Why free will is impossible

[Regular0ldguy]

The question is DOES COMPLETE, PERFECT (NON PROBABILISTIC) CAUSATION CAUSE COMPLETE PREDETERMINATION AND MAKE THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE IMPOSSIBLE?

And it is a trap BECAUSE we know we aren't automatons. We know we make real choices. And the puzzle is how in the hell did we talk ourselves into an intellectual position that makes us think it isn't possible?

 

[Sarkus]

Folks always use Quantum Mechanics' postulation of true randomness to "escape" the causal chain.

Noone here has done any such thing: you're just creating a strawman.

And sliding "probability functions" over to redefine them as complete causation is another word game.

If you dress up everything you seem to fail (or don't want) to understand as merely a word game then you'd probably be better off doing crosswords.

The question is DOES COMPLETE, PERFECT (NON PROBABILISTIC) CAUSATION CAUSE COMPLETE PREDETERMINATION AND MAKE THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE IMPOSSIBLE?

Where in the thread title or OP is that question raised? The thread title is "Why free will is impossible". And I see nothing in the OP about "perfect (non probabilistic) causation" etc.

If you wish to raise the question, perhaps you should do so without seeming to shout or throw your toys out of the pram. :shrug:

And to answer your question: Does complete, perfect causation cause complete predetermination? Yes, I would say it does.

Does predetermination make freedom of choice impossible? If you think of "freedom of choice" as to be something not predetermined, then yes, it is a logical conclusion of predetermination that freedom of choice is impossible - almost by definition.
If you think of "freedom of choice" being merely the conscious perception of a certain pattern of activity, then no, this is not impossible.

And it is a trap BECAUSE we know we aren't automatons.

Do we? How do we know? Define "automaton" in this regard.

We know we make real choices.

We do? Define "choice" in this regard.

The issue here is that you are using words ("choice" etc) that are merely patterns of activity (all we can perceive are patterns of activity) and you are stating as fact that the appearance = the underlying reality.
How do you know?
How do you know that the "choice" you perceive you are making is not predetermined?

It is not a trap, as whether or not the pattern of activity (of choice) is predetermined has zero bearing on our conscious perception of that activity as being "free".

If being trapped is to perceive that you are doing what you want with no external party to know and inform you to the contrary...

And the puzzle is how in the hell did we talk ourselves into an intellectual position that makes us think it isn't possible?

It's not a puzzle: it would be a logical and rational conclusion given the starting premise.
Does it change anything? No. It would merely alter what we understand free-will to be: an illusion created by our consciousness. But it is an illusion we are all caught by and can not help but follow.

Hence why some peoples' definition of free-will is the same in every respect, right down to the practical implications, to some other peoples' definition of "the illusion of free-will". One look at just the conscious perception of what is going on (i.e. the appearance of choice, of self-determination), the others try to marry it to the underlying interactions of cause/effect.

So I say again, it depends on one's definition/understanding of "freedom of choice".

 

[NMSquirrel]

How do you know?
How do you know that the "choice" you perceive you are making is not predetermined?

this is where the argument applies to both sides of the issue.(any issue?)

 

[gmilam]

Damn it! I wanted a Dr Pepper. I put my money in the machine and then watched my finger push the Coke button. This is not the first time it's happened.

Could the universe be trying to tell me something?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Damn it! I wanted a Dr Pepper. I put my money in the machine and then watched my finger push the Coke button. This is not the first time it's happened.

Could the universe be trying to tell me something?

are you saying you quit doing Coke?

 

[Pandaemoni]

Folks always use Quantum Mechanics' postulation of true randomness to "escape" the causal chain. But we've seen above, over and over, that randomness doesn't support freedom in any way.

I agree. Quantum randomness does nothing for free will because you still have no real choice if the action was randomly generated. It does undercut determinism and causality in the strict sense (subject to belief in a deterministic wave function), which is all that I was saying.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I agree. Quantum randomness does nothing for free will because you still have no real choice if the action was randomly generated. It does undercut determinism and causality in the strict sense (subject to belief in a deterministic wave function), which is all that I was saying.

And I find ANOTHER sane and solid mind. Thank you for being alive.

 

[Sarkus]

this is where the argument applies to both sides of the issue.(any issue?)

Sure - and when someone states something as factual, I ask the question. Especially when they claim to know my mind.
But note that it is not to a particular side of the issue that I am applying it to but to the nature/wording of the arguments being raised.

