Is there free will?

[A22]

Today I watched a neuroscientist (PhD) lecture on the algorithmization of the living organisms and free will.

He argued that we do not have free will. At all. All our "choices", ideas and our creative process is the result of non-arbitrary connections between the neurons strengthened or weakened by natural selection.

The same way genes recombine randomly and maintain the good ones and discard the bad ones, so does our brain with the connections between it's cells. For instance, when parents point at a cat and say "that's a cat" so the child learn how to call it. The child hears the word "cat" for many kinds of cats as the years go by. All of them had the same shape and moved the same way, but not all of those cats had the same color. Wanting or not, the child established a connection between the word "cat" and things that move that way and have that kind of shape, which was reinforced throughout the years. When the kid first saw a cat being called "cat" she related the sound "cat" to that color. But throughout the years she heard the word "cat" for cats of many colors, and that relation (that connection between the brain cells) was weakened. He [the lecturer] argued that this is valid for all connections between our brain cells, and therefore the human mind, as all living structures, can be algorithmized, and therefore, there is no free will.

He gave some technical explanations which I don't recall now. Another good example was how an idea arises - I could relate a lot to that, being an INTP. We automatically and randomly relate one idea to another one (make random connections between neurons). If there is no relation, we discard that connection, or that idea. Just like the "useless" or "bad" genes are discarded. If the relation is good, we embrace that idea, and reinforce the connection - we start making that connection, thinking that way, more often then we did. Everything we think and "choose" is the non-arbitrarily result of connections between information provided by our senses made by the complex structure called the brain, which follows a rather simple algorithm, the same algorithm of natural selection, a trial and error algorithm.

What do you think?

My english is not that good and I don't remember all the details from the lecture, but I hope the text is readable

 

[snafupants]

So that everyone is on the same page, please define free will.

 

[Moocow]

Free will as a denial of physical determinism is a rejection of logic. To ask "what is free will" you can only be asking about the source of our choices. However, the idea of free will itself denies that our choices have a source, otherwise they'd be determined!

If a choice has no cause, you are accepting acausality as possible and proclaiming that reality makes absolutely arbitrary changes. At any moment you could spontaneously combust! Your car could become a cow. The planets might simply decide to leave their orbits and shoot directly into the sun... and so on.

 

[Hadoblado]

The homuncular decomposition of the mind (and freewill) to it's base physical components has not been completed (not even close), and there is still much controversy as to the outcome of this process. Although I support a hard-line determinist position, even if it is presupposed, the nature of the relationship between the mental states that we understand through introspection (again, including free will), and empirical evidence of our own minds such as the neurosciences, is still not completely understood.
Your lecturer is probably an empirical functionalist (most of the scientific community is some sort of functionalist), which is a strong and popular position but tends to be completely assumed without really addressing a lot of the criticisms directed at it (seeming as most scientists are not philosophers).
A person's will, as a folk psychological mental property, is not necessarily going to be represented in our final reductionist understanding of the human mind (if such an event is ever achieved).

 

[Words]

Free will doesn't make any sense as much as "sense" doesnt make any sense. Order is presumed similar to how a non-order is presumed. Therefore, determinism is very similar to freewill, if not necessarily bonded.

 

[Vrecknidj]

1) Just because there's an algorithm doesn't mean there's no freedom.
2) The analogy between what brains do and what evolving organisms do is weak.

 

[A22]

@snafupants
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

The freedom of choice.

This is quite interesting btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physics

Free will as a denial of physical determinism is a rejection of logic. To ask "what is free will" you can only be asking about the source of our choices. However, the idea of free will itself denies that our choices have a source, otherwise they'd be determined!

If a choice has no cause, you are accepting acausality as possible and proclaiming that reality makes absolutely arbitrary changes. At any moment you could spontaneously combust! Your car could become a cow. The planets might simply decide to leave their orbits and shoot directly into the sun... and so on.

Interesting, never seen it that way.

It's not that the choice has no cause, though. What the lecturer meant was that one isn't able to control one's choice, although there is the illusion that one can.

@Vrecknidj

1) The existence of an algorithm implies pre-determination.
2) Why?

 

[ObliviousGenius]

I'm a big believer in determinism. Free will defies logic.

 

[Spaz]

If free will exists, that would mean we're able to affect the causal universe with our thoughts..no evidence that our mind is that powerful. I suspect that the universe is either completely causal, or causal with the influence of a purely random element.

The universe is too complex to effectively predict in all but trivial cases, so we may not have true free will, but it has an illusory appearance.

From a biological standpoint though, free will seems like nonsense..everything we do has physical limits..consider a fly, who's brain doesn't even allow them to ponder such a concept?

 

[Moocow]

@snafupants
Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints.

The freedom of choice.

This is quite interesting btw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will#Physics



Interesting, never seen it that way.

It's not that the choice has no cause, though. What the lecturer meant was that one isn't able to control one's choice, although there is the illusion that one can.

@Vrecknidj

1) The existence of an algorithm implies pre-determination.
2) Why?

I would only accept a free will defined as illusory. Free will can be a practical term so far as we are not absolutely self aware and simply can't be. Although, we can still become aware enough of so many influences around us that we cease to perceive our own agency. I believe it's just one variety of existential crisis.

