Are we essentially biological robots?

texidub

Just to answer my own question, I have analyzed my atomic structure and I can reveal that we will qualify for the European Championships tonight.

w00t! I'm off to Paddy Power!

Amirani

Interesting theory. It's entirely plausible that this is the case. The idea of Earth itself being a computer in the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy can't exactly be disproved. We could all be part of a system that is the Universe, designed to such complexity that we as components of the system can't comprehend that we're effectively living inside a bubble.

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Different people are a different bunch of atoms

Would you expect a beach ball to bounce off a bowling bowl the same as it would a snooker ball.

The difference between a bowling ball and a beach ball are huge, the difference between humans at a component level far less so.

Seeing as you seem to be aiming towards the concept of complex systems it's better to imagine that each person has, effectively, a different role within the system, so different reactions are also predetermined...that would make more sense that talking about different types of balls, no?

Are actions, thoughts, emotions, desires are determined by the chain reaction of atoms, molecules etc. Our "consciensce" doesn't determine these things. In fact our "conscience" is a result of those interacting particles.

Not really, and that is not what the quote from Hawking was saying either. It's far more complex that simply arguing from the point of cause and effect.

We are like a clock. A clock's actions are predetermined and a result of atoms interecting in the only way they can, just like us, however the mechanisms taking place in a human being are simply far more complex.

Once again, not really, a clock has an ideal predetermined course of action, but parts fail and timing goes off and the clock no longer operates by the predetermined method by which we give it value.

I understand what you are trying to say, that a human is a complex system, and i will give credence to the fact that human reaction can often be predetermined with a high level of accuracy...but your argument that there is no free will is simply replacing the outdated concept of destiny or fate with the new cool that is science.

mconigol

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Is free will an illusion? One could argue that if we understood how every single atom interacts in our bodies and environment that we could calculate exacltly every action we would take beforehand. Unless you believe in some sort of magical type thinking I don't see how this isn't the case. We are a chemistry of interacting atoms.

If you could do that then maybe yes. Unfortunately you can't.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Once again, not really, a clock has an ideal predetermined course of action, but parts fail and timing goes off and the clock no longer operates by the predetermined method by which we give it value.

But if we knew exactly how every atom interacted we would know when exactly it would fail

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

I understand what you are trying to say, that a human is a complex system, and i will give credence to the fact that human reaction can often be predetermined with a high level of accuracy...but your argument that there is no free will is simply replacing the outdated concept of destiny or fate with the new cool that is science.

Regardless what you think the argument is replacing I don't see how it's not true. Unless you believe in magic I don't see how you can come to the conclusion with valid logic that we have free will. When I'm about to make a decision I feel I can choose whichever choice I want, but regardless the choice I make was always going to be made.

Scanlas The 2nd

mconigol wrote: »

If you could do that then maybe yes. Unfortunately you can't.

Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.

That can be appled to a clock, but it doesn't mean the clock has free will.

mconigol

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

That can be appled to a clock, but it doesn't mean the clock has free will.

Your original post said if we could understand how every atom in our bodies and our environment interacted then we could predict our every move, therefore no free will.

Heisenberg's uncertainty says that this is not possible.

Therefore the central tenant of your original argument is not valid. Therefore your argument is wrong.

(i.e. We don't have to prove anything about a clock. Just that your original point is wrong)

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

But if we knew exactly how every atom interacted we would know when exactly it would fail

No you wouldn't, as the failure could be brought about by elements outside of the clock itself....so you would need to predict every circumstance the clock could ever exist in.

Like i said, it's more complex that simple cause and effect.

Regardless what you think the argument is replacing I don't see how it's not true. Unless you believe in magic I don't see how you can come to the conclusion with valid logic that we have free will. When I'm about to make a decision I feel I can choose whichever choice I want, but regardless the choice I make was always going to be made.

What does magic have to do with it?

Why would magic be required to consider the possibility of free will?

Like i said, i will be happy to entertain and discuss what you are posting about...but you keep throwing up random pointless **** like magic and then completely failing to expand up these ridiculous points.

Like i said, you yourself have already hinted at the possibility of free will in your first post...I honestly think you have simply confused yourself over the course of the thread.

foxyboxer

What really bakes my noodle is the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Crudely,
It is the basis for chemistry it explains the variety found in the known universe. And that 2 electrons in an atom cannot share the same 4 quantum numbers.

