To the idea of free will belongs that one has the decision himself.

Free will: Can a robot have free will? - Comment on 2012 July 24

Website: countdown4us.com
Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous
Home > Comments > 2012 > Comment on 2012 July 24

2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |

2012 July 24

Go to the end of this webpage:
End

The questions of the freedom of will are not sparked off by which option is available, but by how one balances between the options. Read more:

Today I read an article about free will and here some excerpts:

 

To the idea of free will belongs that one has the decision himself.

"What would then be won for freedom of will?", asks the philosopher Michael Pauen of the Humboldt University in Berlin. When one explores many creative options, still no decision is made – and definitely no free one. According to his opinion the questions of freedom of will are not sparked off by which option is available, but by how one balances between the options. Is a man put under pressure or can he not concentrate? That would be cases in which he cannot decide freely.

To explain how one can have enough free play in one’s decisions, without violating the laws of nature, or to make one dependable on chance, some philosophers have chosen a completely different start: They define freedom of will so that it does not depend on the laws of nature. Pauen for instance translates freedom of will with self-determination. A decision can therefore be determined and still be free. Provided it is determined through the right factors, namely the wishes and arguments of man – and not through the wishes and arguments of others.

According to this definition one must also not always thoroughly think for a free decision.

 

One statement in the article is: "Much goes off stochastically in the world of smallest particles. Physicists describe as stochastic the processes which are probable, but not inevitable. So a radioactive atom can decay and send out radiation, but it can also wait with this. Physicists can only find out how fast the radioactive atoms decay on an average."

In the article it is actually about a physicist and about a robot and whether chance is a driving power to supply the necessary material from which free decisions emerge, therefore whether robots can have a free will.

In the end the author asks the question why the physicist leaves to the neuroscientists their task, but not to the philosophers.

The author therefore has recognized the problem of the physicist, or rather his lack of understanding.

For once the physicist starts from spirit coming from matter, a completely wrong conclusion, and secondly he believes he can leave the spiritual side of life out of his considerations, and with this he disqualifies himself as scientist because he calls himself a scientist, a knower, but actually does not know.

In the article it says the experiment shows how a creative, unpredictable moment can enter into the thinking and acting. Because when the freedom of will is discussed, it is again and again about the one question: How can a free play for decisions emerge when still all processes go off according to the laws of nature? Or with other words: which influence has man when everything in his brain happens according to the rules of biology and chemistry?

The spiritual side of man does not exist for the scientist. He thinks decisions are made in the brain, according to the rules of biology and chemistry. He equals the brain with the intellect and thinks to get a grasp of free will with chance.

This is once again an article from which one can see that for most of the scientists it is not about science but about atheistic propaganda.

 

Back to: 2012 July 24

 

Go to the top of this webpage:
Top

2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 |

Home | Comments | Creation | Redemption Period | Miscellaneous

For an overview of this website and for access to the individual webpages go to:
Site Map

The web address of this webpage is:
http://www.countdown4us.com/en022012/en022012137.htm