Philosophy versus Science, the ultimate experiment.

[Labyrinth]

Please tell me humanity's advanced far enough to quote people who were born after the bronze age...

Well considering that the Archaeological "Bronze Age" came to Europe in the 4k BCEs, and Plato was oh.. an order of magnitude less BCE than that, I'd say yes.

 

[Redlac]

Hmm.. in the war between Philosophy and Science, I think Philosophy would win. Or would it?

 

[Gerazzi]

Quantum Physics, Chaos theory.
If there is even a .001% chance that it will go wrong it will.
The same DNA doesn't even do that, people have different personalities and deal with things differently even if they have the same DNA.

I get what you're trying to do here but it would have too many variables to work.

 

[sneak_copter]

Actually, I'm debating (effectively) that topic soon in Philosophy. The actual topic is "that free will does not exist" so my team, affirmative, are using the argument that, although hugely complex, we cannot defy what makes us "us". As we don't have complete control over what we are, we cannot have complete control over what we do. Ergo, free will is an illusion.

The problem with that hypothetical is that not only would you need to breed them the same way, but you would need, from birth, to give them exactly the same stimuli. That's not possible unfortunately.

You could get pretty reliable results by birthing identical twins in seperate empty white rooms with no distinguishing features, then you leave them there for years before taking a gander at the results.

For some reason Scientists call it the forbidden experiment.

Ethics are a *****.

Could somebody also elaborate on what this has to do with the Chaos theory? Are you talking about, say, there is more than a 0.001% chance of failure in the experiment?

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

I had a psychology professor once demolish Free Will for me concisely and permanently in a very non-scary way. He simply said this: "To say 'I believe in free will' is to say 'I believe that people engage in essentially random actions that have no cause.'"

Think about it really. Did you ever do something that didn't spring from something you heard, felt, learned, etc? Have you ever truly done something that had no cause? Even if you were bored or just had low blood sugar or were drunk, those are all causes. The Free Will believers really have the burden of proof here, since they have to go out and find a truly random action that owes nothing to circumstance.

 

[Martymer]

Here is the experiment, you breed two rats with the exact(!!) same DNA. You put them in two seperate identical boxes in the exact same way. The boxes should have identical pressure, temperature etc...
You should feed them the same food at the same time, interfere with them at the same time and... well you get the point.

Now science would say that the rats would act exactly the same. The exact same movement pattern at the exact same time. But perhaps there are other forces controlling us that would prevent this from working.

Science would not say that. Logic might (based on your statements, at least), but science wouldn't. A scientist might (though I doubt it) hypothesize that they would act in exactly the same way, but he/she would not draw any conclusions until that hypothesis had been thouroughly tested. The question, when it all comes down to it, isn't "will they act the same way?", but "why don't they?". One explaination is given by chaos theory. A living being is a very complex system, and in practice it's impossible to control all variables that affect its behavior. So the question then becomes, "but if it were possible, then, in theory, shouldn't...?" And that's when the scientist washes his hands of the matter, because "what ifs" like that can't be tested and thus can't be studied by science.

I know the experiment is almost impossible to make but what's your opinions? Could this answer our questions about higher forces controlling us?

No. Like I said, all it would do (unless I'm wrong and they do act the same way, of course... which I think we all doubt they would) is raise the question of why they didn't act the same. Again, like I said, chaos theory offers an explaination, which can be simplified to "the experiment is flawed, because total control requires total knowledge", and knowing everything about a system is only possible in mathematics, where all systems are artificial and only exist in an abstract realm over which you always have total control. Total knowledge in the physical world is impossible, because you can't rule out that there's something you've missed. Even if you do now everything about a system, you don't know *that* you know everything about it. And to take it to an extreme, quantum physics actually says that even in theory, you can't know everything about a system (the uncertainty principle).

So, is it possible that one of the variables we have no knowledge of is "the will of God"? Strictly scientifically speaking, yes, it would be possible. As in, it can't be disproven. But it can't be confirmed either. It's not something that can be tested scientifically, so this thread shouldn't be called "Philosophy versus Science", because it deals with an issue which is entirely philosophical in nature.