 

[Sarkus]

Quantum randomness does nothing for free will because you still have no real choice if the action was randomly generated.

I think this has been stated in one way or another on many occasions in this thread, and I can't recall anyone disagreeing with it. Not quite sure why ROG is clinging to it so tightly. :shrug:

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I think this has been stated in one way or another on many occasions in this thread, and I can't recall anyone disagreeing with it. Not quite sure why ROG is clinging to it so tightly. :shrug:

I'm not sure I understand what it is you think I am clinging to. Help me out.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

For you interested parties, please view the video at the link below.

Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate
Michio Kaku on April 13, 2011, 12:00 PM

http://bigthink.com/ideas/37871

 

[Pandaemoni]

For you interested parties, please view the video at the link below.

Why Quantum Physics Ends the Free Will Debate
Michio Kaku on April 13, 2011, 12:00 PM

http://bigthink.com/ideas/37871

He's making a mistake. "Free will" is not the same thing as unavoidable uncertainty about what the future will be.

QM says that certain events will occur with a certain probability. It is true that a murderer's actions 10 years from now may not be strictly determined by the state of the universe today, but that doesn't mean that a potential murderer has a "choice" in what they will be, any more than a 6-sided die can choose what number it will randomly land on. Roughly speaking,/* chance determines that. If a robot flips a coin and is programmed to murder someone on heads and let them go on tails, that is not really free will, even if there is an element of chance involved.

----
/* Obviously a die roll is not *truly* random, but deterministic and incredibly sensitive to its initial conditions. For this post, though, I am ignoring that pesky detail and pretending that such things are actually stochastic.

 

[KilljoyKlown]

He's making a mistake. "Free will" is not the same thing as unavoidable uncertainty about what the future will be.

QM says that certain events will occur with a certain probability. It is true that a murderer's actions 10 years from now may not be strictly determined by the state of the universe today, but that doesn't mean that a potential murderer has a "choice" in what they will be, any more than a 6-sided die can choose what number it will randomly land on. Roughly speaking,/* chance determines that. If a robot flips a coin and is programmed to murder someone on heads and let them go on tails, that is not really free will, even if there is an element of chance involved.

----
/* Obviously a die roll is not *truly* random, but deterministic and incredibly sensitive to its initial conditions. For this post, though, I am ignoring that pesky detail and pretending that such things are actually stochastic.

Sorry you can't argue with Michio Kaku, I just found this article and it seemed relevant to this thread. I personally see aspects of both sides of this topic that I like. Go figure.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I agree MK is making a mistake. I thought he was smarter than that. I don't see how randomness (however slight or probable) gives us the causation that allows us to control our actions with our choices.

I think this is the way out of the box, as simply as I can say it. Then I'm done.

The difference between us and a clock (I don't buy the inherently random universe thing either-I think that is an artifact caused by the interference of our methods of perception) is that a clock can't look at its own mechanism and accurately predict its future and alter its mechanism to avoid possible future events it doesn't "want" and seek out and plan for future events that it wants. The feedback is the key. We can see what's coming, reevaluate whether its a good thing for us and fix it.

The classical determinist will always say "but that was predictable too, so it's all determined" and the response is "only if you are a clock with no reflective ability or intention."

Of course everything is completely caused, the difference is "by what"? I'm not compelled by causation, I use it, depend on it and benefit from it. Without causation I don't get to make those predictions and get the future to be like I want it to be through my choices.

Again, you say "but that is all predictable" and I say no. Because as soon as I know the past, which can include predictions too, I am not bound by the prediction. I can prove to you that I'm not a clock by frustrating any prediction, but 99.9999% of the time (except for iconoclasts who are highly motivated by the desire to be different) I want to do what I have chosen to do and I am not one bit less free because you understand my character. I wanted to do what I did, because of who and what I want to be, not because who I have to be. I don't have to be any particular way. As soon as I spot any tendency that I don't desire the outcome of, I can change it.

I'm not a clock, and I'm not even an extraordinarily complicated clock. I'm an entity who has the ability to self evaluate and regulate myself based on my plans. A thermostat (simpler feedback/self regulating mechanism) can't completely reconfigure its mechanism, much less its nonexistent goals and plans based on its experiences, desires, needs, knowledge of the future and the effects of the future on it. I need a deterministic world to exercise the capabilities that I have which make me capable of choice, and of the freedom to unshackle myself from what would otherwise be a clock.

