Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Poll: This thought experiment (choose two answers)

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 31
  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Free Will: a thought experiment

    Free Will:

    Free will: "The rather vague idea that something called 'the will' has FREEDOM OF CHOICE" (Brook and Stainton 232).

    Free choice: "Commonly held to be a decision such that, up to the moment that it was made, another decision could have been made, such that which decision is made is up to the person making it; that is, a decision that embodies FREEDOM OF CHOICE and FREEDOM OF DECISION" (Brook and Stainton 232).

    Freedom of choice: "The power to make free CHOICES" (Brook and Stainton 232).

    Freedom of Decision: "The power to make free CHOICES" (Brook and Stainton 232).

    Brook, Andrew and Robert J. Stainton. Knowledge and Mind: A Philosophical Introduction.
    Cambridge Massachusetts: First MIT Press, 2001. 166-238. Print.


    Required Equipment:

    1. A transporter (similar to the one on Star Trek).
    2. Two holodecks (similar to the one on Star Trek). The number of holodecks used could be 1 million, all that matters is that it is more then one.
    3. One holodeck program. The program can be on almost anything. The main point is that there is only one of them.
    4. A person of about 20 years of age. Can be older or younger, theoretically age should not make a difference.

    The Experiment:

    1. Place the person into one of the holodecks. The person should be unconscious and not be aware of the experiment being run on them. In other words, they do not know that they are in a holodeck and do not know that free will is being tested.

    2. Use the transporter to scan the person in the first holodeck and then recreate that person in the second holodeck. Making sure that the second person is in the exact same body position as the first person.

    3. Run the one program in both holodecks and wake up both people.

    4. What we now have are two 100% identical people in a 100% identical environment. At least 100% identical from the perspective of a human's senses. The only difference between the two holodecks is that the first person is made up of his original matter while the second person (the copy) is made up of other matter. But this is irrelevant, they are still the same person. They still have the same personality, memories, and so on...

    Interpretation of Behavior:

    If these two people behave differently - make different choices - then they have free choice and by extension free will. However, I believe that they will make identical choices. They are the exact same person in the exact same situation. Their identical personalities, memories, likes and dislikes, and so on will cause them to come to the same conclusion resulting in the same action. In other words, they are predetermined to do what they did. Although I do expect to see minute differences between the two people with regards to how they complete their identical decision. For example, they both decide to get out of bed. The first person (the original) steps out of bed by putting his left leg 1 foot from the edge of his bed. The second person (the copy/clone) at the same moment steps out of bed by putting his left leg 1.0000001 feet from the edge of his bed. Such small differences would be observed because such small decisions are rarely controlled by a person. Both people decided to step out of bed at the exact same moment in almost the exact same way but they do not have control over such small things as 0.0000001 of a foot.

    Questions:

    1. Does this thought experiment actually test free will? A thought experiment is supposed to make a difficult problem intuitively obvious, does this thought experiment do that? This doesn't mean that my answer is intuitively obvious, just that an answer is.

    2. Does it matter if the original person and the clone know that they are in a holodeck and that free will is being tested?

    3. Would minute differences in behavior be detected?

    4. Would these minute differences indicate that we have free will?

    5. Would these minute differences add up over time 'giving birth' to free will?
    Last edited by MyXenocide; May 2nd, 2012 at 01:10 PM.
    abc

  2. #2
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    1. I think its pretty good as tests of such go (the only failure point is if brain processes are inherently and truly random in some way)
    2. Not so long as they both have the same information
    3. I would assume the scanner could detect them
    4. Probably not in a meaningful way for us, we tend to identify free will as only the actions we have awareness of.
    5. Not to free will in the common understanding, but to a notion of non-destiny which is closely related
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  3. #3
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    2. Use the transporter to scan the person in the first holodeck and then recreate that person in the second holodeck. Making sure that the second person is in the exact same body position as the first person.
    The "second person" is not a person at all...it's a hologram of a person. A person isn't a person merely because it is a hologram of that person.

    From your source:

    The holodeck also generates impressive recreations of humanoid and other forms of life by means of precisely-shaped force fields covered by holographic imagery, with the effect that they seem solid to the touch. They are made to move by use of tractor beams, resulting in highly articulated and computer-controlled "puppets" which are exceptionally realistic, showing nearly equal behavior to that exhibited by living beings, depending, of course, on the limits of the software involved. However, the replication-based material transport system is obviously unable to reproduce a living being.
    3. Run the one program in both holodecks and wake up both people.
    Only 1 person exists, not 2.

