TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Free will & physics
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

Free will & physics

this topic, as probably a few others i'll make in the future, is inspired/based on the movie waking life.


quote from the movie:

In a way, in our conemporary world view, it's easy to think that science has come to take the place of God. But some philosophical problems remain as troubling as ever. Take the problem of free will. This problem has been around for a long time, since before Aristotle in 350 B.C. St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, these guys all worried about how we can be free if God already knows in advance everything you're gonna do. Nowadays we know that the world operates according to some fundamental physical laws, and these laws govern the behavior of every object in the world. Now, these laws, because they're so trustworthy, they enable incredible technological achievements. But look at yourself. We're just physical systems too, right? We're just complex arrangements of carbon molecules. We're mostly water, and our behavior isn't gonna be an exception to these basic physical laws. So it starts to look like whether its God setting these things up in advance and knowing everything you're gonna do or whether it's these basic physical laws governing everything, there's not a lot of room left for freedom.

So now you might be tempted to just ignore the questions, ignore the mystery of free will. Say "Oh, well, it's just an historical anecdote. It's sophomoric. It's a question with no answer. Just forget about it." But the questions keeps staring you right in the face. You think about individuality for example, who you are. Who you are is mostly a matter of the free choices that you make. Or take responsibility. You can only be held responsible , you can only be found guilty, or you can only be admired or respected for things you did of your own free will. So the questions keeps coming back, and we don't really have a solution to it. It starts to look like all our decisions are really just a charade.

Think about how it happens. There's some electrical activity in your brain. Your neurons fire. They send a signal down into your nervous system. It passes along down into your muscle fibers. They twitch. You might, say, reach out your arm. It looks like it's a free action on your part, but every one of those - every part of that process is actually governed by physical law, chemical laws, electrical laws, and so on.

So now it just looks like the big bang set up the initial conditions, and the whole rest of human history, and even before, is really just the playing out of subatomic particles according to these basic fundamental physical laws. We thing we're special. We think we have som kind of special dignity, but that now comes under thread. I mean, that's really challenged by this picture.

So you might be saying, "Well, wait a minute. What about quantum mechanics? I know enough contemporary physical theory to know it's not really like that. It's really a probabilistic theory. There's room. It's Loose. It's not deterministic." And that's going to enable us to understand free will. But if your look at the details, it's not really going to help because what happens is you have some very small quantum particles, and their behavior is apparently a bit random. They swerve. Their behavior is absurd in the sense that its unpredictable and we can't understand it based on anything that came before. Its just does something out of the blue, according to a probabilistic framework. But is that going to help with freedom? I mean, should our freedom be just a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That starts to seem like it's worse, I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic physical machine than just some random swerving.

So we can't just ignore the problem. We have to find room in our contemporary world view for persons with all that that entails, not just bodies, but persons. And that means trying to solve the problem of freedom, finding room for choices and responsibility, and trying to understand individuality.

end quote. (didnt use the quote tags cause they make the text smaller, and a bit more annoying to read)

now, i cant claim to know much about physics, but under the assumptions that the premises given here are correct, do we have free will?

i assume the first step in determining that, is defining free will.

quote:

free will n. 1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will. 2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.

now, this definition does not encompass the ideas suggested in waking life (unless we treat physics as the equivalant of divine will ), but it still deserves a responce.

for the first definition, i can say that i believe i have the ability to make choices, but can i prove it? not to a satisfying extent.

example:
i'm making this thread just now with an aspiration for more knowledge, amongst other reasons, but i could just as easliy click back and forget about it. but i can't empirically prove that it's a free choice.

for the second definition, i am very constrained in my choices - by circumstances and external factors. (i'm pretty sure this does not require further elaboration, but if i'm wrong let me know)

is fate constraining my choices? hard to take seriously. but assuming fate exists, i don't see why it would constrain my choices, if i'll make the same decisions regardless.

and i'll just ignore the concept of divine will here as to not turn this into a religious debate.



hmm, this probably looks and feels incomplete, but that's as far as i can get without interaction, so please contribute and hopefully we'll make a philosophical breakthrough here

Re: Free will & physics

I love philosophical threads: You don't need to research anything, just be sure that your own conclusions are relatively coherent, and point out those that are conflicting in the other guys' conclusions.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T I mean, should our freedom be just a matter of probabilities, just some random swerving in a chaotic system? That starts to seem like it's worse, I'd rather be a gear in a big deterministic physical machine than just some random swerving.

