danbaron
10-02-2011, 11:56
I absolutely feel that I have free will. And, I absolutely want it to be true that humans do in fact have free will. But, I am perplexed about how free will could be possible.
I'm no expert on this subject. I haven't read any of the books written on it.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=free+will&x=0&y=0
There is a debate (I think both philosophical and scientific) about whether or not humans have free will. From what I know, on one side are those who intuitively feel that they have it. They feel that they make decisions all day, every day of their lives. They feel that when they do something, they had a choice, i.e., they could have chosen to do something else. For instance, if they come home from work, and turn on the TV, they feel they decided to do it, they could have chosen not to do it.
I think that those on the other side of the debate would say, that, for instance, if someone comes home and turns on the TV, then, he could not have not turned it on then. In other words, according to the free will deniers, if time could be replayed over and over infinitely, human history would always be exactly the same, down to the tiniest detail. If at 3:09:47 PM, on 2011-02-09, I was at a particular place, talking to a particular person, and said, "Are those new shoes?", then, no matter how many times history was replayed (let's say) from the day of my birth, then, at 3:09:47 PM, on 2011-02-09, I would always be at the same place, talking to the same person, and in each instance would say, "Are those new shoes?". So, every "choice" I ever made, would always be exactly the same. I think the free will deniers use that speculation as evidence that free will is not more than imaginary. I think that for the free will deniers, the feeling of free will that humans seemingly all have, is only a feeling, and, is not an indicator of fact.
My speculation is that most of the arguments for free will, are philosophical. I don't know about much scientific evidence to support its possibility. My speculation is that at least some of the arguments against free will are scientific. I have thought about it myself, and I have no idea how free will could be mechanically implemented. As far as I am aware, science knows about two kinds of physical processes, deterministic, and random. For deterministic processes, each event occurs in a chain of causation, and because of the prior event in the chain. It seems that all events at the scale that we normally interact with in life, are deterministic. Additionally, since the early 20th century, science has also known that at the quantum scale, events are random, they do not depend on a chain of causation, and their occurrences are absolutely unpredictable. The most information that it is theoretically possible to know about a future quantum event, is the probability that it will occur at a particular time.
My assumption is that the human brain is an organic machine (I don't know what else it could possibly be). If it is a machine, then, I think it must function according to the same principles that other machines function according to. Machines are deterministic. Sophisticated machines can be programmed to appear to make decisions, but, they don't really. Instead, they automatically follow instructions, which can vary according to the possible situations which the programmers have anticipated. I'll admit that it is also possible for machines to behave randomly. For instance, it would be possible to have a machine do, "A", when a particular atom of a radioactive isotope, loses an electron, and becomes stable (a quantum event). But, whether a machine is deterministic, random, or a combination of the two, it never decides to do anything at all. It only does what it is programmed to do. Therefore, how could the machine referred to as the human brain, do otherwise?
Using ideas from my simple mind, I'll try to give an example of how the concept of free will, is a puzzle to me. Let's say that in a room in a building, there is a light switch. When the switch is in the "on" position, the light in the room is on. When it is in the "off" position, the light in the room is off. We know that the switch will stay in its current position, until someone changes it to the other position.
Let's look at a simplified model of the human brain similarly to the light switch. Let's say that inside the human brain, all there is, is one switch, which can take two positions, one for "yes", and the other for "no". So, when a person with this simplified brain is faced with a choice of either agreeing to do a particular thing, or refusing, the switch either stays in its current position, or moves to the other position. To me, the question is, when the switch moves to the other position, what causes it to do so? The only possibility I can think of, is that the switch automatically functions according to its programming (which would be either deterministically or randomly). Unlike the light switch in the room, there is no one there, to decide to move the switch and then to move it. So, I have no notion of what the mechanism for implementing free will, could possibly be.
---------------------------------------------------
I can think of one way out of the logical box I find myself trapped in concerning free will. I'll use the simplified model of the human brain again, with the single yes-no switch. My idea goes like this. Inside every one of our brains, there lives a tiny man. When a decision is required, he makes it, and either keeps the switch in its current position, or moves it to the other position. Similarly, inside his brain, there lives a tiny man. When a decision is required, he makes it, and either keeps the switch in its current position, or moves it to the other position. Similarly,..
