Biologist: free will is an illusion

[Codehook]

Oh and technically we couldn't "blame" criminals as they had no free will not to do what they did. However in my opinion, society would function better pretending we all have free will.

I agree. Obviously criminals are detrimental to society, so we try to change the environmental factors that influence their behaviour. Then again, of course, our want of doing that is evolutionary due to the basic need to survive the reproduce and really we have no free will choice, as such, for doing it. So there is the unescapable paradox, presuming the theory is true.

So what do they do and where are they doing it if it manages to have absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the world? Outside this universe?

Huh?

It is saying that what they do is a result of their biological and environmental factors.

To clarify...the article is making the point that every action we make is pre-determined, due to our biology and the environments in which we live in.

The way we approach the world and treat others has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Again to clarify, just because every action is pre-determined does not mean to say we should start changing our morals, and the article was not making this point either. I was saying this in response to people who seem to think that this point was up for debate in the article.

Sorry if I wasn't clear in my original post.

Edited March 17, 2010 by Codehook

[Helen of Annoy]

Huh?

I SAID: WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU DO THINGS THAT WON’T AFFECT WORLD AROUND YOU?

Predetermined or not, every choice and every action take place in this world so the idea of actions that have ‘absolutely nothing to do’ with the way we treat others is completely and hopelessly illogical.

I’m sorry if I’m a pain in the rear end, but I just can’t see how predetermination wouldn’t undermine the whole idea of morality or any need for any morality. It’s hopelessly illogical too.

Maybe the article doesn’t explore the main aspect of the predetermination idea, but it is there.

[Codehook]

I SAID: WHERE EXACTLY DO YOU DO THINGS THAT WON’T AFFECT WORLD AROUND YOU?

Predetermined or not, every choice and every action take place in this world so the idea of actions that have ‘absolutely nothing to do’ with the way we treat others is completely and hopelessly illogical.

I’m sorry if I’m a pain in the rear end, but I just can’t see how predetermination wouldn’t undermine the whole idea of morality or any need for any morality. It’s hopelessly illogical too.

Maybe the article doesn’t explore the main aspect of the predetermination idea, but it is there.

Well looking past your sarcasm (I understand it was a joke, don't worry) I respectfully believe that you are the one with the illogical argument.

As I said...

Read Gavin Greenwalt's post on the last page. Just because people do not have the fundamental idea of 'free will' does not mean to say that criminals should run riot. Some may try to interpret the article this way, but it is backwards logic.

Morality does not steam from the idea of free will, it stems from the evolutionary idea of survival. I, and a couple of others on this thread, have stated this idea from multiple different angles.

[Lizardian_guy]

"I can't see it therefore it doesn't exist."

These people should have their degrees revoked.

[Helen of Annoy]

Well looking past your sarcasm (I understand it was a joke, don't worry) I respectfully believe that you are the one with the illogical argument.

As I said...

Morality does not steam from the idea of free will, it stems from the evolutionary idea of survival. I, and a couple of others on this thread, have stated this idea from multiple different angles.

And I believe that science, as presented in this particular article, is not good enough when it comes to the matters of morality, which (the morality) would look so much different if it was really based on survival mechanisms instead on the idea of free will.

I also see no reason to stop believing that human choices and actions are inseparable from the reality in which they were made. Observing them out of their context is... well, let’s say highly unsatisfactory.

It’s not that I don’t understand what you are proposing, I simply don’t agree.

[Codehook]

And I believe that science, as presented in this particular article, is not good enough when it comes to the matters of morality, which (the morality) would look so much different if it was really based on survival mechanisms instead on the idea of free will.

I also see no reason to stop believing that human choices and actions are inseparable from the reality in which they were made. Observing them out of their context is... well, let’s say highly unsatisfactory.

It’s not that I don’t understand what you are proposing, I simply don’t agree.