I realise this is a quote from the movie, but as I haven't seen it, I would like to know if it is further elaborated upon later in the movie? I'm curious to know why it would be better to be a part of a machine than to be a random thing? Is it some kind of desire for "purpose"? If so, then the preference is misguided as search for purpose ultimately leads to infinite regress or circular dependencies, which seen as a whole would lack purpose.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T end quote. (didnt use the quote tags cause they make the text smaller, and a bit more annoying to read)

What'ya talkin'bout? +mousewheel fixes things instantly. You are using Firefox? Right?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T i assume the first step in determining that, is defining free will.

The problem with the definitions you gave, as I see it, is that they ultimately relies on the definition of "choice", and are useless with no such definition. Personally I believe that fundamentally there's no such thing as "choices", but only reactions. These might be deterministic or subject to random fluctuations - but that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
You might experience the illusion of choices once in a while (as with your example about posting or not posting), but ultimately that is the resolution of conflicting desires (e.g. gain knowledge vs. remain unexposed). Whichever you "chose" is simply a matter of your estimation of the consequences of the possible actions and how these relate to your personal desires. If you "ponder" a long time, you might become conscious of several other desires that are affected by your decision to post/not post (e.g. the commitment to answer replies to your post), and that's what's causing the illusion of chosing. But in the end you are simply a machine that does what its experience has taught it will maximize its personal pleasure.
Hope I'm being clear here.

Did I miss an overall question or are we just discussing whether or not in theory free will exists? I realize Derleek, that you do not choose to make this a religious debate, but I can forsee it coming. For anyone who is a religious zealot will come out saying that God knows all, and that everything happens for a reason, and that God is the one that makes our destinies. That is of course, the Christian point of view, for there are several religions who don't believe in that, who believe in the consequences of your own actions and reincarnation and so on and so forth. However, should anyone call themselves a Christian, that automatically takes out any opportunity to claim that you have free will, or that you are an individual. Now, saying this, how would that uphold in say a court of law? "God made me do it"? I don't think so. Bascially religion is throwing free will and all of its concepts out the window.

Free will is a nice thought, but again, as you said, there is no way to actually prove that any of us have free will. But again, there is no way to DISprove it, so in the end it just ends up as one of many mysteries of life. It's all a persons take on the view really. I, myself, believe in free will. I belive that a person has the choice to control things in their life and control their own actions and thus has the ability to face the consequences of every action that they may take.

Now.

Someone else post so I can continue on here because I'm faltering for a basis to continue talking.

Re: Re: Free will & physics

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I realise this is a quote from the movie, but as I haven't seen it, I would like to know if it is further elaborated upon later in the movie? I'm curious to know why it would be better to be a part of a machine than to be a random thing? Is it some kind of desire for "purpose"? If so, then the preference is misguided as search for purpose ultimately leads to infinite regress or circular dependencies, which seen as a whole would lack purpose.

i typed the contents of the whole scene, the movie does not flow nor further elaborate on any of it.

i see being a part of a machine as the equivalant to fate doing it's job, you're just there to watch yourself play your part, and to contribute to the end goal, whatever it might be.
so that's probably why that character said he prefers that thought over the other.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic What'ya talkin'bout? +mousewheel fixes things instantly. You are using Firefox? Right?

yeah, using firefox, just didnt bother to check on functions such as that, will keep it in mind

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic The problem with the definitions you gave, as I see it, is that they ultimately relies on the definition of "choice", and are useless with no such definition. Personally I believe that fundamentally there's no such thing as "choices", but only reactions. These might be deterministic or subject to random fluctuations - but that is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

yes, as i was pasting from dictionary.com i noticed how much further elaborations this would all require, so i thought going at it step by step would be better rather than assembling it all in the first post, thus further derailing focus to the most relavant questions.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic You might experience the illusion of choices once in a while (as with your example about posting or not posting), but ultimately that is the resolution of conflicting desires (e.g. gain knowledge vs. remain unexposed). Whichever you "chose" is simply a matter of your estimation of the consequences of the possible actions and how these relate to your personal desires. If you "ponder" a long time, you might become conscious of several other desires that are affected by your decision to post/not post (e.g. the commitment to answer replies to your post), and that's what's causing the illusion of chosing. But in the end you are simply a machine that does what its experience has taught it will maximize its personal pleasure. Hope I'm being clear here.

can you choose between pleasure and pain (not of the massochistic kind ) though?
they seem to be the most basic choices in the equation, so they should get the focus in the debate.

i believe that my constant desire for pleasure is a subconscious mechanism i consciously chose to 'install'.

