没有所谓的自由意志 [美国媒体]

-------------译者：laoaoe-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------



FOR CENTURIES, philosophers and theologians have almost unanimously held that civilization as we know it depends on a widespread belief in free will—and that losing this belief could be calamitous. Our codes of ethics, for example, assume that we can freely choose between right and wrong. In the Christian tradition, this is known as “moral liberty”—the capacity to discern and pursue the good, instead of merely being compelled by appetites and desires. The great Enlightenment philosopher Immanuel Kant reaffirmed this link between freedom and goodness. If we are not free to choose, he argued, then it would make no sense to say we ought to choose the path of righteousness.

数个世纪以来，哲学家、神学家们几乎全体一致地表示我们的文明是建立在对自由意志的广泛信仰之上——而失去这份信念就意味着灾难性的后果。比如我们的伦理准则认为我们可以在对错之间进行自由选择。在基督教传统中，这一般被称作“道德自由”——能够辨别并追求善，而不只是仅仅被个人的喜恶与欲望驱使。伟大的启蒙哲学家康德强调了自由与善之间的联系。康德指出，如果我们无法自由地做出选择，那么我们应该选择正义的道路这一命题就没有意义。

Today, the assumption of free will runs through every aspect of American politics, from welfare provision to criminal law. It permeates the popular culture and underpins the American dream—the belief that anyone can make something of themselves no matter what their start in life. As Barack Obama wrote in The Audacity of Hope, American “values are rooted in a basic optimism about life and a faith in free will.”

如今，这种关于自由的假设贯穿了美国政治的方方面面，从福利供给到刑法制度皆是如此。它与主流文化紧密结合，并且巩固了美国梦的根基——相信任何人都能做自己想做的，而无论他们的出身是什么。就像奥巴马在其无畏的希望里写的，美国的价值观是根植于对生活的乐观与对自由意志的信仰之中的。

-------------译者：laoaoe-审核者：ZhanKai------------

So what happens if this faith erodes?

那如果这一信仰遭到侵蚀会怎么样呢？

The sciences have grown steadily bolder in their claim that all human behavior can be explained through the clockwork laws of cause and effect. This shift in perception is the continuation of an intellectual revolution that began about 150 years ago, when Charles Darwin first published On the Origin of Species. Shortly after Darwin put forth his theory of evolution, his cousin Sir Francis Galton began to draw out the implications: If we have evolved, then mental faculties like intelligence must be hereditary. But we use those faculties—which some people have to a greater degree than others—to make decisions. So our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological inheritance.

自然科学已然发展壮大，它宣称所有的人类行为都可以通过严谨规律的因果来解释。这一观念上的转变可以看做是是约150年前由达尔文出版《物种起源》而开始的知识革命的延续。达尔文发表他的进化论不久，他的表亲高尔顿爵士开始提出一些设想：如果我们是进化而来的，那么我们的精神力，比如智力，一定也是遗传的。但是我们运用那些能力——有些人的此类能力还要高于常人——去选择我们的命运时就会不是自由的，而是取决于我们的生物性遗传。

-------------译者：laoaoe-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Galton launched a debate that raged throughout the 20th century over nature versus nurture. Are our actions the unfolding effect of our genetics? Or the outcome of what has been imprinted on us by the environment? Impressive evidence accumulated for the importance of each factor. Whether scientists supported one, the other, or a mix of both, they increasingly assumed that our deeds must be determined by something.

高尔顿的设想引发了一场贯穿了20世纪的，关于先天与后天的大争论。我们的行为只是基因演化的效果吗？或是我们身处的环境影响的结果？两类观点都积累了大量令人信服的证据。无论科学家支持其中那种，或是两种混合，他们都在不断地强化着这个假设：我们的行为一定是由什么东西决定的。

In recent decades, research on the inner workings of the brain has helped to resolve the nature-nurture debate—and has dealt a further blow to the idea of free will. Brain scanners have enabled us to peer inside a living person’s skull, revealing intricate networks of neurons and allowing scientists to reach broad agreement that these networks are shaped by both genes and environment. But there is also agreement in the scientific community that the firing of neurons determines not just some or most but all of our thoughts, hopes, memories, and dreams.