Those who argue for free will under the premise that not believing in it will sabotage our human self-agency are thinking idealistically, somehow presuming that deciding against the existence of free will is setting us up for a destructive omniscience.

 

[Vidi]

Hard determinism makes gypsy fortunetellers booths look so inviting.

If free will exists, that would mean we're able to affect the causal universe with our thoughts..no evidence that our mind is that powerful. I suspect that the universe is either completely causal, or causal with the influence of a purely random element.

That's taking the free will concept a little too far, in my opinion; such free will which is free of conditions can be attributed only to God, and the proof of his existence is still work in progress.
I believe there are degrees of free will with preconditioned circumstances and many conditions limiting the choice, like being a human for one, but the choice is there nevertheless. Limited free will if you like it. Two choices still make a choice.

Edit: * Hard determinism bring 'minority report' movie to mind.. if I remember it right..

 

[nanook]

free will is a perspective on what happens. this perspective exists. thus free will happens. everything that "exists" (according to our intelligence) is [only] a perspective. the word only is thus meaningless in this context. logical coherence is achieved by accepting and including all possible perspectives [as perspectives].

the interesting question is not "is freedom 'truly' free [if it's 'only' a perspective]?" it's "how can a perspective of freedom be achieved?". free will is like a program and in can be enhanced or destroyed, it can also be impressing or be seen through. thus the saying "the man who believes he can and the man who believes he can't - they are both right" - just replace "believe" with "having the software". life works without it.

 

[BigApplePi]

So that everyone is on the same page, please define free will.

Don't know if this is the right approach, but:

1. "Will" has to do with bringing about an action
2. "Free" seems to relate to independence

So freewill = independent action

Now "independence"? If there is no relation of one thing to another, why are we talking about it? Therefore it would be useful to introduce the concept of "relative" or conditional independence.

Think of a pendulum. If it were tied down it would not be free ... no free will. If it swings, it is, in what sense? ... free? It appears to be dependent on a few things, yet independent of others.

Are we on the same page snafu? Is this page 1 or page 342?

 

[Coolydudey]

I'm not quoting anyone, but basing my thoughts on yours.
I'll accept free will as the power to make a decision, or think about something, without being influenced or forced by external factors.
Therefore this neuroscientists' argument is that since our thoughts are controlled by the structure of our brain, there is an external factor forcing us to think something, therefore removing free will.
However, our thoughts are controlled (as he says but doesn't fully realise) by our environment and the structure of our brain, and therefore to make a fully functioning model you would have to include both.
But what for me excludes the abolition of free will is the quantum mechanical concept of not precisely knowing the location of tiny objctes. It is impossible to predict the position of all the neurotransmitters in your brain, and all the molecules of glucose in our brain. Since or brain is a chaotic system (think of the billions of connections firing electrical signals every which way), these tiny unpredictable elements build up to make an unpredictable system. This means that we cannot model our thoughts, and therefore have free will.

Then of course there is the question: what does it mean for our brain ton think about itself?

 

[Moocow]

Even if some kind of quantum randomness influences our thoughts, which is extremely unlikely, then free will should be called random will instead. Randomness isn't the same as freedom.

 

[A22]

Even if some kind of quantum randomness influences our thoughts, which is extremely unlikely, then free will should be called random will instead. Randomness isn't the same as freedom.

You pulled the words out of my keyboard.

 

[Da Blob]

I really can't believe that intelligent people choose to believe they they have no will. Free will is a rather redundant term. By necessity all intent/will is free. By denying free will, one is denying that goals and the future exists.

Therein lies the rub, the future does not exist in a determined universe - only the past.

Anticipation of the future is in itself an exercise of free will. Intent is a subjective phenomena that can not be observed or measured. I would challenge the neuroscientist to predict which neuropathways are used when an individual chooses a future.

Humans are not mere objects, they are also subjects. I see it as sheer bias, approaching idiocy, to think that the human experience is limited to what can be observed and measured using the narrow focus provided by scientific methodology.

I think it is because science as an idol has replaced God in the minds of a lot of atheists, that this ancient, obsolete philosophy is still be touted. Most real philosophers and scientists do not adhere to it, preferring Compatibilism and Correlation, to Determinism and Cause/Effect.

The very people who want to believe that this universe is the product of utter chaos and nothing more, flip flop to claim that everything is determined and there can be no unknown variables, no randomness, no chaos and no freedom of any kind - much less free will (?)

Bah! Humbug! They deliberately restrict their studies of the universe to the subhuman aspects of it and then turn around and make grandiose claims about elaborate human and superhuman aspects of the universe, something they never even bothered to study.

Edit: the attribution of causality is, in itself, an exercise of free will... lol

 

[Coolydudey]

Even if some kind of quantum randomness influences our thoughts, which is extremely unlikely, then free will should be called random will instead. Randomness isn't the same as freedom.

I see what you say about it being unlikely but it is true that over a long period of time, even given the stimuli the person receives etc. it is impossible to completely model our thoughts, since one neuron firing actually has a certain probability due to quantum mechanics, and since everything eventually has a certain probability of happening ( this is called a wave function) there is no exact model to predict thought.

Now if this can be called randomness or free thought is a discussion based on what you accpt as free thought, if you check out what I originally defined as free thought, then it is. Ultimately you could say the brain has a certain probability of doing this, that and that ( I don't believe I've forgotten any physical or chemical phenomena, which are relevant). But for all practical purposes, this boils down to free will... I.e. theoretically it doesn't really exist, but practically, over time, it does.