    4. What we now have are two 100% identical people in a 100% identical environment.
    No, we have 1 person in one environment, we have a hologram of that person in a duplicated environment.

    A person isn't a person merely because it is a hologram of that person.

    At least 100% identical from the perspective of a human's senses. The only difference between the two holodecks is that the first person is made up of his original matter while the second person (the copy) is made up of other matter. But this is irrelevant, they are still the same person. They still have the same personality, memories, and so on...
    Not true. One is living, the other is not. One is authentic, the other is programmed.

    If these two people behave differently - make different choices - then they have free choice and by extension free will. However, I believe that they will make identical choices. They are the exact same person in the exact same situation.
    Not true as per above.

    Their identical personalities, memories, likes and dislikes, and so on will cause them to come to the same conclusion resulting in the same action. In other words, they are predetermined to do what they did.
    "Predetermination is the idea that every event is caused, not simply by the immediately prior events, but by a causal chain of events that goes back well before recent events."

    1) That you have 1 person and 1 holographic image of a person, doesn't mean predetermination is true. You have not made any logical connection here. If you disagree, where is it?

    2) Even if we allowed for an exact duplication of a life form, so that we do have 2 real people (one being identical in every way to the other), and they do act in the same way, you have no made any logical connection to predetermination. If you disagree, where is it?

    Questions:

    1. Does this thought experiment actually test free will?

    2. Does it matter if the original person and the clone know that they are in a holodeck and that free will is being tested?

    3. Would minute differences in behavior be detected?

    4. Would these minute differences indicate that we have free will?

    5. Would these minute differences add up over time 'giving birth' to free will?
    1.) No. How could it?
    2.) No. Why would it?
    3.) Probably, but I'm uncertain.
    4.) No. Why would they? They seem irrelevant to the issue.
    5.) No. Why would they? They seem irrelevant to the issue.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    1. I think its pretty good as tests of such go (the only failure point is if brain processes are inherently and truly random in some way)
    Could you elaborateness on this please? Also I added a question to number one.

    1. A thought experiment is supposed to make a difficult problem intuitively obvious, does this thought experiment do that?

    2. Not so long as they both have the same information
    They do. This would be explain before the copy is made. So that the copy has all the memories and experiences of the original. Also, the holodeck program could inform both people at the same time in the same way. This would also be acceptable.

    3. I would assume the scanner could detect them
    Agreed.

    4. Probably not in a meaningful way for us, we tend to identify free will as only the actions we have awareness of.
    Agreed. But what if there was a thumb tack that 0.0000001 foot away thus making one of them step on it and the other not. The one who steps on it will have a small problem to deal with that the other does not. Could this small effect not have huge consequences down the line? Especially if they add up?

    5. Not to free will in the common understanding, but to a notion of non-destiny which is closely related
    I suppose my above example would be part of the notion of non-destiny. The person who steps on the thumb tack will face different problems in life, but he will handle them in the same way that his double would, had his double also stepped on the thumb tack.

    ---------- Post added at 04:23 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:10 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The "second person" is not a person at all...it's a hologram of a person. A person isn't a person merely because it is a hologram of that person.

    From your source:

    The holodeck also generates impressive recreations of humanoid and other forms of life by means of precisely-shaped force fields covered by holographic imagery, with the effect that they seem solid to the touch. They are made to move by use of tractor beams, resulting in highly articulated and computer-controlled "puppets" which are exceptionally realistic, showing nearly equal behavior to that exhibited by living beings, depending, of course, on the limits of the software involved. However, the replication-based material transport system is obviously unable to reproduce a living being.
    That is why I am using the transporter to create another human being and not a hologram. The holodeck is just there to create identical environments for the two people.

    Only 1 person exists, not 2.
    There are two people. Read more carefully.

    No, we have 1 person in one environment, we have a hologram of that person in a duplicated environment.

    A person isn't a person merely because it is a hologram of that person.
    It isn't a hologram! I am literally creating a perfect clone of the original person by using the transporter.