 

[bjj hero]

Please tell me humanity's advanced far enough to quote people who were born after the bronze age...

Well considering that the Archaeological "Bronze Age" came to Europe in the 4k BCEs, and Plato was oh.. an order of magnitude less BCE than that, I'd say yes.

But the bronze age did hang around for a while. You are right though, Plato is post bronze age, though not by much.

Anyway, the Iron age is so much more contemporary...

 

[NeutralDrow]

I had a psychology professor once demolish Free Will for me concisely and permanently in a very non-scary way. He simply said this: "To say 'I believe in free will' is to say 'I believe that people engage in essentially random actions that have no cause.'"

Think about it really. Did you ever do something that didn't spring from something you heard, felt, learned, etc? Have you ever truly done something that had no cause? Even if you were bored or just had low blood sugar or were drunk, those are all causes. The Free Will believers really have the burden of proof here, since they have to go out and find a truly random action that owes nothing to circumstance.

Your teacher and I have vastly different definitions of "free will," then.

Free will just states that my choices are not predetermined and there is no concept of "destiny", not that I can completely defy the law of cause-and-effect. Just because I know that going down one stretch of freeway is a faster and shorter route to my destination doesn't mean I might not take another viable freeway with prettier scenery and easier-to-navigate interchanges.

Naturally, outside circumstances can influence this decision (if I was pressed for time, for instance, I would almost certainly take the fast route), but to say such extenuating circumstances violate the concept of free will is to define the situation so specifically as to render the argument, ironically, totally meaningless. If we are the sum of our past experiences, our environment, and our genetics, those plus environmental conditions would certainly allow predictions as to our behavior, but the only possible way of saying a certain decision is functionally predetermined is through hindsight and BS.

 

[Labyrinth]

But the bronze age did hang around for a while. You are right though, Plato is post bronze age, though not by much.

Anyway, the Iron age is so much more contemporary...

You are so behind the times! It's the Byte Age.

 

[bjj hero]

But the bronze age did hang around for a while. You are right though, Plato is post bronze age, though not by much.

Anyway, the Iron age is so much more contemporary...

You are so behind the times! It's the Byte Age.

Well Ill be impressed when I see a post steam age quote on here instead of everyone talking about guys in togas... unless its John Belushi in animal house.

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

Your teacher and I have vastly different definitions of "free will," then.

Free will just states that my choices are not predetermined and there is no concept of "destiny", not that I can completely defy the law of cause-and-effect. Just because I know that going down one stretch of freeway is a faster and shorter route to my destination doesn't mean I might not take another viable freeway with prettier scenery and easier-to-navigate interchanges.

Naturally, outside circumstances can influence this decision (if I was pressed for time, for instance, I would almost certainly take the fast route), but to say such extenuating circumstances violate the concept of free will is to define the situation so specifically as to render the argument, ironically, totally meaningless. If we are the sum of our past experiences, our environment, and our genetics, those plus environmental conditions would certainly allow predictions as to our behavior, but the only possible way of saying a certain decision is functionally predetermined is through hindsight and BS.

That would be why I included his definition of free will in my statement. I think the problem is that your dispute is with the notion of a teleological view where there is some outside force that either can know or direct your actions. Of course not. As you already outlined there are too many variables.

My professor's view was that the dispute was between free will and determinism. Just because you don't know enough to make predictions doesn't make it invalid. I agree the difference is purely academic and practically useless as a result, but it's still there. Actually the fact that you suggested that you might take what is in fact a BETTER route to the destination we already knew you were going to go suggests that the effect of "free" will is pretty minimal too.

Do you not take any comfort from the fact that you can predict most people's actions with a fairly high degree of accuracy given enough starting information? Isn't that what makes society work anyway? Would you really like to go to work knowing that when you get there the boss might be cooking waffles instead of editing a newspaper all day while your wife is at home calling a guy from Craigslist to help her load your TV in the car so she can go pawn it? I'll be happy to stay away from that level of proof of free will.

 

[NeutralDrow]

Your teacher and I have vastly different definitions of "free will," then.

