Free Will

[glaucon]

I cannot wait until such occurs....

I'm hoping it doesn't.
The topic is certainly worth discussion.
What needs to be kept in mind is that the point to any philosophical investigation is not to be right, but to reasonably explore.
In the vast majority of subjects orinarily taken to fall within the purview of Philosophy, there is no 'right' answer; the reason we seek to explore them is due to the fact that they are undecided. This doesn't mean that there can't be any resolution, but rather that to make any progress at all we must avoid assumption, prejudice and self-justifying, vapid rhetoric. Thus, it falls to us all to disdain emotive quid pro quo and instead rely upon reason alone.

Rant over.

 

[Tnerb]

hey thanks... that was very kind.

 

[swarm]

Can you explain why all human emotions are displayed the same way across all cultures?

We are the same species.

We share a lot of emotional displays with the other hominids.

 

[swarm]

There are without a doubt deterministic events. Are all events deterministic? No.
There are without a doubt non deterministic events. Are all events non deterministic? No.
Without a doubt you make choices and exercise volition. Does free will reign supreme? No.

Just because there is no physical "thing" which is software, does that mean there is no software? No. Software and minds are patterns held by the hardware/wetware. Organization is critical to whether you have a computer or a pile of metal and sand.

 

[Cellar_Door]

This thread is yet to define clearly what 'Free Will' actually is. After all, the term can mean completely different things when put in a religious, scientific or ethical context.

Originally Posted by Stryder
Free will is a fun one to consider. I theorise that perhaps it's more like this, If you were given two choices then you observably take one and don't observe the other. However this does not suggest that the other choice was never taken, it just suggests you never observed it being taken.

which in turn means both choices are taken, since both (or All choices if you consider more options) are taken, then you can suggest there is no Free Will just Causality. However as an observer, you get to choose which outcome you observe thereby having choice (Free will).

In other words: causal determinism. Assuming we do live in a universe without some theological agent exercising control over our decisions (which is pretty much impossible to know one way or the other), it's clear that events happening in the past and how they have caused events in the present (not to mention what is physically possible) determine what we will do in the future.
The phrase 'history repeats itself' runs deeper than it might first appear. Even the first organism to be born with a concious mind was affected by the past. Thus absolute free will, as Enmos put it, can't exist.

 

[Sarkus]

Reading through the arguments / comments above it is clear that there are two ideas of what "free-will" actually is...

If you hold that all effects have a cause, and that this continues in a chain of cause and effect, then Free Will is an impossibility. At best the outcome of a given cause is a probability of effects. But this is still deterministic. In this understanding, EVERY action of the brain is a direct effect of the pre-existing causes the moment before. And so it continues. Other than probability - over which we have no conscious control - it is deterministic.

However, the other understanding of "free-will" is far more macro-level... i.e. it is the free-will which we clearly are seen to demonstrate every time we make a choice. This exists... but only in the macro-level... as it is in complete contradiction to the workings at the micro-level (see above).

So how can we reconcile the two?
If we accept that the universe is deterministic, and that true "free-will" can not exist, then we need to understand what it is that we think of at the macro-level as "free-will".

To me it is an illusion that is created by our brain, through the massive interconnectedness of inputs, outputs, neuro-chemicals, feedbacks etc. But our brain HAS to accept this illusion - as without it we would not be "conscious". And we can not break the illusion (i.e. change the way our brain uses it) as it is hard-wired into us.

So it is quite simple...
If you believe that the universe is governed by cause / effect (albeit probability-based) then there is no free-will at the micro-level, and the macro-level "free-will" is a necessary and unbreakable illusion.

If you believe that macro-level free-will exists then either you deny that cause/effect governs the universe entirely - or you accept the existence of some non-material conscious / determining factor that is able to influence the cause/effect nature of reality.

 

[swivel]

Reading through the arguments / comments above it is clear that there are two ideas of what "free-will" actually is...

If you hold that all effects have a cause, and that this continues in a chain of cause and effect, then Free Will is an impossibility. At best the outcome of a given cause is a probability of effects. But this is still deterministic. In this understanding, EVERY action of the brain is a direct effect of the pre-existing causes the moment before. And so it continues. Other than probability - over which we have no conscious control - it is deterministic.

However, the other understanding of "free-will" is far more macro-level... i.e. it is the free-will which we clearly are seen to demonstrate every time we make a choice. This exists... but only in the macro-level... as it is in complete contradiction to the workings at the micro-level (see above).

