Free will or Fate?

[PaulMaster]

Choose.

 

[PaulMaster]

Free will.

 

[Sly-fy]

I chose an answer using my free will.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

The act of voting or "doing anything" is fate ie, physically predictable

But, what im thinking of (ie, what is goin on in my mind) while voting or "doing anything" is free will.
My thoughts and mind cant be observed and thus, cant be predicted. Hence, my internal justification for my "physical actions" is free will. However, my actions themselves are a result of fate.
I believe them to be 2 seperate processes even though they have high correlation



So im not sure what to vote for

 

[Thurlor]

I don't believe claims of free will unless the claimant can explain how they are able to consciously control the physical forces of the universe in which they exist and are a part of.

I think most people confuse the notions of free will and agency.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

I don't believe claims of free will unless the claimant can explain how they are able to consciously control the physical forces of the universe in which they exist and are a part of.

Easy solution to that is;

a. It is all a Dream or
b. Physical and Conscious world are independent, co-existant and perfectly correlated

 

[PaulMaster]

I don't believe claims of free will unless the claimant can explain how they are able to consciously control the physical forces of the universe in which they exist and are a part of.

I think most people confuse the notions of free will and agency.

Without getting too technical: neurons and muscles.

 

[Grayman]

Fate would be voting. I choose free will...damn.

 

[LOLZ9000]

Logic and science would indicate there is no free will. Quantum physics does not change the problem of agency. Either things are deterministic or random, but neither option leaves room for human free will.

That said I don't live my life according to the above because it would render it meaningless. So I keep pretending/believing I have free will and act that way. I can't justify this logically.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

Logic and science would indicate there is no free will. Quantum physics does not change the problem of agency. Either things are deterministic or random, but neither option leaves room for human free will.

What if i say your thoughts arent determined by physics?
Thoughts and the mind arent observable hence cant be predicted

 

[Analyzer]

I chose an answer using my free will.

That's reasonable.

 

[LOLZ9000]

What if i say your thoughts arent determined by physics?
Thoughts and the mind arent observable hence cant be predicted

You can postulate any theory you like. The most likely explanation is usually the one that is most easily explainable. We can reasonably postulate that the human brain is a collection of cells/synapses that operates according to the vetted principles of physics. That would be the Occam's razor, most direct, explanation. As the most direct explanation, it is most likely to be correct. This is a justifiable approach where we cannot directly and 100% conclusively measure things.

Alternative hypotheses, such as "souls", "God", "free will", "the voices in my head made me do it", are all technically possible, but less probable, because they require conjuring systems that have not been proven to exist or because they add complexity to what can be equally well explained (or better explained) with greater simplicity.

Put another way, the burden of proof is on the one who discards the simplest logical solution and proposes a more complex, less theoretically/empirically justifiable one.

 

[Yellow]

First, I should warn that I have little patience for classic philosophy. I think the purpose of learning the arguments of "our founders" is to have some shoulders to stand on when asking our own questions. So please forgive me if I appear to be stomping through the garden.

If you think about it, the universe is trying to figure itself out in discussions like this. Determinism is limited to what our brains can accept as within the scope of "fate". Sure, we're bound by physical laws, but they allow for some chance and chaos. Take isomers, or failed synaptic transmissions, for example. There is an element of chance in the universe, and that element of chance is outside the realm of fate, as we know it.

Similarly, a great many of your choices may be manipulated and predicted. All of them are bound by physical laws, but there's no way to know whether or not we are more than the sum of our parts. Even Google's DeepMind AI would suggest that "choices" have been made independent of initial programming.

So why is it reasonable to assume that either free will or fate hold a monopoly over the universe?

I'd say that physical laws, chance, and what appears to be choice within more complex neural networks combine to affect our lives.

 

[LOLZ9000]

First, I should warn that I have little patience for classic philosophy. I think the purpose of learning the arguments of "our founders" is to have some shoulders to stand on when asking our own questions. So please forgive me if I appear to be stomping through the garden.