近几十年来，对人类大脑内部工作机能的研究推动了先天后天之争的解决——并且对自由意志的观点造成了进一步的打击。脑部扫描仪使我们能够探索活人颅内的世界，揭示了其内部的神经元网络系统，并使得科学家在这一系统由基因与环境共同造成这一结论上达成更广泛的共识。但是科学界也有观点认为神经放电决定了人类的所有思想，希望，记忆，梦想，而不仅仅是一部分。


-------------译者：love_fyf-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Ben • 3 days ago
This might seem like a non-sequitur, but Waller's arguments are almost exactly those I use to claim that true artificial intelligence will eventually be possible. If it's built on mechanical or deterministic underpinnings --so what? It's still a real person.

这可能看起来是一个不合理的结论，但是Waller的论述几乎和我曾经说过的一样：真正的人工智能最终可能实现。即使它建立在机械性或确定性的基础上——那又如何？它仍然是一个真正的人！

pjsx Ben • 3 days ago
I agree, and it becomes even more relevant when we start fusing man and machine. When the day comes where we can replace half a human's brain with a computer, what does that mean in terms of his identity and consciousness? Does he still have free-will even though half of his decision-making process is now just a computer? What about 99% machine and 1% human? Does that consciousness still have free will? At what point do you lose consciousness and free-will? 80%? 60%? This is why I don't believe in free will. Either every conscious entity has it, or none have it. The question deepens even further when you start to try to define "consciousness". If every single quantum particle of my brain and body can be simulated by a supercomputer (in the future), is that simulated me conscious with a free-will? If it is, then how did free-will emerge from a deterministic computer program, a program which is controlled by external forces?

我同意，当我们把开始将机器与人融合在一起时，二者更加相关了。当能用电脑来代替人类大脑的一半时，那么对于他的身份和意识来说意味着什么呢？他是否还具有自由意志，即使他的决策过程的一半只是一个电脑？那么99%的机器和1%的人呢？那时意识是否还具有自由意志呢？当机器的比例达到多少时你会失去意识和自由意志呢？80%？60%？这就是为什么我不相信自由意志。要不就每一个意识个体都有，要不就都没有。当你开始尝试去定义“意识”时，问题甚至更加深奥。如果你的身体和大脑的每一个粒子（在未来）都可以用超级计算机模拟，那么它是否能模拟我具有自由意志的意识呢？如果是的话，那么自由意志是如何从确定性的受外力控制的计算机程序中产生的呢？

-------------译者：laoaoe-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Ben  pjsx • 3 days ago
I start with the same premises and arrive at opposite conclusions -- free will exists for humans, and would for AI as well. I take a view similar to Waller -- acknowledging that intelligence is wholly grounded in the rules of physics (or comptuer rules), as I do, does not preclude the concept of *free will as emergent phenomenon*.

 我从相同的前提出发而得出了相反的结论——人类的自由意志是存在的，也许也会存在于人工智能当中。我和Waller持差不多的观点——承认智能是完全以物理定律（或运算规则）为基础的，而我不排除自由意志作为一个突生现象的出现。

I mean, human actions are wholly caused by deterministic cascades of neuron spikes -- agreed. But refusing to call those cascades “choice” is just as reductionistic as insisting that solid matter isn’t real because atoms are mostly empty space. If you really want to get down to it, the entire physical world can be stripped down to abstract math (just like a computer program): solid rock is just a collection of subatomic particles with particular constraints on their position and total energy -- and those particles themselves can only truly be expressed via the equations of quantum mechanics. Gravity and time do not exist -- only the warp and weft of general relativity. Under this view, human choice is just a particularly interesting application of chaos theory.

