3 ms·

I'm getting convinced about an interesting new theory on free will. Our free will isn't exactly "free", and is not certainly a conscious act. What we will is de

I'm getting convinced about an interesting new theory on free will. Our free will isn't exactly "free", and is not certainly a conscious act. What we will is determined by the genetic predispositions and a historical interaction of the self with environment. This creates a feedback loop and the self takes one of the trajectories for which it is NOT responsible. Yet, the consequences of the actions are faced by the self in an immediate sense (imprisonment, sadness, happiness). This creates an unfair situation. So, in a way, _I_ am not responsible for my actions, yet the blame is put on _me_. EDIT: grammar

nodemaker 14y ago
This is certainly true of animals, but we as human beings do have the power to control the direction of the feedback loop.In other words we have the ability to decide how we respond to external stimuli, a truly unique ability in the animal kingdom. "Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment. By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only within the large framework of a statistical survey referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable" - Viktor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning
- paraschopra 14y ago
  We respond to external stimuli in a unique way, true. I'm not saying free will does not exist, but YOU as an agent do not have that will. It's actually a combination of genes + historical feedback loop between environment and you. When you are asked to pick between a color (red or green), on what basis do you pick that color? The recent book on Free Will by Sam Harris: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405 http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405 is relevant here.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
Ygg2 14y ago
Actually scientist are of strong belief that mind is deterministic (it's a hypothesis so far, but all signs to point to it). However if people believe they are slaves to determinism then they act worse, since their actions are not their fault. Overall society on large must believe that they posses the freedom in order to make life bearable. Other way to look on that is this. If _you_ are not responsible for your actions than _me_ will punish you since neither of us is responsible for their actions.
- paraschopra 14y ago
  It's odd to say society must believe that they possess a freedom which isn't really there. Of course, in punishing me, you are not responsible, but by exposing this idea, I do hope your mindset will change. But if you punish me, I can't blame you. I see ideas as agents that change trajectories of free will.
  - nessus42 14y ago
    The world is almost certainly deterministic. Either that, or the cosmos is rolling dice in quantum mechanics wave collapse. It's hard to see how any sort of mystical "free will" can come out of a random number generator. We are all just very complex computer programs running on meat machines. These revelations make the common mystical use of the term "free will" rather meaningless. What could it possibly amount to? That you have a different mind living in your "soul" that makes your real decisions for you, while your physical brain is just some sort of fancy transceiver? That's rather doubtful, if you ask me. On the other hand, the notion of "free will" that no one is holding a gun to your head still stands. On the philosophical issue of whom to hold responsible for intelligent computer programs gone terribly wrong, I'm not sure that there is any real answer to that question. What should be clear, however, is that society has a right to defend itself against such rogue entities and to disincentivize such entities from doing bad things. What should also be clear, however, is that there is no moral good to increasing the suffering of people (i.e., intelligent programs) just because they happened to get saddled with a bum program.
- zyb09 14y ago
  don't quantum mechanics stand contrary to determinism? As far as I know there's a certain amount of unpredictably with particles in superposition.
agravier 14y ago
Although interesting, it's not a particularly new theory. I advise you to read some philosophy. Modern philosophers will agree with you that the concept of free will poses many issues and contradictions. Among those alive, you could consult Kane, and for classical philosophers, you could read Steiner. Although, your own judgement should ultimately be drawn from neuroscience as well (using your free will ;)
- paraschopra 14y ago
  Yes, I meant a new theory for me. I was undecided about free will (I still am to a large extent) but this idea is quite appealing. But it has interesting consequences on crime and morality. If science would agree to this version of the theory, why isn't punishment or imprisonment getting banned? Isn't training and coaching (exposure to different ideas) a better way to "cure" people than executing them?
  - agravier 14y ago
    Indeed, what you say makes sense. _If_ we know how to "cure" those people. That's one big if, but I agree that (in general) society should do all what is possible to understand the human behavior and brain.
andrewcooke 14y ago
you might enjoy dennett's elbow room - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room_(book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room_(book)

nodemaker 14y ago

This is certainly true of animals, but we as human beings do have the power to control the direction of the feedback loop.In other words we have the ability to decide how we respond to external stimuli, a truly unique ability in the animal kingdom. "Man is not fully conditioned and determined but rather determines himself whether he gives in to conditions or stands up to them. In other words, man is ultimately self-determining. Man does not simply exist but always decides what his existence will be, what he will become in the next moment. By the same token, every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only within the large framework of a statistical survey referring to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable" - Viktor Frankl, Man's search for Meaning

paraschopra 14y ago
We respond to external stimuli in a unique way, true. I'm not saying free will does not exist, but YOU as an agent do not have that will. It's actually a combination of genes + historical feedback loop between environment and you. When you are asked to pick between a color (red or green), on what basis do you pick that color? The recent book on Free Will by Sam Harris: http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405 http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Harris/dp/1451683405 is relevant here.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]

Ygg2 14y ago

Actually scientist are of strong belief that mind is deterministic (it's a hypothesis so far, but all signs to point to it). However if people believe they are slaves to determinism then they act worse, since their actions are not their fault. Overall society on large must believe that they posses the freedom in order to make life bearable. Other way to look on that is this. If _you_ are not responsible for your actions than _me_ will punish you since neither of us is responsible for their actions.

paraschopra 14y ago
It's odd to say society must believe that they possess a freedom which isn't really there. Of course, in punishing me, you are not responsible, but by exposing this idea, I do hope your mindset will change. But if you punish me, I can't blame you. I see ideas as agents that change trajectories of free will.
- nessus42 14y ago
  The world is almost certainly deterministic. Either that, or the cosmos is rolling dice in quantum mechanics wave collapse. It's hard to see how any sort of mystical "free will" can come out of a random number generator. We are all just very complex computer programs running on meat machines. These revelations make the common mystical use of the term "free will" rather meaningless. What could it possibly amount to? That you have a different mind living in your "soul" that makes your real decisions for you, while your physical brain is just some sort of fancy transceiver? That's rather doubtful, if you ask me. On the other hand, the notion of "free will" that no one is holding a gun to your head still stands. On the philosophical issue of whom to hold responsible for intelligent computer programs gone terribly wrong, I'm not sure that there is any real answer to that question. What should be clear, however, is that society has a right to defend itself against such rogue entities and to disincentivize such entities from doing bad things. What should also be clear, however, is that there is no moral good to increasing the suffering of people (i.e., intelligent programs) just because they happened to get saddled with a bum program.
zyb09 14y ago
don't quantum mechanics stand contrary to determinism? As far as I know there's a certain amount of unpredictably with particles in superposition.

agravier 14y ago

Although interesting, it's not a particularly new theory. I advise you to read some philosophy. Modern philosophers will agree with you that the concept of free will poses many issues and contradictions. Among those alive, you could consult Kane, and for classical philosophers, you could read Steiner. Although, your own judgement should ultimately be drawn from neuroscience as well (using your free will ;)

paraschopra 14y ago
Yes, I meant a new theory for me. I was undecided about free will (I still am to a large extent) but this idea is quite appealing. But it has interesting consequences on crime and morality. If science would agree to this version of the theory, why isn't punishment or imprisonment getting banned? Isn't training and coaching (exposure to different ideas) a better way to "cure" people than executing them?
- agravier 14y ago
  Indeed, what you say makes sense. _If_ we know how to "cure" those people. That's one big if, but I agree that (in general) society should do all what is possible to understand the human behavior and brain.

andrewcooke 14y ago

you might enjoy dennett's elbow room - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room_(book) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elbow_Room_(book)