Is there free will?

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Free Will Definition

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

I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I did already take care of that.

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=293186&postcount=41

Will respond to the rest later.

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Free Will Definition

I'm pressed for time at the moment, but I did already take care of that.

http://intpforum.com/showpost.php?p=293186&postcount=41

Will respond to the rest later.

I recall reading that. What I'm after is a definition that can be expressed in simpler terms. Awareness is good term which belongs to the owner of free or determined will. Ability, action, ambition, alteration, and authenticity are further enhancements, but do they make things simpler? My head spins.

 

[~~~]

It was written in the stars that I would say that free will exists.

 

[lungs]

probably not, but what would you do if you found out it didn't?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Free Will Definition

I recall reading that. What I'm after is a definition that can be expressed in simpler terms. Awareness is good term which belongs to the owner of free or determined will. Ability, action, ambition, alteration, and authenticity are further enhancements, but do they make things simpler? My head spins.

To me yes, it makes things simpler. 'Free will' has been debated for so long it has kind of lost its meaning. By those words: ability, action, alteration, ambition, authenticity, and awareness, it is sort of a reminder or reintroduction of what free will is supposed to convey. It's a production of my own thought processes so I can understand if it isn't simple to others.

 

[BigApplePi]

Free will solution?

Here is one definition I picked:

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.

There is no reason to confine X to living creatures. Suppose we consider:
(1) A ball team playing
(2) The price of a stock in the stock market

Is the ball team winning or losing free or pre-determined?
Does the price of a stock freely fluctuate or is tomorrow's value pre-determined?

(1) When the ball team plays, they try hard to win. They try all sorts of options within game rules. They think of themselves as freely playing.
(2) The stock price appears to be change freely according to extremely sensitive market supply and demand conditions. Few pretend to know outcomes ahead of time.

Now contrast this with the day after:
(1) "Monday quarterbacking" is when after the game, it is analyzed by amateurs to presumably show why the team won or lost.
(2) Stock market "gurus" pretend to explain why the stock went up or down.
This is the pre-determined point-of-view.

I wonder what the professional philosophers would have to say about the solution to the free will problem being this simple change in perspective?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Free Will Definition

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).

In this example and definition, it's required that X is unaware of restrictions; doesn't that make free will a mental illusion in this case?

I don't think it has to be. I do agree that ignorance of limitations and consequences grant psychological confidence, but still that wouldn't be true free will, it's only deceptive belief in oneself. True free will should either be able to be carried out regardless of limitations and consequences(The Matrix) or that there exists no limitations or consequences at all(functionally, like living in the wild away from authorities, or completely like existing in virtual reality or a dream).

Also, having an observer / expert judge another's abilities can be both a scenario for free will and determinism. An expert has greater mastery over things that can be controlled in the game of bowling, making it more likely to achieve a willfully successful outcome; this could be imparted in the bowler. And in your example the expert's knowledge is enough to predict the probable outcome of the bowler's failure. I think this shows that we operate at both a level of determinism and free will(your idea of 'free within brackets').

 

[BigApplePi]

Re: Free Will Definition

In this example and definition, it's required that X is unaware of restrictions; doesn't that make free will a mental illusion in this case?

I hesitate to use the word "illusion." I'd want to call it unawareness. I'm free to toss a pair of dice and am unaware of their outcome. "illusion" is a very strong term.

I don't think it has to be. I do agree that ignorance of limitations and consequences grant psychological confidence, but still that wouldn't be true free will, it's only deceptive belief in oneself. True free will should either be able to be carried out regardless of limitations and consequences(The Matrix) or that there exists no limitations or consequences at all(functionally, like living in the wild away from authorities, or completely like existing in virtual reality or a dream).

I lost ya. There are always restrictions on ANY thing we do. I call it "limitations." We are not gods. Even the Matrix is extremely restricted (When you watch it two or three times it always comes out the same, lol.)

Also, having an observer / expert judge another's abilities can be both a scenario for free will and determinism. An expert has greater mastery over things that can be controlled in the game of bowling, making it more likely to achieve a willfully successful outcome; this could be imparted in the bowler. And in your example the expert's knowledge is enough to predict the probable outcome of the bowler's failure. I think this shows that we operate at both a level of determinism and free will(your idea of 'free within brackets').

I don't grasp the above paragraph.