    Not true. One is living, the other is not. One is authentic, the other is programmed.

    Not true as per above.
    Completely irrelevant, see above.

    1) That you have 1 person and 1 holographic image of a person, doesn't mean predetermination is true. You have not made any logical connection here. If you disagree, where is it?
    Well that is what the thought experiment is trying to show. If it does or not is another question.

    2) Even if we allowed for an exact duplication of a life form, so that we do have 2 real people (one being identical in every way to the other), and they do act in the same way, you have no made any logical connection to predetermination. If you disagree, where is it?
    Where is what? My logical connection?

    1.) No. How could it?
    2.) No. Why would it?
    3.) Probably, but I'm uncertain.
    4.) No. Why would they? They seem irrelevant to the issue.
    5.) No. Why would they? They seem irrelevant to the issue.
    I suggest reading the OP again and then tackling these questions again. Remember, it is two real identical people.
    abc

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    The "second person" is not a person at all...it's a hologram of a person. A person isn't a person merely because it is a hologram of that person.
    Fiction land
    The second person isn't a hologram, they are a matter constructed copy of the original subject. (transporters work by analyzing the molecular level composition of something, transforming their material body into energy, then transporting it somewhere else and re-assembling it exactly as it was) In this case (and in some episodes) the transporter copies the subject making two copies. The replicator machines do this intentionally using base molecular components and arranging them into previously-stored patterns.

    I think if there is a flaw for many it would be the idea of a non material soul, something the transporter could not analyze or copy. Would the physical duplicate person be truly the same person or not if the soul is not copied?
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    I think if there is a flaw for many it would be the idea of a non material soul, something the transporter could not analyze or copy. Would the physical duplicate person be truly the same person or not if the soul is not copied?
    Please assume that the copy is 100% identical. So either the transporter can copy a soul, or a soul doesn't exist to begin with.
    abc

  7. #7
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Fiction land
    The second person isn't a hologram, they are a matter constructed copy of the original subject. (transporters work by analyzing the molecular level composition of something, transforming their material body into energy, then transporting it somewhere else and re-assembling it exactly as it was) In this case (and in some episodes) the transporter copies the subject making two copies. The replicator machines do this intentionally using base molecular components and arranging them into previously-stored patterns.
    I'm merely going by the explanations offered in the links used as a source to further explain the terms. You may want to correct the sources...or have Xeno use more accurate sources. As it stands, and using these sources...your explanation is not fitting.

    However, for sake of the argument, we can explore the scenario.

    I think if there is a flaw for many it would be the idea of a non material soul, something the transporter could not analyze or copy. Would the physical duplicate person be truly the same person or not if the soul is not copied?
    That's one potential challenge. But some maintain the soul does not exist.

    The biggest problem I can see...is the idea that because we have 2 selves that I agree should do the same thing, this means that determinism is true. We will evaluate decisions based on our knowledge, experience, psychological makeup, values and the situation we find ourselves in. We do so freely. Just because use use these tools to determine what is the best decision for us at the time, doesn't mean that we cannot freely choose amongst available choices. By having such experiences and knowledge, it explains WHY we chose...or it helps us choose...it doesn't force us to choose.

    ---------- Post added at 03:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:06 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    Where is what? My logical connection?
    Yes.

    I suggest reading the OP again and then tackling these questions again. Remember, it is two real identical people.
    Assuming for the sake of the argument that they are 2 identical problem and ignoring the fact that it is logically impossible to have this occur if personhood includes the soul, my answers remain the same.

    See my response to Sig for further explanation.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    1.) No. How could it?
    2.) No. Why would it?
    3.) Probably, but I'm uncertain.
    4.) No. Why would they? They seem irrelevant to the issue.
    5.) No. Why would they? They seem irrelevant to the issue.
    1. Given the definitions of free will, free choice... and the thought experiment is how it could test free will. How could it not?
    2. I agree it theoretically shouldn't make a difference. It would be an interesting experiment to run, especially because then the two people could leave the holodeck and meet each other.
    3. I agree as well. It is possible that no minute differences would be detected. This is not what I expect would happen, but it would be a very interesting result of this experiment.
    4. Personally I don't think they would. But I can see someone making a case for why they would.
    5. This is somewhat more possible. See my reply to Sigfried for further explanation.

