in Search
0 members online
Immortality

Free Will - test the theory

Last post 09-26-2006, 5:51 PM by Chironian. 85 replies.
Page 6 of 6 (86 items)   « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6
Sort Posts:
    • Moderator

    idealideal is not online. Last active: 06 Jul 2008, 11:19 PM wrote 09-14-2006, 3:31 AM

    Mr. Farlops:
    It will only be highly accurate. How accurate it will be becomes an issue of how much computing power we can throw at it.

    Is that really the case?  As I'm interpreting what you're saying, it will always be correct, it may simply take more time to come to the correct conclusion.

    Mr. FarlopsMr. Farlops is not online. Last active: Sat, Jul 28 2007, 5:23 AM wrote 09-14-2006, 4:06 AM

    Ideal wrote, "As I'm interpreting what you're saying, it will always be correct, it may simply take more time to come to the correct conclusion."

    Kind of. What I'm saying is, that to be infinitely accurate, to be perfect, to be correct, it will take an infinite amount of time.

    I'm saying that it becomes a diminishing returns thing. To gain each new decimal place takes that much more effort or time.

    A chaotic pendulum is entirely deterministic. Its future at any point could be determined exactly but, only if we specify its initial conditions with infinite accuracy. For practical purposes it may as well be unpredictable.

    As I said, chaos dynamics and quantum theory place fundamental limits on accuracy even if they don't necessary validate free will or invalidate determinism.

    AcrinoeAcrinoe is not online. Last active: 04-08-2008, 1:09 PM wrote 09-14-2006, 8:49 AM

    I love these philosophical questions.  As much as I enjoy contemplating my navel, my practical nature always asserts itself.  Until you can frame an experiment to test any theories regarding free will or the lack thereof, you are just hypothesizing.  That's fine since building hypotheses can help us frame the world for better insight even with lack of testing. 

    [Slowly getting to my point]  So let's just say free will is an illusion.  How does it matter?  From a practical standpoint, it *seems and feels* like I've got free will.  So as far as I'm concerned, I do. 

    Exactly why do you feel the need to proof?  What insight or benefit is gained with an answer either way?  Maybe if the question was phrased differently, the need for an answer would be apparent to me.  I just don't get why the question keeps being asked.  Sounds kind of the “which came first the chicken or the egg?" question.  My answer would be that both the chicken and the egg are very tasty, thanks for playing.

     

    ChironianChironian is not online. Last active: 11-02-2007, 7:58 PM wrote 09-14-2006, 11:18 PM

    Abolitionist:

    Korimyr the Rat:
    I believe in free will because it is necessary for me to believe in it-- how can you make decisions about your life when you don't believe you're capable of making decisions?

    It may or may not be logically supportable-- just as my existence is not logically justifiable-- but it doesn't matter. We can either believe in free will and function, or we can deny the existence of free will and either behave in a logically inconsistent fashion-- trying to change the inevitable-- or cease functioning altogether.

    It's like believing in any kind of moral code. It's not logically supportable-- at least, not without a great deal of begging the question-- but it's necessary for our survival.

    Your mind will create the illusion of free will whether you believe in it or not, the percieved power to believe is also the result of biological processes, IMO.

    And vice versa.

    afwilliafwilli is not online. Last active: 09-22-2006, 12:40 AM wrote 09-15-2006, 2:08 AM

    My theory of free-will:  (this is certainly not "proof" but I do find it plausible... or else I wouldn't have come up with it)

    We have explained the existence of virtually everything we can see, in some form or another.  EVERYTHING is made up of "stuff" called matter.

    But what of conciousness?  There is a question as to what it is... why it should be.  And in this fashion... what about free-will?

    I contend that conciousness is certainly REAL, and with conciousness MUST be free-will.  I further contend that conciousness, just like everything else in the universe, is made up of matter... the so-called "dark" matter. 

    Now, imagine that the universe is simply a collection of "moments" or "states" -- Each moment is simply a different configuration of every particle in existence... of all kinds of matter.  I find it easy to imagine these moments as small little bits of sand in a bowl... or cheerios, if you're a fan...and it's a REALLY BIG bowl.

    These different configurations are static....much like the individual frames of a reel of film.

    Motion and time in this sense are the illusions.  However, "free will" is certainly NOT illusory.  Let me explain.  Back to those "moments."  EVERY possible state of the universe is in existence all at once... There is a corresponding "cheerio" in that bowl for every thing I could EVER do.  The funny thing is that it is completely up to me which cheerios I see.  And it is just as likely that there is another "me" somewhere that has chosen each and every one of those other cheerios.

    You might say that this idea of multiple 'me's choosing every possilbe outcome isn't free-will at all.  And that is entirely your choice to define it as such.... but for ME, this being that I am concious of, I choose everything.  I have chosen EVERY step along the way which has brought me to HERE, this very moment.

    But my ability to choose is certainly limited -- it is limited by what choices I have made already, and by what I perceive to be my "options" at this point of existence.  In "reality" there is no constraint, but consciousness if a funny thing, and likes things to "make sense."  This is why you experience Deja Vu occasionally -- you feel as if you've seen the moment before because you HAVE -- but you saw it out of context before and so your conscious mind simply discarded it as meaningless.  But now, when you experience that moment in a meaningful frame, you mind commits that moment to memory in context.  Everything must "make sense."  This is why "time" seems to flow in one direction.  That is why we do not let ourselves walk on water or teleport from one point to another. 

