h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

The meaning of life: Life is a series of events, the universe is a series of events, all events require previous events to occur.
Past and future are consequently fixed.
there is no present due to the fact that we percieve time and subsequently require several moments to make a comparrison.

In short EVERYTHING in the universe is physical (even energy.) Events occur due to previous events. e.g. you walk down the street and slip on a banana skin.
In order for there to be free will that banana skin would have had to have suddenly appeared.
On closer examination, that banana skin was dropped by someone, (their events of their entire life now must be considdered) you at the same time had to be doing things that required you to leave at the time that you left and required you to be distracted and walking down that particular street.

Therefore there is no free will as a long complicated string of events results in the main event.

A free choice requires you to have no decidng factors. otherwise it isn't a free choice because deciding factors like colour, light intensity, shape, size etc are either part of your genetic makeup or your upbringing, these are things you have no control over and therefore have no free will.

You are physical, your brain is physical and responds to physical things in the universe. you have no place in the decision as your mind and body do all the thinking.

You do not have free will as it requires you to become a random element. In a physical universe there can be NO RANDOM ELEMENTS!

Everything, including the future, is predictable but not changeable.

indeed, but since we don't know what the future holds without a lot of tedious working out then does it really matter? i agree that there is no free will but that doesn't mean we should all just kill ourselves. in a way it would be said that at the beginning of everything every decision ever to be made was made and now we're actually doing them so yes, everything's pre-determined, but we still find ourselves choosing.

i agree that there's probably no such thing as free will but i leave it at that. i still have a life to live and decisions to make, whether or not i've already made them at all.

You need to worry about quantum mechanics if you want to make the claim that there are no random events.

i'm gunna re think what i've already said here.

it is possible to predict things like where something is if you look at cause and effect and all that stuff, but how can someone predict the inner workings of the human mind in the same way? addmitedly the mind is affected by it's environment, but surely that can't be enough to pre determine every individual move that person is going to make ever. i have started to think that there could actually be free will, despite what i've said before, because you can't predict someone's thoughts and emotions in the same way you can predict the weather or where something is going to land if you kick it.

Whatever you do, think about what I am writing now, the words I use on this page, the "h2g2" website that helps us to discuss this, the order of the words I use, and the conclusion that I come to - that is, that we are not free, is all determined by causes that is beyond the sphere of the human mind. Yet, you can give names to those causes; my upbringing, childhood memories, my education, my circumstance, my natural tendency all amount to Determining my way of living and choosing. We can choose, of course, we choose - but is it freely choosen? Is there really an "agent" which decides over choices and chooses the one that it prefers without being subject to antecedent causes or events or thoughts? I dont think so. We now live in the 21st century. Your age, sex, education, location, history, geography, upbringing, your music style, hobbies, inclinations, desires, everything that you can think of that makes you what you are is the consequence of antecedent causes. Of course, we dont go and kill our selves just because we are not free. We still live our own lives. Either you die or live, still determined.
Further, the problem is more complex when we bring the issue of "if we could have acted otherwise"?
Say, there are two roads diverged: A and B.
You have to choose one. And lets say, we choose B. Could we have acted otherwise than we did - meaning, could we have refrained from choosing B and choose A instead? If we can, we are free. If we cant, we are not.
Technically, we can only choose one. And since we choose B in the first place, there are lots of reasons behind it - either conscious or unconscious. B is better road, it leads to gardens or waterfalls or to the city light, whatever. Then, previous causes do determine the way we act. We only choose because we are determined. I think, if we were free totally, we cant even make a choice because then there would be no cause to choose whatever we want.

"Man has free will, a will that is determined"
I can be a compatabilist in some cases but usually determinism is more likely to attract my attention how the world works in its reality.

Turhan Uludag, [email protected]
North Cyprus

First of all, as mentioned in the guide, I would just like to point out that discussion of Free Will doesn't matter to our individual lives, society in any way. We must act as if we have free will because all humans, by their very nature, HAVE to make conscious decisions based on their beliefs and desires, and in that sense, we are very much unfree, but does it matter, no.

Our beliefs and desires are made up of two things - The events that can be traced back into history deterministically that made us believe and desire those things, and random events at the quantum level. Either way, there is no room for any free will. Does this mean the future is already determined? No, because of the random quantum possibilities (shroedinger's cat)

I don't think the ability to have done something different in the past changes anything about Free Will. I don't see how the possibility of doing something different than you've already done would aid the existing arguments for Free Will. The possibility of acting otherwise doesn't prove free will, any number of possibilities could have happened because of inherent quantum randomness, which mean that there was a possibility of difference of actions, but it didn't occur because, as it happened, the electron didn't behave (or behaved) in a certain fashion.

are quantum possiblities really random? in the schrodinger's cat experiment, before the box is opened the cat is neither dead nor alive, and once i open the box and look at it it becomes one or the other. but all the past events of my life leading up to that moment and the precise circumstances of my surroundings at the moment i collapse the wave by looking at it could have all previously decided what the result will be, it just wasn't known to me beforehand. as these exact circumstances can never occur again, i couldn't possibly have made the wave collapse to anything other than what it ended up collapsing as.

or am i majorly missing something?

