set path you will follow each & every time?

No I wouldn't... It's called Random Chance. Because unlike God, nature does play with dice.

Your mind doesn't work with random chance.
If you were to pick either red or blue, you would pick the same each time if the situation was repeated and you were unaware of the past situations.
If you had to save either a group of doctors or your girlfriend, whichever choice you made, you would always make. There is nothing random about a persons decisions, well the large one's anyway, as you will always come to the same conclusion.

The same situations would not be repeated.

"If you were to live your life over & over again, with no memory of the previous times, you would make the same choices each and every time. "
That's what I originally said. If you were put in the same situation over & over again, with no recollection of them, you would always make the same decision. How can there be choice if you always will do the same actions? Again, choice is merely an illusion.

Your argument is irrelevant seeing as how we can't be put into the same situation twice.

If we could then, the longer we would rewind time the bigger the difference would be... Learn to quantum physics.

We can't be put in the same situation twice, but the point stands that you don't really have choice, as you've made the decision before the choice has occurred.
Plus I've heard quantum physics mentioned before in this thread. Just wondering how does it tie into choice?

Well... Everything that happens; happens because there is a possibility for it to happen. There is also another possibility that something else is going to happen, and you can never know what will happen until it has already happened.

The true extent of your argument would be that: the things that happen are going to happen, no matter what. But the thing is you can never be sure what is going to happen, just the fact that it will happen. Edit: Unless something else happens that intervenes with something being able to happen to that something or someone.

Also, post number 1337 8)

 

[Daveman]

They can't be made entirely the same. So no, they would not necessarily make exactly the same decision. The reason robots act in that way is because we program that to happen. The program is then a controlled system because it cannot be changed without our input. The rat however is programming itself, forging it's own "program" as it is continuously learning and forming neural connections.

Anyway, it's a question of fate isn't it which really has nothing to do with science. This should purely be a philosophy thread.

 

[Xvito]

They can't be made entirely the same. So no, they would not necessarily make exactly the same decision. The reason robots act in that way is because we program that to happen. The program is then a controlled system because it cannot be changed without our input. The rat however is programming itself, forging it's own "program" as it is continuously learning and forming neural connections.

Anyway, it's a question of fate isn't it which really has nothing to do with science. This should purely be a philosophy thread.

The rat is also programmed... We are basically organic-robots, I guess the organic part is what separates us. That and our free will of course.

What are you going to base your choices off if not from yourself?

My point is that it's not choice at all.

The amount of choice you can make is based on the amount of neurons you posses.

We're not just the sum of our experiences we are also born with genes and such...

Also, I would like to add that your argument is just a definition of choice. Your saying that choice isn't choice.

Exactly. What we perceive of as our "choice" is simply the sum total of our environment (which includes our genetics). Interestingly, if you follow this line of reasoning, it comes up with some interesting ideas about how astrology might have some (small) amount of validity..

Astrology has not been proven.

Also, I'm inclined as to how this line of thought could possibly lead to astrology being a valid theory.

 

[Cozmo1]

Baron d'holback: he said becuase atoms are predictable, if you tracked event movement of every atom since the dawn of the universe you will be able to predict the future. Obviously this is impossible, but it raises the idea that we are influenced/controlled by the small things (atoms) that make us. With modern science we can go deeper, to subatomic particles, since these (as far as we know) are random we could also assume (using d'holback's idea) that the universe is also random, so in answer to the OP. NO there is a very good chance that those rats would not be exactly the same.

And the reason does not have to be a *higher* power, as there are so many factors we do not know about. But however, if you were able to clone EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE FACTOR, then yes I think the rats would behave in the exact same way. We are controlled by more than just genes and our surroundings, but not a god or higher power.

 

[Xvito]

Baron d'holback: he said becuase atoms are predictable, if you tracked event movement of every atom since the dawn of the universe you will new able to predict the future, so in essence the universe is predictable. Obviously this is impossible, but it raises the idea that we are influenced/controlled by the small things (atoms) that make us. With modern science we can go deeper, to subatomic particles, since these (as far as we know) are random we could also assume (using d'holback's idea) that the universe is also random, so in answer to the OP. NO there is a very good chance that those rats would not be exactly the same.

And the reason does not have to be a *higher* power, as there are so many factors we do not know about. But however, if you were able to clone EVERY SINGLE POSSIBLE FACTOR, then yes I think the rats would behave in the exact same way. We are controlled by more than just genes and our surroundings, but not a god or higher power.

What if a peanut materializes into one of the rats brain?

 

[nouser0986708576]

We have sentience, robots do not. When robots become sentient, we are screwed...

 

[CoziestPigeon]

Project NATAL seems to have free will. That little boy in the TV. Milo or whatever his name is.

