Philosophy Now Forum

Izzywizzy wrote:Mike or was it Cervany? I can`t saY `that I am that impressed with your humans are robots..theory, which is all it is, and hardwired to do what exactly? most of our bodily functions work without us knowing how they work. Are we now deemed to have no freewill to be just programmed automatons regurging what millions of programmed robots would do? sounds like a determinist view. Granted some human`s implant plastic in their nether regions to enhance their bodily prowess in pulling power. [but seriously,] seriously?

DNA has a code not a programme

But the issue about free-will and determinism is more than just about DNA.

Hobbes said that being free to act, or do as he desires, is only about not being constrained. But the thing that makes you want to act is desire, and that is not in the control of the conscious mind.
The desire do do anything has necessary and material causes. Freedom in this view means the absence of the 'lets and hinderances of motion'; i.e. Liberty. That applies to a robot as much as a man.
But the action and the will to action are predetermined.
From the moment you are born (and even before it) you have no choice in who your parents are, where you are brought up, what you are fed etc. The desire and the will are conditioned by these early experiences in a necessary causal chain that leads inexorably to the present day. That we are free to act within the constraints of our environment is based on the volitional desires that emerge from determinate causes within the matter and energy interaction within the brain. We make choices and those choices, based on determinate causes within us , further condition future outcomes. But we cannot escape ourselves. Thankfully we make decisions based on who we are and what our needs and desires are.
As Schopenhauer says we are free to do as we will, but we are not free to will as we will.
If it were some other way, then science would not be possible; if we can free ourselves from the laws of causality then what does it mean to have any natural law at all?

The analogy of a robot is good. The only difference is that the parameters of a robot are easier to conceive and predict; Humans are more complicated but still have to obey the law of nature.

Arising_uk wrote:I thought the point of DNA was that it is both code and program? I.e. the codes are the operations upon itself.

Yep - another word for a program is 'code'. The point with humans is that we write our own programs in the brain as we live. DNA is only the architecture, or starting program that you get when you buy a new PC- no more than an operating system to which many other modules and programs are added.

Arising_uk wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:...
... There is a small amount of anecdotal evidence to suggest that recipients of heart transplants have has the urge to behave slightly differently as if they had gained more than just a muscle.

Maybe just dancing to a slightly different beat?

Actually there was a Horizon program about the life-changing effects of heart transplant surgery. One guy started reading books, having never done that before; another got interested in hiking cross country: both attributes that their donors had.
Obviously getting a heart transplant is ipso facto a life changing experience in any event, but the theory that the heart comes with a brain-like network of nervous cells that may have conveyed these interests with the transplant.
I, being a skeptic, was not fully won over, but it was interesting nonetheless.

Izzywizzy wrote:Mike or was it Cervany? I can`t saY `that I am that impressed with your humans are robots..theory, which is all it is, and hardwired to do what exactly? most of our bodily functions work without us knowing how they work. Are we now deemed to have no freewill to be just programmed automatons regurging what millions of programmed robots would do? sounds like a determinist view. Granted some human`s implant plastic in their nether regions to enhance their bodily prowess in pulling power. [but seriously,] seriously?

DNA has a code not a programme

When a new man begins there are only one cell with own DNA (the egg), one another DNA information and some program, process". (Some simple organisms do not need another DNA). There is no absolute freewill for men, on the contrary here is very strong imperative, very strong will: "live!" Who need the life? "Nobody" you can say. Why it lasting so and why it growing so? There must be some hidden support, some purpose, some plan… Hardly believe that some accidental phenomena have such strong dynamics… Every dynamism is a result of instability or result of some support, pressure…

Yep - another word for a program is 'code'

NO IT ISN`T Actually another word for code so where is CHAZ wymaNS PROOF????