It's definitely possible that the environment in which the experiment takes place has an impact of the result, but quantum rsndomness has been scientifically shown. It has been seen beyond reasonable doubt, and I suggest most physicists would agree, that electrons are inherently random. Only 7/10 electrons can be shown to behave exactly as expected. I suggest the other 3/10 electrons can affect the larger universe, if only slightly, and this is where Shroedinger's cat comes in. Obviously pains would be taken to make it as scientific as possible with no variables.

How can one choose if there is nothing to choose from? Why does having something to choose from, i.e. A and all leading up to it and from it, or B and all leading up to it and from it, necessarily negate the fact of the choice? How is it that we are responsible for anything that we do? Where does good/bad, right/wrong, etc go?

Seems to be awfully conveinent to be able to blame particles or various other pre-existing conditions for the fact that I don't spell well. I can fly, in an airplane, but I'm not jumping off any buildings anytime soon. Perhaps freewill is similar; free within certain limits imposed by the world.

Also, If 'I' am not physical then what am 'I'? "Ghost in the Machine?" If I am physical how does responding to physical stimuli negate my free will?

It is essentially not a choice, as I mentioned before. Strictly speaking, we are not responsible for our beliefs or desires and therefore our actions are what follows. Because there appears to be a choice, it doesn't mean that there IS a choice. Maybe the choice was decided at the last second by quantum randomness, but to suggest that there is an "agent" that influences "will" on a situation seems implausible in a materialistic sense. To defend Free Will, one must revert to idealism, and then it is plausible.

The ethics of having no Free Will is an interesting one that has been long been put forward as attacking the ethics of having no free will, but that seems to me to argue more about ethics than free will itself. Should we drop our ethics and let people run free, indulging there needs and desires? We say no, rules and jail are needed for practical reasons.

I am not suggesting that we should not take responsibility for our actions, as I mentioned before, we must act as if we have free will, and in fact, we have no choice in the matter .

Being physical negates your free will because our brains have been shown to be extremely complex computers, responding to certain stimuli with logic and making a "decision" (think of it as an offer you can't refuse) based on what we want or believe, which in itself has been based on external stimuli. Think about the mind. Why do you behave in this way? Why do leaves give the sense of being green? If you could analyse the mind properly, you would be able to find the conscious and subconscious decisions that make you think what you currently do.

"we are not responsible for our beliefs or desires and therefore our actions are what follows."

Then who is and why are they "ours"?

"The ethics of having no Free Will is an interesting one that has been long been put forward as attacking the ethics of having no free will, but that seems to me to argue more about ethics than free will itself. Should we drop our ethics and let people run free, indulging there needs and desires? We say no, rules and jail are needed for practical reasons."

If there is no choice,then there is no way to keep people from running "free" as they will be unable to choose to restrain themselves and their desires/needs (which are two very different things).
If there is no choice then rules and jail are useless and unjust (in that order) as one cannot decide to conform to rules that run contrary to their desires and it is unjust to imprison or otherwise punish an individual for behavior that they cannot help. We can't even incarcerate them in the hopes of rehabilitation, as they cannot act in any other way then they have been programed (to use the computer analogy). The best we could do would be to dispose of those individuals (drug addicts, the mentally ill, criminals of various types) who cannot help the fact that they are programmed contrary to the rules of polite society (whatever that might mean). I suppose we could try to alter their programing by giving them drugs, but who is to say they are programmed to take the drugs regularly.


"I am not suggesting that we should not take responsibility for our actions, as I mentioned before, we must act as if we have free will, and in fact, we have no choice in the matter."

If we are bound in the way materialism suggests then we cannot be responsible, precisely because we have no choice in the matter.

"Being physical negates your free will because our brains have been shown to be extremely complex computers, responding to certain stimuli with logic and making a 'decision' "...

They have been shown to RESEMBLE extremely complex computers. Where does logic come from? Some philosophers have made the point that people use logic to make sense of the world around us, and point to the fact that logic differs from culture to culture.

"(think of it as an offer you can't refuse)"
There is no such thing. There are offers that one can choose not to refuse, the band leader liked his brains better than Jonnie's singing (to carry on the Godfather reference.) and the drive to survive is one of our strongest influences, but there are occasions where one chooses otherwise. A man with a gun to his head still has a decision to make, it's just the consequences of one choice are more final than the other.

"Think about the mind."
The mind or the brain?