So how can we reconcile the two?
If we accept that the universe is deterministic, and that true "free-will" can not exist, then we need to understand what it is that we think of at the macro-level as "free-will".

To me it is an illusion that is created by our brain, through the massive interconnectedness of inputs, outputs, neuro-chemicals, feedbacks etc. But our brain HAS to accept this illusion - as without it we would not be "conscious". And we can not break the illusion (i.e. change the way our brain uses it) as it is hard-wired into us.

So it is quite simple...
If you believe that the universe is governed by cause / effect (albeit probability-based) then there is no free-will at the micro-level, and the macro-level "free-will" is a necessary and unbreakable illusion.

If you believe that macro-level free-will exists then either you deny that cause/effect governs the universe entirely - or you accept the existence of some non-material conscious / determining factor that is able to influence the cause/effect nature of reality.

Well-said. My conclusions are precisely the same.

Which is why I combine a knowledge that free will does not exist with the idea that the illusion of free will is useful.

Excellent post, Sarkus.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

HOW is it useful???

 

[madanthonywayne]

If you believe that macro-level free-will exists then either you deny that cause/effect governs the universe entirely - or you accept the existence of some non-material conscious / determining factor that is able to influence the cause/effect nature of reality.

That is a simplistic analysis that completely ignores the internal processes of our minds. You're saying that because stimulus A resulted in response B that was the only possibility. Yet, given two individuals, they might choose to respond completely differently to the stimulus A. Why? The conscious thought process that occurs within their minds (or their brains, if you prefer) led them to different conclusions. That's what you're overlooking. We are self aware. We are not automatons that respond the same way to the same stimulus everytime. One time, we might decide to respond logically and really think out the situation. Another time, we might respond completely by instinct. What's the difference? Our conscious, self aware brains can decide whether to think, or not. They can decide to pay attention, or not. It is the self awareness that gives us our free will. Without that, we'd respond the same way to the same stimulus everytime.

 

[Cellar_Door]

Originally posted by madanthonywayne
That is a simplistic analysis that completely ignores the internal processes of our minds. You're saying that because stimulus A resulted in response B that was the only possibility. Yet, given two individuals, they might choose to respond completely differently to the stimulus A.

You've answered a simplistic analysis with a simplistic analysis.

There will never just be one stimulus acting on a person at a given time and, as you have correctly pointed out, different stimuli will be affecting different people - but not in different ways. You also seem to be labouring under the illusion that 'instinct' has no cause. We build on memories and experiences to create a picture of the world, our place here and how we will act within it.

Take the example of two roads diverging in a wood and two people, person A and person B, deciding which path to follow. It is a complicated web of causes that will lead them to their individual final decisions. Person A might almost unknowingly dislike the smell of pine coming from the first path because as a child he lost his brother for half-an-hour in pine forest. Person B smells the same pine, but he does not have the same stimulus acting upon him because he does not share the same linking experience. Similarly, Person B may be inclined towards the first path because going down hill is more enjoyable for him. However, if person A tells him he's going to take the second path he is bound to do the same because he has always found comfort in company - he has a large family.

At first it may seem as if these small inclinations do not absolutely determine our actions. However, my examples are one of many hundreds of reasons 'to do' or 'not to do' going through A and Bs' minds.

A more interesting example would be the man who decides to cross the road at a certain time and a certain point and is subsequently knocked down by an oncoming truck. He ends up with severe and permanent amnesia. How he reacts to the many stimuli around him is now different to how he would have reacted before - he doesn't know his own past. However, was this all 'meant to be'? The fact he chose to cross the road and in that same fraction of a second the truck went past?

 

[swivel]

That is a simplistic analysis that completely ignores the internal processes of our minds. You're saying that because stimulus A resulted in response B that was the only possibility. Yet, given two individuals, they might choose to respond completely differently to the stimulus A. Why?

Because their prior stimuli leading up to that moment, and the genetic information they started with are all different.

I think a lot of the eerie findings in twin studies bears this out. Strange habits like fake-coughing in the elevator and walking into the ocean backwards that separated twins discover that they have.

Also, theories of free will have a very difficult time explaining why so many people are not in the mood that they want to be in. They spend so much time unhappy, depressed, manic, angry, paranoid, etc... These people struggle to change this mood, go to therapy, take drugs, and just can't get out of it. People kill themselves because they can't FEEL the way they want to. Free Will theories need to explain this.