But, when you combine molecules of different atoms to create greater matter, how does the electron know the quantum states of every other electron in the atom and adopt it's own unique quantum numbers? Does it have free will?


:eek:

Scanlas The 2nd

mconigol wrote: »

Your original post said if we could understand how every atom in our bodies and our environment interacted then we could predict our every move, therefore no free will.

Heisenberg's uncertainty says that this is not possible.

Therefore the central tenant of your original argument is not valid. Therefore your argument is wrong.

(i.e. We don't have to prove anything about a clock. Just that your original point is wrong)

So you are saying because we can never predict with exact precision the behavour of atoms we must have free will.

The central tenant of my argument is that we are a biological machine. We don't control our actions the way we think we do. Just like a computers actions are mechanisms taking place, we are simply a more complex mechanisms taking place in our body. Our actions are determined in the similar way a computer's actions are determined. No one can ever predict how every atom in the computer interacts due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal but it is still merely mechanisms taking place, the computer does not have free will just like we don't.

mconigol

foxyboxer wrote: »

What really bakes my noodle is the Pauli Exclusion Principle.
Crudely,
It is the basis for chemistry it explains the variety found in the known universe. And that 2 electrons in an atom cannot share the same 4 quantum numbers.

But, when you combine molecules of different atoms to create greater matter, how does the electron know the quantum states of every other electron in the atom and adopt it's own unique quantum numbers? Does it have free will?


:eek:

Well there's only so many allowed states of existence for the electron so the way I think of it is as a kind of self organisation. How that is achieved is a good question however I don't think that an electron could be considered to have free will or knowledge (at least not in the sense of the op anyway).

Kinda like seats on a bus. How does everyone not end up in the front one? When you get on you don't possible know how many people are on the bus without counting them all but nobody (I hope!) does that. We all still end up getting a seat however (if it's an infinite bus that is!).

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

No you wouldn't, as the failure could be brought about by elements outside of the clock itself....so you would need to predict every circumstance the clock could ever exist in.

Like i said, it's more complex that simple cause and effect.

If we understood every atom in the enviroment as well we could predict the outcome.

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

What does magic have to do with it?

Why would magic be required to consider the possibility of free will?.

In order to have free will you must be able to make your own choices. But if your choices are predetermined by biological mechanisms then it's not free will. You were always going to make the same choice due to the result of the mechanisms controlling your thoughts and emotions.

mconigol

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

So you are saying because we can never predict with exact precision the behavour of atoms we must have free will.

The central tenant of my argument is that we are a biological machine. We don't control our actions the way we think we do. Just like a computers actions are mechanisms taking place, we are simply a more complex mechanisms taking place in our body. Our actions are determined in the similar way a computer's actions are determined. No one can ever predict how every atom in the computer interacts due to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal but it is still merely mechanisms taking place, the computer does not have free will just like we don't.

I'm not making any claims about free will. I'm simply disproving your original hypothesis. That's how science works.

Your example of a computer is an interesting one since we actually do not have a precise knowledge of what is happening in the computer at an atomic/quantum level. Generally it behaves as we expect. This is based on statistical theory only.

im invisible

Zane Wrong Morning wrote: »

And?.... What's your point exactly? Do you therefore think we should all just give up?

some people do 'choose' to give up, some 'choose' not to, but thats not a choice at all, whatever you do, you were ALWAYS going to do that, no matter what way you arrived at the decision, thats always the way it was going to happen...

Scanlas The 2nd

Just a question about Heisenbery's Uncertainty Principal.

It says something alongs the lines (correct me if I'm wrong) we can't predict the behavour of subatomic particles with certainty.

But that doesn't mean those subatomic particles were ever going to behave any differently, it's simply impossible to predict.

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If we understood every atom in the enviroment as well we could predict the outcome.

Surely, by your argument, if we understood every atom in the environment then we wouldn't need to predict anything...as the outcome would be an absolute?

That is where, for me, your thinking falls down, you keep talking about predicting what you are arguing would be certainties...which makes no sense.

You also need to consider the fact that the second you could genuinely predict something, the knowledge you possess of it's occurrence would alter it.