Re: Re: Re: Free will & physics

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T can you choose between pleasure and pain (not of the massochistic kind ) though?

Are you asking not about physical pain but emotional pain? I think you can choose between them. You can decide on the amounts of pleasure or pain and what brings either or to you, and you can choose to stop either or.

choice
n.

1. The act of choosing; selection.
2. The power, right, or liberty to choose; option.
3. One that is chosen.
4. A number or variety from which to choose: a wide choice of styles and colors.
5. The best or most preferable part.
6. Care in choosing.
7. An alternative.


5 seems to be the most suitable definition, so can we go on from there?

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly Free will is a nice thought, but again, as you said, there is no way to actually prove that any of us have free will. But again, there is no way to DISprove it, so in the end it just ends up as one of many mysteries of life. It's all a persons take on the view really. I, myself, believe in free will. I belive that a person has the choice to control things in their life and control their own actions and thus has the ability to face the consequences of every action that they may take.

that's what we're doing, searching for a way to prove or disprove free will.

the scene from the movie describes some empirical proof (supposing the premises are correct) that free will does not exist. and instead we are either completely random, or are on a completely determined path.

can we disprove the theories the movie suggests?

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly However, should anyone call themselves a Christian, that automatically takes out any opportunity to claim that you have free will, or that you are an individual. Now, saying this, how would that uphold in say a court of law? "God made me do it"? I don't think so. Bascially religion is throwing free will and all of its concepts out the window.

Actually, (and I'm sorry to thread-jack against the expressed wishes of the thread starter, but what can you do) I think the notion of "free will" has been a solid defense of Christianity against intellectuals throughout time.
Back in the days, where "the problem of evil" (i.e. if God is omniscient, omnipotent, and all good, why do we have evil?), free will was the church's answer: Basically, Adam & Eve did the bad deed of eating the apple, and suddenly became capable of making informed choices, and thus original sin was born. Ever since then evil people are simply exercising the free will in a bad manner, as God foresaw they would and tried to prevent with his warning to Adam & Eve about eating from the apple tree. Of course that explanation of why we have evil (and coincidentally as to why we are all sinners), as championed by Christians, suffers from a major flaw, namely that Adam & Eve supposedly chose to eat from the tree, and hence made a choice before they got the decision making ability.
Anyway, that was a detour, I was writing about how Christians have used "free will" against intellectuals. When the problem of evil was rendered obsolete by the success of science (meaning that science was a much stronger attack on Christian teachings than mere logical constructs) the church started using "free will" as one of those things that "science just can't explain". Consequently, a door can be left open for God and his influence on daily life. If, however, you don't believe there's such a thing as free will, but only an illusion emerging from lots of interactions between hardwired desires and expectations of the future, then you don't need God to fill this void, as there's no void.

Then I suppose Christians aren't being very clear. For on one hand, they say we have free will, that adam and eve chose to go into the garden of evil and that's why we have original sin. Yet on another, they say that God is all knowing and that we are living out God's will. If we are living out Gods will, even if we make the wrong choices aren't we still not living out our own free will, but Gods? That would shatter any thought of free will, wouldn't it?

I told you that a discussion of Free Will would end up becoming religious.

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T can we disprove the theories the movie suggests?

Can we prove them?

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T that's what we're doing, searching for a way to prove or disprove free will. the scene from the movie describes some empirical proof (supposing the premises are correct) that free will does not exist. and instead we are either completely random, or are on a completely determined path. can we disprove the theories the movie suggests?

So what you are really seeking is a proof that free will is not an illusion?