 

[A22]

Intent is a subjective phenomena that can not be observed or measured. I would challenge the neuroscientist to predict which neuropathways are used when an individual chooses a future.

I think it can't be measured because of our technological limitations.

Btw, somethings can be measured.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogBX18maUiM

The very people who want to believe that this universe is the product of utter chaos and nothing more, flip flop to claim that everything is determined and there can be no unknown variables, no randomness, no chaos and no freedom of any kind - much less free will (?)

Why is that wrong in any way?

 

[Moocow]

I see what you say about it being unlikely but it is true that over a long period of time, even given the stimuli the person receives etc. it is impossible to completely model our thoughts, since one neuron firing actually has a certain probability due to quantum mechanics, and since everything eventually has a certain probability of happening ( this is called a wave function) there is no exact model to predict thought.

Now if this can be called randomness or free thought is a discussion based on what you accpt as free thought, if you check out what I originally defined as free thought, then it is. Ultimately you could say the brain has a certain probability of doing this, that and that ( I don't believe I've forgotten any physical or chemical phenomena, which are relevant). But for all practical purposes, this boils down to free will... I.e. theoretically it doesn't really exist, but practically, over time, it does.

I think your claim of impossibility is just assumed because it is currently beyond our capacity. The capacity for us to trace it is irrelevant to how it is predetermined or the logic behind presuming determination.

I would like to see some kind of evidence for your claim that quantum mechanics causes neurons to fire based on probability. Because actually, a neuron fires when it receives a majority "vote" on a certain set of receptors associated with a firing pattern. More importantly, neurotransmitters are not subatomic particles, so they do not follow the principles of quantum mechanics of which you speak.

If you are agreeing upon my statement that free will is an illusion based on the fact that we currently can not reveal the underlying mechanisms, then we should simply name that phenomenon something other than free will.

*the highest of all horses*

Your pontifications have yet to be either any less insulting or more explicable so I don't know what you could possibly expect from us at this point.

 

[Coolydudey]

I think your claim of impossibility is just assumed because it is currently beyond our capacity. The capacity for us to trace it is irrelevant to how it is predetermined or the logic behind presuming determination.

I would like to see some kind of evidence for your claim that quantum mechanics causes neurons to fire based on probability. Because actually, a neuron fires when it receives a majority "vote" on a certain set of receptors associated with a firing pattern. More importantly, neurotransmitters are not subatomic particles, so they do not follow the principles of quantum mechanics of which you speak.

If you are agreeing upon my statement that free will is an illusion based on the fact that we currently can not reveal the underlying mechanisms, then we should simply name that phenomenon something other than free will.

You have a good point there about how much quantum mechanics applies to molecules as big as neurotransmitters (although it does apply to particles that are not subatomic as well) Still, a lot of modern chemistry is based on quantum mechanics, and that doesn't only apply to really small elements or compounds. To further my point, check this out:http://arstechnica.com/science/2012...ith-big-molecules-approaches-the-macroscopic/ which shows quantum-mechanical properties to have been demonstrated with molecules comprised of 100+ atoms! Anyway, I will not continue any further ( I am not the expert here) and I think the safest thing to do is leave this discussion as being either-way. But, If my theory were to be true, then, since if a neuron fires or not is determined not only by the vote you say, but the presence or not of such molecules etc. Then even one tiny uncertainty every so often builds up to an unpredictable system.
EDIT: there are some pretty small neurotransmitters though such as nitric oxide (NO or N=O), which is two atoms, so you definitely can't exclude quantum mechanics as a factor...

Even so, i think that free will is perhaps a bit too generous given the physical nature of our brains and environment, and therefore the fact that they must obey some rules...

 

[snafupants]

Don't know if this is the right approach, but:

1. "Will" has to do with bringing about an action
2. "Free" seems to relate to independence

So freewill = independent action

Now "independence"? If there is no relation of one thing to another, why are we talking about it? Therefore it would be useful to introduce the concept of "relative" or conditional independence.

Think of a pendulum. If it were tied down it would not be free ... no free will. If it swings, it is, in what sense? ... free? It appears to be dependent on a few things, yet independent of others.

Are we on the same page snafu? Is this page 1 or page 342?

Nearer to page one assuming a loaded question and literally thousands of abounding definitions and paradigms. A stable definition needs to be established before more work can be comprehensively done. We would need to define marriage before credibly asking folks' opinions on marriage; otherwise, we would find unwieldy ramifications and side discussions, like gay marriage and polyamorous relationships, right? It's of crucial importance that we all be discussing the same topic.

 

[Vrecknidj]

An algorithm starts with assumptions, follows rules, and generates results. But, there is no algorithm for selecting those initial assumptions. And, there is neither a deductive nor an inductive method for determining those assumptions.

Forget about quantum randomness; even that's not necessarily "good enough" to knock out the hard-core, math-crunching determinists. But, Godel, Sellars and Tarski do the trick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid_Sellars

 

[Vrecknidj]

As far as the weakness of the analogy between evolution and the brain...

The three premises of evolution are:
1) In any species, the individuals are different from one another in a variety of ways.
2) In any species, parents tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.
3) In any species, the differences between individuals occasionally are responsible for survival advantages for those individuals.