Let me point out something I think of. There are two kinds of free will. One is psychological as I describe above where one feels free and is unaware of restrictions. The other is technical philosophical physical where all effects have causes. There has been some talk of tracing things back to the quantum level and saying there is freedom because there is randomness (I may have misunderstood this, but that's what I recall). I don't buy that because it's another example of not being aware of restrictions. Since when is it fair to talk about quantum randomness when we don't really know what is going on? Something (Cf. String Theory) could determine quantum behavior ... and so on down. But that is technical stuff. "Freedom" if interpreted by practical humans is different. It is how people want to use the term, illusion or ignorance is perfectly acceptable I say.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Re: Free Will Definition

I hesitate to use the word "illusion." I'd want to call it unawareness. I'm free to toss a pair of dice and am unaware of their outcome. "illusion" is a very strong term.

I don't see it as substitution, you can still have an unawareness of outcomes whether or not you have a false impression of your situation.

People toss dice because they consider the outcome random and they won't know what they will get until the dice are still. They're unaware of the outcome. They're under the impression that their tosses are random, this could be true or false, but it is really true and false. It would be a false impression, if there was precise technology capable of calculating the physics involved, if there was an omniscient being, but there is not and there is not. So dice tosses are functionally random, and to think so is a valid impression. And you are still unaware of what you will get.

I lost ya. There are always restrictions on ANY thing we do. I call it "limitations." We are not gods. Even the Matrix is extremely restricted (When you watch it two or three times it always comes out the same, lol.)
I don't grasp the above paragraph.

Agreed, and in my opinion this means we don't have free will. Limited action, limited choices, and limited ability is not being free.

There's limited will, but not free will. Capitalism in the United States serves as an excellent example of that. Everyone wants to pursue and live the 'American Dream', but the reality is that Capitalism, and to be honest, life in general, is a pyramid. Everyone can't do everything. Only some can do some things.

Let me point out something I think of. There are two kinds of free will. One is psychological as I describe above where one feels free and is unaware of restrictions. The other is technical philosophical physical where all effects have causes. There has been some talk of tracing things back to the quantum level and saying there is freedom because there is randomness (I may have misunderstood this, but that's what I recall). I don't buy that because it's another example of not being aware of restrictions. Since when is it fair to talk about quantum randomness when we don't really know what is going on? Something (Cf. String Theory) could determine quantum behavior ... and so on down. But that is technical stuff. "Freedom" if interpreted by practical humans is different. It is how people want to use the term, illusion or ignorance is perfectly acceptable I say.

I don't see why the definition of free will can't include both perspectives, feeling free and physical randomness(as sort of requirements for free will).

However I think I see your point and agree with it. The psychological phenomenon you call free will is what I give to awareness / consciousness, which is a double-edged sword. The less you are aware of affects your mastery, the more you are aware of affects your morale.

 

[Spaz]

I still don't quite understand the premise of free will. Maybe I am not seeing it correctly and someone can enlighten me further. But as I view it, a person could damage their brain and consequently, their personality and decision-making changes. At any given time, anyone could be at risk of experiencing some level of brain damage..even as we sit here, our brain is changing and we are not consciously aware of it. Isn't this proof that all living beings are controlled by limits of nature? Free will, based on how most people seem to define it, means you would have to be a God..everything all at once..you would have to control nature to control yourself.

 

[BigApplePi]

I don't see why the definition of free will can't include both perspectives

[The first case is when there is the imagining of freedom in the sense that my choice is unrestricted. Freedom MEANS unrestricted. The 2nd is when my choice is rock solid backed up by all the causes and therefore is determined],

feeling free and physical randomness(as sort of requirements for free will).
Not sure one can use the word, "randomness" without defining it.

However I think I see your point and agree with it. The psychological phenomenon you call free will is what I give to awareness / consciousness, which is a double-edged sword. The less you are aware of affects your mastery, the more you are aware of affects your morale.

Don't understand that last sentence.

EyeSeeCold I forgot to address, "why the definition of free will can't include both perspectives." They are TWO different perspectives. One doesn't look at causes; the other does.

I still don't quite understand the premise of free will. Maybe I am not seeing it correctly and someone can enlighten me further. But as I view it, a person could damage their brain and consequently, their personality and decision-making changes. At any given time, anyone could be at risk of experiencing some level of brain damage..even as we sit here, our brain is changing and we are not consciously aware of it. Isn't this proof that all living beings are controlled by limits of nature? Free will, based on how most people seem to define it, means you would have to be a God..everything all at once..you would have to control nature to control yourself.

Perhaps EyeSeeCold is right when he speaks of illusion. When we feel we have choice, we are like gods, making a choice that we don't ask why we are making it, back to the nth degree anyway. God knows why we make the choice, but we don't.