Code directs programes but isn`t it, and actually science says there is a vast difference between code for computers and DNA which can ACT random aswell as UNIFORM..SCIENCE CAN`T SAY DNA IS THAT IMPORTANT alone, its a code that instructs some programmes biologically , it equally doesn`t instruct all programmes in cells

Cerveny wrote

When a new man begins there are only one cell with own DNA (the egg), one another DNA information and some program, process". (Some simple organisms do not need another DNA). There is no absolute freewill for men, on the contrary here is very strong imperative, very strong will: "live!" Who need the life? "Nobody" you can say. Why it lasting so and why it growing so? There must be some hidden support, some purpose, some plan… Hardly believe that some accidental phenomena have such strong dynamics… Every dynamism is a result of instability or result of some support, pressure

Cerveny i didn`t mention other dna so what are you talking about? or more to the point just who are you addressing? you assert there is no absolute freewill for all men... do tell me how you know this? i disagree..i didn`t say accidental phenomena either.. so who are you addressing? you called my name here to this reply.btw some don`t want to survive as in stillborns and those who die naturally. Tell me why you think science says survival is the only reason to live? Science doesn`t actually say that.

Izzywizzy wrote:

Yep - another word for a program is 'code'

NO IT ISN`T Actually another word for code so where is CHAZ wymaNS PROOF????

Code directs programes but isn`t it, and actually science says there is a vast difference between code for computers and DNA which can ACT random aswell as UNIFORM..SCIENCE CAN`T SAY DNA IS THAT IMPORTANT alone, its a code that instructs some programmes biologically , it equally doesn`t instruct all programmes in cells

(computer science) the symbolic arrangement of data or instructions in a computer program or the set of such instructions
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

If you had worked in programming you would know what I mean.
"Code" works as a verb and a noun for "program". The words are synonymous. But code has a wider use.
Parts of a program can be called Code, but code is also used for the set of instructions.
For example

for x=1 to 10 do;
Poke(x), "hello"
next

This is the code in Pascal for a simple loop. Each line is a code in the sense that it is an instruction, and each instruction such as "poke", or "print" can be called a code too.

As for DNA the analogy with computer code is not viable. All programmes are designed, each instruction can a limited and exact meaning and does one thing.
As the human genome is limited to around 30,000 genes, and we seem to share 40% 0f those with grass, and 90% of those with Chimpanzees, that would mean that a tiny number of genes have to account for each person's individuality. Clearly there is a lot more to understanding human determinism to the analogy with computer code. Being as there are only 4 bas codes used in all genes. There is no corollary with computers in this limitation.

Izzywizzy wrote:... DNA which can ACT random aswell as UNIFORM..SCIENCE CAN`T SAY DNA IS THAT IMPORTANT alone, its a code that instructs some programmes biologically , it equally doesn`t instruct all programmes in cells

Without it how would a cell achieve its function? As its the library that produces the mechanisms the cell needs.
What you mean by "DNA which can ACT random" as its pretty much an incredibly robust and efficient transcriber or replicator. What do you mean by "random"? Mutation? Although I agree that the basic functional level of genetically built life is the Cell and we appear to be DNA based ones.

Cerveny wrote:

Izzywizzy wrote:Mike or was it Cervany? I can`t saY `that I am that impressed with your humans are robots..theory, which is all it is, and hardwired to do what exactly? most of our bodily functions work without us knowing how they work. Are we now deemed to have no freewill to be just programmed automatons regurging what millions of programmed robots would do? sounds like a determinist view. Granted some human`s implant plastic in their nether regions to enhance their bodily prowess in pulling power. [but seriously,] seriously?

DNA has a code not a programme

When a new man begins there are only one cell with own DNA (the egg), one another DNA information and some program, process". (Some simple organisms do not need another DNA). There is no absolute freewill for men, on the contrary here is very strong imperative, very strong will: "live!" Who need the life? "Nobody" you can say. Why it lasting so and why it growing so? There must be some hidden support, some purpose, some plan… Hardly believe that some accidental phenomena have such strong dynamics… Every dynamism is a result of instability or result of some support, pressure…

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/22/scien ... gewanted=2

Cerveny, thanks for the article link about free will.