I think you'll have a hard time, as you can pretty much explain "choices" in standard physics/biological terms, and you would have to
1: come up with some example that cannot be explained this way
2: prove that that example cannot be explained unless you allow for some supernatural agent acting out influence on the natural world.

1 is hard, and 2 has never been done in any other setting, so I would love to see you succeed. It would be most impressive.

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly Then I suppose Christians aren't being very clear. For on one hand, they say we have free will, that adam and eve chose to go into the garden of evil and that's why we have original sin. Yet on another, they say that God is all knowing and that we are living out God's will. If we are living out Gods will, even if we make the wrong choices aren't we still not living out our own free will, but Gods? That would shatter any thought of free will, wouldn't it?

No Christians aren't being very clear. But consider the task they have on their hands: They have to sell a religion containing tons of contradictions and explanations that are not explanations. The best they can hope for is throwing pseudo-correct arguments into the fray and hope that people too stupid to see through these jump onto the bandwagon and vote for Bush.

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly I told you that a discussion of Free Will would end up becoming religious.

Well, of course, you started it yourself!

Re: Re: Re: Free will & physics

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T can you choose between pleasure and pain (not of the massochistic kind ) though? they seem to be the most basic choices in the equation, so they should get the focus in the debate.

I guess what you're asking is: Can you choose the option involving more pain? If that's the question, then I would say "no". You cannot chose the option that you expect would give you the least amount of pleasure.
I've been presented for a number of cases over the years, where people have thought that this is not true, but I have so far been able to explain them all away, but am of course open to new ideas.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Free will & physics

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic Well, of course, you started it yourself!

I did not, I merely stated that SINCE Christians aren't clear, that an discussion on religion would PROBABLY happen.

You bit the bait.

quote:

Originally posted by trancaholic I guess what you're asking is: Can you choose the option involving more pain? If that's the question, then I would say "no". You cannot chose the option that you expect would give you the least amount of pleasure. I've been presented for a number of cases over the years, where people have thought that this is not true, but I have so far been able to explain them all away, but am of course open to new ideas.

I just tried to disprove that twice and both times I ended up sticking my foot in my mouth because mid explaination I ended up agreeing that it wasn't choice.

In my first argument, I tried to state that one can chose the painful route if in the end they find it more beneficiary and healthy. And then I realized that you in fact wouldn't be choosing the painful route because the end results in happiness.

In my second argument, I tried to dispute that one could be considered choosing to stay in an abusive situation if they have no where else to turn, but then I decided no, that means that they are actually left in the situation by force, not by choice.

What about suicide? On one hand I could see that in the end you decided to end a painful situation. But then again, it could be argued that had you stayed alive, you would have been choosing the lesser of two evils, and in the end, chose the option that would bring the less amount of pain, rather than just not giving yourself the chance and offing yourself.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free will & physics

quote:

Originally posted by squirrelly What about suicide? On one hand I could see that in the end you decided to end a painful situation. But then again, it could be argued that had you stayed alive, you would have been choosing the lesser of two evils, and in the end, chose the option that would bring the less amount of pain, rather than just not giving yourself the chance and offing yourself.

I would say that the negative consequences of suicide is
1: the pain involved in killing yourself,
2: the sadness you know you will bring those who love you, and
3: if you believe in "something after death", the risk of not knowing if you end up in a situation worse than the one you're in right now.

As to 1, I think that we can agree that it is a non-issue if you're already in pain due to some illness. If you're "only" suffering psychologically then you must somehow value psychological well-being much higher than physical well-being if you take the suicide route. For 2, the same kind of reasoning would say that a person who's already without loved ones (the majority of suicidal people I would venture to claim) has no issues here. And if the suicidal person do have loved ones, it might be that other concerns outweigh this concern.
About 3, then I guess it's a toss up whether you think that the action of suicide is in someway affecting what afterlife you will get, or if you foresee anything happening, if you live on, that will change your afterlife. And again, other concerns might outweigh the risk (like someone about to go broke might run the risk of commiting an armed robbery). Obviously, 3 is not an issue if you don't believe in an afterlife.

