Jed Rothwell wrote:
John Steck wrote:
I do not think that conclusion precludes fatalism however. Our future is not written in stone somewhere. We exercise free will, but it would be naive to think we are not largely predictable because of severe influences past and present.
This strikes me as a false dichotomy. We can be completely bounded by influences and yet also have free will.
Of course, the free will would have to be only within the particular set of limitations. Some people have a larger set of limitations than others, hence have less free will. The issue is magnitude, not the presence or absence of free will.
While I hesitate to compare
people to computers, an analogy does come to mind. Computers are 100% predictable,
No, they are not. People are finding that the more complex the computer, the less predictable the results. In fact, some computers can only be checked using other computers to determine if the result is correct.
and of course they are completely bounded by a small set of
rules,
Not any more. Increasingly, computers are asked to generate their own rules. Of course, you can say that the rule to "generate your own rule" is the limiting rule, hence is the basic boundary. However, I think this approach trivializes the argument.
but that does not limit the number and variety of programs a
computer can run. The set of programs is infinitely large, and as varied as the programmer's imagination. Programs are already the most complex structures ever devised by people, and there is no reason to think they could not be made far more complex, rivaling DNA and cells in complexity and the number of instructions.
When this happens, I expect we will see computer insanity, just as was described in the movie "2001". In other words, computers will act just like humans. At that point, religion will have to readjust its attitude toward humans being the sons of God.
(I am not suggesting that people are 100% predictable or bounded by a small set of rules.)
People are domesticated primates -- like pet capuchin monkeys. They are as bound and limited by biology and primate psychology as chimpanzees or any other primates. People will never escape, outgrow or transcend these limitations for even one second, any more than a bat can voluntarily stop echolocation, or a plant can stop photosynthesis. Edwin Wilson, with whom I seldom disagree, once described human biophilia for certain landscapes:
". . . people want to be on the height looking down; they prefer open, savanna like terrain with scattered trees and copses; they want to be near a body of water, such as a river or lake, or oceanfront. . . . People want to be in the environments in which our species evolved over millions of years. That is, hidden in a copse or rock wall, looking out over savanna and transitional woodland at acacia and similar dominant trees of the African environment. And, why not? Is that such a strange idea? Let me tell you that all mobile animals, down to the very simplest, with tiny brains, have what we call habitat selection, innate habitat selection. They have elaborate algorithms, searching for the right microenvironment -- the right spot to settle -- and hunt, or live and nest. This is a universal trait. Why then, would it be such a strange thing to find at least a residue of humanity's long, long evolutionary history. . ."
Of course humans and all life seeks that environment in which it can survive. Humans need water and the ability to see danger. It is trivial to suggest this is an ancestral memory. I like the mountains, my wife likes the ocean. Does this mean that we evolved from different places?
I suggest a very important condition is being overlooked. It is possible for the human mind to transcend the limitations imposed by nature and experience. This is called "enlightenment" by the Buddhists. Such people have true free will because they see the boundaries, which are invisible to most people, and can choose to go beyond. Without this ability, any discussion on this subject is always distracted by personal issues.
- "The Coming Synergism between Science and the Humanities," lecture given at the University of California, San Diego, broadcast on UCTV
I agree with everything up to the last sentence. What we see is not a "residue" but the living, continuing, embodiment of these traits and this evolutionary history. It is as much a part of our present makeup as our metabolism -- and just as vital to us. These traits have as much power over us today as they did millions of years ago. They will *always* have this power. But here is the point -- or the escape clause, if you will: among those traits are free will and creative thinking. We have free will. So do chimpanzees. I think all mammals do. We also have hands, and tools, and these give us an outlet for creative thinking and action. It opens up an infinite variety of possibilities, both good and evil. A computer is a general purpose logic machine -- it is a universal Turing machine that can, in principle, perform any operation that any other Turing machine can do. Free will, imagination plus hands (or feet, actually -- our most unique appendages) make us general-purpose creativity machines. I suspect we are capable of achieving anything that any carbon based life form on any planet can achieve.
As I said in the book: "Ever since we invented tools and began to shape our own environment, we have shaped our own destiny." I was thinking of the opening scenes in the movie "2001" although I do not believe we were tutored by another species. Children recapitulate our tool-making accomplishments so readily I am sure the skill is inborn and instinctual, like the beaver's ability to make a dam.
Regards, Ed
- Jed