Lets say you understanding the relationship between every atom in the universe and you know for a fact that if you cross the road at 9:05am tomorrow morning you will be hit by a car.

Do you still cross the road? By your argument you have no choice, and will be compelled by physics to do just that. In reality you wouldn't cross the road.

In order to have free will you must be able to make your own choices. But if your choices are predetermined by biological mechanisms then it's not free will. You were always going to make the same choice due to the result of the mechanisms controlling your thoughts and emotions.

Once again, just the same old crap...no real reasons given, no explanation behind what you perceive as these mechanisms. Like i said before...it's just this weird middle ground between religious and scientific concepts that people talk about a lot these days because it's makes them feel like deep thinkers.

In reality it's just poor Philosophy.

foxyboxer

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Just a question about Heisenbery's Uncertainty Principal.

It says something alongs the lines (correct me if I'm wrong) we can't predict the behavour of subatomic particles with certainty.

But that doesn't mean those subatomic particles were ever going to behave any differently, it's simply impossible to predict.

This thought experiment demonstrates the principle.
http://www.kutl.kyushu-u.ac.jp/seminar/MicroWorld2_E/2Part1_E/2P14_E/Gamow_E.jpg
A gun fires a stream of electrons which fall with gravity. The red line is the predicted route.

The more precisely you know a particles position the less you know about it's momentum. And vice versa. The very act of measurement in the thought experiment (i.e. detecting the electron with light) alters it completely.

sheesh

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Is free will an illusion? One could argue that if we understood how every single atom interacts in our bodies and environment that we could calculate exacltly every action we would take beforehand. Unless you believe in some sort of magical type thinking I don't see how this isn't the case. We are a chemistry of interacting atoms.

doesn't matter dude your still going to jail for those women burried in your back garden.

:pac:

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Surely, by your argument, if we understood every atom in the environment then we wouldn't need to predict anything...as the outcome would be an absolute?

That is where, for me, your thinking falls down, you keep talking about predicting what you are arguing would be certainties...which makes no sense.

You also need to consider the fact that the second you could genuinely predict something, the knowledge you possess of it's occurrence would alter it.

Lets say you understanding the relationship between every atom in the universe and you know for a fact that if you cross the road at 9:05am tomorrow morning you will be hit by a car.

Do you still cross the road? By your argument you have no choice, and will be compelled by physics to do just that. In reality you wouldn't cross the road.



Once again, just the same old crap...no real reasons given, no explanation behind what you perceive as these mechanisms. Like i said before...it's just this weird middle ground between religious and scientific concepts that people talk about a lot these days because it's makes them feel like deep thinkers.

In reality it's just poor Philosophy.

How do you think your body works??

If you want to know more about the mechanisms you can read books physioligy or neuroscience.

What do you think makes your body do what it does? God, magic what?

My hand is typing now because of electrical signals and bone, muscle etc interacting that was always going to happen. I don't know how better to explain it. Why does a ball move when you push it? it's a mechanism.

Why does a clock's arms rotate? it's a mechanism

Why do I decide to eat an apple instead of a banana? It's a mechanism, the various parts of my body interact together to make the decision, I didn't make the decision really, it was made for me by my body's structure.

Scanlas The 2nd

mconigol wrote: »

I'm not making any claims about free will. I'm simply disproving your original hypothesis. That's how science works.

Your example of a computer is an interesting one since we actually do not have a precise knowledge of what is happening in the computer at an atomic/quantum level. Generally it behaves as we expect. This is based on statistical theory only.

Whatever theory it's based on is beside the point. It's a machine like us even if we don't understand exactly how the mechanisms work exactly.

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

What do you think makes your body do what it does? God, magic what?

Look, you clearly cannot adequately explain what you are trying to say, I have already stated that i completely understand the body is a complex mechanism...you have completely failed to explain why the existence of this mechanism removes the concept of free will.

I look forward to whatever poor attempt at a thread your body demands you to start tomorrow.

Scanlas The 2nd

Logical Fallacy wrote: »

Look, you clearly cannot adequately explain what you are trying to say, I have already stated that i completely understand the body is a complex mechanism...you have completely failed to explain why the existence of this mechanism removes the concept of free will.

I look forward to whatever poor attempt at a thread your body demands you to start tomorrow.

No one's forcing you to read them.