Well what you're proposing is a faith that our choices have nothing to do with our biological processes. It has no scientific basis, so it therefore must be part of a faith. Christianity, of course, believes exactly that.

And there's nothing wrong with that belief, it's just a difference of opinion.

[Helen of Annoy]

Well what you're proposing is a faith that our choices have nothing to do with our biological processes. It has no scientific basis, so it therefore must be part of a faith. Christianity, of course, believes exactly that.

And there's nothing wrong with that belief, it's just a difference of opinion.

Actually, I believe it’s free will on top of biological processes (talking about the brain, of course, there’s not much of free will when nature calls).

By the way, I’ve been called all sorts of names before, and no one called me a Christian yet. Seriously, people are not automatically religious if they are not ready to reduce their existence to pure mechanics.

I do expect science to actually explain human mind one day, only not in my lifetime. I’m doomed to listen to extreme and exclusive theories. Serve me right, since I can't come up with my own.

[Codehook]

Actually, I believe it’s free will on top of biological processes (talking about the brain, of course, there’s not much of free will when nature calls).

By the way, I’ve been called all sorts of names before, and no one called me a Christian yet. Seriously, people are not automatically religious if they are not ready to reduce their existence to pure mechanics.

I do expect science to actually explain human mind one day, only not in my lifetime. I’m doomed to listen to extreme and exclusive theories. Serve me right, since I can't come up with my own.

No no I wasn't calling you a Christian lol I was just using it as an example.

What I meant was that science has evidenced that due to biological processes and our environment, free will doesn't actually exist. So in order for free will to exist you would have to believe that it does with a faith of some sort, such as Christianity. If it's not scientifically possible, then it would fall under the category of faith. That's all I meant, and as I say...nothing wrong with believing that!

[Helen of Annoy]

No no I wasn't calling you a Christian lol I was just using it as an example.

What I meant was that science has evidenced that due to biological processes and our environment, free will doesn't actually exist. So in order for free will to exist you would have to believe that it does with a faith of some sort, such as Christianity. If it's not scientifically possible, then it would fall under the category of faith. That's all I meant, and as I say...nothing wrong with believing that!

Not so fast, they concluded something, to prove it they have to offer more than their guess on how mind actually works.

Proof of free will is human behaviour itself, so to disprove it someone will have to explain why are there so many differences where there should be none - if biology (which is hereditary) and environment (which is the same for a group) are the only factors.

[Codehook]

Not so fast, they concluded something, to prove it they have to offer more than their guess on how mind actually works.

Proof of free will is human behaviour itself, so to disprove it someone will have to explain why are there so many differences where there should be none - if biology (which is hereditary) and environment (which is the same for a group) are the only factors.

I didn't say proven, I said evidenced.

And we do fundamentally know, biologically speaking, how the mind works...so his conclusion is pretty water tight.

It's simply hard to accept, and to not accept it is to believe in the supernatural.

[Helen of Annoy]

I didn't say proven, I said evidenced.

And we do fundamentally know, biologically speaking, how the mind works...so his conclusion is pretty water tight.

It's simply hard to accept, and to not accept it is to believe in the supernatural.

Or, it might be simply arrogant to claim understanding of human mind after observing only one, physiological, aspect of it.

It’s also rather defensive to label broader view as supernatural-believing, instead of explaining the obvious huge gaps and inconsistencies in current ‘mechanics only’ theory. There’s nothing supernatural in nature, there are only people who refuse to acknowledge the existence of the facts that are not willing to fit in their theories.

In that light, could we go back to explaining, for instance, how come we are so unexpectedly different? Why am I not a mere copy of my ancestors or just another of identical members of my group?

Until then, this theory not only is not water proof, it leaks like an old sieve.

[Codehook]

In that light, could we go back to explaining, for instance, how come we are so unexpectedly different? Why am I not a mere copy of my ancestors or just another of identical members of my group?

Until then, this theory not only is not water proof, it leaks like an old sieve.