    ---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Assuming for the sake of the argument that they are 2 identical problem and ignoring the fact that it is logically impossible to have this occur if personhood includes the soul, my answers remain the same.

    See my response to Sig for further explanation.
    Could you, for the sake of this argument, assume that the soul does not exist? This is the perspective from which I crafted this thought experiment. I do not think that my thought experiment must include souls since there is no empirical evidence for the existence of a soul.
    abc

  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    1. Given the definitions of free will, free choice... and the thought experiment is how it could test free will. How could it not?
    Given those definitions, how could it? This is precisely the question you've been asked as a direct response and challenge to the assertion that it does and can.

    2. I agree it theoretically shouldn't make a difference. It would be an interesting experiment to run, especially because then the two people could leave the holodeck and meet each other.
    I've always been fascinated by this possibility and enjoy seeing it realized in film, although not many truly explore this concept very deeply.

    4. Personally I don't think they would. But I can see someone making a case for why they would.
    I think you see something I don't. What is the case that someone could make for it?

    5. This is somewhat more possible. See my reply to Sigfried for further explanation.
    The "tack" scenario? If so, I'm not sure how leads to determinism (vs indeterminism).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    1. Does this thought experiment actually test free will?
    In order to test free will, wouldn't we have to be able to test their consciousness and the experience of their choices? This raises the question, how do you duplicate consciousness? Duplicating a brain is one thing. Duplicating a non-tangible like consciousness, yet which gives rise to subjective experiences is another.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    In order to test free will, wouldn't we have to be able to test their consciousness and the experience of their choices? This raises the question, how do you duplicate consciousness? Duplicating a brain is one thing. Duplicating a non-tangible like consciousness, yet which gives rise to subjective experiences is another.
    For the sake of this argument it is assumed that everything can be duplicated. Be it a soul, consciousnesses... or that such things do not exist and thus don't need to be duplicated.
    abc

  12. #12
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    Given those definitions, how could it? This is precisely the question you've been asked as a direct response and challenge to the assertion that it does and can.
    ...and that is where the thought experiment comes in... I start with the definition of what I'm testing and then use the thought experiment to test it. It is really very simple, although it does take a working memory of 6 and up... so perhaps that is what is holding you up?

    I've always been fascinated by this possibility and enjoy seeing it realized in film, although not many truly explore this concept very deeply.
    Yes only a few eccentric geniuses find such experiments fascinating. Probably because they are the only ones smart enough to realize what could happen in such an experiment and what the implications of such results would be.

    I think you see something I don't. What is the case that someone could make for it?
    It isn't my job to be your imagination.

    The "tack" scenario? If so, I'm not sure how leads to determinism (vs indeterminism).
    It doesn't. It leads to non-destiny. It is irrelevant to testing free will. At least in my opinion. Again, I can see someone making an argument for the contrary. In my mind it wouldn't be a good argument but it would be valid non-the-less.
    abc

  13. #13
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    ...and that is where the thought experiment comes in... I start with the definition of what I'm testing and then use the thought experiment to test it. It is really very simple, although it does take a working memory of 6 and up... so perhaps that is what is holding you up?
    See pm's.

    And I see no other need to address this thread since you feel the need to resort to disrespectful, blatant, personal attacks. I thought you were serious about this being some sort of thought experiment.

    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    See pm's.

    And I see no other need to address this thread since you feel the need to resort to disrespectful, blatant, personal attacks. I thought you were serious about this being some sort of thought experiment.

    I am serious.
    abc

  15. #15
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,177
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Apokalupsis View Post
    I'm merely going by the explanations offered in the links used as a source to further explain the terms. You may want to correct the sources...or have Xeno use more accurate sources. As it stands, and using these sources...your explanation is not fitting.
    You used the wrong link for the part of the experiment you are referencing. The holodeck provides the environment, the transporter (first link) is the cloning mechanism.