Maybe this will help you out.

http://www.physorg.com/news186830615.html

If you think something comes from nothing you must believe in the supernatural. The only logical conclusion is free will is supernatural.

Logical Fallacy

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

If you think something comes from nothing you must believe in the supernatural. The only logical conclusion is free will is supernatural.

Hmmm....so a tenuous scientific theory where the main proponent admits that the human mind operates on both a conscious and subconscious level and the article even mentions an important factor outside of those two elements.

Okay so, if that's what you are going with and cannot see that it's just a marriage of science and philosophy as opposed to proven science then i sure as **** can't help you.

That's me done in this thread.

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

No one's forcing you to read them.

Weird to say that when you have spent the whole thread arguing against the concept of free will.

Chuck Stone

Maybe I'll take a shot at what the OP is getting at.

I think he is asking whether our actions are determined by what has happened before in a philosophically rigid sense.

Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen

Hot or cold OP?

I have more if I'm hot.

44leto

Yeah I kind of am
Eat, drink, warmth, sex, that about sums up why I do everything else.

mconigol

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Whatever theory it's based on is beside the point. It's a machine like us even if we don't understand exactly how the mechanisms work exactly.

How it that beyond the point? It basically saying that we can only understand what is occurring based on statistical probabilities.

take everything

Surely free will is an illusion.
Surely there is no such thing as real agency.
Doesn't the invocation of quantum mechanics (as opposed to classical mechanics) just mean what we do has an even more uncertain foundation.
Likewise chaos theory.

A real mind **** is the process of thinking about this stuff.
If there is no such thing as free will/agency, how we think is also arrived at in this limited way.
Which means the whole idea of finding out about this stuff (its knowability) is itself limited by the rules of the very thing you're thinking about.

pragmatic1

Yep.

RichieC

Galls me when people try to use quantum mechanics to justify pseudo sciences..

I even know a "psychic" who found bodies for the police (cant say who because the cops dont want their names muddied by using psychics :rolleyes: ), she says in the broadest terms that its quantum mechanics that makes it work, we just haven't found out why...vibrations or some nonsense.

Scanlas The 2nd

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Maybe I'll take a shot at what the OP is getting at.

I think he is asking whether our actions are determined by what has happened before in a philosophically rigid sense.

Determinism is the general philosophical thesis that states that for everything that happens there are conditions such that, given them, nothing else could happen

Hot or cold OP?

I have more if I'm hot.

70 celsius

44leto

RichieC wrote: »

Galls me when people try to use quantum mechanics to justify pseudo sciences..

I even know a "psychic" who found bodies for the police (cant say who because the cops dont want their names muddied by using psychics :rolleyes: ), she says in the broadest terms that its quantum mechanics that makes it work, we just haven't found out why...vibrations or some nonsense.

I don't believe that for a moment, psychic is just another word for BS.

bnt

As far as I can tell, the idea of "free will" was invented by religious types to explain why people, who were supposedly created in "god's image", didn't always do as we were told. Or, to put it another way, it's a way of letting the blame for bad stuff fall on us and not our "maker". We must really hate ourselves, as a species, to accept such nonsense as having any truth to it.

I know Determinism is unfashionable, and we don't like to think "this is all there is". But it seems to me that, as already discussed, we see randomness and "free will" in our thinking - when what we're actually seeing are the results of extremely complex processes in our brains. Our brains are both fast and slow at the same time, and thoughts don't take the most efficient routes from question to answer. I've had some weird thoughts in my time, as any of my friends will testify, but while I've not always been able to explain them, that doesn't mean that there is no explanation. Logically, I'll never be able to use my own brain to fully understand my own brain - it would be like trying to study my own eye in the mirror, only worse. :cool:

MungBean

RichieC wrote: »

Galls me when people try to use quantum mechanics to justify pseudo sciences..
.

How is it different than using Newtonian logic ? If the OP wants to argue that in the laws of physics every action has a reaction and everything that happens is a result of the circumstances preceding that action with that action the only possible action that could have happened then its just as valid to argue that no matter how probable an event or action is it will never be 100% guaranteed and as such cannot possibly be predetermined.

Your taking the Newtons laws of physics as fact and treating quantum mechanics as theoretical unprovable nonsense despite them being the exact same thing.