 

[Sarkus]

The difference between us and a clock (I don't buy the inherently random universe thing either-I think that is an artifact caused by the interference of our methods of perception) is that a clock can't look at its own mechanism and accurately predict its future and alter its mechanism to avoid possible future events it doesn't "want" and seek out and plan for future events that it wants. The feedback is the key. We can see what's coming, reevaluate whether its a good thing for us and fix it.

The classical determinist will always say "but that was predictable too, so it's all determined" and the response is "only if you are a clock with no reflective ability or intention."

And the response would be wrong. :shrug:
In a deterministic world, the ability to be reflective, to have vastly complex feedback, does not alter the deterministic world.
And by definition a deterministic world is devoid of freedom... from the very outset the path has been set and can not be changed.
Any "reflective ability or intention" is all part and parcel of the deterministic world and, by definition, determined.

Yet within this you still want free-will, freedom of choice, and you want it to be something more than just an illusion?

You are in a logical mess - wanting your square cirlce.

Of course everything is completely caused, the difference is "by what"? I'm not compelled by causation, I use it, depend on it and benefit from it. Without causation I don't get to make those predictions and get the future to be like I want it to be through my choices.

You're not compelled by causation???
So what made you do what you did?
You only think you have choice (hence the illusion) because your conscious self depends on the illusion. It fools us... all the time... convincing us that we make choices to do what we could not avoid doing. At least in a purely classical determined universe.

Again, you say "but that is all predictable" and I say no.

Square circle again. Classical determinism = unavoidable path / no choice / no freedom.
If you want free-will within this, and you genuinely understand what determinism is, then you need to redefine what you consider free-will to be.

Because as soon as I know the past, which can include predictions too, I am not bound by the prediction. I can prove to you that I'm not a clock by frustrating any prediction, but 99.9999% of the time (except for iconoclasts who are highly motivated by the desire to be different) I want to do what I have chosen to do and I am not one bit less free because you understand my character.

And here you are merely looking at one's conscious perception of events. A consciousness can never know everything about a moment. It is precisely because our consciousness is unaware of all the causes leading up to a moment that it offers us the illusion of choice. Consciousness does not know why it chose Heads over Tails... it genuinely considers it to be an exercise in "free-will"... yet the deterministic world (if that is the world in which you hold to) DOES know. It knew from the outset that this moment would come, and that you would choose Heads.

You seem to have convinced yourself that, in a deterministic world - that by definition is devoid of freedom - you can still be free in a sense that is anything other than illusory.

And you think others are trapped!!

I wanted to do what I did, because of who and what I want to be, not because who I have to be.

In a deterministic world, "what you want to be" is determined... there is no choice/freedom.

I don't have to be any particular way.

"You" - as in the conscious self - certainly convinces itself of that. But the deterministic world certainly determined that you are that way. And did so from the outset.

As soon as I spot any tendency that I don't desire the outcome of, I can change it.

Only in a way that was similarly predetermined from the outset. The deterministic world would know that you would "spot any tendency" and would act to change it. Your conscious self just convinces itself that it is in control.

I'm not a clock, and I'm not even an extraordinarily complicated clock. I'm an entity who has the ability to self evaluate and regulate myself based on my plans. A thermostat (simpler feedback/self regulating mechanism) can't completely reconfigure its mechanism, much less its nonexistent goals and plans based on its experiences, desires, needs, knowledge of the future and the effects of the future on it.

Yes, we are different to a clock. We have developed consciousness, but there is no difference between us at the micro-level... we are all just the basic building blocks of the universe interacting in a determined way (using your assumption that the universe is determined).

I need a deterministic world to exercise the capabilities that I have which make me capable of choice, and of the freedom to unshackle myself from what would otherwise be a clock.

You are arguing for the existence a square circle. :shrug:

"I want choice in a world that, by definition, does not allow it".

But, as I have stated, you can get around your apparent logical contradiction by a definition of free-will along the lines of "a pattern of activity that gives the appearance of self-determination"... i.e. that choice, free-will, is merely a conscious perception of what is going on, and makes irrelevant the fundamental nature of the deterministic world in which you have placed matters.


As the saying goes: I believe in free-will because I can not choose to do otherwise.

 

[Pandaemoni]

I can prove to you that I'm not a clock by frustrating any prediction, but 99.9999% of the time (except for iconoclasts who are highly motivated by the desire to be different) I want to do what I have chosen to do and I am not one bit less free because you understand my character.