Free will just states that my choices are not predetermined and there is no concept of "destiny", not that I can completely defy the law of cause-and-effect. Just because I know that going down one stretch of freeway is a faster and shorter route to my destination doesn't mean I might not take another viable freeway with prettier scenery and easier-to-navigate interchanges.

Naturally, outside circumstances can influence this decision (if I was pressed for time, for instance, I would almost certainly take the fast route), but to say such extenuating circumstances violate the concept of free will is to define the situation so specifically as to render the argument, ironically, totally meaningless. If we are the sum of our past experiences, our environment, and our genetics, those plus environmental conditions would certainly allow predictions as to our behavior, but the only possible way of saying a certain decision is functionally predetermined is through hindsight and BS.

That would be why I included his definition of free will in my statement. I think the problem is that your dispute is with the notion of a teleological view where there is some outside force that either can know or direct your actions. Of course not. As you already outlined there are too many variables.

My professor's view was that the dispute was between free will and determinism. Just because you don't know enough to make predictions doesn't make it invalid. I agree the difference is purely academic and practically useless as a result, but it's still there. Actually the fact that you suggested that you might take what is in fact a BETTER route to the destination we already knew you were going to go suggests that the effect of "free" will is pretty minimal too.

It really is the pure academic thing that I reject discussion of. The inability to know all the variables means that just because the distinction is there doesn't mean it's actually worth anything (I've had similar arguments about the concepts of "selfishness" and "altruism"). Most of the times I've seen, the one who presses the idea is just full of themselves and resorts to sophistry (though, in fact, I think this is the first exception to that I've seen).

That's not getting into scientific non-determinism, of course (others have argued it in this thread far better than I ever could).

Which one was the better route, by the way?

Do you not take any comfort from the fact that you can predict most people's actions with a fairly high degree of accuracy given enough starting information? Isn't that what makes society work anyway? Would you really like to go to work knowing that when you get there the boss might be cooking waffles instead of editing a newspaper all day while your wife is at home calling a guy from Craigslist to help her load your TV in the car so she can go pawn it? I'll be happy to stay away from that level of proof of free will.

Of course. Logic, pattern recognition, and stereotyping are all helpful, even vital (especially in my areas of expertise, like international security and area studies). However, I have no problem in accepting that such a nightmare scenario is possible, because I also accept that it's astronomically unlikely.

I also have a firm hope in Hawking Radiation, but that's something else.

And the words are starting to blend together, so I probably need sleep, so hopefully I haven't said anything terribly offensive I'll regret in the morning...

 

[AngloDoom]

I don't know if this experiment has been done, most likely not since there is an infinite amount sources of error to take in consideration, but if it's possible what answers wouldn't it give us?

So here is the experiment:
First you have to state a fact, (unless you count skynet from the terminator franchise) no company or scientists has ever made an AI with ability to create it's own patterns or change them by themself and therefore:

If a robot is given a task it will solve the problem the same way everytime assuming it "forgets" it has done it before. Another identical robot will also do it the exact same way.

But people and animals solves problem differently! Why? Genes and Surroundings is what forms us, so if you eliminate does differences would we act like robots?

Here is the experiment, you breed two rats with the exact(!!) same DNA. You put them in two seperate identical boxes in the exact same way. The boxes should have identical pressure, temperature etc...
You should feed them the same food at the same time, interfere with them at the same time and... well you get the point.

Now science would say that the rats would act exactly the same. The exact same movement pattern at the exact same time. But perhaps there are other forces controlling us that would prevent this from working.

I know the experiment is almost impossible to make but what's your opinions? Could this answer our questions about higher forces controlling us?

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I can't seem to find substantial evidence, but didn't a Chess-Machine-Computer-Thing get stuck in a random museum somewhere because it used a sequence of moves that had never been programmed into it to win against a Chess-Champion?

Again, it may be wrong...

 

[Taerdin]

I think Philosophy IS science. Because I'm lazy and don't want to think about that.

Then you need to learn about the scientific method. You owe your entire world to science; you owe little to nothing to philosophy.