That's very well explained from what we know of genetics. We are all born with a different set of genes, which predisposes us to different behaviour, which is also triggered from our environment(s).

I don't know, you seem to be ignoring what we know of science to fit your own theory. That really isn't the way you should be doing it. If anything, you should be formulating a theory based on what science has evidenced. After all, that's what it's there for.

[Helen of Annoy]

That's very well explained from what we know of genetics. We are all born with a different set of genes, which predisposes us to different behaviour, which is also triggered from our environment(s).

I don't know, you seem to be ignoring what we know of science to fit your own theory. That really isn't the way you should be doing it. If anything, you should be formulating a theory based on what science has evidenced. After all, that's what it's there for.

Matter of perspective, since I have the exact same opinion about that theory – it ignores everything that doesn’t fit into it.

Genes mix, but don’t change unless there’s a mutation so we’d have new personality traits only in cases where mutation has occurred. Regarding environment, we’d have deviations from group only when environment changes, which is obviously not true. (Think of identical twins, grown up in the same environment. If you think they will develop identical personalities, I know a pair that is exception to that ‘rule’. Which is not a rule, but a construction. Wrong one, by the way.)

Science is important, but it is not credible enough at this point to just let the scientists decide for us. They’ve been wrong before, they’ll be wrong again. Eventually, they’ll have it more-less right, but today, I think we can only conclude that more we know, more we realise how we don’t know ****.

It was nice talking to you, regardless of disagreement. It’s my free will talking

[Codehook]

Matter of perspective, since I have the exact same opinion about that theory – it ignores everything that doesn’t fit into it.

Genes mix, but don’t change unless there’s a mutation so we’d have new personality traits only in cases where mutation has occurred. Regarding environment, we’d have deviations from group only when environment changes, which is obviously not true. (Think of identical twins, grown up in the same environment.

Ummm, I mean absolutely no offence to you but you have just shown your blatant disregard and ignorance for science.

First of all, genes have a direct relationship with behaviour. Your description of gene mutation has absolutely nothing to do with any of this, and I honestly think you don't even know what you're talking about. We are all born with a different set of genes, how else do you think some people have blue eyes and some people have brown eyes? Using your logic, that would be due to genetic mutation . We have found many genes that cause behavioural differences (such as genes that predispose individuals to a different balance of brain chemicals which are directly responsible for a lot of different behaviour). Do a simple Google search and you'll find a lot of information on it. Who knows, you may actually learn something!

Secondly, that is absolutely not what 'environment' means when talking about biology. The word 'environment' means every single external influence on a subject's life. Twins do not grow up in identical environments, they are not together 24 hours a day, they are not treated by others identically, they do not experience identical scenarios in their day to day lives. The smallest difference in enviroment can cause a chain reaction that directly influences their personality, also known as the 'butterfly effect' which I'm sure you are familiar with.

If you feel this theory is ignoring things that do not fit, then perhaps you would be courteous enough to point out (scientifically, of course) what you think it is ignoring. So far all you have done is show a complete ignorance and lack of respect for science.

Science is important, but it is not credible enough at this point to just let the scientists decide for us. They’ve been wrong before, they’ll be wrong again. Eventually, they’ll have it more-less right, but today, I think we can only conclude that more we know, more we realise how we don’t know ****.

I think 'we' should have been 'I' in those sentences. You are, once again, using backwards logic. Just because we do not know everything is absolutely no excuse to say "let's just ignore everything that we do know." I've heard this ignorance time and time again on this forum, it gets tiring.

Sorry but you have shown a big lack of knowledge and understanding on this, and I felt I needed to point it out.

[Helen of Annoy]

I offered we elegantly agree that we disagree and this is what I get in return?

If you insist...

How on Earth you managed to conclude I was denying the genetic influence on behaviour?

Let me simplify my last post for you:

I have mummy and daddy. Im nervous like mummy, I can curse like daddy, but Im so damn sarcastic like no one ever was in my family.