 

[G1eet]

I know the experiment is almost impossible to make but what's your opinions? Could this answer our questions about higher forces controlling us?

No. You're forgetting about quantum physics.

Silly kitty, you can't be inside and not inside a box at the same time.

 

[Xvito]

Exactly. What we perceive of as our "choice" is simply the sum total of our environment (which includes our genetics). Interestingly, if you follow this line of reasoning, it comes up with some interesting ideas about how astrology might have some (small) amount of validity..

Astrology has not been proven.

Also, I'm inclined as to how this line of thought could possibly lead to astrology being a valid theory.

I tend to think astrology is basically bunk, but if you follow the premise that our decisions are the sum total of our environment, than it stands to reason that our parents decisions are the same, including the decision of when to mate and the like. Or in other words, if your parents, who are one of the biggest shapers of your environment, were different people, you would have been born at a different time, and thus would have been a different person.

Or I guess even simpler, the parents who are likely to have a child born under a certain sign are the type of parents who will raise children to have the traits of that sign.

If my parents would not have mated then I wouldn't have been born...

I know the experiment is almost impossible to make but what's your opinions? Could this answer our questions about higher forces controlling us?

No. You're forgetting about quantum physics.

Silly kitty, you can't be inside and not inside a box at the same time.

I don't know if this was sarcasm or not but yes, yes you can. At least if you're an unobserved electron.

 

[Ultrajoe]

Your saying that choice isn't choice.

She is, and she is correct.

Your choices are limited to what you are capable of doing. You are incapable of killing your mother (your ethics and personality prevent you, as much as gravity stops you from falling upwards), hence you do not have the choice to kill your mother.

You have only one option, but it's the one you pick. Free will, therefore, is an illusion.

But it's also not an illusion.

Long story short: You do what you do, and you do it because you wanted to do it or couldn't avoid it. Be happy.

 

[Xvito]

Your saying that choice isn't choice.

She is, and she is correct.

Your choices are limited to what you are capable of doing. You are incapable of killing your mother (your ethics and personality prevent you, as much as gravity stops you from falling upwards), hence you do not have the choice to kill your mother.

You have only one option, but it's the one you pick. Free will, therefore, is an illusion.

But it's also not an illusion.

Long story short: You do what you do, and you do it because you wanted to do it or couldn't avoid it. Be happy.

That's what I've been trying to get to and actually got to in another discussion.

Because that is exactly what free will is. Except the part with my mother, it's not physiologically impossible in any way for anyone to kill there mother if it's just their ethics getting in the way. And that is in no way similar to falling upwards which is actually physiologically impossible, if by up you mean reverse-gravity.

If I don't make sense or spell very poorly... Or something; that's because I'm really tired right now. Alternatively I'm just stupid... You decide! [do you see what I did there?]

 

[G1eet]

I know the experiment is almost impossible to make but what's your opinions? Could this answer our questions about higher forces controlling us?

No. You're forgetting about quantum physics.

Silly kitty, you can't be inside and not inside a box at the same time.

I don't know if this was sarcasm or not but yes, yes you can. At least if you're an unobserved electron.

Yes, highly intelligent sarcasm, and you understood what I was referring to (or at the very least looked it up), so here's a cookie.

 

[Melon Hunter]

Exactly. What we perceive of as our "choice" is simply the sum total of our environment (which includes our genetics). Interestingly, if you follow this line of reasoning, it comes up with some interesting ideas about how astrology might have some (small) amount of validity..

Astrology has not been proven.

Also, I'm inclined as to how this line of thought could possibly lead to astrology being a valid theory.

I tend to think astrology is basically bunk, but if you follow the premise that our decisions are the sum total of our environment, than it stands to reason that our parents decisions are the same, including the decision of when to mate and the like. Or in other words, if your parents, who are one of the biggest shapers of your environment, were different people, you would have been born at a different time, and thus would have been a different person.

Or I guess even simpler, the parents who are likely to have a child born under a certain sign are the type of parents who will raise children to have the traits of that sign.

If my parents would not have mated then I wouldn't have been born...

Exactly! And the thing I'm suggesting is that even if your parents had chosen to mate at a different time, driven by their genes and environment to make that particular choice then, then the child that would have been born would not have been the "you" you know now either, but rather a different person, because s/he would have been raised differently.

So the link to astrology is not that astrology works because the stars at the time of your birth determine your personality, but rather that an indicator of how your personality will be determined by the environment around you (specifically that provided by your parents) is your time of birth, which determines what positions the stars will be in.

But why would the stars determine this? Granted, the stars move through particular patterns, but this doesn't really have any bearing on earthly events. After all, the exact environment of your birth doesn't recur every 12 months like the constellations, does it?