How can you know 100% the reaction that will take place when you cannot know 100% the state and position of each single piece of matter within the brain ?

MungBean

Stick two pieces of fruit I have never seen before in front of me and ask me to pick one.

There is no way possible to determine which I will pick. There is no pre determined outcome I determine in that instant which to choose.

take everything

MungBean wrote: »

How is it different than using Newtonian logic ? If the OP wants to argue that in the laws of physics every action has a reaction and everything that happens is a result of the circumstances preceding that action with that action the only possible action that could have happened then its just as valid to argue that no matter how probable an event or action is it will never be 100% guaranteed and as such cannot possibly be predetermined.

Your taking the Newtons laws of physics as fact and treating quantum mechanics as theoretical unprovable nonsense despite them being the exact same thing.

How can you know 100% the reaction that will take place when you cannot know 100% the state and position of each single piece of matter within the brain ?

Whatever about QM conferring a degree of unpredictability on behaviour, QM is surely incidental to the actual issue of free will.

MungBean

take everything wrote: »

Whatever about QM conferring a degree of unpredictability on behaviour, QM is surely incidental to the actual issue of free will.

It is but if the reason for believing it is predetermined being that the body and brain and therefore the minds actions can be determined from analysing each individual reaction preceding it then it has to be pointed out that determining those actions must begin at the particle level.

As such QM throws a spanner in the works and shows you only have a probable reaction and not a determined reaction. If the reactions preceding it are not predetermined how can the result be predetermined ?

take everything

As such QM throws a spanner in the works and shows you only have a probable reaction and not a determined reaction. If the reactions preceding it are not predetermined how can the result be predetermined ?

Yeah, indeterminism.
Which, is (it seems to me) incidental to the idea of Free Will.

zyxwvu

take everything wrote: »

Whatever about QM conferring a degree of unpredictability on behaviour, QM is surely incidental to the actual issue of free will.

Correct. Still though, I'd prefer to think that it is possible for my life to turn out in more ways than one, even though I don't believe we have free will in the sense that most people understand it. It's not the whole "not-being-truly-repsonsible-for-my-actions" that depresses me, it's the notion of determinism and that my life can only ever turn out in one way that depresses me! So hopefully statistics and probability come into it above the quantum level, leaving aside all that free-will bollox

Scanlas The 2nd

zyxwvu wrote: »

Correct. Still though, I'd prefer to think that it is possible for my life to turn out in more ways than one, even though I don't believe we have free will in the sense that most people understand it. It's not the whole "not-being-truly-repsonsible-for-my-actions" that depresses me, it's the notion of determinism and that my life can only ever turn out in one way that depresses me! So hopefully statistics and probability come into it above the quantum level, leaving aside all that free-will bollox

That's great and that's one big reason people why people have a hard time accepting this, it messes with their ego.

Scanlas The 2nd

MungBean wrote: »

Stick two pieces of fruit I have never seen before in front of me and ask me to pick one.

There is no way possible to determine which I will pick. There is no pre determined outcome I determine in that instant which to choose.

Your "awareness" or "consciousness" is not the cause of your final choice. A cascade of chemical and biological reactions took place to make you think every thought and feel every emotion and sensation you feel which determines what you choose. It is predetermined but you have the feeling that it isn't predetermined. It's a clever illusion, and you have fallen for it.

foxyboxer

It's like sleeping. I don't conciously say to myself "Wake up now"
I can't tell myself "Sleep. Now"

No control over any biological mechanisms.
It's the same with reflexes. If I put my hand on something hot it's not a case of
"Hmm, this is a bit too hot and is causing me to experience pain"

Your hand is jerked away instantly by a primitive reflex.

sbsquarepants

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Your "awareness" or "consciousness" is not the cause of your final choice. A cascade of chemical and biological reactions took place to make you think every thought and feel every emotion and sensation you feel which determines what you choose. It is predetermined but you have the feeling that it isn't predetermined. It's a clever illusion, and you have fallen for it.

That's a huge over simplification. Allthough sensations we feel are basically chemical reactions thats not to say that thoughts are. No one knows what thoughts comprise of, where they come from etc. Feeling a sensation of say hot or cold or pain or whatever is not the same as making a decision. How we come to make decisions or form thoughts is not in anyway understood, yet. To say it's predetermined is nonsense - it could well be, but we don't know, possibly we never will.
Science, while fantastic, will not ever know the answer to everything, that's omnipotence and only applies to zombie carpenters and their ilk!

