Robots vs Humans

[methylatedghosts]

Robots are programmed. People aren't

Can't remember who said that or in which thread, but I wonder, are people really not programmed?

I would say that we are programmed to some degree by our upbringing and the society we live in. Not in the same sense as a robot, obviously, but still, there is some sort of programming there.

The thought processes of everyone, (if not, most) begin in early childhood by watching how mum and dad react and respond to the world. Some of these processes continue through to adult life, and to death - because they are the ones that seem to work for them.

In a robot one can alter the programming, just like one can alter their own habits. It might take some work, but it happens.

My question is, how much are people programmed?
Are we all programmed to the same degree, or are some people "more programmed" than others?

----------------
I'm not talking about free will. Please can we leave God and destiny etc out of the equation?

[methylatedghosts]

Here you touch on a major problem of the position I am trying to hold. If nothing causes free will, how do I react to anything at all. how Does the non causal interact with the causal? Is this not just plain contradictory?

Just throwing in another idea:

That to respond (as opposed to react) is free will. That you cannot help but react, but can choose your response....

[McCulloch]

That to respond (as opposed to react) is free will. That you cannot help but react, but can choose your response....

But, to me the question is, can you equate the ability to choose with free will.
I may choose to do this or to do that. But is my choice free? We all agree that my choice will be affected by an incredibly complex and chaotic set of influences: the weather; friends and associates; politics; brain chemistry; personal history; genetics; scents; the size of the type on today's headline; etc. Free will asserts that there is something other that the external influences which affect my choice. I have seen no proof that such an influence must exist nor have I seen any evidence that such an influence exists. Without either, it would seem irrational to assert free will.

[Goat]

That to respond (as opposed to react) is free will. That you cannot help but react, but can choose your response....

But, to me the question is, can you equate the ability to choose with free will.
I may choose to do this or to do that. But is my choice free? We all agree that my choice will be affected by an incredibly complex and chaotic set of influences: the weather; friends and associates; politics; brain chemistry; personal history; genetics; scents; the size of the type on today's headline; etc. Free will asserts that there is something other that the external influences which affect my choice. I have seen no proof that such an influence must exist nor have I seen any evidence that such an influence exists. Without either, it would seem irrational to assert free will.

When it comes to 'free will', I do not have enough information to make a determination. ON this subject, I am agnostic. I don't know if every response I have is predtermined depending on the input, nor do I know if God knows the future to precise detail, or not.

[methylatedghosts]

That to respond (as opposed to react) is free will. That you cannot help but react, but can choose your response....

But, to me the question is, can you equate the ability to choose with free will.
I may choose to do this or to do that. But is my choice free? We all agree that my choice will be affected by an incredibly complex and chaotic set of influences: the weather; friends and associates; politics; brain chemistry; personal history; genetics; scents; the size of the type on today's headline; etc. Free will asserts that there is something other that the external influences which affect my choice. I have seen no proof that such an influence must exist nor have I seen any evidence that such an influence exists. Without either, it would seem irrational to assert free will.

Ah. For me "free will" is the ability to choose something without fearing any repercussions from a higher power. That one is "free to do ones will". So, there should be no outside influences other than the ones that you use to make the choice

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi all.

Though the opening post asked about whether we are programmes, the argument is becoming one about Free Will. I though at this point a quick review would be in order. I think the view so far have quite neatly mapped out the limits of the problem. (I apologize to those contributors who feel they have made a pertinent point that I have neglected to include).

So, there should be no outside influences other than the ones that you use to make the choice

For methylatedghosts Free Will would be the freedom to choose, with no outside influences.

When it comes to 'free will', I do not have enough information to make a determination. ON this subject, I am agnostic.

For goat this seems to be an empirical matter requiring further data.

Free will asserts that there is something other that the external influences which affect my choice. I have seen no proof that such an influence must exist nor have I seen any evidence that such an influence exists. Without either, it would seem irrational to assert free will.

For McCulloch Free Will would be an influence. However whilst he appears to leave room for the question of Free Will being an empirical matter, there is a problem.