They also need to explain why homosexuals can not just WILL themselves into being straight. A lot of them endure a life of shame, shunning, and torture that they would wish very much to go away. Free Will theories have a hard time here as well.

Free Will theories also have a hard time explaining why people keep repeating the same mistakes in their lives. Why they have the same negative reactions to events, hate themselves for it afterward, and then do it again. Determinism explains all of these problems nicely, Free Will does not.

To answer another poster's question about why I think the illusion of free will is important is this: We need to assign culpability even if our actions are deterministic. Why? Because if we SAY that everyone is responsible for their actions, THIS STATEMENT becomes a stimuli that will change a lot of behaviors. If you tell a kid that they will be in trouble for doing something bad, they are less likely to do that thing. If you tell them that they will not be held responsible, no matter what they do, they will act out more. Part of our deterministic behavior is that we feel around for our boundaries and then push them a tad.

I posit this for discussion: If Free Will existed, the field of psychology would not be able to exist. Results from studies would be completely random, which is NOT what we see. Instead we find consistency across all humans, even between species. And the more genetic similarity we find the higher the correlation of all behaviors. A clear indication that behavior is tied to genes, which are completely deterministic.

 

[madanthonywayne]

I posit this for discussion: If Free Will existed, the field of psychology would not be able to exist. Results from studies would be completely random, which is NOT what we see. Instead we find consistency across all humans, even between species. And the more genetic similarity we find the higher the correlation of all behaviors. A clear indication that behavior is tied to genes, which are completely deterministic.

I guess before you can really answer the question of free will, you need to define what it is that defines a person. Do a person's genetic inheritance and his life experiences influence his decisions? Of course they do. To my way of thinking, we are the sum of our experiences, genetic inheritance, and will. People who say there's no free will generally define it in such a way that it would require magic to exist. That is, you say we're not free unless we are free of any external influences. I say that's a straw man.

Of course we are influenced by our genes, our culture, our life experience, random variations in our brain chemistry. But despite all this, as self aware beings, we still have a choice. We evaluate the situation and decide what to do based upon the interaction of all the things you've mentioned and our free will. So, if you define freedom as the absence of all external influences and as somehow seperate from the electrochemical processes that occur in our minds; then of course there's no free will. But all those things are simply the environment our will operates in. Our bodies can be screaming for us to stop, our brains may be fuzzy with fatigue, yet some still choose to go on. You mentioned things like mood. I know for a fact that sometimes being nice to people is easy and comes naturally. At other times it requires a supreme act of will to not punch someone in the face. You want to do it. Your every instinct is crying out to jump on that SOB and choke the life out of him, yet you will yourself to not do it. Or, you decide "what the fuck", and go ahead and punch the guy.

You decide. Now remember, I define a person as the sum total of his genes, experience, the electrochemical reactions going on in his brain, and his conscious mind (or will). Yes, free will does not operate in a vacuum. Yes, we are born with certain tendencies and I've heard stories about twins separated at birth meeting each other at firemen conventions.

As an aside, if you truly believe that every decision is pre-ordained from birth, what about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? The idea that every time a decision is made time branches off to create a new, parallel reality? Surely such an interpretation could not exist without someone making decisions? If your argument is that no decision is required because every possible choice exists as an alternate universe, well, we still have a situation in which (in any given universe) the course an individual will take in undetermined until the decision is made.

 

[swivel]

Of course we are influenced by our genes, our culture, our life experience, random variations in our brain chemistry. But despite all this, as self aware beings, we still have a choice. We evaluate the situation and decide what to do based upon the interaction of all the things you've mentioned and our free will.

What mechanism makes a "choice"? By what contraption do we "Decide what to do"? If possible actions are like billiard balls rattling around in the modules of our brains that have been shaped by DNA and environment, then how is the outcome "Free"? It would have to be an entity outside of these determined influences in order for us to truly "decide" something. An invisible Will or Spirit, or some other such nonsense.

As an aside, if you truly believe that every decision is pre-ordained from birth, what about the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? The idea that every time a decision is made time branches off to create a new, parallel reality? Surely such an interpretation could not exist without someone making decisions? If your argument is that no decision is required because every possible choice exists as an alternate universe, well, we still have a situation in which (in any given universe) the course an individual will take in undetermined until the decision is made.

This conjecture has as much going for it as Mormonism or Scientology. Physicists make up all kinds of bullshit. They are human, too.