If you think about it, the universe is trying to figure itself out in discussions like this. Determinism is limited to what our brains can accept as within the scope of "fate". Sure, we're bound by physical laws, but they allow for some chance and chaos. Take isomers, or failed synaptic transmissions, for example. There is an element of chance in the universe, and that element of chance is outside the realm of fate, as we know it.

Similarly, a great many of your choices may be manipulated and predicted. All of them are bound by physical laws, but there's no way to know whether or not we are more than the sum of our parts. Even Google's DeepMind AI would suggest that "choices" have been made independent of initial programming.

So why is it reasonable to assume that either free will or fate hold a monopoly over the universe?

I'd say that physical laws, chance, and what appears to be choice within more complex neural networks combine to affect our lives.

There is no explanation for human agency (e.g., choice). There is an explanation for determinism and randomness.

 

[PaulMaster]

There is no explanation for human agency (e.g., choice). There is an explanation for determinism and randomness.

Further, one could purposely choose a "wrong" course of action to avoid predictions, fates.

 

[Cognisant]

In order to not be entirely deterministic our choices would need to be made outside the bounds of causality which is impossible because without the context of causality there's no such thing as choice because the results of your actions would be entirely unpredictable.

To put it another way every choice we make is what we believe to be the right choice given the information available to us, being able to time travel wouldn't change this fact it would just give you more information to work with. So the only way your choice could not be predetermined by you context would be if you knew absolutely nothing at which point you would be incapable of choosing.

 

[Jennywocky]

...as fate would have it, I choose to agree with the condescending bastard.

But really, how could we choose without any information or experience? It's like the raindrop sitting on a perfectly flat plane of glass, unable to move in any direction. A living organism might have some internal reaction, but it's not really a "choice" per se... it's just some programmed impetus.

 

[PaulMaster]

In order to not be entirely deterministic our choices would need to be made outside the bounds of causality which is impossible because without the context of causality there's no such thing as choice because the results of your actions would be entirely unpredictable.

To put it another way every choice we make is what we believe to be the right choice given the information available to us, being able to time travel wouldn't change this fact it would just give you more information to work with. So the only way your choice could not be predetermined by you context would be if you knew absolutely nothing at which point you would be incapable of choosing.

What of the word choices in this thread? Or the choice to add this sentence? How was abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz any of this determined by context?

What is it that predetermines my unprompted ventures? When I go out on a jog, say, or a bike ride without planned routes? Context and experience can certainly shape value - which allows for weighted choices at least. But working from a value system to make choices does not sound deterministic to me. Context sounds a little circular to me: I'm the kind of person who makes certain kinds of choices, therefore I will make this kind of choice.

 

[Grayman]

...as fate would have it, I choose to agree with the condescending bastard.

But really, how could we choose without any information or experience? It's like the raindrop sitting on a perfectly flat plane of glass, unable to move in any direction. A living organism might have some internal reaction, but it's not really a "choice" per se... it's just some programmed impetus.

When I was learning about Buddhism they said we don't have control and that the only choice we have is to not take hold of our thoughts.

Arguably, you choose by altering your information and changing your view of it by not being open and not taking hold.

 

[Silent Sage]

Theorized on this a couple of months ago, my findings:

I'll be exploring causality (free will, "by choice" vs "by nature") here:

I've been introduced to the topic recently, so I only have a very minimal understanding at the moment. But I like to come up with my own ideas before getting into all the technical stuff anyways. I am not an expert, and I am not claiming any unquestionable factuality to my statements below.



I'd describe free will as the ability to assess a situation and potential outcomes, then following through with one them. In other words: the ability to fulfill an inner desire.



Of course, if we have free will, it is severely constrained. By natural forces, physiological needs, psychological desires, and even the supposed free will of other people. Yet...all those are thought to make free will, abstraction, possible in the first place, that is, external factors, physiology, and psychology.



They give rise to choice (free will), which in turn gives rise to potential outcomes. This interaction and collision results in a continuous flow and growing network of cause/effect relationships. In this way we are also constrained by the past as well. This would reinforce the idea that behaviors are predictable, if not inevitable.



