Comments on: Flies Don’t Have Free Will http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will A Wandering Through Life and Science Wed, 20 Aug 2008 01:43:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Eric http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-140 Eric Fri, 18 May 2007 15:51:40 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-140 Well, I guess in the technical sense, all truths of the world outside our minds (or even inside) are unknowable, due to our reliance on our faulty senses and observations, but if we assume a Bayesian sort of logic about truth, with the "real-world" as evidence, then as far as we can tell based on induction, there is no free will. Well, I guess in the technical sense, all truths of the world outside our minds (or even inside) are unknowable, due to our reliance on our faulty senses and observations, but if we assume a Bayesian sort of logic about truth, with the “real-world” as evidence, then as far as we can tell based on induction, there is no free will.

]]> By: Buck http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-139 Buck Fri, 18 May 2007 15:00:18 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-139 Kant establishes at length in his metaphysics that whether or not we (and presumably fruit flies) have free will is unknowable. I think this comes out of a problem with establishing first movers. Ben is correct, but limiting the discussion to philosophers on free will is misleading. Redefinition is a common practice everywhere. Science is unusual in that there is an impetus to define terms not so much to make them match a theory (although this exists) but to make them yield testable propositions. Eric is correct to point out internal feedback systems as the natural threat to any assertions of spontaneity or free will. I look forward to seeing how these problems are addressed. Kant establishes at length in his metaphysics that whether or not we (and presumably fruit flies) have free will is unknowable. I think this comes out of a problem with establishing first movers.

Ben is correct, but limiting the discussion to philosophers on free will is misleading. Redefinition is a common practice everywhere. Science is unusual in that there is an impetus to define terms not so much to make them match a theory (although this exists) but to make them yield testable propositions.

Eric is correct to point out internal feedback systems as the natural threat to any assertions of spontaneity or free will. I look forward to seeing how these problems are addressed.

]]> By: Ben http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-119 Ben Wed, 16 May 2007 19:59:01 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-119 I remember in the ethics class that I took the discussions about free will -- and its interesting observing philosophers fundamentally define "free will" in such a way that it necessarily supports their argument. I remember in the ethics class that I took the discussions about free will — and its interesting observing philosophers fundamentally define “free will” in such a way that it necessarily supports their argument.

]]> By: Bjoern Brembs http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-110 Bjoern Brembs Wed, 16 May 2007 15:14:50 +0000 http://futilecycle.com/2007/05/16/flies-dont-have-free-will#comment-110 Indeed, good points and they are well taken. This is exactly the kind of criticism that we expected and future research will address some of them, others will need to be debated at the dinner table, one the net and at cocktail parties. The important scientific point, however, is that our research suggests that there might be a common mechanism (or principle) by which many if not all brains generate a spontaneous superposition over almost every behavior they generate. You might find this surprising or not (I wasn't all that surprised either), but the fact that there are currently only 67 papers with "spontaneous behavior" in the title on PubMed since 1958 shows that not many people have bothered studying the biological basis of it. I wonder why that is? Thanks for your thoughts on our work! Bjoern Indeed, good points and they are well taken. This is exactly the kind of criticism that we expected and future research will address some of them, others will need to be debated at the dinner table, one the net and at cocktail parties.
The important scientific point, however, is that our research suggests that there might be a common mechanism (or principle) by which many if not all brains generate a spontaneous superposition over almost every behavior they generate. You might find this surprising or not (I wasn’t all that surprised either), but the fact that there are currently only 67 papers with “spontaneous behavior” in the title on PubMed since 1958 shows that not many people have bothered studying the biological basis of it.
I wonder why that is?

Thanks for your thoughts on our work!

Bjoern

]]>