    The biggest problem I can see...is the idea that because we have 2 selves that I agree should do the same thing, this means that determinism is true. We will evaluate decisions based on our knowledge, experience, psychological makeup, values and the situation we find ourselves in. We do so freely. Just because use use these tools to determine what is the best decision for us at the time, doesn't mean that we cannot freely choose amongst available choices. By having such experiences and knowledge, it explains WHY we chose...or it helps us choose...it doesn't force us to choose.
    I agree its a fine distinction. When I argue free will I try to distinguish the idea of a causal decision from an entirely uncased choice. You say that we can freely choose but if at the same time all that information leads us to a best decision, that is the decision we will make. We have the other option, but being ourself, we will not take it because our unique combination of experience and desire will lead us to a given choice. The choice only exists in the sense of what we don't know. We can see the information but until we are there in that exact moment, we don't know what the choice will be for certain. When we are there we find out what our choice is. If it were another person making the choice, the outcome could be different, but if its us... then the choice is certain. These choices we make are a window to our identity.

    Determinism and choice, to me, are not discordant. But I see choice as an expression of our unique nature and circumstance rather than a fiat of some power called will that can defy nature and circumstance and make a choice that the causal effects are all pointing against.

    I can make a computer which is an entirely deterministic system and I can give it a routine which introduces determinism that is beyond the ability of any programmer or scientist to pre determine into its decision making system. Then that entirely deterministic system can express a will that makes decisions in a way no one can predict but is yet entirely pre-determined. Different circumstances will lead it to make different decisions at different times but the why is known only to the system itself in the moment of decision and is then lost (unless we record it).

    In real life, circumstances are impossible to predict, just like the computer (which uses such circumstances to determine its decisions). In this experiment, they seek to control all circumstance to see if any variation is possible under complete control.

    For a naturalist the only possible escape from such determinism lies in some kind of truly random nature of matter that can have a strong enough affect to alter outcomes in the long haul. I'm not convinced of such and find that our limited ability to predict outcomes and observe circumstance means we will always have the perception of free will regardless.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  16. #16
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    For the sake of this argument it is assumed that everything can be duplicated. Be it a soul, consciousnesses... or that such things do not exist and thus don't need to be duplicated.
    Well for the sake of your thought experiment, if we assume we can duplicate the agency that allows us to experience life, consciousness, then the duplicate creation will go their way and start experiencing life one way and would make free will choices based upon their individual experiences.

    While person 1 would go their way and experience life and make different choices based upon their individual different experiences.

    One might go on to find a cure for cancer, while the other becomes a hermit up in the mountains depending upon how they experience life.

    It's kind of like identical twins. They share a lot of physiology in common and almost know each others thoughts, but they differ in many ways including their personal choices, lifestyle, likes and dislikes, health issues, psychology, career path, etc.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  17. #17
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    1,355
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    Well for the sake of your thought experiment, if we assume we can duplicate the agency that allows us to experience life, consciousness, then the duplicate creation will go their way and start experiencing life one way and would make free will choices based upon their individual experiences.

    While person 1 would go their way and experience life and make different choices based upon their individual different experiences.

    One might go on to find a cure for cancer, while the other becomes a hermit up in the mountains depending upon how they experience life.

    It's kind of like identical twins. They share a lot of physiology in common and almost know each others thoughts, but they differ in many ways including their personal choices, lifestyle, likes and dislikes, health issues, psychology, career path, etc.
    This is true. But if we create a duplicate of a 30 year old man. The moment the duplicate is made it has all the same DNA it also has all the same memories, personality, life experiences, skills and so on as the original. Now if we put these two identical people in the same identical fake environment (on a holodeck) will they make all the same choices or different choices? This is essentially the thought experiment. I gave my interpretation of what I think will happen in the thought experiment in the Interpretation of Behavior section.

    Interpretation of Behavior:

    If these two people behave differently - make different choices - then they have free choice and by extension free will. However, I believe that they will make identical choices. They are the exact same person in the exact same situation. Their identical personalities, memories, likes and dislikes, and so on will cause them to come to the same conclusion resulting in the same action. In other words, they are predetermined to do what they did. Although I do expect to see minute differences between the two people with regards to how they complete their identical decision. For example, they both decide to get out of bed. The first person (the original) steps out of bed by putting his left leg 1 foot from the edge of his bed. The second person (the copy/clone) at the same moment steps out of bed by putting his left leg 1.0000001 feet from the edge of his bed. Such small differences would be observed because such small decisions are rarely controlled by a person. Both people decided to step out of bed at the exact same moment in almost the exact same way but they do not have control over such small things as 0.0000001 of a foot.
    abc

