Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Emperor_Jonathan]

All the time.

[BuriBuriZaemon]

Hi guys, I haven't skimmed through all 7 pages of this thread (only the first) so sorry if this has been mentioned.

About free-will, I question myself do we really have one?

As living beings, each of us is programmed to 'survive' and 'reproduce'. For animals, this means trying to survive infancy, hunting preys, and breeding with as many individuals of opposite sex as possible to sustain breeding population.

For us, this means going to school (or getting any kind of education) with expectations to get good job to support our lives, looking and chasing the most suitable partner to share our lives with, and raising our children.

You see. Everything is pre-programed! It is similar to how you can command AIs in a game to fulfill certain objectives for you, although there is a degree of freedom on how to achieve the objectives.

So in this context, we do not possess absolute free will, only the free will to achieve whatever it is we are programmed to do.

[Neruz]

Except that there are people who commit suicide, and people who never reproduce.

[BuriBuriZaemon]

Except that there are people who commit suicide, and people who never reproduce.

I'm aware of that and should've incorporated that to my earlier post. Similar to (computer) bugs, we have genetic defects, which may lead to some of us not following our pre-programmed routines.

[Neruz]

Except that there are people who commit suicide, and people who never reproduce.

I'm aware of that and should've incorporated that to my earlier post. Similar to (computer) bugs, we have genetic defects, which may lead to some of us not following our pre-programmed routines.

Which is actually entirely incorrect; a computer always does what it is programmed to do; sometimes you didn't program it to do what you think you programmed it to do, but it always does what it is programmed to do.

It is the instructions themselves that are flawed; the computer will always follow them, flawed or not.


A person may choose to not follow these instructions (and often does), regardless of their flaws. That is the difference between people and current generation computers.

[Idiom]

...is this a new one? I don't think I've posted here.

Dunno if anyone remembers, as this is I think the thing I said before in the last thread on a similar subject I was in, but...
Reality has the properties of a holographic simulation. Google around. I first read about it on newscientist magazine. Also, we're made of plank pixels.

Death is not as clear cut and easy to distinguish as you seem to think.

Amusing and somewhat relevant.

[Starver]

In essence, the problem with a simulation of a universe is that, in order to be a complete and accurate simulation, it must also contain a simulation of the simulator.

Only if it is simulating the universe that the simulator exists in.  Simulating a simpler universe (a subset of the details controlling the simulator's one) or a universe of differing rules (probably simpler overall, but not actually mapping 1:1 with "The Real World" in any case) does not require the ability to implement a similarly capable simulator within the simulation environment.

For example, "Detect an Infinite Loop" programs can only be written using more powerful syntax than that which the potentially infinitely looping program uses.  If the DaIL program could be tested by the DaIL program (i.e. the complexity of its own syntax is within the bounds of its checking mechanisms) to ensure that it, itself, does not infinitely loop while trying to confirm or deny any given infinite looping input, then it would not have a powerful enough syntax to analyse and detect any potentially infinite loops it came across, and would be doomed to infinitely loop in a vain attempt to rule out their infinite nature.  IYSWIM

(I'm sure that something like Goedel, Escher Bach explains this better than I am doing.)

[Maggarg - Eater of chicke]

I think an argument against being pre-programmed is that many of us completely loathe the very idea of anyone being in control apart from ourselves. The computer does not rebel.

[Psyco Jelly]

We do not follow 'programming' to a letter. I don't believe that instincts control everything we do, I believe that instincts simply influence us. We are certainly more likely to reproduced since our instincts tell us to. The real question is where instinct ends and intellect begins.

[Starver]

Personally, I think everything is as deterministic as it gets[1].  We are following physical and universal[2] rules.  We are thinking thoughts which are 'set down in stone' according to the natural progression of input and output of our sensory system, which is obeying the physical laws of the universe to the letter, and there's no way we wouldn't say and do what we say and do, any more than a planet will not continue to orbit in the way that it orbits as long as the gravitational and physical influences upon it do not force it to orbit / de-orbit / fall apart in the way that it would be expected to orbit / de-orbit / fall apart.

Which is not to say I'd lay down and die because of the futility of actually trying to do something, because my particulary cause-effect 'light cone' of influence and outcome is not that kind of thing.  But then I would say that, wouldn't I.  For it is destined.  It may not be predictable (at least by ourselves, being within the system) but the outcome is still inevitable, and free will (even consciousness itself) is an illusion, and merely a product or irreproducibly chaotic so-called-'randomness' that isn't actually random.

[1] How much this is, is arguable, but I'd opt for 100% as a reasonable approximation.

[2] "Universal" rules may include obscure equation terms that mean that matter and energy behaves in particular ways either side of an event horizon, in differing degrees of accelerating/rotating frames of reference, within or without various strengths of electric/magnetic fields, in volumes of space flooded or otherwise with exotic fundemental particle, etc.  But of course we're only familiar with a small subset of conditions, so can only theorise rather specific so-called-universal laws for some circumstance, which may be substantially incorrect when applied to other environments.  What I'm trying to say here is that just as Newton's Laws Of Motion seem to go wrong when Relativity comes about, and singularities cause Problems with the mathematics of the universe, and Heisenburg limitations of resolving completeness of information at a certain level of detail makes it impossible to accurately investigate the quantum realm of particle/anti-particle pairs from a macroscopic viewpoint, it can be deterministic without being predictable.

[Hakazaba]

We are preprogrammed...

By our genetics and our experiences.

In fact, thats one of the things that prove gods nonexistence to me. Because when you think about it the chance of anything happening is 100%, because there is no random things effecting anything.

So an omnipotent entity can't punish or reward anyone as we have no choice and surely he would realize that.

[Lord Dakoth]

I would propose that if a person is faced with the same decision, in the exact same circumstances, he will not make the same decision 100% of the time; leading to the whole "multiverse" shpeel.

[Hakazaba]

How can you be sure of that?

You are just the sum of your experiences and genealogy.

What you are saying is that there would have to be an external influence that crosses time

If you think that is god then that violates free will anyway.

That still proves my point.

[Lord Dakoth]

Well how can we really be "sure" of anything? Not to get all anal, but you could be a figment of my imagination. I know I'm completely real, but how do I know that you, or anything else is real?

Somewhere along the line, everything comes to faith. You have to make assumptions without real evidence sometimes. Personally, I believe that God exists because I don't think that it's possible for the universe to create itself; for order to come from chaos. I've read several articles and excerpts from books, and talked to a few experts on the subject, and what I've gathered is that the entire thing hinges around some unexplainable, random quantum event. Deep down, the Big Bang is just saying that we really don't know. Except we somehow know that it can't have anything to do with God, because that would be unscientific.

To sum it up, I think it's more likely that God created the universe rather than that the universe created itself.

[Hakazaba]

  You just completely ignored everything but the first line.

Also you claim to know you exist, How?

I can't prove that i exist.

We don't know, thats the point no one can Know anything but we can prove, based on what we experience that there was an expansion of space 14 billion years ago.

Edit: I've got two points going now by the way, thanks to you attempting to change the subject.