I'm aware that there's some problem concerning whether a decision should be attributed to an event or the system that allows such a decision to be made? And that scientific/philosophic people tend to go with the latter rather than the former. They do so because the choice itself isn't tangible; we can only observe the effect that it produces. But chemical reactions signify a decision, not a particular decision as opposed to other potential courses of action.


Still, I'm leaning towards the notion that "free will" or inner desire is just the manifestation of the aforementioned factors (an illusion) as the majority is.

 

[PaulMaster]

Theorized on this a couple of months ago, my findings:

I'll be exploring causality (free will, "by choice" vs "by nature") here:

I've been introduced to the topic recently, so I only have a very minimal understanding at the moment. But I like to come up with my own ideas before getting into all the technical stuff anyways. I am not an expert, and I am not claiming any unquestionable factuality to my statements below.



I'd describe free will as the ability to assess a situation and potential outcomes, then following through with one them. In other words: the ability to fulfill an inner desire.



Of course, if we have free will, it is severely constrained. By natural forces, physiological needs, psychological desires, and even the supposed free will of other people. Yet...all those are thought to make free will, abstraction, possible in the first place, that is, external factors, physiology, and psychology.



They give rise to choice (free will), which in turn gives rise to potential outcomes. This interaction and collision results in a continuous flow and growing network of cause/effect relationships. In this way we are also constrained by the past as well. This would reinforce the idea that behaviors are predictable, if not inevitable.



I'm aware that there's some problem concerning whether a decision should be attributed to an event or the system that allows such a decision to be made? And that scientific/philosophic people tend to go with the latter rather than the former. They do so because the choice itself isn't tangible; we can only observe the effect that it produces. But chemical reactions signify a decision, not a particular decision as opposed to other potential courses of action.


Still, I'm leaning towards the notion that "free will" or inner desire is just the manifestation of the aforementioned factors (an illusion) as the majority is.

Excellent post, sir. I'm glad you worded it this way because it helps to shape the way I see choice and free will. The natural forces you speak of - causality and such - present an environment full of options, from which we choose left or right, up or down, etc...

Some things are determined for us - we know not what tomorrow will bring. But try the following experiment:

Pick one of the following two options:
1. Stand up and say any number out loud
2. Do not stand up, remain silent

What is the deterministic force that guides that choice? I propose we are free to choose/act within the available options (which can be infinite at times).

 

[LOLZ9000]

Some things are determined for us - we know not what tomorrow will bring. But try the following experiment:

Pick one of the following two options:
1. Stand up and say any number out loud
2. Do not stand up, remain silent

What is the deterministic force that guides that choice? I propose we are free to choose/act within the available options (which can be infinite at times).

If you were to rewind 1000 times to the exact same moment of "choice", you would pick the same result every time, according to physics and logic. You feel like you have a choice, you think about it long and hard, you hem and you haw, but really the same personal history and the same external circumstances would be the same factors in every one of the 1000 scenarios, and you would pick the same choice. There is no personal agency with determinism.

On the other hand, if you play the quantum randomness card (which no one has so far, but it always comes up eventually), you can potentially argue that you might pick a different choice sometimes, out of the 1000 scenarios. But actually, there are not one but two rebuttals to this perspective:

1) Quantum randomness happens at the subatomic level and the chances that a near infinite number subatomic random dice rolls add up to you picking a different outcome at the macro human level is near zero.
2) Even if you did end up randomly picking a different path, it would be random, not human agency. Nothing about quantum physics supports human agency having any effect on it. Quantum physics are random, not guided by human desires.

 

[Yellow]

@ y'all fatalists
I'm failing to see why information and experience eliminate free will. I see clearly that free will is limited by pre-determined factors -- that choices do and must follow patterns of behavior which are dictated by synapses, which boil down to the movement of electrons -- but why does this absolutely exclude choice as a factor?

Can something be choice by thinking it so? If I think I have a choice, and I act as if I have a choice, doesn't that mean I've chosen?

Imagine that I weigh 400 pounds. Wouldn't you question my choices? Would any of you believe that I need to stop living a life of excess before it kills me? Or would you simply accept that the universe has aligned to bring me to this moment, and I had absolutely no way to avoid it? Would you defend me to the fat-hating masses that I am a victim of fate?