 我的意思是，人类行为是完全由神经冲动造成的——这我同意。但如果决绝承认这些神经流动为“选择”，那就好比还原论者坚称固体物质并不真实因为原子几乎都是中空的。如果你真的想深入其中，这整个物理世界都可以被抽象为数学（就像电脑程序一样）：固体石块就只是一堆亚原子粒子在其位置与总能量约束下的合集——并且这些粒子本身都只能通过量子力学方程表示出来。重力和时间并不存在——他们只是广义相对论中的两个元素。在这一观点下，人类选择只是混沌理论的一个有趣的应用。

I'm not a fan of this view.

虽然我不是这个理论的信徒。

-------------译者：woshixkcdtc-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

George Ortega  Ben • 3 days ago
It seems you're not appreciating the implications of the chain of cause and effect that precedes every human action. Like dominoes regressing back cause by cause into the past, these causes to every human "choice" regress back in time to long before we humans were born, thereby denying us a free will.

这似乎表明你不能鉴别人类所有行为动作中隐含的链式因果关系。就像多米诺骨牌一样，一个原因造就另一个原因的回溯到过去，人类的每个“选择”，其原因都可以追溯到人类出现之前，所以并不存在自由意志。
 
Ben  George Ortega • 3 days ago
Respectfully, *you* are not appreciating that your own statement is universal to every physical, mathematical, and computational process, and you're not appreciating the richness of complex behavior that can emerge from simple underlying rules. Choice is precisely as real as organic chemistry, orbital mechanics, Conway's Game of Life, entropy, supernovae or the Big Bang. You can insist all those things are illusions, if you like, but you can't pick and choose.

为了表示对你的尊重，我想说，你没有鉴别你称述的观点是适用于所有物理、数学的以及公式化的流程，同时你没有鉴别丰富多样的行为习惯能够被一些简单的潜在规则所表现出来。选择是恰恰与有机化学、轨道航天学、康威的生命游戏、熵、超新星或大爆炸一样真实。你可以坚称所有这些东西都是错觉，但是你不能挑挑拣拣。

I'm not arguing against physical causality or neuroscience; I'm arguing that free will is not mutually contradictory with it.

我不是对物理因果或者神经科学有异议。我只是认为自由意志不是与它们相对立的。
 
EDIT: I should emphasize that free will isn't binary. It has limits; it is not magic.

多加一句：我应该强调的是自由意志不是二元的。它有限制条件，它不是魔法。

-------------译者：龙腾翻译总管-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

Billy B  Ben R26; 3 days ago
Ben
it appears as though you've taken George Ortega's argument against free will (that all events are determined by past events therefore by the time we are here its too late to say our free will caused our choices) to imply that we don't make choices.
He is not denying the reality of choice only the freedom of choice. We certainly sext among options available to us but its wrong to ascribe that to our free will. There are no choices made independently by us we are driven to make those changes by events that are ultimately caused before we exist.

ben，貌似你用George Ortega反对自由意志的论点（认为所有事情都由过往事件造成的，所以你认为我们的选择不是出于自由意志）来表明我们无法作出选择。
George Ortega并没有否认选择的真实性，只是否认选择的自由性。我们当然可以在多个选项中选择其中一个，但是并不能就此说明这是自由意志在作出选择。我们无法独立作出选择，我们是在我们存在之前就已经发生的事情的驱使下才做出选择的。
 
Ben  Billy B R26; 3 days ago
Perhaps it's just a misunderstanding all around regarding the precise definition of the word. Folks used to believe that "life" was an external supernatural force; now it's just a label (with the details still argued over!) for a physical process. So maybe it's better for me to say the old definition of "free will" is outdated. Again this (I believe) is basically the view of Waller quoted in the article.

考虑到这个词的准确定义，或许这仅仅是误解导致的。以前人们觉得“生命”是一种外在的超自然力量；现在只不过是物理过程的一个标签（人们对其细节还有争论）。所以我说“自由意志”的老旧定义已经过时了，这样说或许更合适。我认为这是本文作者的基本观点。

-------------译者：tera-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------
 
David P. Graf  Billy B • 2 days ago
Of course, there is no practical way to determine in advance which options will be considered by someone. Is it really science if you lack the ability to make testable predictions?

