 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| What is your position on the issue of free will? |
| Hard Determinist |
|
12% |
[ 1 ] |
| Compatibilist |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Metaphysical Libertarian |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Hard Indeterminist |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Who cares? |
|
87% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 8 |
|
| Author |
Message |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: Re: Free will, determinism and the criminal justice system |  |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | And this is where you fall down, and why engineers will always pwn arts students.
The fact is, the non deterministic nature of the universe was settled by physists decades ago. I sure hope I spelled that correctly. According to the theories, when you get right down to the subatomic level, determinism breaks down. It's quite nasty stuff actually. You have subatomic particles that exist everywhere until someone looks at them, and cats in boxes that are dead and alive at the same time.
Unfortuantely this is not philosophical theory but scientific fact - or as close to fact as you can get in the strange world of quantum mechanics.
Better go tell your philosopher buddies that determinism was left behind in the 19th century. |
This isn't entirely true for two reasons:
1) Some still posit the theory that quantum mechanics act in a deterministic way, we just haven't gone deep enough to see it. These aren't crackpots or 19th century time travelers, mind you, but important contemporaries in the field. Check the Wikipedia page for the double-slit experiment.
I'm no expert in quantum matters, but I can logically see how this could be the case.
2) Whatever happens on a quantum level, we can't get around the fact that most everyday things volcanoes, footballs, tectonic plates, people still behave in highly (if not completely) deterministic ways. Indeed, as long as we deal with the real, every day world, Newtonian physics still explains more or less everything that needs explaining. It's only on the micro level, or super-macro level, that you run into problems. But it's reasonable to say that the world, and everything we perceive within it, more or less completely works according to a determinist structure.
More to the point, quantum really doesn't help the case for free will, as many well-known contemporary philosophers have pointed out. We're still left with the fact that free will is an illusion. Quantum hasn't changed that one bit.
The only way free will really works is in a compatibilists model, and as I've argued in a couple of posts here, it's a dubious claim. Decisionmaking /= choice, and that's the crux of the matter.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
 |
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | You could extend that logic and argue that if we know all the exact physical data of every particle in the universe, it would by possible to build a computer program that can look into the past and future with 100% accuracy. No free will there.
Unfortuantely reality doesnt work that way.
I wonder what would happen if I did build such a computer. Would it simulate itself simulating itself? |
I don't see a problem with any of that. And yes, of course that computer would have to simulate itself. It's mind-boggling, but perfectly logical and reasonable under that hypothetical.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: Re: Free will, determinism and the criminal justice system | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | I don't disagree with the conclusion, although the reasoning is farcical. Can't hold anyone responsible? Of course you can! Being responsible for things you have no control over is one of the foundations of adult life! I can't control my store's sales figures but I'm still responsible for them. Coaches can't control how many games their teams win, but they're still booed out at the end of the season if they do badly.
(It's not my fault I haven't returned those DVDs yet, but I'm still responsible  ) |
Depends what you mean by 'responsible'. Hurricane Sandy is responsible for destroying half of New Jersey, but clearly isn't a sentient being. You can't shake your fist at it and yell "How could you?".
One of the logical conclusions I take from all this is that it renders judgementalism indefensible. How can you judge someone else or think you're superior to them if we're all just victims of circumstance? I actually believe this and try to live my life that way (although I still slip into bad habits and judge people from time to time; I try to be aware I'm doing it, at least, and not just accept it as justified). Wouldn't the world be a better place if everyone thought this way? This is one of the reasons I think this is an important topic. It's not just wordplay. It fundamentally affects the way we see ourselves and other people.
By the way, when are you bringing those DVDs back?  Someone was asking about The War Game today.
(I hope you've had a chance to watch it, it's pretty awesome.)
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
It has been a few years since I have looked at quantum mechanics properly. The mathematics always used to give me headaches. If I recall correctly though, the uncertainty principle stands in the way of building an awesome future predicting supercomputer. It's impossible to ever measure everything.
I put it to my lecturers that 'just because we can't measure the position and velocity of particles with infinite precision, doesn't mean that they are not definite' ie just because we can't know everything, doesn't mean the universe is any less deterministic. They disagreed. Alas that I don't remember why.
I guess it all depends on how literally you take the wave function. Is Schroedinger's cat really alive and dead at the same time?
In any event you haven't answered the most basic question of all. What is free will, and what are you? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | I put it to my lecturers that 'just because we can't measure the position and velocity of particles with infinite precision, doesn't mean that they are not definite' ie just because we can't know everything, doesn't mean the universe is any less deterministic. They disagreed. Alas that I don't remember why. |
I think it's fair to say that there's no consensus on the subject even in specialist fields at this point. There are scientists and philosophers who ardently believe in indeterminism and some who don't. Indeterminism may even be the majority view, but I think there's enough dissent for determinism to still be regarded as a mainstream opinion.
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | In any event you haven't answered the most basic question of all. What is free will, and what are you? |
I'm sure better definitions exist elsewhere, but:
1) free will: independent choice; the concept that what you do or think can be separated from your biological make-up, history and given situation; that when you act you are not 100% controlled by existing factors.
2) me: a conscious organism. What is consciousness? Not sure how to define it, but it's something shared by most of the animal world, to some extent or other; a combination of sensory perceptions (sight; sound; smell; etc.) and memory and reasoning.