Imagine that I've given birth to 11 children from 8 different men. I've never worked a day in my life, and I am supported entirely by the government. I am uneducated, rude, self-entitled, and my children are little monsters. Would you blame anything but fate for my situation? Would none of you be upset about my decisions, about the system that allowed me to behave this way? Or would this have been written in stone eons before my birth?

 

[Cognisant]

As Jennywocky said there's no action without impetus, without context there's no choice to make but within context there's only the illusion of choice because the combination of your current state and your current context determines the outcome.

If you do something just before the flow of time is briefly reversed then restored, you will do exactly as you did before because without the addition of any new information there's no reason why exactly the same person you were before in exactly the same context you were in before wouldn't do exactly the same thing you did.

Indeed without the addition of any new information an alternate outcome is impossible.

Edit: ninja'ed

 

[PaulMaster]

If you were to rewind 1000 times to the exact same moment of "choice", you would pick the same result every time, according to physics and logic. You feel like you have a choice, you think about it long and hard, you hem and you haw, but really the same personal history and the same external circumstances would be the same factors in every one of the 1000 scenarios, and you would pick the same choice. There is no personal agency with determinism.

I'm not sure - especially off the top of my head like this - I'll be able to come up with anything better than the fact that I hate this kind of idea...but I'll try...

This is the exact argument/idea that determinism boils down to, yes? That the countless occurrences over a lifetime have created values that will determine every single choice.

To me, the thing is that this is like God. Cant see it, feel it, or even understand it in any way other than choice - but its not choice. Its determined. Its determined by the countless...

Well I dont believe that. Add up all the countless occurrences and give me a real number and I'll listen. I'll definitely listen. Count every single variable - even human "choices" - and you can predict the future, yes? But counting them all is way too hard, obviously. So we're assuming, then, that 1+2+3+4...= whatever...but we dont know. Not even close. So making a claim based on...well based on nothing, actually, is bad form.

Free will is directly experienced by all of us, sane or otherwise, every single day of our lives. I cant prove that we dont live in the Matrix, but proposing the Matrix to be our ultimate reality holds no more weight than not proposing it - especially when there is definite sensory evidence to the contrary.

Even if I choose the same thing twice, or a million times, I've still chosen it.

 

[Analyzer]

You can't possibly know all knowledge given the limitations of human cognition. Academic philosophizing is rather useless until it's applied. Let's say free will doesn't exist and everyone agrees. What are the consequences of this understanding? Does it change anything?

 

[Artsu Tharaz]

there IS free will... I remember, I read somewhere that there was

 

[Tannhauser]

I read about an interesting calculation recently. Say you are playing pool and you want to predict the positions of the balls after taking a shot. Now, we can have chains of cause-and-effect of various lengths: if you want to predict the position after, say, two collisions, you need to take into account the speed of the initial ball, the masses of the balls, and the friction of the table. If you want the position after 5 collisions, you need to take into account the air density etc. After something like 50 collisions, you need to take into account the gravitational pull of a person standing next to the table. After 100 collisions, you need to know the exact position and mass of every elementary particle in the universe.

If you now take into account just the theoretical limitations you will face for that last measurement, like the uncertainty principle, and the fact that information cannot travel faster than light, it is quite apparent that you cannot predict the position after 100 collisions even in theory.

So even if you posit that the world is deterministic, it will always remain indistinguishable from indeterministic.

In other words: free will, bitches.

 

[Thurlor]

Wouldn't free will be a-causal by it's very nature?

 

[PaulMaster]

I read about an interesting calculation recently. Say you are playing pool and you want to predict the positions of the balls after taking a shot. Now, we can have chains of cause-and-effect of various lengths: if you want to predict the position after, say, two collisions, you need to take into account the speed of the initial ball, the masses of the balls, and the friction of the table. If you want the position after 5 collisions, you need to take into account the air density etc. After something like 50 collisions, you need to take into account the gravitational pull of a person standing next to the table. After 100 collisions, you need to know the exact position and mass of every elementary particle in the universe.