"Why do leaves give the sense of being green?"
Because of my perception of the wavelength of the light reflected by them...unless I'm color blind in which case I don't see them as green....or unless I'm Japanese in which case the color green (midori) is a fairly recent concept. Before midori came along leaves and all other things of that particular shade were "aoi" or blue. (Stop lights still are actually)

"If you could analyse the mind properly, you would be able to find the conscious and subconscious decisions that make you think what you currently do."

If materialists analysed the arguement properly they would see that decisions are impossible under their model, as all things are already "decided".

And to close a joke "There are 10 types of people in this world. Those who understand binary code and those who don't."

LOL


My responses:

"Then who is and why are they "ours"?"

1. It is not one person or thing that is responsible for our beliefs and desires, but a range of experiences and evolution (and to a lesser extent quantum randomness) are. They our ours as they occur in our mind (mind=brain).


"If there is no choice,then there is no way to keep people from running "free" as they will be unable to choose to restrain themselves and their desires/needs (which are two very different things)."

2.Well, yes, there is, - gaol or jail. This locks rule breakers up physically. This may affect their beliefs and needs/desires and change them, which may make them able to reenter the community

3. To say that jail is "useless" without free will is not true. As mentioned above, it has practical reasons. The statement that gaol and and corrective punishment is "unethical" with no free will is interesting, but should not people be punished for infringing laws e ven if they have no say in the matter? The mact that it isn't their choice doesn't excuse them, and they will be dealt with to maintain order. They couldn't have acted otherwise, but practicality is more important, and the stimuli acting on them in the jail may change their beliefs and desires. It should be said that while humans have a certain amount of "programming", it doesn't mean they're forced to behave in a certain way for the rest of their lives, because of the experiences and people we meet in our lives.


"If we are bound in the way materialism suggests then we cannot be responsible, precisely because we have no choice in the matter."

4. I think you are quite right - that is exactly the point I am making. We are not responsible, but we must behave as if we have free will, otherwise how do you live?


"They have been shown to RESEMBLE extremely complex computers. Where does logic come from? Some philosophers have made the point that people use logic to make sense of the world around us, and point to the fact that logic differs from culture to culture."

5. I agree that you need logic to make sense of the world around us, but history of logic is a very complex area indeed. You need to take into account evolution, the use of logic in the wild, interacting with others, and above all survival, as well as what we're taught. To say that our brains are computers would be fallacious, as computers do not contain organic matter. Maybe computers in the future will or match human thought with only electrical impulses.


"There is no such thing (as an offer you can't refuse). There are offers that one can choose not to refuse, the band leader liked his brains better than Jonnie's singing (to carry on the Godfather reference.) and the drive to survive is one of our strongest influences, but there are occasions where one chooses otherwise. A man with a gun to his head still has a decision to make, it's just the consequences of one choice are more final than the other."

6. So let me ask you this - why do you make decisions? Why did you find one option superior to another? What caused these reasons? An incredibly complex chain of events leading back to either a random event or the big bang


"The mind or the brain?"

7. mind=brain


That bit on colour you wrote was interesting, good for a metaphysics forum, but does not relate to this argument, I believe


"If materialists analysed the arguement properly they would see that decisions are impossible under their model, as all things are already "decided"."

Quite right. I stuffed up the argument. Should have been "conscious and subconscious REASONS that make you think how you think"

I think that these arguments that we don't have free will are very stupid, science has absolutely no clue on how our minds work at this point in time, maybe in a few decades but not now, and we don't even clearly understand all the consequences of theories created over half a century ago. In the entire history of man we have been constantly reminded that everything we know is wrong, so I think we should wait a couple of decades and see what we believe then, we will of probably disproved everything that we think we know now.

Have a nice day

Science CANNOT provide a solution to how the mind should work but mathematics CAN and HAS provided a solution to consciousness.

Why do I say that?
Because I have discovered how our minds should work by studying patterns within language as a teenager and as a result adopted an objective thinking strategy based on the non numerical mathematical properties of language. I have just completed a research project that sets out these principles see Appendix A below for details.

Why am I certain that I have solved how the mind works?
because
(i) my conscious matches my subconscious.
(ii) Perceptions do not form any part of my thinking strategy, instead I just observe the world around me, as that is all that is the information that is required for the visual experience which is the most important experiences one has see @ below .
(ii) I retain a childlike view of the world together with its flexibility rather than basing my view of the world on experience which has to be unique to each person.
To quote from a advert for a book ‘innocent of childhood / ignorance of adulthood’

I am now in the process of trying to get my ideas formally recognised but with little success as
(i) I have conducted my research work on an independent basis and
(ii)it is also a subject which is new so people are naturally wary.

CAN ANYONE HELP ME?

See Appendix B below that provides excepts from the book Bible Code 2 that seems aso to confirm my conclusions.