I'm going to describe it this way:
Our illusion of freedom is based on layer upon layer of built up causes, the near to the topmost layer we call, "consciousness." It is our consciousness which makes us gods and bring us freedom. We do not explore underlying causes for our choices because we can go only so far in doing so.

 

[Black Rose]

I'm going to describe it this way:
Our illusion of freedom is based on layer upon layer of built up causes, the near to the topmost layer we call, "consciousness." It is our consciousness which makes us gods and bring us freedom. We do not explore underlying causes for our choices because we can go only so far in doing so.

we can find the causes of things with-out the self. This lets us make choices. An agent that can change things to understand and to see where causes begin and end.

 

[rattymat]

Argument: Because our choices are based on a strengthening of neural synaptic connections we do not have free will.
Counter-argument: Your neurons and synaptic connections are a part of YOU. Therefore, YOU make a choice.

Describing the mechanisms behind human decision-making doesn't somehow negate that the human has the free will to make a choice.
Edit:
Having thought about it some more I realized that I may be over-simplifying the issue, which is; are humans as direct response the their environment? IE, are humans entirely environment-dependent?
It is obvious that we are at least co-dependent. Well, more thoughts to come if they amalgamate articulately.

 

[BigApplePi]

Argument: Because our choices are based on a strengthening of neural synaptic connections we do not have free will.
Counter-argument: Your neurons and synaptic connections are a part of YOU. Therefore, YOU make a choice.

I completely forgot about and failed to consider your counter-argument rattymat. Because "YOU" is a gestalt, a whole which is different from the sum of parts, or rather because this whole is unique and can't ever be taken apart. It reminds me of the Heisenberg Principle where we can't grab what we're measuring for causes. So once this whole is created, though it was caused, it can't be examined for causes because that would change the Whole. That could mean any perception of illusion of free choice is not an illusion but actually a result of the whole in control of choice.

Anything rong with this argument?

 

[Hadoblado]

Argument: Because our choices are based on a strengthening of neural synaptic connections we do not have free will.
Counter-argument: Your neurons and synaptic connections are a part of YOU. Therefore, YOU make a choice.

Describing the mechanisms behind human decision-making doesn't somehow negate that the human has the free will to make a choice.

You did not get to choose the neurons and synaptic connections that are part of you. You did not get to choose your innate potential nor the environment with which it interacts. Your will is the process by which you choose, but you have had no power over how your will was developed, thus it is not free.
When someone is ignorant of their ignorance, they have never had the option to not be ignorant; their choices are limited, and thus their will is not free (this is just an example, I am not implying anything).
It really depends on how you define free-will. For me, I define it as will that is free from causal closure, which I think is impossible.

 

[Da Blob]

You did not get to choose the neurons and synaptic connections that are part of you. You did not get to choose your innate potential nor the environment with which it interacts. Your will is the process by which you choose, but you have had no power over how your will was developed, thus it is not free.
When someone is ignorant of their ignorance, they have never had the option to not be ignorant; their choices are limited, and thus their will is not free (this is just an example, I am not implying anything).
It really depends on how you define free-will. For me, I define it as will that is free from causal closure, which I think is impossible.

One can always manufacture closure from imagination, make a false attribution of causality, such as giving the credit to the neuron for the initiation of thought, instead of reflexively responding to thought. It is seemingly ironic that so many are exercising their free will while denying it exists. One of the reasons that scientists have abandoned the concept of causality in favor of correlation, is that there really is no such thing as causality from a scientific point of view. That is to say, causality can't be measured, it has no beginning or end, it is an abstract conception of infinity. Even in the controlled environment of a laboratory, it is virtually impossible to isolate a single variable, the independent variable that is the focus of an experiment. It is absolutely impossible to do so in the real world.

Will is not a object, it does not exist scientifically, it can not be measured, it has no beginning nor end between birth and death. However, we can directly experience will as a phenomena, while we can't experience the abstraction we have named causality. Will has a correlation to the concept of intent. Intent is the use of imagination to influence the possibilities of the future, so that one particular possibility is manifested. The exercise of will is simply to put intentions into actions, via word or deed.

The very fact that some humans succeed in reaching their goals in the hypothetical future by the exercise of their decision making process, choosing between options, that each has a good cause to be considered, is an indication of free will, not determinism - for in retrospect, from the Deterministic POV, one sees only the cause chosen as if it were the only one involved - again as an initiator of action and not the derivative of such.

 

[Hadoblado]

From my perspective it is ironic that people argue free will when they have no choice in their belief.

I am unaware of a rejection of the concept of causation by the sciences, only of the limitations of it's measurement. If you do not believe in causation, then I understand your belief in free-will. I do believe in causation, therefore I reject free-will.