Mix this with a huge variety of heredity types, and we get all kinds of amazing results.
http://ed.ted.com/lessons/sex-determination-more-complicated-than-you-thought
http://ed.ted.com/lessons/five-fingers-of-evolution

Changing brains have some minor similarities to changing species, but, not many.

 

[A22]

An algorithm starts with assumptions, follows rules, and generates results. But, there is no algorithm for selecting those initial assumptions. And, there is neither a deductive nor an inductive method for determining those assumptions.

Forget about quantum randomness; even that's not necessarily "good enough" to knock out the hard-core, math-crunching determinists. But, Godel, Sellars and Tarski do the trick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel's_incompleteness_theorems
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarski's_undefinability_theorem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfrid_Sellars

Is that like, "you can't prove that 1+1=2 just by saying 1+1=2" ?

 

[Vidi]

I don't entirely understand why it is assumed that subatomic or any particles fireing in a brain influence thinking/free will <> choises/free will, why it cannot be the other way around? Take an example where feelings influence blood pressure, certain thoughts are the cause of a bodily reaction. People are able to change brainwaves they transmit thus changing the state of their mind at will (alpha- relaxed, beta -attentive, theta- interesting suggest a trance, creative thinking). It makes any particles on the receiver end then.
Dont know much about it , but this is how I perceive at least mechanical/physical part of this issue.

 

[A22]

^ What are people but the particles itself?

 

[Spaz]

Nearer to page one assuming a loaded question and literally thousands of abounding definitions and paradigms. A stable definition needs to be established before more work can be comprehensively done.

Pretty much summed up my thought..I still don't have a clear idea what people mean when referring to free will, it seems to have a subjective meaning.

Is "free will" just another word for "choice", "decision making" or "self control" without limits?

 

[Coolydudey]

I don't entirely understand why it is assumed that subatomic or any particles fireing in a brain influence thinking/free will <> choises/free will, why it cannot be the other way around? Take an example where feelings influence blood pressure, certain thoughts are the cause of a bodily reaction. People are able to change brainwaves they transmit thus changing the state of their mind at will (alpha- relaxed, beta -attentive, theta- interesting suggest a trance, creative thinking). It makes any particles on the receiver end then.
Dont know much about it , but this is how I perceive at least mechanical/physical part of this issue.

My point was that if for example an NO molecule (of which ther are thousands, or even millions in the brain), were due to quantum randomness, cause a neuron to fire or not fire (it is an inhibitor), and this happened a few times, then we cannot definitely model the outcome... We can only come up with probabilities of what might happen.

On the other hand for the definition of free will: the ability to think or make a decision with nothing forcing you to do so, is what I believe we approximately settled on (but you are free to believe what you want!!)

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Is there free will?

What is free will?


Ability - Having the means to act
We can't do what we are not able to do. We can become able, however, through ambition.

Action - Acting without physical restriction or consequence
Limitation on free action comes from the state / government and other supervisor archetypes such as managers or parents. Incarceration is both an example of physical restriction and a consequence of action. Nature's law has its own restrictions and consequences, burn injuries, broken bones, and death, for example.

Ambition - Pursuing desires to transform thought into reality
Our ambition, motivation, to pursue is limited by chemical balances, biological impulses, and psychological desires. Ambition grants you ability.

Alteration - Changing situations, our life, with choice
We are born in a certain place, to certain people, with certain attributes. With ability and ambition, to some extent we can alter our lives, but reality is not completely subject to our personal whims.

Authenticity - Having self-originated thoughts, desires, and decisions
Our creativity is relevant to our environment. Does the mind exist in a vacuum? There is subconscious influence, and conscious influence. At most, through self-consciousness, we can process informational input authentically, but in a healthy(?) mind there will always be relevance to the environment.

 

[Da Blob]

I think it can't be measured because of our technological limitations.

"The very people who want to believe that this universe is the product of utter chaos and nothing more, flip flop to claim that everything is determined and there can be no unknown variables, no randomness, no chaos and no freedom of any kind - much less free will (?)"


Why is that wrong in any way?

Seriously? To first state that something does not exist, then to state it exists in everything is quite a religious statement, a contradiction, a paradox, and an exercise of faith.

Ho Hum, Back in the 18th Century Philosophers were getting pretty bored, not to mention needing something new to justify their existence. Some clever person suggested that the recent discoveries in physics provided the building blocks for new philosophy.

The basic idea was that atoms were more intelligent than humans. Atoms ruled humans. The behavior of Atoms dictated the behavior of Humans and because the Master had no free will, the Slave had none either. The very idea that Humans were the superior of atoms as mind over matter was deemed laughable (Of course this was before Quantum Physics)

The Philosophy of Reductionism has proven to be a useful tool. The destruction of dynamic systems into lifeless static components via analysis has given us valuable insights. However, Reductionism, Determinism and their politically-correct brethren can not be used to build anything. The processes of destruction and creation call for different types of tools, yet few seem to realize that. The truism "If the only tool one has is a hammer, then all of one's problems look like nails" applies in this case at several levels. I am beginning to believe that there are those who are seemingly intelligent but really can't comprehend that "The Whole exceeds the sum of its parts"

Even now, on this thread, there are those that seemingly believe that atoms in some way dictate human behavior (?) I wonder, how are brains necessary if atoms are so superior? Just because the simple objects of the universe have limited capacity to change, so that one can legitimately state their actions are determined, gives one no cause to believe that the complex subjects of the universe, those with brains, suffer from the same limitations.