I don't understand the argument against free will anyways. I've never had a decision, and been forced to take a certain route against my will. If I see two juices, apple and orange and in my mind I want to take the apple I do it, no one controls me and makes me take the orange. If you're saying well you were raised in such a way that you came to like apples more than oranges so you didnt really make that decision yadda yadda, then well... so what? Free will is us being able to make the choice we WANT to make. My life up till that point may change what I WANT, but it doesn't change my ability to choose that for myself.

It really boils down to your definition of free will I guess? Supposedly it is just a "free and independent choice". I am always free to make that choice, no matter what predispositions have been placed upon me. If I'm predisposed to apple juice I can choose it if it's available to me, no unforseen force cancels out my desire for it and forces me to grab the orange out of my fridge against my will. My will is mine to control, and I! WILL!!! APPLE!!!!!!!

Except it isn't. You aren't REALLY free to make the choice. Why does your brain say apple? The neural network in your head is built from your experiences; your experiences are built from your environment. Even with quantum mechanical uncertainty, the neural network cannot INVENT new information de novo. Even if it could, what information it would invent is completely constrained.

Basically, even if you THINK you have free will, there is no way to PROVE you have free will, and determinism means you have none. Even though you think you do.

But I am free to make the choice, the choice that my brain says. If my brain says apple and I want apple then I can freely choose it, no hidden force stops my desires for the thing my brain decides. If my will wasn't free then I would choose whatever random thing I was at the whim of, but in fact it is I, my brain, my experiences, and who I am as a person who decides what I choose. Just sayin'

 

[Lord Monocle Von Banworthy]

It really is the pure academic thing that I reject discussion of. The inability to know all the variables means that just because the distinction is there doesn't mean it's actually worth anything (I've had similar arguments about the concepts of "selfishness" and "altruism"). Most of the times I've seen, the one who presses the idea is just full of themselves and resorts to sophistry (though, in fact, I think this is the first exception to that I've seen).

That's not getting into scientific non-determinism, of course (others have argued it in this thread far better than I ever could).

Which one was the better route, by the way?

Of course. Logic, pattern recognition, and stereotyping are all helpful, even vital (especially in my areas of expertise, like international security and area studies). However, I have no problem in accepting that such a nightmare scenario is possible, because I also accept that it's astronomically unlikely.

I also have a firm hope in Hawking Radiation, but that's something else.

And the words are starting to blend together, so I probably need sleep, so hopefully I haven't said anything terribly offensive I'll regret in the morning...

I just noticed that you mentioned the route having good scenery AND easier interchanges, so since you hadn't specified speed as the important discriminating element, it sounded like the route you suggested as an alternative was the better one for some drivers.

 

[confernal]

For the record this thread is not about god but is about free will while closely related to such subjects should not consume the entire thread... and since god cannot be proven or disproven any conclusions or facts releating to such an entinty's existance or non-existance then becomes void.

 

[goggles6]

If you were to live your life over & over again, with no memory of the previous times, you would make the same choices each and every time.
So really, do you have choice? Or do you simply have a set path you will follow each & every time?

Wheres your evidence for this? If thats your opinion then say so, don't state it as fact. If you have evidence I'd be interested in reading it.

Common sense and a bit of thought says so.
If you were to live your life again, with everything being the same and no memory of a past life, why would your pattern of thoughts change?
If I decide to drunkenly drive home one night, in the exact same situation with no memory of the past, I'd do, somewhat blatantly obviously, exactly the same.
It's because of this you have no choice in life, just a set path which you will take every single time.

Common sense said the world was flat, that the sun moves around the earth and that no one could run a 4 minute mile. You can say you believe that but you don't know it and there is no evidence to support it.

Twin studies, studies of geneticaly identical twins, show that our genes determine what we do in life.
For instance two identical twins are likely to score similar on an IQ test and (in an extreme case) two twins seperated at birth both grew up to become carpenters, married wifes with the same name and characteristics and made the same type of wooden model (a car) for their first carpentry project.

So unless you intend to magicaly change your genes each time you reboot your life (like fallout?) you won't be changing your actions.

Hmmm that is unless you did the nasty in the pasty, that would seriously mess up your genes. (And the space time continuum)