It would be impossible to distinguish free will from randomness based simply on external observations. But randomness has no causal agent.

So Free will cannot really be tested for.

I think we'd jettison free will, because it's an extra entity that we have no evidence for.

For Bugmaster Free Will is an extra entity. However Bugmaster bites the philosophical bullet.

In other words, how is saying, "humans have free will" any better than saying, "humans have invisible smurfoblins that don't do anything"

Bugmaster embraces a form of logical positivism whereby the concept Free Will could just be meaningless. Unlike McCulloch Bugmaster leans towards a view whereby the inability to test for it means Free Will is not an empirical matter.

IF: this is a novel situation, just follow your instincts

scepticFromTx thinks we are a programme but that programme includes instinct.

There is something missing from scientific/causal/material/quantum explanations. They can explain where and when, and probability of, and in a limited sense of the where and the when then how..... but not why experience?

Furrowed Brow rather grandly and probably incoherently wants to rewrite the logic of science/materialism and cite subjective experience as proof that we have free will.

So in summary. The problem falls within the following parameters:

[center]Free Will might be - 1/ freedom to choose, 2/ an entity, 3/ an influence, 4/ subjective experience, 5/ instinct.
We do not have Free Will and are 100% programmes.
We might or might not have Free Will. It is just impossible to say.
Free Will is an empirical matter that requires further evidence.
Free will is indistinguishable from randomness and cannot be tested for.
Free Will could be an empty concept.
We do have Free Will - but this claim lacks a physical or metaphysical argument.
We do have Free Will - but it is really no more than randomness.
We do have Free Will - but to argue that requires rethinking causality and the logical precepts of materialism.[/center]
Are there any areas to this debate that we can dismiss with confidence, or require further argument? Have I left something out? Can the problem be defined better? Have I misrepresented anyone?

[McCulloch]

Ah. For me "free will" is the ability to choose something without fearing any repercussions from a higher power. That one is "free to do ones will". So, there should be no outside influences other than the ones that you use to make the choice

We are talking about different things then. Many philosophers distinguish free will from determinism.

[McCulloch]

Have I misrepresented anyone?

I'm not certain, but I think that Bugmaster's argument about an entity and my argument about an influence, is not that free will is that entity or influence but that the doctrine of free will necessarily implies the existence of such an entity or influence.

[methylatedghosts]

I probably haven't read the other posts properly, but I think I need to say one thing.

Can we just look at the phrase "free will"

free - indication of being unbound. Unconstrained. Not hampered; not under compulsion or restrain
will - volition: the capability of conscious choice and decision and intention. Determine by choice

Thus combining these, do we all agree that "free will" means to do what one wants? Unconstrained choice/decision/intention?

[McCulloch]

Thus combining these, do we all agree that "free will" means to do what one wants? Unconstrained choice/decision/intention?

In the context of this thread, I would agree to the use of this definition.

[Bugmaster]

In the context of this thread, I would agree to the use of this definition.

In this case, I'd argue that no one has free will; at least, no one sane. For example, I may want to go out on the street robbing random people in broad daylight, but if I actually tried doing that, I'd be constrained fairly quickly. I also want to fly by utilizing the power of my mind, but I'm constrained even more severely on that front.

I suppose you could say that "free will" means "freedom to do what one wants provided it does not violate the laws of physics" (with the implication that angry policemen will occasionally utilize the laws of physics to constrain you). Presumably, free will itself is not subject to the laws of physics (which is a bold claim in and of itself).

However, may still be some cases not covered by this definition. For example, as I've argued previously, you can't spontaneously will yourself to truly, honestly believe that the sky is green with polka dots. If we assume that your beliefs are not subject to the laws of physics, then it would appear that they are still not free.

So, I think that the term "free will" is murky at best, empty at worst. This is why I've been trying to focus not on the precise definition of free will, but on its effects on the world (if any). How can we distinguish an entity that has free will, from an entity that does not -- assuming that both of them act more or less unpredictably ? If we can'tm in principle, tell the difference, then I'd argue that it doesn't matter whether free will exists or not.