:o
I'm no expert on this subject. I haven't read any of the books written on it.
http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=free+will&x=0&y=0
There is a debate (I think both philosophical and scientific) about whether or not humans have free will. From what I know, on one side are those who intuitively feel that they have it. They feel that they make decisions all day, every day of their lives. They feel that when they do something, they had a choice, i.e., they could have chosen to do something else. For instance, if they come home from work, and turn on the TV, they feel they decided to do it, they could have chosen not to do it.
I think that those on the other side of the debate would say, that, for instance, if someone comes home and turns on the TV, then, he could not have not turned it on then. In other words, according to the free will deniers, if time could be replayed over and over infinitely, human history would always be exactly the same, down to the tiniest detail. If at 3:09:47 PM, on 2011-02-09, I was at a particular place, talking to a particular person, and said, "Are those new shoes?", then, no matter how many times history was replayed (let's say) from the day of my birth, then, at 3:09:47 PM, on 2011-02-09, I would always be at the same place, talking to the same person, and in each instance would say, "Are those new shoes?". So, every "choice" I ever made, would always be exactly the same. I think the free will deniers use that speculation as evidence that free will is not more than imaginary. I think that for the free will deniers, the feeling of free will that humans seemingly all have, is only a feeling, and, is not an indicator of fact.
My speculation is that most of the arguments for free will, are philosophical. I don't know about much scientific evidence to support its possibility. My speculation is that at least some of the arguments against free will are scientific. I have thought about it myself, and I have no idea how free will could be mechanically implemented. As far as I am aware, science knows about two kinds of physical processes, deterministic, and random. For deterministic processes, each event occurs in a chain of causation, and because of the prior event in the chain. It seems that all events at the scale that we normally interact with in life, are deterministic. Additionally, since the early 20th century, science has also known that at the quantum scale, events are random, they do not depend on a chain of causation, and their occurrences are absolutely unpredictable. The most information that it is theoretically possible to know about a future quantum event, is the probability that it will occur at a particular time.
My assumption is that the human brain is an organic machine (I don't know what else it could possibly be). If it is a machine, then, I think it must function according to the same principles that other machines function according to. Machines are deterministic. Sophisticated machines can be programmed to appear to make decisions, but, they don't really. Instead, they automatically follow instructions, which can vary according to the possible situations which the programmers have anticipated. I'll admit that it is also possible for machines to behave randomly. For instance, it would be possible to have a machine do, "A", when a particular atom of a radioactive isotope, loses an electron, and becomes stable (a quantum event). But, whether a machine is deterministic, random, or a combination of the two, it never decides to do anything at all. It only does what it is programmed to do. Therefore, how could the machine referred to as the human brain, do otherwise?
Using ideas from my simple mind, I'll try to give an example of how the concept of free will, is a puzzle to me. Let's say that in a room in a building, there is a light switch. When the switch is in the "on" position, the light in the room is on. When it is in the "off" position, the light in the room is off. We know that the switch will stay in its current position, until someone changes it to the other position.
Let's look at a simplified model of the human brain similarly to the light switch. Let's say that inside the human brain, all there is, is one switch, which can take two positions, one for "yes", and the other for "no". So, when a person with this simplified brain is faced with a choice of either agreeing to do a particular thing, or refusing, the switch either stays in its current position, or moves to the other position. To me, the question is, when the switch moves to the other position, what causes it to do so? The only possibility I can think of, is that the switch automatically functions according to its programming (which would be either deterministically or randomly). Unlike the light switch in the room, there is no one there, to decide to move the switch and then to move it. So, I have no notion of what the mechanism for implementing free will, could possibly be.
---------------------------------------------------
I can think of one way out of the logical box I find myself trapped in concerning free will. I'll use the simplified model of the human brain again, with the single yes-no switch. My idea goes like this. Inside every one of our brains, there lives a tiny man. When a decision is required, he makes it, and either keeps the switch in its current position, or moves it to the other position. Similarly, inside his brain, there lives a tiny man. When a decision is required, he makes it, and either keeps the switch in its current position, or moves it to the other position. Similarly,..
:o