I've had suicide pretty close in my life, and can promise you that I have seen situations where people are only living because they know how much they mean to other people, and value not hurting these loved ones more than the relief of not having to live.
As an agnostic who lives as a materialist, I don't myself see any particular reason to live, yet I don't have any reason to kill myself either. If I was put in a situation where I was diagnosed with, say, terminal cancer, that would change, and I would most definitely off myself before too much pain set in, even if it meant that my loved ones would have to do without me for a little while longer than if I endured the natural route to death. Same goes for senility, where suicide would be a great escape from being a lonely undignified baby in a retirement home.

It just depends on your definition of free will. By it's official definition, yes, we have free will. The point of the argument is that whatever you choose, you will have chosen because it is in your nature to do so.

Welcome, and congratulations. I am delighted that you could make it. Getting here wasn't easy... I know. In fact, I suspect it was a little tougher than you realize. To begin with, for you to be here now, trillions of drifting atoms had some how to assemble in an intricate and curiously obliging manner to create you. Its an arrangement so specialized and particular that it has never been tried before, and it will only exist this once. For the next many years we hope, these tiny particles will uncomplainginly engage in all the billions of deft, co-operative efforts necessary to keep you intact... And let you experience the extremely agreeable but generally underappreciated state known as existance.

- Beginning of "A short history of nearly everything"

In resopnse to your question, yes, we control our "inner destiny."
Newtonian physics said that as long as we account for all the variables we can predict where an object will be now and in the future. This lead many to believe everything was on a fixed course.

However, it is clear this is wrong, with the advent of quantum physics.

But, from a pyschological perspective, we create our destiny as well.

As our senses take in expericnes, we tend to code these experiences with our "inner voice." The manner in which we code these experiences form thoughts, which become ideas, which become behaviours, which become personality, which form our habbits, and then ultimately, our habbits form our destiny.

For example, you could wake up in the morning and see that it is raining. You could say to yourself "shit, I hate this weather, it's gonna be such an awful day," or, "yay! I don't have to water my garden today." Our thoughts get shelved into our subconscious, which then form our reality. The difference in the way we code the experience then manifests throughout the day through our personality and habbits, and thus alters inner destiny.

However, many people just fall into traps of conditioning. For example, they blame instead of appreciate, negative outlook versus positive, etc. They get lost in their programming and it builds over time... these people lose control of their free choice. Consciously experiencing life and making sure to actively watch and control your words, and "inner voice" are the best ways to take control of free choice.

I will say something that is socially acceptable but upon close examination makes no sense... such as " I can't believe that just happened!" Or, I sometimes catch myself saying shit like, "I can't go tonight" - when really I mean " I choose not to go." The differences in the way we use words and form thoughts from experiences really trigger big changes in our lives.

quote:

Originally posted by cap As our senses take in expericnes, we tend to code these experiences with our "inner voice." The manner in which we code these experiences form thoughts, which become ideas, which become behaviours, which become personality, which form our habbits, and then ultimately, our habbits form our destiny.

do we code those experiences and perceptions completely free of inner & outer elements?

so far, the pleasure vs pain argument is showing we don't.

i can't see myself making a choice that will lead to more pain than pleasure, and that's pretty much the most concrete argument here, it's the nail in the coffin for free will.

if i can't choose the options that brings more pain, i can't really choose, i'm always going to choose the option that brings me the most pleasure in one way or the other, to as far as i know.

i may reverse my outlook on life to deal with uneducated decisions that brought me into pain, so to perceive it as pleasure, but that is again, the most logical decision a machine that is fueled by nothing else but pleasure will do.


if anyone see's a hole in all this, please say so, because it seems like there is ultimately no free will.

I really like this topic. It's been a while since we've had a philosophical debate. I hope I have enought time to contribute tomorrow.

edit: oh and welcome Psy-T

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I really like this topic. It's been a while since we've had a philosophical debate. I hope I have enought time to contribute tomorrow.

Yeah its really nice!

As for the topic, i dont really have anything to add to whats already said, but im agreeing that there is no such thing as free will. Which is probably my favorite philosohpical theory (mainly because it dissaproves many of our religions! ).