So, I inherited some traits and developed some on my own.

Do you understand my point now?

By the way, how do you think different eye colours occurred in the first place if not through mutations? And you dare to scoff at me?

Let me simplify that too:

Just like any other sane person with IQ higher than room temperature I understand the basic genetic inheritance mechanisms, but I think that every human mind is unique and more than just a manifestation of its genetic background.

Environment. Yes, it can be the same for a group of people but yes, the interaction of individual and the environment is never absolutely the same.

However, your mystical butterfly effect is not enough to change the personality. One extremely traumatic experience can change you overnight and forever, but slight differences cannot produce significant consequences – unless there’s a factor of choice or free will, of course.

So far, you haven't offered any arguments that could motivate me to change my mind.

Edited March 30, 2010 by Helen of Annoy

[Codehook]

I offered we elegantly agree that we disagree and this is what I get in return?

You were making points in your post which attempted (unsuccessfully) to disprove what I was saying. I think I'm well within my rights to challenge you!

Let me simplify my last post for you:

I have mummy and daddy. I’m nervous like mummy, I can curse like daddy, but I’m so damn sarcastic like no one ever was in my family.

So, I inherited some traits and developed some on my own.

Do you understand my point now?

By the way, how do you think different eye colours occurred in the first place if not through mutations? And you dare to scoff at me?

That has absolutely nothing to do with the point I made, and I've just realised why after reading everything back. We're talking about two sides of the same coin here, you're talking about how genes occur in a global sense, i.e. how they originate. I have been talking about how individuals inherit traits, not how they are generated (through mutation) in the first place. I misunderstood your post, and you have misunderstood mine because we have been talking about different things.

So considering that, I will simply the explanation:

- Different personality and physical traits of humans are created through genetic mutation - this is the point you were making

- Different personality and physical traits of humans are inherited through genes from parents - this is the point I was making

Just like any other sane person with IQ higher than room temperature I understand the basic genetic inheritance mechanisms, but I think that every human mind is unique and more than just a manifestation of its genetic background.

Just to re-iterate, this confirms we were talking about different things. I apologise for having misunderstood your previous post.

Environment. Yes, it can be the same for a group of people but yes, the interaction of individual and the environment is never absolutely the same.

However, your mystical butterfly effect is not enough to change the personality. One extremely traumatic experience can change you overnight and forever, but slight differences cannot produce significant consequences – unless there’s a factor of choice or free will, of course.

This remains to be the biggest gripe I have with your argument. You're essentially saying the same thing as "if you went back in the past and stepped on a butterfly then little to nothing would happen, but major world events change the world entirely." I will have to settle to disagree with you on this one, the butterfly effect is only a theory, but a pretty good one. Of course major traumatic experiences can change someone's personality, but so can a series of very small differences.

Just think about it for a second, if one twin experiences a slightly different event (let's say, being born second) then that triggers a completely different set and order of neurons firing in the brain. That, in turn, causes a different thought process to occur. Each thought process is linked together...neurons cause other neurons to fire, and this process does not stop until you die. So one very minor event, no matter how big or small, will change the way in which your brain operates. Of course, fundamental personality traits will still dictate exactly how the brain interprets things.

So far, you haven't offered any arguments that could motivate me to change my mind.

That's fine, the feeling is respectfully mutual. I've just enjoyed discussing it with you, and again...apologies for having misunderstood what you were referring to in your previous post.

Edited April 5, 2010 by Codehook

[Helen of Annoy]

Thank you, Codehook. I can see your points and although I haven't changed my mind, they certainly make me think.

See you in some other thread.

[The Defector]

Free will is an iullusion. An upper force choreographs it that way, and if you break out of it, they'll just cover it up. They'll reprogram it.

It will as if you had never broken out.

that's just my opinion of it.

Nothing much else to say on the subject.