If you want to understand consciousness I guess you have to look at it from an evolutionary point of view: what are the most basic forms of consciousness? What does a baby human experience, or a fly, or an amoeba? I guess it springs from basic perception I must get from point A to point B and develops from there.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Nick - Pie Man
Joined: 04 Aug 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | I think it's fair to say that there's no consensus on the subject even in specialist fields at this point. There are scientists and philosophers who ardently believe in indeterminism and some who don't. Indeterminism may even be the majority view, but I think there's enough dissent for determinism to still be regarded as a mainstream opinion. |
There's no consensus on the question of whether the earth is round or flat either. There's enough dissent in the third world (and some parts of America too) for flat-earth theory to still be regarded as a mainstream opinion.
| Quote: |
1) free will: independent choice; the concept that what you do or think can be separated from your biological make-up, history and given situation; that when you act you are not 100% controlled by existing factors. |
What do you need, or what set of conditions do you require, for free will to arise? People are made up of biology and psychology and history and upbringing and atoms. When you take all of these things away is anything left?
If you're trying to say that free will is said to be only when an individual is able to make decisions at least partially based on something outside of those things that make it up and the circumstances it finds itself in, well I'd have to concede that there's no such thing. Unless you're a soul believer of some sort, we are only our atoms and biology and history and such. But..
2) me: a conscious organism. What is consciousness? Not sure how to define it, but it's something shared by most of the animal world, to some extent or other; a combination of sensory perceptions (sight; sound; smell; etc.) and memory and reasoning.
[/quote]
.. the trouble with what I wrote above is that not only does it not explain free will, it also doesn't explain consciousness.
I am not my atoms nor my history or biology. I can sit outside of myself and observe these forces interacting within me. Yet you take these things away, seperate them into their constituent parts, and I cease to exist. What am I?
It should be possible to write a conscious computer program. The message is independant of the medium.
Anyway free will or the illusion of it is so closely tied in to the perception of consciousness that I would suggest it's meaningless to try and talk about one without the other. Aside from 'we all have consciousness' and 'we have no idea what it is or where it comes from' there's not much more that can be said.
I am curious as to why the universe has compelled you to take such keen interest in this dry stuff anyway. If you want to look at the way we treat law breakers, it's much more pragmatic than armchair philosophers make it out to be. People do things, so they need to be held accountable for it. Whether or not they 'really' did it or whether the universe compelled them to isn't relevant to the courts. I wonder if that defense has ever been tested. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | | I am not my atoms nor my history or biology. I can sit outside of myself and observe these forces interacting within me. Yet you take these things away, seperate them into their constituent parts, and I cease to exist. What am I? |
I disagree. You (in the sense you mean) are your brain. You wouldn't have consciousness without it. Just because you perceive that you have one doesn't mean your consciousness is bigger than it.
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: | I am curious as to why the universe has compelled you to take such keen interest in this dry stuff anyway. If you want to look at the way we treat law breakers, it's much more pragmatic than armchair philosophers make it out to be. People do things, so they need to be held accountable for it. Whether or not they 'really' did it or whether the universe compelled them to isn't relevant to the courts. I wonder if that defense has ever been tested.
|
Check out the PDF link in my first post (the article by Green and Cohen). They establish two 'paradigms' of criminal sentencing, retributivism (punishing criminals because they deserve it) and consequentialism (punishing criminals for the good of society). If you don't believe in free will you probably have to dismiss retributivism, but some legal structures (particularly American courts) still give it emphasis in sentencing. I think they make a compelling case for moving towards a purely consequentialist system anyway, have a read if you get a chance and let me know what you think. I think they argue the case better than I could.
You can extend this logic to other things. What about personal relationships? What if you were aware that you could never blame your partner for anything, or assert that he or she 'should have' done something differently? What if people never blamed or judged themselves? When you apply this debate to actual human behaviour and the way society is constructed it seems far less dry.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | ^Read his post then! He has tried to summarise the various positions succinctly for us.
I have some new ideas but I'll hold them until we get some comments going. |
Shoot! 
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
3.14159 
Joined: 12 Sep 2009
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Nick - Pie Man wrote: |
I put it to my lecturers that 'just because we can't measure the position and velocity of particles with infinite precision, doesn't mean that they are not definite' ie just because we can't know everything, doesn't mean the universe is any less deterministic. They disagreed. Alas that I don't remember why.
I guess it all depends on how literally you take the wave function. Is Schroedinger's cat really alive and dead at the same time?
|
Not quite right Nick.
What your lecturers should have pointed out is that the act of measuring a particle changes it's velocity and/or position. (Photons are way bigger then sub-atomic particles). It is like trying to measure a rolling ball-bearing with a croquet-mallet. Down in the sub-atomic level the act of measuring is harder still. Quarks, muons, mesons, bosons etc are so small much of our knowledge of them is still purely theoretical or observed only by the way they interact with larger objects or forces.
We can never know everything about the universe (at the atomic and sub-atomic level)
On the human scale I'd argue we aren't meant to.
(btb Nick, building a computer that can measure the whole universe is pointless. The gyrations of these particles is essentially random and un-sentient (to the best of our knowledge anyway) and there-fore little or no practical value. At least until we try manipulating them, which kinda defeats the point of the exercise).
Schroedinger's cat? It is neither alive nor dead.
It's merely a method that allows contradictory observations of the same event to be quantified.
Egs, Light travels in a straight line but it also travels in a wave.
When a physicist does the calculations he must decide which state he is working with or the maths is meaningless even though they describe the same event.
I hope that's cleared it up.  |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
This thread is meson with my head, im going to exercise my free will to get out while I can.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| What does "this" refer to? |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
There was something tragic / comic about watching that powerful youtube clip with another youtube on the right titled "Teenagers react to Gangnam Style"  
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I've taken a stab at doing a video blog on the topic of free will and empathy. Hope some of you find it interesting/comprehensible:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5oAKwv1qlj0
I really never wanted to become one of those people, but it's too late now.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
