free will (the actual post)

ok i've been doing alot of random articles with a very small amount of actual reflection. mostly because there really isn't much to think about.

this article has a couple of flaws that fails. but, there is one thing it did cause me to think about. first and most importantly, do we have free wills? most people on the road would prefer to think that we do. otherwise, who's responsibility is it to preserve order in society? the scientists would prefer to think that we don't. cos, who's making this decisions then? then the question of a soul comes in, and what it's powered by.
our brain, as far as scientists know, is basically a couple hundred million neurons firing at indeterminable times. can such a thing create a free will? how does a couple trillion electrical impulses translate to, say anger? or happiness? or even an M16? if we see our brain as a series of on and off switches, then we can never say that we're anymore different than that of a computer. one that receives information and gives an output. if that's the case, then why should we be blamed for anything said or done by us? we couldn't have made another choice could we? if time were to go back, we would still have to make the same decision. that's cos the input is the same. however, if we were to have a free will, all is fine and well, except that it just doesn't tie up fundamentally with how our brain works. does it become more than a sum of its parts beyond a certain level? what is that level? an ant makes a fixed action pattern, even though some is learnt. we have free will. but really, how different are we from an ant, apart from the complexity? can we say the ant follows a pheromone trail by instinct, or is it their mode of communication? can we react to a song by instinct too?
to me, a brain is a collection of neurons, that receive, store, and sorts information. these information will always be accessed again and again as reference to assign priority to each new information we receive, ones with higher priority, of course, gets stored and the rest discarded. over time, a collection of these memories make up our habits and ultimately, our personalities. now, how does this result in whatever we see now and what our decisions are? very simply, our minds use the stored information, also known as memories, to determine our next step. so, for example, me thinking of this topic is a decision by referencing previous memories, collectively ranking philosophy as a higher priority than say, marking my assessments. makes sense don't you think? that's why people very close to you can actually double guess your actions and even your words. if something in the lab were to break, my supervisor would automatically decide it's probably me. that's also why experts can easily read your body behavior and thus, guess what you plan to do. everything fits right?
i have made a previous speech on why rules on morality can be kept and followed even though they might not be absolute. now, however, a new problem is up. if our responses are truly a response to a stimuli, then why should i be blamed for what happened as a result of my behavior? it's not like i have a choice right? my response is just a fixed pattern from a stimulus right? so if time rewinds, i would still make the same choice. this is quite difficult to put together. really, how can i blame someone who cannot attempt to do it intentionally? this is bad for society. who can we blame for a murder? should we blame the parents who brought up the murderer? do the parents have a choice to bring the murderer up in any other way? can i blame a computer for translating my documents into greek? it was simply programmed wrongly. blame the programmer? if the programmer was another computer, can i blame it? what to do?
i pondered over this for awhile, considering that perhaps, we can choose what the priorities are when we rank each information. that doesn't work. what are our priorities? the answers to these question is based on a previous priority and so forth. in the end, it's "turtles all the way down". right at the bottom, it's still the floor. so, how? very tough question.

i finally found the answer. it's not an assuring one, but it works. up till now, i've said that everything we aim for, is simply for advancement of society. this is just the same. if i were to blame you for the actions you did, other people will receive a stimulus that tells them that this specific action would result in pain or unpleasantness in general. to avoid unpleasantness, this stimulus would be registered as high priority. thus, people will avoid it. as such, this would contribute to society. thus, the idea of blame is not accountability, but a warning that such an action will result in undesirable effects. the aim of avoidance is based on a very shortsighted goal, but, on the whole, it serves to reduce these actions. so why do you want to avoid doing something wrong, because doing so would cause you to be blamed. simple as that.
not the most assuring of concepts. in fact, many would hate it. they not only lose the only feeling of control over their lives: free will, but much more, their perceived importance in society. it's not that you are blamed because you could choose to do otherwise, but that you're blamed to prevent it from happening again. once again, man ends up as a tiny gear in the grand scheme of chance.

P.S. grand scheme of chance IS an oxymoron.