Edit: afterthought,
Those that believe it is necessary to destroy everything in order to understand, understand nothing - for that is what they have created...

 

[Coolydudey]

Seriously? To first state that something does not exist, then to state it exists in everything is quite a religious statement, a contradiction, a paradox, and an exercise of faith.

Ho Hum, Back in the 18th Century Philosophers were getting pretty bored, not to mention needing something new to justify their existence. Some clever person suggested that the recent discoveries in physics provided the building blocks for new philosophy.

The basic idea was that atoms were more intelligent than humans. Atoms ruled humans. The behavior of Atoms dictated the behavior of Humans and because the Master had no free will, the Slave had none either. The very idea that Humans were the superior of atoms as mind over matter was deemed laughable (Of course this was before Quantum Physics)

The Philosophy of Reductionism has proven to be a useful tool. The destruction of dynamic systems into lifeless static components via analysis has given us valuable insights. However, Reductionism, Determinism and their politically-correct brethren can not be used to build anything. The processes of destruction and creation call for different types of tools, yet few seem to realize that. The truism "If the only tool one has is a hammer, then all of one's problems look like nails" applies in this case at several levels. I am beginning to believe that there are those who are seemingly intelligent but really can't comprehend that "The Whole exceeds the sum of its parts"

Even now, on this thread, there are those that seemingly believe that atoms in some way dictate human behavior (?) I wonder, how are brains necessary if atoms are so superior? Just because the simple objects of the universe have limited capacity to change, so that one can legitimately state their actions are determined, gives one no cause to believe that the complex subjects of the universe, those with brains, suffer from the same limitations.

Indeed, very valid statements and concerns as to if simple objects as atoms and neuron connections can be used to model the behaviour of a complex system such as a brain, forgetting the fact that "the whole is exceeds the sum of its parts". What you speak of is formally called "emergent complexity", look it up if you want, and emergently complex systems are extremely hard to model and require incredible amounts of computing power to even attmpt to do so. Examples of emergent complexity are: ecosystems, the brain, the stock market etc.
However, with a sufficiently powerful computer, emergently complex systems (given a perfect model to cruch numbers with though) can be modelled and predicted. That's why in one post i mentioned: assuming I've factored in every relevant physical and chemical phenomenon. We can never know if our model lives up to the test though unless we grab a computer powerful enough to model the system in question and test out our predictions.

 

[Words]

Pretty much summed up my thought..I still don't have a clear idea what people mean when referring to free will, it seems to have a subjective meaning.

Is "free will" just another word for "choice", "decision making" or "self control" without limits?

A standard that is outside the rules of empirical and logical things(possibly chaos), and is one among other factors in decisions making. ...is the only definition that makes sense to me.

 

[Black Rose]

Keep watch and pray, so that you will not give in to temptation. For the spirit is willing, but the body is weak! - Matthew 26:41

 

[BigApplePi]

Thinking about free will.

Assuming we are asking if a human has free will, for it would be a living being that is in possession of this, we can divide the human into his/her brain, the rest of the body, and the action carried out.

The brain can initiate the last and the rest of the body is merely its servant. That leaves us to ask about the operating brain. Now one thing we know ... or rather don't know, is how we are operating our brain. If I wish to "freely" raise my arm, I can wish this, send a signal to nerves, allow hormones to make the act emotionally acceptable, ensure my arm is physically unrestricted, and raise my arm.

So what is this? Free brain or not? What occasioned my wish? If I try to examine all the precipitating causes, I am overwhelmed. Can't do it. It's beyond my conscious intellect. What happens is I pull together my "self", sense that I have a self that can wish, and call it "free." Restrictions and causes annoy my consciousness. I DEFINE myself, in this case, to be free.

If I take the other approach and imagine lots of precipitating causes and their restrictive natures, I say to myself, I am not free.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Is that like, "you can't prove that 1+1=2 just by saying 1+1=2" ?

Not at all.

 

[A22]

Seriously? To first state that something does not exist, then to state it exists in everything is quite a religious statement, a contradiction, a paradox, and an exercise of faith.

Ho Hum, Back in the 18th Century Philosophers were getting pretty bored, not to mention needing something new to justify their existence. Some clever person suggested that the recent discoveries in physics provided the building blocks for new philosophy.

The basic idea was that atoms were more intelligent than humans. Atoms ruled humans. The behavior of Atoms dictated the behavior of Humans and because the Master had no free will, the Slave had none either. The very idea that Humans were the superior of atoms as mind over matter was deemed laughable (Of course this was before Quantum Physics)

The Philosophy of Reductionism has proven to be a useful tool. The destruction of dynamic systems into lifeless static components via analysis has given us valuable insights. However, Reductionism, Determinism and their politically-correct brethren can not be used to build anything. The processes of destruction and creation call for different types of tools, yet few seem to realize that. The truism "If the only tool one has is a hammer, then all of one's problems look like nails" applies in this case at several levels. I am beginning to believe that there are those who are seemingly intelligent but really can't comprehend that "The Whole exceeds the sum of its parts"

Even now, on this thread, there are those that seemingly believe that atoms in some way dictate human behavior (?) I wonder, how are brains necessary if atoms are so superior? Just because the simple objects of the universe have limited capacity to change, so that one can legitimately state their actions are determined, gives one no cause to believe that the complex subjects of the universe, those with brains, suffer from the same limitations.

