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.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

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'.

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

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?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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?

___________________
People who own my ass: Citric Acid, Boomer187, Tribu, Sand Leaper,
Jackson, venomX, jamie, Renegade, Konjin, Akridrot, Miss Bliss.
Psy-T - Down The Rabbit Hole (400minute long acid set)

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.

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

quote:

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

Can we prove them?

___________________
aka Tits McGee
aka Chesty LaRue
aka Busty St. Claire

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!