The controversy about the existence of "free will" in humans is analogous to the controversy about the existence of "God" in the universe (or outside of it). Nobody gives clear definitions of the thing, the existence of which is being debated.

Jack: Do you believe in free will?
Jill: Depends on what you mean by "free will".

One of the concerns is that if human beings don't have something called free will, then they can't be held morally responsible for their deeds. Mother Teresa then cannot be called a saint, and a serial killer cannot be demonized.

So what? The serial killer, whether a "sinner" or not, needs to be arrested and restrained somehow, for the sake of human safety and survival, which we can value whether we believe in heaven and hell or not. Mother Teresa can be admired for her contributions to human welfare in the same way as charitable folks who happen not to believe in God. It matters not whether they help other people out of free will, or because of their genes and upbringing.

It's interesting that some religious folks give God the credit if a person does something good (beneficial to human life and well-being), and blames the person as a sinner, if that person does something bad (detrimental to human life and well-being). This is like saying people only have free will when they are misbehaving. So according to this view of some religious people, do you choose free will, and go to hell, or choose to be an automaton and go to heaven?

We need a good definition of free will. Then we can more realistically investigate whether we have it. Then we could also more realistically try to answer questions such as: Do our close cousins, the great apes, have it? We are close to them genetically, so one could argue: If we have it, maybe the apes do, too. On the other hand, one could also argue, if the apes don't have it, neither to we. Depends on our notion of free will.

If homo sapiens have free will and the apes don't, how do humans differ from apes to make that so? Could it be the other way around - apes with free will but not us? Some of us like to think we humans have souls, given to us by God, which have free will -- and that none of the other animals have this "free soul". But why is it that apes, or even our beloved pet animals can't have souls, assuming we do? Where is the line drawn, and why?

Mike Strand wrote:Cerveny, thanks for the article link about free will.

The controversy about the existence of "free will" in humans is analogous to the controversy about the existence of "God" in the universe (or outside of it). Nobody gives clear definitions of the thing, the existence of which is being debated.
...

I only believe there is some (metaphysical, unknown) strong support for the life. Some people believe the nature is "harmonically". See a spider. Would you be a fly? Would you be a spider? Some insect (small wasps) bite spiders' legs and bring spider to the nest where small-wasp's larva eat poor spider during its life. Is it harmonically? It is strange the most harmony, most satisfaction feel the people from the nature

Cerveny wrote:

Izzywizzy wrote:Mike or was it Cervany? I can`t saY `that I am that impressed with your humans are robots..theory, which is all it is, and hardwired to do what exactly? most of our bodily functions work without us knowing how they work. Are we now deemed to have no freewill to be just programmed automatons regurging what millions of programmed robots would do? sounds like a determinist view. Granted some human`s implant plastic in their nether regions to enhance their bodily prowess in pulling power. [but seriously,] seriously?

DNA has a code not a programme

When a new man begins there are only one cell with own DNA (the egg), one another DNA information and some program, process". (Some simple organisms do not need another DNA). There is no absolute freewill for men, on the contrary here is very strong imperative, very strong will: "live!" Who need the life? "Nobody" you can say. Why it lasting so and why it growing so? There must be some hidden support, some purpose, some plan… Hardly believe that some accidental phenomena have such strong dynamics… Every dynamism is a result of instability or result of some support, pressure…

This is not quite right. What happens in that in the sperm and egg there are two distinct strands of RNA, not DNA. RNA is half the double helix, these separate srands bond during conception to form a uniquely new DNA strand.

The main half-time of the neutron's life is about, say, ten minutes. So neutron can live from a few seconds to the one hour. Does neutron have freewill?

Cerveny wrote:The main half-time of the neutron's life is about, say, ten minutes. So neutron can live from a few seconds to the one hour. Does neutron have freewill?

I don't understand why you are asking.

What sort of choice would it have, and with what could it make that choice?

well ameobas do..to cervany..have freewill so do our cells apparently..this is to the letter science saying it