Edit: afterthought,
Those that believe it is necessary to destroy everything in order to understand, understand nothing - for that is what they have created...

You talk as if atoms had will and could be treated as individuals. The brain IS a bunch of atoms, molecules, cells and tissues, but that doesn't mean that those structures, individually, have some kind of will or power over the whole system. The complex interactions, the chemical reactions and the electrical impulses between each set of compounds and cells define what our thoughts and actions are, and those interactions aren't random or "free"¹, there is a reason for them to happen. I have zero knowledge on neuroscience and medicine, but what the lecturer insisted - and makes sense to me - is that the routes the electrical impulses take are determined by a bunch of factors such as the reinforcement of those routes throughout the years (I gave some examples on the original post) and genetics. Perhaps there is some homeostasis or chemical equilibrium involved, just guessing though. Trying to make an analogy: The complex interactions between plant's cells, which happen because it's advantageous to the whole system or is biased by some environmental factor, determine the way the plant grows, the same way the complex interactions between brain cells determine how we think. Not sure if that's a good comparison from a biological POV, couldn't think of anything better though.

¹ Not sure how the so called quantum randomness would influence here. Not much I guess.

 

[Da Blob]

You talk as if atoms had will and could be treated as individuals. The brain IS a bunch of atoms, molecules, cells and tissues, but that doesn't mean that those structures, individually, have some kind of will or power over the whole system. The complex interactions, the chemical reactions and the electrical impulses between each set of compounds and cells define what our thoughts and actions are, and those interactions aren't random or "free"¹, there is a reason for them to happen. I have zero knowledge on neuroscience and medicine, but what the lecturer insisted - and makes sense to me - is that the routes the electrical impulses take are determined by a bunch of factors such as the reinforcement of those routes throughout the years (I gave some examples on the original post) and genetics. Perhaps there is some homeostasis or chemical equilibrium involved, just guessing though. Trying to make an analogy: The complex interactions between plant's cells, which happen because it's advantageous to the whole system or is biased by some environmental factor, determine the way the plant grows, the same way the complex interactions between brain cells determine how we think. Not sure if that's a good comparison from a biological POV, couldn't think of anything better though.

¹ Not sure how the so called quantum randomness would influence here. Not much I guess.

It would be wrong of me to judge a presentation I have not seen, but there is a world of difference between modern science that observes correlations and the obsolete methodology that attributes causality to variables. My question would be for this 'neuroscientist' is what are the variables involved and which is the single independent variable? Certainly not free will as a variable, because that phenomena as many other known phenomena lies beyond the borders of what can be the topic of valid scientific inquiry. I certainly do not contend that there is not a correlation between the hardening of neural paths and habitual behavior, it almost has to be so. However, attribution of causality is not appropriate in this particular.

Concerning atoms superiority I was being sarcastic, yet still Comte's Positivism and its progeny, Logical Positivism clouds the minds of too many. For example, how many actually state, if not believe, the ridiculous assertion, that human behavior is dictated by the atoms in one's genes - that a intelligent person has only one possible purpose in life and that is to obey those chemicals and reproduce those chemicals...

One of the problems with free will and determinism, is that they both exist and it is not an either/or scenario. Free will exists as an endangered species of thought in many cultures and even in the very best of civilizations the exercise of free will is discouraged.
Free will is a dangerous variable as seen through the eyes of the Oppressors. Those who deny the existence of free will are just mouthing the propaganda of the status quo - to their own detriment.

Humans are creatures of habit and yes, the neural network of the brain reflects that habituation. The path most trod is wide and is the path of least resistance, both physically and neurologically. The exercise of free will is not the path of least resistance, often being quite the contrary, a path that has to be broken, with obstacles and unforeseen difficulties, yet for some of us, the path less trod is the more interesting path.

It is not surprising that most humans allow their own lives to be determined by their environment, it is the easiest thing in the world to do. Yet, still and all, do not such face condemnation for their sloth and deserve their fate? I have no mercy for those who allow their faith in God, to be determined by another - whether it be Christianity, Islam, Buddhism or whatever. Those who choose a religion based merely on convenience, (it is the religion of the region or it is the religion of the grandfathers) could actually suffer a predestination because they failed to exercise free will and ask questions and seek their own answers.

Of course, religion is just an example, but what if everyone, no matter of where on Earth they were born or what religion their ancestors practiced would seek a relationship with the God of the Here and Now, throwing off the chains of the Past, the phenomena that allow determinism to be such a pervasive philosophy?

And SO IT GOES

for so many other aspects of this existence as human
It is truly frightening scenario, perhaps only those who choose to exercise their free will are truly human and the rest are just philosophical zombies, like eggs that never hatch.

 

[Isley]

@A22

I had a few thoughts about your post.

1.) Lol. What?

2.) Whether an individual is capable of exerting his will on his environment, and thus effecting reality has a very tenuous relation to the general framework you outlined.

