I think arguing about Free Will is a waste of time, so I'm going to make this brief. Free Will is purely an invention of people who don't understand the laws of cause and effect, or it is redefined into meaninglessness. Additionally, it adds no value to our conception of the world or of humans.
Just because the idea gets me mad, I'll ask this question to Free Will supporters: if you had a robot, a human, and a chimp, and they all did the same thing when exposed to the same stimuli, how could you tell which had Free Will?
If they all acted differently, would you be able to tell which one had Free Will?
In other words, how can you tell if something has Free Will? And if you can't tell, what value does the theory have?
2 comments:
i think free will means the right to choose; is a nice concept. it can be argued that free will and cause and effect are one in the same but im not going to go into that. free will is the choice to do what you want, to your benefit or not. the monkey will go for the banana, the robot will do what it is programed to do but you can choose what you want in the end.
fin~~
I said I wasn't going to make this a big deal, but I can't resist. Monkeys won't necessarily go after a banana, they have emotions and make decisions just as we do. Why are humans so lucky to have free will, when chimps are so similar?
Also, robots do what they are programmed, but so do humans.
Post a Comment