Edit: worth to mention as well, i dont think there is such thing as random either (fuck quantum mechanics), so that means im also a beliver of determism..

quote:

Originally posted by Psy-T do we code those experiences and perceptions completely free of inner & outer elements? so far, the pleasure vs pain argument is showing we don't. i can't see myself making a choice that will lead to more pain than pleasure, and that's pretty much the most concrete argument here, it's the nail in the coffin for free will. if i can't choose the options that brings more pain, i can't really choose, i'm always going to choose the option that brings me the most pleasure in one way or the other, to as far as i know. i may reverse my outlook on life to deal with uneducated decisions that brought me into pain, so to perceive it as pleasure, but that is again, the most logical decision a machine that is fueled by nothing else but pleasure will do. if anyone see's a hole in all this, please say so, because it seems like there is ultimately no free will.

Okay, before I start I have to admit that I'm not much of a filosofical person. I usually catch the philosophical threads by the time they're 14 pages long, and I never have the time to catch up.

Anyway, I'll contribute my useless opinion anyway

Psy-T, you mention that you would never make decisions that will lead to more pain than pleasure. I'm guessing you suggest that you will always, by instinct/physics or whatever, make a choice that will lead to your optimal outcome. Suggesting that our choices are already preconceived.. perhaps?? I have a problem with this.....

The reason why I disagree is because of a little thing called "game theory". If you have watched the movie "A Beautiful Mind" with Russel Crowe in it, you'd be familiar with the concept. How does economics come into this discussion? Well, recall the scene in the bar where Crowe's character and his friends are trying to hit on some hot bird.

I'm not going to use the example from the movie but of an example known as "prisoners dilemma". What I will demonstrate is that the logical choices that people make are not always in their own best interest, even though the logical viewpoint would suggest otherwise. What I have show, below, is what is called a 'payoff' matrix, where we have two people, Joe and Bob, who have been questioned by police about a crime.

-----------------------------------Joe--------------------------------
--------------------------Confess------Dont Confess-------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------Confess---------10,10----------0,20------------------------
Bob-------------------------------------------------------------------
------Dont Confess---------20,0-----------1,1-------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The table is read like this: Each prisoner chooses one of the two strategies. In effect, Joe chooses a column and Bob chooses a row. They either confess, or dont confess to the crime. The two numbers in each cell (ie. 10,10 or 0,20) tell the outcomes for the two prisoners when the corresponding pair of strategies is chosen. The number to the left of the comma tells the payoff to the person who chooses the rows (Bob) while the number to the right of the column tells the payoff to the person who chooses the columns (Joe). Thus (reading down the first column) if they both confess, each gets 10 years jail, but if Joe confesses and Bob does not, Bob gets 20 and Joe goes free.

So: How does this situation resolve itself? What strategies are "rational" if both men want to minimise the time they spend in jail? Joe might reason as follows: "Two things can happen: Bob can confess or Bob can keep quiet. Suppose Bob confesses. Then I get 20 years if I don't confess, 10 years if I do, so in that case it's best to confess. On the other hand, if Bob doesn't confess, and I don't either, I get a year; but in that case, if I confess I can go free. Either way, it's best if I confess. Therefore, I'll confess."

But Bob can and presumably will reason in the same way, so that they both confess and go to prison for 10 years each. Yet, if they had acted "irrationally," and kept quiet, they each could have gotten off with one year each.



My point.
Making a choice that leads to 'pain' is often better than a choice that leads to 'pleasure'. Logic is not always "logical", and if logic is merely a result of chemical reactions in our brain, perfected over millions of years, then being able to act irrationally and still coming out on top (or to be in a 'pleasurable' state) is an example of our minds working against the laws of nature..

So, yes, I do believe in free will.

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz

well, its still a rational decision, since they both wanted to minimize their time in jail. Just that the approach they both used might not have been the smartest.

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew well, its still a rational decision, since they both wanted to minimize their time in jail. Just that the approach they both used might not have been the smartest.

But their rational decision was not rational.. If they both acted irrationally then they both would be in a better state. Isnt this an example of how free will/choice rises above a 'set' precondition?

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz But their rational decision was not rational.. If they both acted irrationally then they both would be in a better state. Isnt this an example of how free will/choice rises above a 'set' precondition?

No, because they couldnt know the outcome of the other ones decision. For example, the other one could have reasoned entirly different, for example he might have had a bad concience or whatever, which made him confess. I mean the only reason to confess might not be to minimize time in jail, but perhaps to minimize pressure on himself, ie to minimize pain but in another way. So person A could not know how this person B was reasoning, so instead of taking a risk, he reasoned that its smarter to confess so then i will at least not have to be in jail for 20 years. Thats very ratinal to me!