Does the course of evolution genetically predispose us to a supernumerary of proclivities before we've ever experienced them? Yes. That's more or less scientific fact these days. However, I don't necessarily believe that because evolution exists, we have no free will.

Even your example of cognition isn't exactly a prime example of decision-making.

A much better example (in my opinion) would have been something that is less convoluted, and would leave the general mechanics of decision within a more conscious, tangible domain. Maybe something as simple as choosing Coke or Pepsi. Granted, it's not exactly the most sophisticated of focus experiments, but then again, it is a more practical test of free will: the choice could either be "empirical", or whimsical.

3.) I don't know that what you've said is true, or untrue. I'm not a cognitive science major. But, if free will is defined as freedom of action, and the professor's pretense for declaring that free will is nonexistent is premised on the fact we're bound by the externalities of other individuals (in the case of evolution, millions, and millions of individuals), I'd think it is very plausible he is wrong: for each of the infinite external influences swaying you, you impose that many more on the universe. Some arbitrary, some not so much.

4.) If human behavior can be translated into an algorithm. . . in particular, by the man who made the statement, that professor is unequivocally the smartest man on planet Earth.

I'm sure the likes of economists, mathematicians, and the plethora of other scientists would color him a messiah.

I've never seen an algorithm that can invariably predict human behavior. No one has, which is why we have phenomena such as asset bubbles in finance, epidemic fashion trends in society, and things like viral Youtube videos that continue to baffle and astound the general laity (myself included).

Moreover, saying it is possible without it existing isn't saying very much at all.

5.) In my opinion, humans are free agents. Are we bound by the parameters of a world too complex for our minds to completely comprehend? Definitely. But, even so, in our current state, the arm of our influence cannot even touch the farthest of boundaries existent within the universe. As such, until we can confirm we aren't free, I believe it is perfectly fine to assume that we are, seeing as no definitive evidence proves otherwise, while conversely, I am perfectly free drink my Pepsi, and eat Cheez-Its in peace.

6.) Great post.


-- Isley

 

[Spaz]

Has anyone heard about the research of Benjamin Libet?

"The physiologist Benjamin Libet famously demonstrated that activity in the brain’s motor regions can be detected some 300 milliseconds before a person feels that he has decided to move. Another lab recently used fMRI data to show that some “conscious” decisions can be predicted up to 10 seconds before they enter awareness (long before the preparatory motor activity detected by Libet)."

See also: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Something I just thought of:

Awareness that your vehicle is speeding out of control does not exactly grant you the ability to stop it.

If free will exists, consciousness is definitely not the sole important factor.

Is there free will?

What is free will?


Ability - Having the means to act
We can't do what we are not able to do. We can become able, however, through ambition.

Action - Acting without physical restriction or consequence
Limitation on free action comes from the state / government and other supervisor archetypes such as managers or parents. Incarceration is both an example of physical restriction and a consequence of action. Nature's law has its own restrictions and consequences, burn injuries, broken bones, and death, for example.

Ambition - Pursuing desires to transform thought into reality
Our ambition, motivation, to pursue is limited by chemical balances, biological impulses, and psychological desires. Ambition grants you ability.

Alteration - Changing situations, our life, with choice
We are born in a certain place, to certain people, with certain attributes. With ability and ambition, to some extent we can alter our lives, but reality is not completely subject to our personal whims.

Authenticity - Having self-originated thoughts, desires, and decisions
Our creativity is relevant to our environment. Does the mind exist in a vacuum? There is subconscious influence, and conscious influence. At most, through self-consciousness, we can process informational input authentically, but in a healthy(?) mind there will always be relevance to the environment.

Awareness - Having consciousness of Self and the environment
Understanding of and attentiveness to perceptions which enables the ability to respond. We aren't aware of what we don't(can't?) pay attention to and therefore don't perceive, awareness is relative.

 

[kora]

I think even Dawkins argues that it's part of our genetics that we have free will, as in our genes give us the ability to create and we have evolved to be able to think for ourselves. So I can choose to not have kids, even if it goes against my evolutionary instincts. We have evolved to be self creating I suppose, the ultimate evolutionary advancement I haven't read any of the posts as I'm short on time, sorry if I'm repeating something.

 

[Architect]

Is there free will?

Spoiler

Yes, because you have no choice.

Humorous riposte, which I actually think answers the question perfectly.

 

[BigApplePi]

Awareness that your vehicle is speeding out of control does not exactly grant you the ability to stop it.

If free will exists, consciousness is definitely not the sole important factor.

Free will wouldn't mean we are free to stop a vehicle if that isn't possible. Alternatively, why aren't we free to choose (1) eyes wide open before the hit versus (2) hands over eyes to avoid seeing the horror of the crash?

We can choose (1) versus (2). If that choice isn't totally conscious, we can bring into consciousness enough to still make it.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Free will wouldn't mean we are free to stop a vehicle if that isn't possible.

Well, that's the whole point. If it's impossible to stop a car that is speeding out of control, then at least for some situations in life, consciousness doesn't mean anything at all for our free will. I'm saying that free will involves more than just consciousness.

Alternatively, why aren't we free to choose (1) eyes wide open before the hit versus (2) hands over eyes to avoid seeing the horror of the crash?

We can choose (1) versus (2). If that choice isn't totally conscious, we can bring into consciousness enough to still make it.