But the system can be complex enough to account for these sorts of effects. Let's say you choose to order pizza for dinner and I say, "Aha! I predicted that you would do that!" You may cancel the order, or you may still eat the pizza.

Obviously you feel as though you've chosen your new action, but did you? First take the simple model--that of the contrarian--he may well *always* cancel the order when confronted with the statement, "Aha! I predicted that you would do that!" Obviously, if he always cancels the order, every time he is confronted with such a prediction, that is not good evidence of free will because the response is too mechanical. There is a new cause (gaining knowledge of the prediction) and it leads to pat response.

One can also imagine a more complex program, though, which either incorporates a random element or is sensitive to initial conditions. In this program, say we can predict that when confronted by the existence of the prediction, the response is "stick with pizza" 99.9999% of the time, and "cancel the order" the rest of the time. Such a program wouldn't be terribly hard to write.

That you reevaluate a decision when confronted with a new fact (even a new fact about someone else's predictions of your future actions) is therefore not evidence of free will, it's just evidence that there the addition of a new stimulus causes the new response of reevaluation. That you would usually stick with the original decision, and only rarely change your mind is also not evidence of free will since a relatively simply, unfree, algorithm could be used to explain it.

A real person is far more complex than this one algorithm. There would, for example, need to be an algorithm that caused it to select pizza for dinner in the first instance, before news of the prediction was shared with the subject. (In fact, assuming there were no free will, there would need to be an algorithm that nonetheless convinced us we made real choices.) A real person is so complicated, in fact, that we often don't even know our own minds fully That a program gets to be so complex that we can't guess its output of course doesn't mean it has free will. It could, but the ability to reconsider something in light of new information isn't a clear sign.

It is also true that sometimes there is no new input. You order pizza and, five minutes later, regret the decision and so cancel it. The question is whether than is the result of an act of free will, or a byproduct of our often poor ability to analyze problems. We could have conflicting algorithms and goals (like an "order pizza" impulse and a "don't get fat" impulse) and we are not always great at prioritizing which impulse to obey at any given time. We feel like we choose to give in to one over the other, but that feeling may be an inaccurate byproduct of the struggle between those two conflicting impulses. The brain may make the final decision about which to follow based on any number of "tie-breaking" rules, some of which may be quite arbitrary, random, or chaotic and which may not operate at the rational, conscious level. The feeling of choice (as some neuropsychology suggests) may be a gloss placed on a reaction after the unconscious parts of the brain has resolved the conflict in a particular way that is very much unrelated to the actual way in which we arrived at that final decision.

Deep down, I do believe we have free will. Intuition aside, mostly I believe it because I do not clearly see why we would have evolved such a complex mechanism for post hoc rationalization and self-deception. Still, the more about the brain I read, the less room there seems to be in it for free will. So I am not completely sold on the ideas that we do have free will.

If the question were easy, though, we wouldn't still be debating it after two millennia.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Free will is the way the decision is made, not an escape from causation. Think of a gopher, sticking his head up and looking backwards and forward in the causal chain, he gets a choice and a free choice, as he gets to do what he wants and he gets to do as much homework and research as he want to make that decision, he doesn't get free of the causal chain.

Your assumption is still that caused equals unfree. Apples and oranges. Free choice is a type of causal process. And when the world was just a clock with no organisms in it complicated enough to see how cause and effect worked, it was totally determined. But as soon as you can see the causal chain and want to do something about it, free will can be exercised. The WILL is free from inevitability, it is free to see what would otherwise be inevitable and change it. Could a perfect entity predict every one of my actions? Only if he didn't become part of my information base. In the interaction between the perfect predictor vs the perfect deliberator , where the deliberator knows what the predictor predicts, the deliberator can prove the predictor can't predict him. It is a regressive spiral because every time the predictor says, "I knew you were going to do that so you weren't free", the deliberator says "and when you told me, I decided that was OK so I did it anyway because that is what I intended to happen, so my WILL was free." Free from compulsion, and even free from any influences he identifies and reacts to. The more introspective and reflective, the more freedom he has. Free from causation is the concept that is confused. "Free from causation" means uncaused and that is not freedom at all. Freedom is a way of making decisions, not the opposite of caused. It is not an illusion. It is a capability that higher order organism can exercise to one extent or another.

