Do we have free will or is everything predestined?

So why would that evaluation have to be conscious, you say that the evaluation needed would not have been working if it was automatic and not conscious?

I understand, I have had similiar though less dramatic experiances.

Does long time evaluation need to be conscious?

Scientist say it's only a side-effect of the complexity, why would consciousness be a side effect? And would it be any less real if it were?

Also, if free will is also a side-effect (perhaps even a side-effect of consciousness) would it make free will less real (and the consequences thereof)?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

A response to Mr. Gustavi...

What's perspective? What are you spinning with your comment about "spin"? Everything has spin--even spin 0 particles have spin.

Aha, perspective is a core identity (for you). For most, possibly.

"Data", implies information. So you get to decide if it's useful, or even informative? How do you manage this? Considering you're in no way disconnected from others' ideas?

Bogus bullshit is a part of the ontology package; more depth, is kind of meaningful, though (or meaningless). What does "philosophical ontologies" connect with in your worldview? Does it represent anything meaningful, perhaps, or is it directed at "others" as some sort of throwaway?

p.s. Do I need to look more closely at my navel?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

draqon,

leaf has always been, for some reason, one of my favored Chinese characters.

I wonder why?

Michael

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

frud

so you seized the op to be clever
very clever
it is all relative
subjective too
confusion is the context
living is a blast

/jumps

 

data is info!

/eurekad out
/hoohah?

 

the thoughts in posts are zombie killers aka billyt the zombie slayer

/nagging thought or mindless meandering

 

An excellent question. Not sure I can give a good answer.

I can not define consciousness, but surely part of it is to have a model of the world, which not only includes your body, but also "you." (I put quotes on you, me, etc to designation what might be called my psychological self - something entirely different from my body). I.e. as I use these terms, a zombie has no "self" but has a very good model of the world and his body and some list of "correct" responses to changes in these externals. For example, if a zombie accidently or in ignorance picked up some hot metal he feels no pain (nothing, no "self", there to feel it) but he screems, and quickly drops the hot metal. - I.e. exhibits all behavior any human would.

Without any "self" I would say there is no consciousness - only a zombie. Thus to imagine how you would FEEL as a result of choice A instead of choice B is impossible for a zombie. All it can do is to compute some defined set of "worth" values and chose the highest, etc. There are no emotions, no concsciousness of "self." None of the factors that are influenced by how one would feel. With these emotional factors also included the "worth value" the result is different, and may result in better choices, although "Dr. Spock" of stark trek would not agree and he may be correct, but I think the world is populated by other humans, like me, not just me and millions of zombies, but I can not be 100% sure that is false. Thus I can not even argure that "with feelings" has more Darwinian survival value that "no feelings."

 

oh?
perhaps you just did?
i mean, the above works for me
why not you?

the statement is laden with goodies
a declaration that presumes intentionality, awareness, experience and desire
a province where zombies fear to tread

ja? or nein?

when 99.9999999999999999% is the general state of affairs with regards to ....truths, laws, theories, hypotheses and whatnot; the conclusions are usually held to be both provisional and tentative, subject to mods and whatnot

what makes consciousness so....special?
oh
a leap of faith is not required IOW if it quacks, it is most likely, a duck/mp3

 

Ok, nice to see that you understand me. Oftentimes people "pretend" that they don't understand me (just to make a point or whatever) and that really gets to me sometimes...

I think the world is populated with conscious humans other than myself too, not because I have proof, but because it feels better that way

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This also happens to be one of the reasons I believe in free will, not because I got proof, but because it feels better that way, and if I am conscious to such a real extent, then why wouldn't my free will be as real?

 

Dragon: Perhaps your memory of the clairvoyantly observed event is faulty.

I have known people who made all sorts of claims about foreseeing future events, having OBE experiences, et cetera. It is always anecdotal, never supported by anything other than the claim of the person reporting the experience.

The most likely explanation for such tales is faulty memory, drug usage, and/or a desire to pass off an interesting bit of fiction as fact.

The issue of predeterminism seems to be counter-indicated by Quantum theory, which strongly supports the notion of a universe governed by probabilistic laws rather than deterministic ones. Prior to about 1900, most physicists believed in a deterministic universe. Now, few would argue for that point of view.

The classical laws of physics made the prediction of future events possible in principle, but not in practice. The modern laws of physics make such predictions impossible even in principle.

 

KmGuru: Excel provides a pseudo random number generator, which does not produce random numbers. For most simulation purposes, a pseudo random number generator is good enough. There are sources of random numbers generated by physical processes, which are sometimes used when a pseudo is not good enough.

Probability & randomness are more complex than most people realize. For example, MathCad provides 15-20 different pseudo random number generators: One size does not fit all.

To the best of my knowledge, all quantum processes are random processes as indicated by the nature of the data produced by them. Certainly enough of those processes are random to indicate that probability rules at the quantum level.

The Schrodinger wave equation is considered to provide probabilistic data, not deterministic data. The implications of such data seem to deny any notion of determinism at the quantum level. Such data denies causality at that level. Since the Macro (or classical) level of reality is based on quantum processes, there is no reason to believe that causality and determinism exist at that level.

Note that a few grams of matter contain about 10[sup]24[/sup] atoms and even more subatomic particles. Probability is sometimes called the law of large numbers to indicate that its predictions get more accurate with an increasing number of trials. If you tossed dice 10[sup]24[/sup] times, the results would be incredibly close to that predicted in the text books. 1/36 of the totals would be snake eyes, 1/6 would be sevens, et cetera. The results would not seem to be random to a person ignorant of the odds associated with throwing dice.

The vast number of quantum particles governed by probabilistic laws result in what seems to be causal deterministic phenomena. For example: You can make an incredibly accurate clock based on radioactive decay, which is a probabilistic process.

I would expect a restart of the universe as of 100 years ago to result in a noticeably different present than what we now have due to reality being based on probabilistic laws at the quantum level.

The mathematics of chaos indicate that certain precise mathematical equations are incrediblly sensitive to initial conditions. When dealing with probabilistic laws rather than precise mathematical equations, the same initial conditons can result in slightly different events after fractions of a second. This suggests that a restart of the universe would rapidly deviate from the history of our current universe.

 

No.

While many ordinary things are effectively deterministic (assuming "free will" is just an illusion) not all are. For example: I have $10,000 to give you if ionization in detector A ocurres before ionization in detector B.

I am waiting as only cosmic rays are likely ... woops! Sorry that was detector B that just clicked.

Point is that major macroscopic events can be directly linked to single quantum events. Hence, if QM is correct (no deterministic "hidden variables")* the macro world events are not deterministic.

BTW Dinosaur gave it all correctly to you. I just made an example for more proof.
--------------
*With Bell's inequality the hidden variables posibilitry can be greatly restricted, if not rulled out.

 

No, not everything is indeterminate. Even tomorrow's weather is predicted. However, almost every thing is at least slightly coupled to every thing else. Hence, if ANYTHING on the macroscopic level is directly controlled (my prior example, being one) by a single probablistic quantum event, then everything on the macroscopic world level, like the weather, had some probabilistic possibility of being different than the case which actually happened.

As Dinosaur said: Quantum uncertainity makes for macro world uncertainity, but admittely in many cases the law of large numbers does make (again assuming free will is only an illusion)for almost deterministic results.

Again an example: It is nearly certain that NFL's star quarter back can win a 10 yard race against one legged 80 year old, but it is not certain as he may drop dead after five yards.

 

So basically, you eat too much cheese, you metaphysical reacts, you've got a problem. Simple.

 

accuracy influenced by variables (quantity) and temporal conditions

 

What's wrong with cheese ?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!