Scanlas The 2nd

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's a huge over simplification. Allthough sensations we feel are basically chemical reactions thats not to say that thoughts are. No one knows what thoughts comprise of, where they come from etc. Feeling a sensation of say hot or cold or pain or whatever is not the same as making a decision. How we come to make decisions or form thoughts is not in anyway understood, yet. To say it's predetermined is nonsense - it could well be, but we don't know, possibly we never will.
Science, while fantastic, will not ever know the answer to everything, that's omnipotence and only applies to zombie carpenters and their ilk!

Where else could thoughts come from if they aren't simply reactions taking place in the brain? Do they simply appear from no where?

foxyboxer

What is 'nowhere'

There is still a quantum foam* even in a vacuum which is empty. Particles come into and out of existence all the time.

*The stuff that nothing is made of.

cynder

foxyboxer wrote: »

It's like sleeping. I don't conciously say to myself "Wake up now"
I can't tell myself "Sleep. Now"

No control over any biological mechanisms.
It's the same with reflexes. If I put my hand on something hot it's not a case of
"Hmm, this is a bit too hot and is causing me to experience pain"

Your hand is jerked away instantly by a primitive reflex.

Ive done that, Ive been asleep and having a ver very bad dream and Ive told myself to wake up because I'm getting too scared and i do..... weird but it happens...

Ive also been asleep recognised its a dream and changed it, to what i want from it, (this only happens when ive had the exact same dream before) other dreams are uncontrolled.

MungBean

Scanlas The 2nd wrote: »

Your "awareness" or "consciousness" is not the cause of your final choice. A cascade of chemical and biological reactions took place to make you think every thought and feel every emotion and sensation you feel which determines what you choose. It is predetermined but you have the feeling that it isn't predetermined. It's a clever illusion, and you have fallen for it.

It is my awareness or consciousness that is the cause of the final choice. You give a dog a choice and you can work out which way it will go as he is not conscious of this decisions and only reacts. Its simple reaction all the way. With humans its reaction up to the point of choice or awareness where free will can determine the outcome based not on preceding reactions but based on awareness or consciousness of the action and its consequences.

It may all be chemical and biological reactions but its not a domino effect that predetermines an outcome and only one outcome. Those reactions lead to thoughts which depending on which your "mind" chooses to give priority affect more reactions. Your awareness of the reactions changes those reactions, nothing is predetermined.

Scanlas The 2nd

foxyboxer wrote: »

What is 'nowhere'

There is still a quantum foam* even in a vacuum which is empty. Particles come into and out of existence all the time.

*The stuff that nothing is made of.

What causes thoughts if it isn't a result of cause and effect processes in the brain.

No where refers to nothingness. Do you think thoughts pop up randomly out of nothingness?

Scanlas The 2nd

MungBean wrote: »

It is my awareness or consciousness that is the cause of the final choice. You give a dog a choice and you can work out which way it will go as he is not conscious of this decisions and only reacts. Its simple reaction all the way. With humans its reaction up to the point of choice or awareness where free will can determine the outcome based not on preceding reactions but based on awareness or consciousness of the action and its consequences.

It may all be chemical and biological reactions but its not a domino effect that predetermines an outcome and only one outcome. Those reactions lead to thoughts which depending on which your "mind" chooses to give priority affect more reactions. Your awareness of the reactions changes those reactions, nothing is predetermined.

It's my argument that your awareness and perception of the world is also predetermined and a domino effect. Your mind chooses based on a complex domino affect of reactions. When you are weighing up the possible consequences of your decisions that is simply a complex domino affect of reactions taking place. That's why it is an illusion, we can do what ever our "free will" wants to do but that "free will" is determined by all those little chemical processes taking place. We don't control the laws of chemistry and physics with our "free will".

Stompbox

texidub wrote: »

(I realize you probably didn't mean the question as I have answered it. But if you take the current state of robotics, we are so far beyond what any robot is capable of it's incredible --not just intellectually, but in terms of agility and speed of operation too.)

Speed of operation? They've already usurped us in that!

foxyboxer

A sophisticated robot may know 'everything' but could it ever develop original thinking though?