If you now take into account just the theoretical limitations you will face for that last measurement, like the uncertainty principle, and the fact that information cannot travel faster than light, it is quite apparent that you cannot predict the position after 100 collisions even in theory.

So even if you posit that the world is deterministic, it will always remain indistinguishable from indeterministic.

In other words: free will, bitches.

This is what I was trying to get at. I am of the mind that there are too many variables to calculate - even in theory. Variables will increase exponentially at least - and likely infinitely at some point. So, eventually (and probably not too far down the line), we'd be working with an infinite number of infinities, which is not calculable.

This is why consciousness evolved, thrived. Choosing offered better results than not choosing. If it was not useful it would not have survived.

 

[YOLOisonlyprinciple]

You can postulate any theory you like. The most likely explanation is usually the one that is most easily explainable. We can reasonably postulate that the human brain is a collection of cells/synapses that operates according to the vetted principles of physics. That would be the Occam's razor, most direct, explanation. As the most direct explanation, it is most likely to be correct. This is a justifiable approach where we cannot directly and 100% conclusively measure things.

Alternative hypotheses, such as "souls", "God", "free will", "the voices in my head made me do it", are all technically possible, but less probable, because they require conjuring systems that have not been proven to exist or because they add complexity to what can be equally well explained (or better explained) with greater simplicity.

Put another way, the burden of proof is on the one who discards the simplest logical solution and proposes a more complex, less theoretically/empirically justifiable one.

The simplest answer is the most accurate one only if the simplest answer isnt flawed.
You say the brain is where the thinking happens.
I can remove any atom in the brain, or maybe even 1mm^2 portion of the brain, but still i would be able to continue thinking.
So in which part of the brain does thinking happen?
Every cell in the brain is disposable individually. You wont notice anything if i removed 1 cell from the brain, so if i remove 1 cell from your brain let the brain repair itself; and then i keep removing another cell and another, but while letting the brain to repair itself, then still i do have the ability to think, and i have the same thought train.
So, if no particular part of the brain is where the "consciousness" lies, then of course the consciousness isnt the brain.

This is what I was trying to get at. I am of the mind that there are too many variables to calculate - even in theory. Variables will increase exponentially at least - and likely infinitely at some point. So, eventually (and probably not too far down the line), we'd be working with an infinite number of infinities, which is not calculable.

This is why consciousness evolved, thrived. Choosing offered better results than not choosing. If it was not useful it would not have survived.

Just because YOU cant calculate a variable doesnt mean the variable isnt deterministic.
Prehistoric man didnt know Pythagoras theorem. Does that mean if given the side and the perpendicular, the hypotenuse isnt calculable or deterministic?
So 10000 years ago the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle was random/free will and the hypotenuse was choosing its length based on free will because no one could calculate its length at that point?
Thats exactly what youre saying.

It doesnt matter if there is a person capable of calculating. Or if the number of variables are in the trillions. Just because it isnt realistic to be able to calculate something doesnt mean that it isnt deterministic

 

[Tannhauser]

Just because YOU cant calculate a variable doesnt mean the variable isnt deterministic.
Prehistoric man didnt know Pythagoras theorem. Does that mean if given the side and the perpendicular, the hypotenuse isnt calculable or deterministic?
So 10000 years ago the hypotenuse of a right angle triangle was random/free will and the hypotenuse was choosing its length based on free will because no one could calculate its length at that point?
Thats exactly what youre saying.

It doesnt matter if there is a person capable of calculating. Or if the number of variables are in the trillions. Just because it isnt realistic to be able to calculate something doesnt mean that it isnt deterministic

Did you read the post he was replying to? Even if the world is deterministic, you will never be able to verify it. Hence you can believe in determinism only as a religion, not a scientific theory.

 

[PaulMaster]

Thats exactly what youre saying.

Thats not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that the variables increase infinitely. Infinities cannot be calculated such that reliable predictions can be made.

But - BUT - lets just say we can get a real "number" in theory. Our actual experience would not change. It would make no difference whatsoever. It would be like changing the word we use for the color black. You would still experience it the same, so the name doesnt matter. You'd be claiming determinism for no other reason than preference - and against experience at that!