That involves being aware of your options and that you even have options(which is probably difficult when your mind is in shock), it also involves time to act. If you did become aware, you still need the time and physical agility to alter the way you are going to crash.

 

[BigApplePi]

Well, that's the whole point. If it's impossible to stop a car that is speeding out of control, then at least for some situations in life, consciousness doesn't mean anything at all for our free will. I'm saying that free will involves more than just consciousness.

I guess so. There is no free will here. The situation controls everything, not me. But since this isn't a free will issue, I don't know if consciousness matters except to be aware there is no free will here.

That involves being aware of your options and that you even have options(which is probably difficult when your mind is in shock), it also involves time to act. If you did become aware, you still need the time and physical agility to alter the way you are going to crash.

Does this send the issue to a "free will continuum"? One where there are very limited options ranging to lots of open free choices? ... Like inspecting the car, finding a safe road route without traffic and checking one's alertness health beforehand?

 

[ummidk]

Free will as a denial of physical determinism is a rejection of logic. To ask "what is free will" you can only be asking about the source of our choices. However, the idea of free will itself denies that our choices have a source, otherwise they'd be determined!

If a choice has no cause, you are accepting acausality as possible and proclaiming that reality makes absolutely arbitrary changes. At any moment you could spontaneously combust! Your car could become a cow. The planets might simply decide to leave their orbits and shoot directly into the sun... and so on.

This.


I agree with snafu tho that it really depends on how you define free will, because I have the possibility to do a large range of actions, a very large of range of actions right now, so big it may seem infinite (hell, is it? lemme think about this after), and I can choose to do any one of these. This being said though, placed in the same situation I will always make the same choices, and the situation I'm in is based on either outside factors or on choices I made before that could have also been predicted. From here you can look all the way back to birth, seeing that there is no point at which you can veer from falling into the deterministic path of the physical world. When it comes right down to it we no more choose to go to work everyday then the Earth chooses to orbit the Sun.

I think the way most ppl think of free will though, requires some sort of soul to exist seperate of the physical world so that it does not have to be sujected to the laws of the physical world, without this there is no "you" other than the body your in. I'm getting a bit off subject, but I think most people refuse to disregard souls even though its a ridiculous concept, because without that soul, the next logical conclusion becomes, I die and rot in the ground)

 

[Da Blob]

The human imagination is not bound by physical laws and neither are many of the other qualities that define us as Humans and just not smart chimpanzees. We can easily imagine the impossible. One simply has to imagine free will existing it and it comes into being as a powerful force too rarely used. The human brain does not differentiate between real and imagined perceptions, so that we have the ability to change our behavior, in defiance of determinism, by simply using imagination.

Physical determinism and logic are artifacts of the 19th Century, They are not used often by modern scientists, and have not been for quite some time. It seems the concepts are more often applied in religious rather than scientific discussions.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

I guess so. There is no free will here. The situation controls everything, not me. But since this isn't a free will issue, I don't know if consciousness matters except to be aware there is no free will here.

Does this send the issue to a "free will continuum"? One where there are very limited options ranging to lots of open free choices? ... Like inspecting the car, finding a safe road route without traffic and checking one's alertness health beforehand?

Yeah it depends on which point in time you decide to look at.

I do think we always have options, but once we choose an option, the ball is set in motion. Like bowling, you can choose where to aim and how much power the ball's roll will have, but once it's on the lane it's all up to the ball to hit those pins.


More of my philosophy on determinism and free will can be found here: / Meta-Consciousness, Libertarianism and Determinism

 

[BigApplePi]

Free Will Definition

I do think we always have options, but once we choose an option, the ball is set in motion. Like bowling, you can choose where to aim and how much power the ball's roll will have, but once it's on the lane it's all up to the ball to hit those pins.

Wasn't it snafu who asked for definitions? How do we move toward that?

Suppose we equate free will with choice. Then once we release the bowling ball, we have no choice on the outcome. Beforehand our conscious mind says, "I can apply force, torque and direction." So we have free will. But if someone comes along and says, "that force, torque and direction was predetermined by his psychological makeup", free will for that someone does not apply unless they affected it. But how about the bowler himself? If he says, "if only I had applied more torque, I'd have had a strike", then that consciousness, or absence thereof would have limited his free will. He measures his conscious control of the ball. Free will is measured by how much conscious choice one has over the outcome.

Back to the observer. If the observer says, "no matter how hard he tries, he will never become a good bowler", all he has done is bracket the bowler's free will. The bowler is free within those brackets, not free outside the brackets. That is the observer's judgment and opinion. We can in turn judge that observer and pass our own judgment on how that observer was bound by his knowledge and temperament to make such a statement.

So definition:

X has free will for choice Y if X is aware of options and not aware (conscious) of restrictions. X has no free will if there are no options.

As soon as X becomes aware of restrictions he loses his free will for choice Y. Let's check this out using the above example:

Once the bowler releases the ball he becomes aware there are no options. No free will.
Before the ball release he is fully aware of his choice of force, torque and directional play. He is not aware of larger limitations. He has a free will.
The observer is a little different. He knows the bowler has choices within his limited ability, but the observer is more aware of that limited ability. If the observer is a sports expert and is monitoring with all sorts of devices, he knows much more about restrictions. His knowledge removes a lot more options and his claim is the outcome was far more pre-determined (far less free will).