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz Psy-T, you mention that you would never make decisions that will lead to more pain than pleasure. I'm guessing you suggest that you will always, by instinct/physics or whatever, make a choice that will lead to your optimal outcome. Suggesting that our choices are already preconceived.. perhaps?? I have a problem with this.....

It seems to me that you fail to distinguish between expected outcomes and outcomes. The "choices" that you make is always those that will maximize your expected outcome. Things may turn out different than expected, but that doesn't make your choice a choice of the bad option. Say, if I am wondering whether to cross the street or not, and at the same time some person is pushing a flowerpot out the window some four floors above me, I might decide not to cross the street (due to too much trafic for instance), and then get hit on the head by the flower pot. Clearly my choice lead to the worse outcome, but as falling flowerpots are so rare, I still opted for the pleasurable outcome - I simply did not have enough information to predict outcomes correctly.

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz I'm not going to use the example from the movie but of an example known as "prisoners dilemma". What I will demonstrate is that the logical choices that people make are not always in their own best interest, even though the logical viewpoint would suggest otherwise. What I have show, below, is what is called a 'payoff' matrix, where we have two people, Joe and Bob, who have been questioned by police about a crime. -----------------------------------Joe-------------------------------- --------------------------Confess------Dont Confess------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------Confess---------10,10----------0,20------------------------ Bob------------------------------------------------------------------- ------Dont Confess---------20,0-----------1,1------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- The table is read like this: Each prisoner chooses one of the two strategies. In effect, Joe chooses a column and Bob chooses a row. They either confess, or dont confess to the crime. The two numbers in each cell (ie. 10,10 or 0,20) tell the outcomes for the two prisoners when the corresponding pair of strategies is chosen. The number to the left of the comma tells the payoff to the person who chooses the rows (Bob) while the number to the right of the column tells the payoff to the person who chooses the columns (Joe). Thus (reading down the first column) if they both confess, each gets 10 years jail, but if Joe confesses and Bob does not, Bob gets 20 and Joe goes free. So: How does this situation resolve itself? What strategies are "rational" if both men want to minimise the time they spend in jail? Joe might reason as follows: "Two things can happen: Bob can confess or Bob can keep quiet. Suppose Bob confesses. Then I get 20 years if I don't confess, 10 years if I do, so in that case it's best to confess. On the other hand, if Bob doesn't confess, and I don't either, I get a year; but in that case, if I confess I can go free. Either way, it's best if I confess. Therefore, I'll confess." But Bob can and presumably will reason in the same way, so that they both confess and go to prison for 10 years each. Yet, if they had acted "irrationally," and kept quiet, they each could have gotten off with one year each.

Game theory is not really the hot stuff in decision theory any more, because of its failure to do anything but model scenarios and the crudeness with which it does so. In the example the reason why you have a dilemma, is because you break up the scenario into two cases:
1: Assume that I know that my opponent (the other prisoner) plays "confess", and
2: assume that I know that my opponent plays "keep quiet".
But you cannot split things up this way, as the crux of the matter is the very fact that you don't know what your opponent will play.
The correct manner to handle the situation is to consider the two situations:
A: I confess, and since I have no clue as to what my opponent will do, I'll end up in a gamble between the two options 10 and 0 years, and
B: I do not confess, and end up in a gamble between the two options 20 and 1 years.
In general, we do not know enough about the opponent (is he stupid, loyal, stubborn, etc.) to have any qualified guess as to what he will do, so we cannot start to reason about the probability, P, of the opponent chosing "confess" in the two gambles, but we do know that they're the same (his choice is unaffected by mine). That means that the expected outcome of the two situations are:
A: P*10+(1-P)*0=10P
B: P*20+(1-P)*1=19P+1
If B was the rational choice, then 19P+1 would have to be smaller than 10P, meaning that the probability of the opponent confessing would have to be negative (which probabilities cannot be). Hence, the rational choice is A. That there is a configuration of the world (viz. the one where both of us keep shut) that is better than the expected outcome of 10P years, is of no relevance when the rational choice is made, as we do not have the ability to ensure that we end up in that situation.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.