Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jimbo
Life, including one's reactions to events, can be summarized as a ton of chemical reactions. How then can we possibly have "free will"?
|
This is an interesting point, and echoes what I've believed for a long time.
To explain, let me give an example about randomness. Imagine you're rolling a six-sided die. What number comes up will depend on the variables involved, such as the position of the die as it left your hand, the height above the surface you're rolling it on, what kind of surface, the amount of 'spin' you imparted to the die, material and shape of the die, and so on. Even nigh-imperceptible factors, such as the Earth's spin, air currents, or position of the moon could affect things, as all exert some influence, however minuscule. In fact, in any system, there will be an infinite number of factors exerting influence, but only a small number of these will have a significant impact; as such, only these factors need to be considered in most cases.
Now, if one could roll an identical die in an identical way on two separate occasions, and every single factor was identical, then the result would be the same. Randomness is simply the label we've come up with when we cannot control the inputs to a great enough extent to have certainty of the outcome.
Now take a biological system. Every such system is extremely complex, and the factors that exert a measurable influence are far more numerous, making it even harder to make predictions. However, just because we cannot predict the outcome does not make it any less fixed. Since we cannot measure every factor (due to their number being infinite), we must settle for measuring only those we believe to weigh significantly in the outcome. In many systems, however, even this number is so great as to make the prediction come after the actual event. When I was a kid, I read a book 'When HARLIE Was One' about an AI; at one point, the AI was at risk of being terminated and sought to make itself useful by having a 'Graphic Omniscient Device' extension built. Here's an excerpt from the book after G.O.D. had been approved:
Quote:
"Aubie, do you know that the primary judgment complex of that machine will consist of more than 193 million miles of circuitry?" "That's a lot of circuitry - *
"Aubie, that's more than a lot of circuitry. That's hyper-state layering! My God, how could we be so blind! We were so caught up in it, we didn't stop to ask the obvious question: If this thing has infinite capacity, how long is it going to take to get an answer out of it? 193 million miles, Aubie - doesn't that suggest something to you?"
Auberson shook his head slowly.
"Light. The speed of light. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second. Only 186,000 miles per second. No faster. Electricity travels at the same speed. 193 million miles - Aubie, it'll take 17 minutes for that machine to close one synapse. It'll take several years for it to respond to a question. It'll take a century to hold a conversation with it, and God knows how long it'll take to solve any problem you pose it. Do you see it, Aubie? It'll work, but it won't be any damn good to us! By the time the G.O.D. answers your question, the original problem will no longer exist. If you ask it to predict the population of the Earth in the year 2052, it will predict it from all the information available - and it will give you an accurate answer. In the year 2053. By the time it can answer any question, the answer will already be history. Ohmigod, Aubie, the thing is so big it's self-defeating. It's slower than real-time."
|
Yes, I'm rambling now. My point, though, is that if everything is fixed, there cannot be free will. However, there can be the appearance of it, since as far as we can tell, it's not fixed. To use another analogy, imagine you go see a movie. The ending is the same regardless of whether you've seen the movie before, but if you've not seen it before, you can still enjoy it. It has the appearance of being unpredictable to the audience, but that's all.