Free will?
22/08/07 20:52 Filed in: Misc
I listened to the escapepod story 'The Giving
Plague', today, and it started me thinking
on some old ideas of mine.
Firstly, yes I know I'm well behind on my netcast
listening and secondly, no this is going to be one my
sleepless
night posts either.
So yes, the netcast centered on a viral infection which spread though blood transfusions and when it infected a host made them much more altruistic than before.
An very interesting idea and a very good story. The virus didn't make people altruistic directly, as they said in the story, the human mind is far to complex for a virus to influence directly, but just made people want to give blood and that act made them feel more compassionate to their fellow man. This is I think a real psychological effect and I think I've felt that good feeling you get from an act of kindness, which tends to lead to more acts of kindness.
The hero of the story (an anti-hero really), was not at all altruistic, he was a self confessed 'user' of people and he wanted the spread of the virus to be stopped, but the discover of the virus wanted to allow it to spread. So the heros first reaction was to find a way to kill the professor that discovered the virus. This made me think that there could a virus which has the opposite effect (i.e ti make people less altruistic) and our Anti-hero was infected with that.
The author, David Brin, wisely didn't go down this particular route with the story. Later, thinking about it I could see big problems with the idea my self, how would should a virus spread and again could such a simple thing as a virus effect in a controlled way something as complex as the human brain. However as a counter point to that last argument, nature as evolved this most complex object in the known universe, the human brain, so couldn't evolve a virus which can manipulate it? This sort of thing dose happen in the wild with some microorganisms and wasps (the infected wasps behavior changes in a way which helps the disease spread to other wasps).
But I'm getting away from the point. The anti-hero did not want to be infected with the virus, because he didn't want to be manipulated by the virus. Now this bought up old idea's from the back of my mind about the age old philosophical debate of free will vs fate.
Well, I don't think there is any such thing as fate, but then I don't believe there is any such thing as truly free will.
Thats kind of an odd position to take, but let me explain.
The is such thing as truly free will because every single decision you make in you life is effected by your life up to that point, your upbringing, your parents, the school you went to, the weather this morning, what you had for breakfast, they effect the decisions you made today. Most of these factors are out of your hands and those that in in your hands where similarly effected by earlier choices made in your life which where not in your hands. Right back to before your birth. I would even go so far as to say that the decisions you made today where inevitable consequences of your life up to this point. Given what had happened to you so far in your life the decisions could not have come out any different.
Well that sounds a lot like fate, I hear you say.
Yes true it dose a little bit, but look at it closely, it's not. If every one you meet or see in a day has an effect on you, then you must also have an effect on them. True, it could be a tiny effect for some one you just pass in the street, but it's an effect and in these sort of massively linked networks, tiny effects can quickly become very large. So there is no fate because there is no grand central plan there is just chaos (mathematically speaking). You could say there is a kind of fate, but that fate is changing second by second, which is not what is normally regarded as fate.
Okay yes, thats some fairly heavy stuff, I've just covered there in just a few short sentences, but I think I will be returning to this idea again in some more detail soon, so stay tuned, or I've gone completely pretentious on you don't. But remember what ever you do the decision wasn't made by you!
So yes, the netcast centered on a viral infection which spread though blood transfusions and when it infected a host made them much more altruistic than before.
An very interesting idea and a very good story. The virus didn't make people altruistic directly, as they said in the story, the human mind is far to complex for a virus to influence directly, but just made people want to give blood and that act made them feel more compassionate to their fellow man. This is I think a real psychological effect and I think I've felt that good feeling you get from an act of kindness, which tends to lead to more acts of kindness.
The hero of the story (an anti-hero really), was not at all altruistic, he was a self confessed 'user' of people and he wanted the spread of the virus to be stopped, but the discover of the virus wanted to allow it to spread. So the heros first reaction was to find a way to kill the professor that discovered the virus. This made me think that there could a virus which has the opposite effect (i.e ti make people less altruistic) and our Anti-hero was infected with that.
The author, David Brin, wisely didn't go down this particular route with the story. Later, thinking about it I could see big problems with the idea my self, how would should a virus spread and again could such a simple thing as a virus effect in a controlled way something as complex as the human brain. However as a counter point to that last argument, nature as evolved this most complex object in the known universe, the human brain, so couldn't evolve a virus which can manipulate it? This sort of thing dose happen in the wild with some microorganisms and wasps (the infected wasps behavior changes in a way which helps the disease spread to other wasps).
But I'm getting away from the point. The anti-hero did not want to be infected with the virus, because he didn't want to be manipulated by the virus. Now this bought up old idea's from the back of my mind about the age old philosophical debate of free will vs fate.
Well, I don't think there is any such thing as fate, but then I don't believe there is any such thing as truly free will.
Thats kind of an odd position to take, but let me explain.
The is such thing as truly free will because every single decision you make in you life is effected by your life up to that point, your upbringing, your parents, the school you went to, the weather this morning, what you had for breakfast, they effect the decisions you made today. Most of these factors are out of your hands and those that in in your hands where similarly effected by earlier choices made in your life which where not in your hands. Right back to before your birth. I would even go so far as to say that the decisions you made today where inevitable consequences of your life up to this point. Given what had happened to you so far in your life the decisions could not have come out any different.
Well that sounds a lot like fate, I hear you say.
Yes true it dose a little bit, but look at it closely, it's not. If every one you meet or see in a day has an effect on you, then you must also have an effect on them. True, it could be a tiny effect for some one you just pass in the street, but it's an effect and in these sort of massively linked networks, tiny effects can quickly become very large. So there is no fate because there is no grand central plan there is just chaos (mathematically speaking). You could say there is a kind of fate, but that fate is changing second by second, which is not what is normally regarded as fate.
Okay yes, thats some fairly heavy stuff, I've just covered there in just a few short sentences, but I think I will be returning to this idea again in some more detail soon, so stay tuned, or I've gone completely pretentious on you don't. But remember what ever you do the decision wasn't made by you!
|