  18. #18
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,382
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by MyXenocide View Post
    If these two people behave differently - make different choices - then they have free choice and by extension free will. However, I believe that they will make identical choices. They are the exact same person in the exact same situation. Their identical personalities, memories, likes and dislikes, and so on will cause them to come to the same conclusion resulting in the same action.
    Even if you put them in the same environment, it doesn't mean they will 'experience' life in the same way or respond in the same way. Two people with consciousness can 'experience' the same environment in completely different ways even if they have the same background. Thus, the response can be different. And at some point the differences may create a new state of awareness in one and cause him/her to seek out a different fake environment.

    In other words, they are predetermined to do what they did.
    They could really only be predetermined if they didn't have a mind nor the ability to experience life.

    But if your experiment is duplicating consciousness and the mind which gives rise to experience, then their experience of life will most likely be different from the moment of the duplication and they would both be subject to the laws of physics and the possibilities vs the probabilities of life.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  19. #19
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,540
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by SIG
    I think if there is a flaw for many it would be the idea of a non material soul, something the transporter could not analyze or copy. Would the physical duplicate person be truly the same person or not if the soul is not copied?
    Yea, I would say that is a good part of the test itself. If you could never create a living body despite all the parts being exactly the same... then you basically prove the soul exists. If the soul exists then that is a tick in the direction of free will, but not necessarily.


    @ OP.

    I do not think it is a good test.
    Suppose they are exact copies, so that the essence of the will itself is copied.

    -Part 1 = same choice
    So, suppose they both give identical answers,
    If there was a 'free will", that doesn't prove or disprove that the will was not the source and that it produced the answer spontaneously. At best it would show that two identical wills will spontaneously produce the same results. (if an identical free will could be copied and was the source)

    If there is no "free will", and the environment and all things are exactly identical, then we should expect identical decisions because everything is the same.

    So both truths could reasonably produce the same result, in which case we learn nothing.


    =Part 2 = different choice
    Suppose they make a different choice.
    If the will were in fact free, a different choice may mean the experiment wasn't 100% effective at duplicating the environment and the facts the will considered. Such as a hologram not being real, and the will intuitively knowing it wasn't real. (even the matrix people "knew"). So the experiment could point to a "spiritual" an thus uncontrollable element in the test.

    If the will were in fact not free, the same mistake could have been made, simply being in a different location means the two are not 'exactly' equal, and thus the experiment may point to a purely physical yet uncontrollable variable.


    =Part 3 = actual perfect copies of both environment and study object
    I think this is absolutely impossible, and is thus unreasonable to speculate on. Simply being in a different location changes things. Observing by different people, different times, all those things (and more) could be factors that effect the outcome.
    ------------------


    Conclusion
    Because all options are reasonably expectable or possible from both truths, the test does not effectively weed out one option, or point to one over the other.
    To serve man.

  20. #20
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,386
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Free Will: a thought experiment

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    You used the wrong link for the part of the experiment you are referencing. The holodeck provides the environment, the transporter (first link) is the cloning mechanism.
    Nope, still doesn't work. The transporter does not have the capacity to do what you two are claiming it does, it never did. I understand for the sake of the argument you want to pretend that it does, but should just say "Pretend we have this magical duplicater that does X, Y, Z" instead.

    It doesn't all of the sudden become "more realistic" or "plausible" simply because you make a Star Trek reference or use on technology before another.

    The transporter TRANSPORTS energy, it converts the person into energy, then sends it to another location where this energy is reconverted back into a person (or object)...it does not DUPLICATE it. Apparently...both of you are less of a Star Trek fan than I am.
    Transporters convert a person or object into an energy pattern (a process called dematerialization), then "beam" it to a target, where it is reconverted into matter (rematerialization).
    Instead, use "magic", it is much more believable since we allow it to do that which is impossible (which is what the op is using, impossibility, to argue for a particular philosophy), which consequentially, renders the argument (or experiment), dead in the water.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Movie: The Experiment
    By Apokalupsis in forum Entertainment
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: December 8th, 2007, 06:57 PM
  2. Taxation: A Thought Experiment
    By emtee10 in forum General Debate
    Replies: 38
    Last Post: February 12th, 2006, 08:57 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •