Does free will exist?

[Gitsnik]

Theoretically possible = "I have no idea if this theory is correct or not and hence no evidence to determine whether this is possible or not". Hence, it's equivalent to saying "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument."

Actually no. To begin with, we're talking a hypothetical situation based on technology that is incrementally (albeit geometrically) more advanced than ours. We already have the ability to "read minds" through the use of various electronic arrays and scanners - we can tell which centres of the mind stimulate pleasure and pain, which give euphoria and which do not. As with most theories (and I suggest you either go back to school or study black hole theory some time) we have some basic evidence (let's take gravity for example) and a theory that we can, with enough power or force, lift ourselves away from it and break gravity. The theory that people could fly like birds. This theory is, as you said "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument." but never the less a theory that has been held for hundreds if not thousands of years. Amazingly enough, way back in the 1900's, someone turned around and say "hey wow, we can actually fly" and built a damned aircraft to support the theory.

Any good theory (in this case the theory that we can read an entire human mind at will) is based on already known facts and built from there - Einstein had "theories" (relativity springs to mind) and I think if you postulated that he had no idea what he was talking about, most if not all, people would throw large heavy objects at you because his theories have proven to be correct. Yet he had no way to test them because the technology of the time did not provide him with the equipment to do so.

Theory is a basic concept in both the scientific community and in your every day life, please try and use some imagination when you think of things before you come back.

To declare that something is possible, you need evidence, hence the hilarious juxtaposition of your various points. But people inclined to this kind of pointless mental wanking generally wander all over the map in what they erroneously refer to as their "thinking" anyway, so it's not like I'm *surprised*.

We have evidence, as I said above, we have ways of seeing what people are doing in their mind - we see their reaction to external stimuli. There is no sane or intelligent reason to think we will not be able to increase this technology further, especially in light of the recent advances to help quadriplegics move things with their minds and aide those who are otherwise unable to operate certain things.

I've yet to see your list of references.

Which reminds me, if I can find my original notes on the AI theory that I composed (roughly two years ago now) I'll paste them here. No promises though as I've moved house twice since then.

 

[Simalacrum]

We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.

now THIS is quotable. i'll remember this one good man.

 

[Hunde Des Krieg]

It is a tricky boat. On the one hand, people may often always make choices along a strict set of morals, so in a way they have no free will but at the same time, people make choices expressly based on things around them, but that is in a way the same thing. In the end it really doesn't matter, sure you can look back and think maybe you should have done something different but you can't change things.

 

[mcgooch]

I believe we have free will. Being able to predict a persons actions by (theoretically) reading a persons mind as described by JC175 is probably possible but more due to the delay between the brain conceiving actions and the body acting them out rather than because that action was predetermined. The original conception of the action was an act of free will.

 

[dragonburner]

In movies!

 

[mcgooch]

Um, when I say "We have no way of knowing", that refers to the existance of free will. When i say "it's theoretically possible", I'm referring to the possibility of being able to monitor and interpret the activity of the body in real time.

Theoretically possible = "I have no idea if this theory is correct or not and hence no evidence to determine whether this is possible or not". Hence, it's equivalent to saying "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument."

To declare that something is possible, you need evidence, hence the hilarious juxtaposition of your various points. But people inclined to this kind of pointless mental wanking generally wander all over the map in what they erroneously refer to as their "thinking" anyway, so it's not like I'm *surprised*.

Are you saying that nuclear physicists are simply fools "mental wanking"? There is presently no way to prove that the currently accepted model of the atom (that is neutron and proton nucleus surrounded by a cloud of electrons)is correct. It is a theory and one which could conceivably be wrong. Rutherford made this theory based on the suggestions of his experimental evidence and told his peers that he believed this is how an atom was arranged (Known as the splitting of the atom). So by saying he thought it theoretically possible that the atom was structured thus was he actually saying "I have no idea whether this is, in fact, possible, but I'm going to assume it is for the sake of argument." No he was saying using this assumption we can learn more about the world we live in. This model has been used to draw many conclusions about nuclear physics. The fact is it is hard to prove something for a fact so we must have theories. The OP is simply asking you make an assumption to help you explore more about the world you live in.

 

[Schnippshly]

The idea that our actions could be predicted is simply impossible. Not from a scientific point of view, but rather, the idea that our actions are all pre-ordained and that what we do is our destiny is ludicrous, just an easy way to explain why people do things as opposed to boiling their actions down on a psychological level.
Free will is 100%, but you don't see people doing whatever the hell they want because it'd make it awfully difficult for people to interact with eachother. Yes, I could go outside naked and throw crap at kids as they get off the school bus, but I don't because I don't want to get arrested. Not that I would do it if I couldn't get arrested.

 

[300lb. Samoan]

I decided of my own free will not to read this thread.

I also decided of my own free will, to flip a coin to determine my response. Heads for free will, tails for predestined fate.
The coin fell behind my desk and now I can't find it, so I don't know the answer.

 

[Schnippshly]

I decided of my own free will not to read this thread.

I also decided of my own free will, to flip a coin to determine my response. Heads for free will, tails for predestined fate.
The coin fell behind my desk and now I can't find it, so I don't know the answer.

I concur!

 

[Captain Blackout]

We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.

This. I have faith in free will and still this.

 

[NeutralDrow]

We have to believe in free will. We have no choice.

now THIS is quotable. i'll remember this one good man.

Thanks. I was quoting <url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issac_Singer>someone else, though.

 

[Rhino923]

the very fact that the question is being asked would seem to state that free will does exist...not to mention the fact that despite knowledge of how every neuron will fire, there really would be no knowing exactly which one will trigger the appropriate sequence leading to conclusion and thus action, as any person who has been in a situation will tell you, often times their minds are going thru several scenarios simultaneously, the one chosen can be different with almost no outside stimulation involved...

there is also the possibility of chaos theory, in that what one scenario of neurons firing meant in one case, could be in fact, different based on virtually nothing.

but then again...what do i know? i dont pretend to show understanding or even caring with regards to anything ive just stated

 

[AceDefective]

you know the camera in you laptop steve wellstop piking your nose

 

[zoozilla]

I'd like to think that I am actually in control of the 70-80 short years I'll be alive.

The alternative is just too depressing for me to consider seriously.

 

[SmugFrog]

So let's just say I had the technology at this very moment to take a snapshot of every function of your body. Assuming I had the capability to interpret all of this data, I would be able to accurately predict your next move, as at a basic level we are all just a system of biological material after all.

If only it were that easy, we would be able to build an AI with no problems. What makes a person that loves chocolate ice cream decide they want strawberry one day? If I have in my hand 5 jellybeans of the same color, and told you to choose one, why would you pick the one you pick? Maybe it is based on shape or a slight change in color or some other factor - but a lot of those things change. Sure, you could program a computer with a random number generator and write the program to peek ahead at what the next number will be - then you will have predicted the future actions - but is that truly free will and making a real choice?

 

[captainwillies]

does free will exist

yes it exists but you don't have it. nor do i. true freedom is very rare.

 

[LockHeart]

does free will exist

yes it exists but you don't have it. nor do i. true freedom is very rare.

I think you're confusing the difference between free will and freedom: having free will doesn't necessarily imply that you'll be able to make every choice you want to make as at some point your options will be restricted.

To use a crude example: someone puts a gun to your head and orders you to do something - you'll have absolute free will to make whatever choice you want (assuming for the sake of argument that free will exists), but your freedom will be extremely limited to just two/three choices: you refuse, you acquiesce (or you don't choose).

 

[r4ndom]

This has to be the most over-done topic in the history of internets.

I concur. Or was I ALWAYS meant to concur? Was it fate?




No, no it was not.

 

[Typhusoid]

Every decision we make is a product of 3 variables, what we hope to gain, what we might lose and past experience.

 

[deuce0222]

Unless your theoretical monitoring system can directly influence my decisions, then it doesn't change the fact that I decide how to act in any given situation. All you system would allow you to do is predict the most likely option that I would choose. Even if it was 100% accurate, it doesn't change the fact that I'm the one choosing to take those actions.

Yes, you have free will.

Some people just choose to give it up.