 

[Da Blob]

From my perspective it is ironic that people argue free will when they have no choice in their belief.

I am unaware of a rejection of the concept of causation by the sciences, only of the limitations of it's measurement. If you do not believe in causation, then I understand your belief in free-will. I do believe in causation, therefore I reject free-will.

Why, that is - what is the intent served, by choosing to believe that a human has no more options than an atom in its interactions with the universe? It is not a scientific perspective, just a religious one.

It denies accountability and irresponsibility, justifying murder and sadistic behavior as being determined by genetics and environment, therefore the sadist is just the innocent victim, totally powerless, having no will.

Scientists used statistical correlation to establish variance, not undocumented biased attribution of causality, for humans simply lack the ability to correctly identify causality or even determine if it actually exists other than an antiquated abstraction.

 

[scorpiomover]

No, we do not have free will. This isn't happening. You're a robot. You're just dreaming you're a human in a world inhabited by humans.

Wait. Robots don't dream.

Alternatively, if you posit that the world is like a clock, like Newton did, then we have a perfect Newtonian universe, and then everything in it is pre-determined.

Wait. The universe is not Newtonian, and even clocks go wrong sometimes.

 

[A22]

By denying free-will one is not denying the ability of another to choose between two options, but denying the ability of another to arbitrarily choose an option instead of another, i.e. denying the possibility of a choice to be made without any natural cause - be it a sensory or a social factor that reinforced a neural path, be it a genetic factor, etc... One does not choose, a choice one makes is provoked by something.

Implication: Although impracticable due to the complexity of the human brain and of all the factors that influence the decision-making process, it is theoretically possible to anticipate anyone's choice for any given situation.

 

[Da Blob]

Tell that to a practicing psychologist or psychiatrist, they always need a reason to laugh.

There is a basic limit to science. It can not deal with individual instances, the single nonredundant phenomena. Science can not predict the future of single atoms, much less predict the actions of a single human - to any degree of statistical significance.

Therein lies the rub, Science attempts to deal with mythical universals rather than real particulars, by statistical analysis of large sample groups, not multiple case studies of single atom or humans. Science lacks precision, in this regard.

While it is true, that fortunes are being made by sophisticated statistical analysis of large groups of consumers. The market share is never calculated on the basis of individual consumers, for lack of predictive value, for every consumer is an outlier to some degree.

 

[cerebedlam]

I've read a lot on the subject...It's of major concern to me whether myself or anyone at all has had any real control over their fate...Quantum theory seems to provide for some small level of 'randomness' in the constant unfolding of reality...Yeah! for that.

But, on the macro-level (where we live), when one considers the massive influence of genes, and of genetic predispositions (such as predetermined personality types), and factoring in the dictates and boundaries of 'social class', and the way that gifts, opportunities and luck is distributed randomly, there doesn't appear to be ANYTHING at all one can point towards as some kind of evidence in favor of the notion of 'Free Will...

Free Will seems to be one hundred percent pure illusion...And, if you believe otherwise, it's only because you do not possess knowledge of ALL the many variables at hand...If you did, you'd certainly come to the same conclusion that there is NO leeway or free will available for an agent to behave otherwise than the way his or her nature dictates...

 

[cerebedlam]

This 'Reciprocal Causality/Determinism' business below is just another added dimension in favor of there being NO TRUE FREE WILL available to man...

I've thought about this angle before, amongst many others...All it's saying is that there's a Causal-Feedback Loop going on with everyone's lives...Your genetic predispositions lead to certain behaviour, and that given behaviour reinforces your genetic predispos...and so on.

http://www.intpforum.com/showthread.php?t=12895

 

[Vidi]

^
Those are theories, they themselves require to be proved.

Reciprocal Causality, I understand, suppose to work in symbiotic kind of way.. environment <--> individual, so it's both ways.

 

[Namesmith]

I believe I have free will, and will act as if I do. I'd need some pretty damning proof to the contrary to believe otherwise.

Until such time, I will act as though I have the choices.

 

[cerebedlam]

^
Those are theories, they themselves require to be proved.

Reciprocal Causality, I understand, suppose to work in symbiotic kind of way.. environment <--> individual, so it's both ways.

They prove themselves daily in my life at least...How 'bout yours?

 

[EnigmaticMan]

I don't believe in free will, I believe in a simple chained web of causality, everything i say or do is part of a collosal physics equation. Although, I find this idea to be an emotional and psychological bain. I'm going for a psychoanalysis appointment on the 28th of september. Don't ask me why though, I'm just following the chain of causality.