Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Fruit Flies Show Spark of Free Will

Posted by samzenpus on from the sorry-about-all-those-bio-labs dept.

Lucas123 writes "A study performed at the Free University Berlin on human free will has produced some unexpected results showing that fruit flies may have a spark of free will in their tiny brains." From the article: "Their behavior seemed to match up with a mathematical algorithm called Levy's distribution ... Future research delving further into free will could lead to more advanced robots, scientists added. The result, joked neurobiologist Björn Brembs from the Free University Berlin, could be "world robot domination."

7 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Huh? by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Okay, I should know better than to divine meaning from a mass-media source, but I tried.

    First, Levy's distribution is a, you know, distribution, not an algorithm. I guess it meant to say that the algorithm weights a factor by Levy's distribution.

    Then, after going through about eight paragraphs to find out what the hell the experiment did that was so relevant, it still didn't make sense. What bothered me was that one of the scientists see "free will" as being "somewhere between" deterministic and random. Now, I'm all for treating properties as cardinal and a matter of degree. But isn't free will, by definition, BOTH non-random and non-deterministic? How can it fall on a spectrum between them?

    And what about the experiment makes "free will in flies" the best explanation?

    (Oh, and on a side note: please spare us the story about religion: not all religions endorse free will, and not all atheists reject it.)

    --
    Apology to Ubuntu forum.
    1. Re:Huh? by jwthompson2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Atheists tend to have naturalistic views and that should lead them toward determinism pretty easily. If the universe is governed by immutable laws/forces then there is nothing truly random that occurs and no room for "choice" as conceived of by any kind of "free will" concept. It's somewhat interesting that consistent naturalism leads to a very similar view of "choice" as does consistent sovereign theism: determinism.

      --
      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther
  2. Two of a kind by Boronx · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We still debate whether humans have free will, but we can show that fruit flies have it.

    If humans have an abundance of freewill, is it really surprising that less complex but similar creatures may have a small share?

    --
    Play Command HQ online
  3. Re:Welcome! by aichpvee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Anyone with who is physically identical to you in an identical situation (with the requisite identical past experiences) would do exactly the same thing as you are doing right now and at every moment from now until you're dead. At which point their body would decompose in an identical manner. Physics does not magically govern everything except your brain. Free will, even if it were relevant anywhere outside of philosophy, does not exist.

    I thought this was supposed to be stuff that mattered, not stuff that's irrelevant to any and all realistic views of the world?

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  4. Re:Welcome! by aichpvee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What is it that you think is going on inside your head? Do you think it's magic? Outside of quantum randomness (assuming that it exists, which as far as anyone knows appears to be the case), which is irrelevant to the discussion of "free will" anyway, the exact same thing would happen. If you had "free will" you would be able to choose to make a different decision, which you clearly can't. Philosophy can think about what things might be like, or what they should be like, but nothing in it can change how things are.

    Now come back and complain again when you can explain how, barring magic, any sort of "free will" can exist in a physical universe.

    --
    The Farewell Tour II
  5. Re:Welcome! by ssorc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, what do you think is going on inside yours? Are you quite sure that physics can paint a complete picture of the universe?

    ... explain how, barring magic, any sort of "free will" can exist in a physical universe.


    I guess you do think that physics can completely describe the universe. But on what grounds are you claiming that this universe is [solely] a physical one? (Note that to approach the question of whether or not the universe is physical from the point of view of physics instantly involves you in question-begging again...)

    For me, physics strives to completely describe the universe (by which I mean the complete set of sensory observations I, or presumably you encounter). Things like the mind, the soul, or other "non-physical" entities are either observable (in which case they fall inside the realm of physics) or unobservable (in which case they are irrelevant).
    --
    /-\-/
  6. Re:Was funny, but not after the 1000th time by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Repetition isn't real humor. It's the recollection of humor: the joke as an algorithm. It really is Pavlovian: you remember having found it funny once, and repeating it reminds you of that first moment (with diminishing returns.)

    Real comedy involves an element of surprise and discovery: nothing is as funny as it is the first time you hear (or at least understand) it, because that's when the contradictions and paradoxes that make it funny are released as if they were pent-up energy.

    The geek sense of humor - at least, the repetitive part of it (repeating Monty Python skits, for example) comes from a state of high anxiety, not really a spontaneously funny state of mind. It's motivated by a need for reassurance and safety, and its almost the antithesis of actual wit, which is risk-taking and treacherous.

    I love geeks, don't get me wrong. But not for the humor.