    Conciousness develops in stages -- at one point you and I weren't even self-aware.  But we are now, and now that we are we will never stop.  Good news for you and all you proponents of "life extension" -- you are already immortal.  Conciousness will not allow you to die.  At the moment in which your "life" would come to an end, your conciousness will do all the extending of your life you need... and at that point your awareness will expand beyond the limits you have self-imposed. 

    Our lives are nothing BUT free will.  My being here and choosing to write this response is the only "proof" of this I need.  I am HERE... I have chosen to be here.  Everything I have chosen previously has led me to here.  To ask questions of determinism certainly make sense, but only because we only experience one life, and so it appears to each from his vantage point that his very existence could not be any different -- from where else would he be looking back?

    From this perspective, a person could argue against free-will forever... but that person would fail to understand that he is doing so by choice.

    But what does it all mean?  Whatever you WANT it to mean.

    I choose which moment to view next, just as much as you chose to start this thread.  We do so because we are constructing a thread of conciousness around us which gives our lives meaning... My universe is far different than yours... and I'm sure there are some universes in which neither you nor I even exist.  That's all fine.  All that matters is what meaning I give to my own life.  This meaning, ultimately, is entirely of my own making.  If you choose to believe that free-will doesn't exist, so be it.  But truth doesn't change depending on its believers, or lack thereof.  Someday, you will reach the "end" of your life, and at that moment your fully developed consciousness will be aware of all it can do... and that is:

    ULTIMATE free-will -- the ability to choose between all states of existence, to create and manipulate the very reality of your own existence.  Someday you'll see it... unless you stick your current state of existence onto some silly machine forever... Then it's hard-telling what will happen.

     Anyway -- that's all for me!  Hope you enjoyed it.  :)  Carry on.

    • Moderator

    idealideal is not online. Last active: 06 Jul 2008, 11:19 PM wrote 09-15-2006, 3:23 AM

    afwilli:
    I contend that conciousness is certainly REAL, and with conciousness MUST be free-will.  I further contend that conciousness, just like everything else in the universe, is made up of matter... the so-called "dark" matter.

    Are you talking about the '21 grams' theory here?

    afwilliafwilli is not online. Last active: 09-22-2006, 12:40 AM wrote 09-15-2006, 10:19 AM

    ideal:

    afwilli:
    I contend that conciousness is certainly REAL, and with conciousness MUST be free-will.  I further contend that conciousness, just like everything else in the universe, is made up of matter... the so-called "dark" matter.

    Are you talking about the '21 grams' theory here?

    I don't know, I've never seen it.  But if that's what they say, then I guess so! 

    Recent observations seem to show that "dark matter" clumps around "normal" matter.  I think this fits with my concept.

    Anyway, is '21 Grams' any good?  Is it worth my time? 

    • Moderator

    idealideal is not online. Last active: 06 Jul 2008, 11:19 PM wrote 09-15-2006, 11:42 AM

    The theory was developed prior to dark matter being considered.  A doctor in Massechussettes(sp?) in the nineteenth century determined that the human body loses 21 grams when it dies.  A lot of people have argued against it but noone's stepped up and proven right or wrong.

    That's all there is to the theory really, he thought it was the weight of the human soul.  If you're asking if the movie is worth it, I haven't seen it.  From what I've been told, it's basicly(obviously) a two hour long, self destructive death fixation.

    ChironianChironian is not online. Last active: 11-02-2007, 7:58 PM wrote 09-15-2006, 1:43 PM

    Mr. Farlops:
    Chironian:
    You still do not draw the meaning of my statements here.
    I understand them fine. It's just, as a materialist, I mostly disagree with them.
    But the concept of materialist that you embrace has itself a non-material ontology, so your anti-mind philosophy leads to a contradiction from the get go. Not to worry, materialistic mystics are one of my favorite types of fish to fry!

    Mr. FarlopsMr. Farlops is not online. Last active: Sat, Jul 28 2007, 5:23 AM wrote 09-15-2006, 11:08 PM

    Acrinoe:
    So let's just say free will is an illusion.  How does it matter?  From a practical standpoint, it *seems and feels* like I've got free will.  So as far as I'm concerned, I do.
    That's basically the position I take as well. Free will may be an illusion but it's a convenient one. It is beneficial to society and our legal system to assume that everyone is responsible for their actions. It really doesn't matter if it's actually true or not.

    ChironianChironian is not online. Last active: 11-02-2007, 7:58 PM wrote 09-26-2006, 5:51 PM

    Abolitionist:
    Chironian:
    Abolitionist,

    Chimaster's link to Alex Ramonski's "I changed my mind"  has one of the most coherent, operative explanations of the free will problem I've ever read, and this aspect of his philosophy is not the most interesting part of his theory. Read the first few pages, right through the section called "hyper-reality..again" and ch.19,20 at least.

    There's also some good reason's expounded as to why you do not experience free will yourself, and you're right about "genes and environment" controlling yourself for now, just as you report here.

    Could you explain why you think Ramonski's work provides evidence for free will in your own words? I'm assuming that's why you posted it, am I correct?

    I do agree that cognitive re-programming can be useful. De-habituation is an organic process that can be modified biotechnologically - potentially more effectively than through 'self-introspection'.

    This topic is like saying "prove that I need to install wheels on my car for it function."
Page 6 of 6 (86 items)   « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6
View as RSS news feed in XML
Advertise | Help | Contact | About | Terms | Privacy | Copyright © 2007 Betterhumans | Powered by Community Server | Partners:
World Transhumanist Association Institute for Ethics and Emerging Technologies Immortality Institute Methuselah Mouse Prize Foresight Institute Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Lifeboat Foundation