Thanks for taking this discussion seriously. I really appreciate it, even if I know full-well that you didn't really have a choice... you are just a good person. Still... another good thing about the illusion of Free Will isn't just the assignment of blame, but the handing out of accolades. :bravo:

 

[glaucon]

...
Thanks for taking this discussion seriously. I really appreciate it,...

As do I.

It's refreshing to see such a turn to adult conversation.

 

[swivel]

As do I.

It's refreshing to see such a turn to adult conversation.

As if we had a choice...

 

[Sarkus]

That is a simplistic analysis that completely ignores the internal processes of our minds. You're saying that because stimulus A resulted in response B that was the only possibility. Yet, given two individuals, they might choose to respond completely differently to the stimulus A. Why? The conscious thought process that occurs within their minds (or their brains, if you prefer) led them to different conclusions. That's what you're overlooking. We are self aware. We are not automatons that respond the same way to the same stimulus everytime. One time, we might decide to respond logically and really think out the situation. Another time, we might respond completely by instinct. What's the difference? Our conscious, self aware brains can decide whether to think, or not. They can decide to pay attention, or not. It is the self awareness that gives us our free will. Without that, we'd respond the same way to the same stimulus everytime.

Everyone reacts differently to the same stimuli because no two people have EXACTLY the same internal processes. We are all unique.

If even one atom or quark or any other of the tiniest building blocks have a different position, spin, speed etc, then the macro-stimuli might be the same, but the micro-stimuli WILL be different - and the end result is different.

For example, if you have a perfectly spherical ball balanced perfectly on top of a perfectly-smooth hemisphere - i.e. in unstable equilibrium - then the minutest of differences in a force applied to the ball will lead to massively different end positions. So it could be with the slightest of differences in the
workings of our brain... and no two brains are alike... period. We all have different memories, for one.

But this does not alter the fact that our brains, as far as we know / understand, at the micro-level work on a cause-effect relationship.


As for the "many worlds" interpretation - this does not require "free will". It merely states that any time there is a probability function of an event then all these events occur: and we just happen to be on the world where events have unfolded (all according to cause-effect) as they currently have done. And we can influence probability - either at the micro-level or indeed the macro-level which is merely the result of the many micro-level events.


Given inputs A and B, there is a probability of outputs C and D.

If you believe free-will to be genuine... what do you see as the process it uses to determine which output (C or D) is selected?
If you think there is an additional input that is non-predetermined (i.e. that does not somehow follow cause/effect) then where does it come from? How is it generated?

Or are you indeed claiming the existence of some non-material "decision maker"?

And if so... evidence please?

 

[swivel]

Or are you indeed claiming the existence of some non-material "decision maker"?

And if so... evidence please?

I agree. This is the invisible force that must be believed in before you can claim that we have Free Will. It puts one on very shaky ground.

There are too many problems with the concept of Free Will. I have listed them in previous posts, but the one that is most damning is the fact that most people, most of the time, are stuck in a mood that they wish they could get out of.

If Free Will existed, my wife, a practicing psychologist, would be out of a job. Why would anyone choose to feel depressed according to their DNA and chemical state when they can use the invisible spirit in their head to feel and do whatever they want?

 

[glaucon]

As if we had a choice...

Apparently some of us do.
Alas, as I'm quite sure you're aware, not everyone here treats both posters and the discussions with the level of maturity and respect they deserve as you have.

 

[swivel]

Apparently some of us do.
Alas, as I'm quite sure you're aware, not everyone here treats both posters and the discussions with the level of maturity and respect they deserve as you have.

Don't give me too much credit. Usually I play the role of iconoclastic asshole.

All I care about is quality posts that move my knowledge and understanding forward. People can be rude to me as long as they are teaching me something or forcing me to strengthen my own arguments.

 

[glaucon]

Don't give me too much credit. Usually I play the role of iconoclastic asshole.
...

lol
Fair enough. I've been given that epithet many a time as well.
Still, you're forthright enough to recognize the tendency, which in itself speaks volumes.

...
All I care about is quality posts that move my knowledge and understanding forward. People can be rude to me as long as they are teaching me something or forcing me to strengthen my own arguments.

Overall, I agree with you here. The problem is, more often than not (and especially so on an online forum...) emotional outbursts of this sort can quickly cause an unending spiral of abuse, devoid of actual content, which thereby renders the discussion meaningless.

Granted, it only goes this way if allowed to but, as we're all human, it's all too often difficult to repay inanity with intelligence.