Appendix A

Fundamentals of objective thinking
[A] Life is made up of a series of events or experiences.
[B] Each experience is unique.
[C] However each experience can be represented by six classes of knowledge
1/ REALITY - 2/ ACTION - 3/ TIME - - 4/ RULES - 5/ PLACE - 6/ VARIABLE CONNECTIONS

(re VARIABLE CONNECTIONS - these are classes of knowledge that are dependent on individual circumstances. They are the effects of connections between different members of reality and can be represented by the equation X + Y = Z e.g.
(i) Mental effects e.g. conversation between two individuals and their resulting feelings [Z] or
(ii) physical connections e.g. pulling up weeds effect on hands when contact is made with soil Z)

[(a) This a similar library classification system but in this case the relevant knowledge of life is filed under each class.

(b) How know complete set of classes of knowledge?
By breaking down any experience, as represented by language in the form of spoken or written, and ensure these are the only classes of knowledge ] see also [D] below

[D] Included in the REALITY category is the ‘human’ class of knowledge. This can further broken down over all the classes of knowledge associate with humans. Thus one has created a unique template to represent any human thus removing the need to stereotype people. This also provides one with a reference point for oneself to discover one's own identity.
Classes of knowledge within this template include ‘those essential to the wellbeing of the person’ e.g. (i) ‘diet‘, (ii)‘health and safety‘, (iii)‘mistakes and precautions’ one meets in the experience one meets in everyday life i.e. all matters that should be taught by mother or responsible persons to a child see RULES category.
Not forgetting (iv) how to think in an objective manner?

[E] Determining the Truth is a separate exercise e.g. as performed by auditors as part of their duties i.e. after asking the client questions instead of automatically accepting the answers given as the truth they treat them as just ‘words’ then they verify the answers by carrying out a series of procedures whose purpose is to establish the truth. Similarly one should adopt the same approach and treat all words received in everyday life as just ‘words’ unless received from a proven expert or reference book as they by definition provide the truth. One could still double check the information received from the Truth sources as the auditor would do but ONLY IF one needs to know I.e. one is directly effected either mentally or physically by that class of knowledge. This should address Descartes concern of the realisation as a child the number of falsehoods he had been told.
This 'why do we need to know?' philosophy question contrasts with the normal philosophical question ‘what can we know?’

[F] Similarly in an objective thinking strategy one should seek for any new experience what classes of mistake can occur together with the precaution need to prevent it. Ideally this should be formalised and included in a reference book to which all relevant humans can have access to. This could include the classes of knowledge a child should be taught in order to face everyday life. Thus humanity is less likely to need to learn by mistakes and the world would be made a better place.


Also in an objective thinking strategy
1/ One of life’s experience is 'viewing the world' where the only classes of knowledge one needs to fulfil this visual experience is that which the senses can obtain I.e. shapes formed by colours.
2/ No further interpretation can or need be made re these signals as one has insufficient knowledge to establish the truth see [E] above.
3/ Thus everyone would have the same way of viewing the world.
4/ Humans now seek to interpret what they receive through the senses because of their natural sense of curiosity and hunger to acquire knowledge. Perhaps it may not be a coincidence that Adam after being created by God, was banished because of his search for knowledge?
5/ By adopting a mathematical approach to thinking one has the means to gain access to all relevant classes of knowledge for any subject OR NOT. The later statement is another class of pattern within language which emphaises the capacity of humans to adopt a freewill approach.

Grand Summary
Thus by exploiting the non numeric mathematical properties of language one can gather all knowledge for any subject or experience or NOT. Putting it another way there CAN be freewill if people adopt this non numeric mathematical thinking approach and this CAN be proven by using mathematical means.

Appendix B
PS
Interestingly the Bible Code 2 book by Michael Drosnin also directs us to the same conclusion see below with extracts and relevant pages. Important words are highlighted.

P 30 Then we both saw something extraordinary – again with ‘Mathematical key’
P 65 And the full code matrix that appeared parallel to Bible Code therefore also stated ‘it exists in the language of man’
P 67 ‘In our hands to solve.’ ‘It was almost as if the encoder was openly encouraging the quest’
P 75 ‘The language gene’ is encoded in the Bible crossed by a hidden text that appears to state the answer ‘Gods gene’
p 77 ‘Genius’ crosses ‘language gene’ and right below that, ‘in humans’ also crosses it.
P 78 The Bible code very clearly seems to state that man was intentionally endowed with a unique ability for language. It seems to confirm what the linguist Noam Chomsky first suggested more than forty years ago, that language is innate in man, that we have a specific neural circuitry embedded in our brains. It is a gift that makes humans human.
And in the code, this unique human ability to speak is linked again and again to the Bible code itself, as if to say that language and the code are one.
P 174 the problem had before always been to persuade world leaders that the ultimate dangers encoded in the Bible might be real.
P 202 it is not a prediction – but a warning of what can happen according to what we do