 当然，没有实际的方法去提前判定哪个人回去选哪个选择。但如果连个测试方法都没有，你能说它算科学？

George Ortega  Ben • 2 days ago
What are you suggesting our human will is free from? The free will Darwin, Freud and Einstein agreed doesn't exist is, actually, as binary as a woman being either pregnant or not.

那你认为人类的自由意志可以不受哪些事物的影响？达尔文，弗洛伊德，爱因斯坦赞同的自由意志都很朦胧，就像一个女人怀没怀孕从外面看不出来一样。
 
Ben  George Ortega • 2 days ago
Yes, actually, that is precisely what I'm suggesting. Just as importantly, it was suggested by Waller in the article -- did you finish reading it? You act as if I'm the first to take this perspective.
And don't make appeals to authority. None of those gentlemen were infallible.

事实上我说的就是这个意思，就像这篇文章里Waller说的一样 -- 你读完了原文吗？你说的好像我是第一个有这观点的人。
另外，别老去呼吁权威。那些权贵们说的可不都是真理。

-------------译者：宁不凡-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

George Ortega  Ben • 2 days ago
Many people hold the view that the question is not binary. I'm not appealing to authority alone, but also to probability. For example, what are the chances that our authorities on climate change, climate scientists, are wrong, and the general public is right?

 很多人所持的观点认为这个问题不是二元的。我不仅仅借助于权威，还借助于各种可能性。例如，如果气候学家等权威对气候变化（预测）的可能性是错误的，那一般民众所给出的可能性会是正确的吗？

Ben  George Ortega • 2 days ago
Not only was it an appeal to authority, it was an appeal to *false* authority. Genius pertaining to evolution or the speed of light is inapplicable to the inner workings of the brain, and Freud believed all kinds of pseudoscience. By your logic on probability, GOP lawmakers would count as "authorities".
(Bleh, I'm getting tired of arguing against both sides from the center.)

不仅借助于权威，而且还借助于“错误的”权威。那些进化和光速领域的天才可能对大脑的内部运作知之甚少，并且佛洛伊德相信各种伪科学。按你对可能性的逻辑，共和党议员也算是“权威”。
（Bleh,我已对咱们双方的争论感到厌倦。）

 -------------译者：ZhanKai-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------
 
EyesShiningAngrily  George Ortega • 2 days ago
Darwin, Freud and Einstein all agreed huh? It might be more persuasive if they actually supplied arguments.
It is incoherent to suppose we don't have free will. See an essay by me:

 达尔文、佛洛伊德和爱因斯坦都同意了哈？如果他们确实提供了论据，这可能更具说服力。
 怀疑人类没有自由意志是自相矛盾的，参见我的另一篇文章（以下为链接）
http://ian-wardell.blogspot.co...
 
George Ortega  EyesShiningAngrily • 2 days ago
They were all determinists, so I imagine their argument was as simple as causality making free will impossible. I agree with your essay; causality isn't just a physical law. It's a logical one as well.

他们都是决定论者，所以他们可能会简单的觉得因果关系让自由意志变得不可能。我同意你的文章观点：因果分析不只是物理定律，它还是逻辑定律。

-------------译者：ZhanKai-审核者：龙腾翻译总管------------

steve j  George Ortega • 2 days ago
George do you think any random processes exist? Possibly radioactive decay is random. If so your domino theory is incorrect. Or am I missing something?

 乔治你认为有任何随机过程存在吗？或许放射性衰变是随机的。如果这样的话你的多米论理论就是错误的。又或者我漏了什么？
 
George Ortega  steve j • 2 days ago
I don't think randomness, in the strict sense of uncaused actions, exists. For them to exist, the universe prior to the action could not exist because, beginning with the Big Bang, the universe evolves moment by moment, state by state, in a completely causal manner. Randomness is mistakenly assigned some actions for which we have not been able to determine causes.

对于严格意义上的独立行为，我认为随机性不存在。如果随机性存在，那么随机行为发生之前的宇宙是不存在的（无意义的），因为自宇宙大爆炸开始，在完全的因果条件下，宇宙在每分每秒，每时每刻都是一个个状态。随机性只是我们对无法解释缘由的行为的错误归结。