Causation is not a constraint on freedom, it is the water we swim in. Causation doesn't "make" me do anything as if it was some outside force. Freedom is a capability we can have if we exercise the skill, and it is a matter of degree, depending on our insight and effort. And I can, and sometime do, determine which causes I want to come into existence and what causes I want to prevent. To say it's all caused takes nothing away from that. To say it's compelled by causation is not understanding that the exercise of a free choice is not the opposite of or eliminated by "caused". "All choices are caused" does not equal "all choices are compelled." The illusion is believing that a free choice is eliminated by occurring in the causal chain. It's just a particular type of caused event. The kind where you get to evaluate the chain itself and decide whether and in what way you want to change it. We all know we can and do do that. (Ha, I said "do do").

 

[Sarkus]

We all know we can and do do that.

And yet there is nothing "free" in it... as it is predetermined by the previous moment... which is predetermined by the moment before that.
ANY reflective action is PREDETERMINED.
It is built into the causal chain - and is inescapable... IF you hold to the deterministic world view.

You are merely arguing for the existence of a square circle.
You have said the world is determined... i.e. every moment is determined by the moment before.
This logically results in the universe being utterly predetermined... from the get-go.

And into this you want to place something that is part of the predetermined universe yet not itself predetermined.

:shrug:
The search for a square circle if ever I saw one.

 

[Me-Ki-Gal]

The question is DOES COMPLETE, PERFECT (NON PROBABILISTIC) CAUSATION CAUSE COMPLETE PREDETERMINATION AND MAKE THE FREEDOM OF CHOICE WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE IMPOSSIBLE?

And it is a trap BECAUSE we know we aren't automatons. We know we make real choices. And the puzzle is how in the hell did we talk ourselves into an intellectual position that makes us think it isn't possible?

How can you know for sure you have a choice ? Prove to me you have a choice. It is deceptive to think you have a choice . The perfect rhythm exists . How to explain . It is in the information . The acts already exist . O.K. start with your name . That is one of the controlling factor . The congruences go way deeper than your name, but it is a good starting point . Now you got to wake up and stop living in denial as to what makes you tick . What do you do when you hear your name called to action ? Now pay attention in your daily activities and listen with awareness of your surrounding . You could even use a note pad to document what you think you hear as it relates and sounds like your name . This will be a first step when you connect you involuntary action to the whisper of your personal name. You might even begin to understand why Jesus committed suicide.

O.K. do you want to know the latest and greatest in sales gimmicks ? The marketers have already figured out people with the same names have similar exposure to information. In other words they will think in similar patterning. The Marketers have determined they can create emotional response purchasing by utilizing name grouping by the similarities of group experiences based on name recognition . Marketers are the ones doing the research in this field ? Why ? Cause it works and profit margins are increased . They spend the money to develop exactly what I am telling you . Now Me I learned on my own from life long quest of trying why I perceive the world calling my name relentlessly. Funny thing is it was predicted someone with a name like Mine would move a step closer to being free of out side influence . Except there is the catch . It was already predicted, so were is freedom really at . I use to think it was just Me , but it not . I can see it in everyone . I can see people living true to there given name as the word calls them to action . I know you got a hard time with this as many many people say bull shit . Dude I am a musician . I have spent my life listening to rudiments of sound by my gift of being a musician having a trained ear . This is how I know it is true . I hear the perfect language that is not discernible by an untrained ear. You know I probably would not hear it except for the world screaming my name to action . Fuck I spent most of my life in a nervous frenzy because of it . Like I can't quite do enough going 90 miles an hour . People named Mike will understand this . Just my the nature of being named Mike and the expectation of the definition of Mike makes it plain and clear why Mike's feel that way . Go check for your self the percentage of Mikes that are Preachers or Priest . I think you might find there is a disproportionate number of Mikes following the profession' Now you take a name like Lori7 . She sees her self as the Mother Mary of the world . You might be thinking , well her name is not Mary , so why would she think the powers that be tell her she is the Mother . It does and I hear it Plain in clear . In fact it was my research on the name Lauren that lead Me to the conclusion . It is what I call the Laredo effect . Our Lady of Laredo . The Mother Mary morphed into Laredo. So you know if you listen to the back drop noise you can hear it calling what I call the La, Lu , Lar , Li, Lo, Lor, Le sounds . It calls the people that Identify with the rudiments to specific actions. So I use to think it was the red car phenomena, Were if you buy a red car then you see more red cars . Then I thought it could not be that for it was all to specific to the rudiments . Now I think it is the red car phenomena, yet in the phenomena the actions are controlled in specificity. Do the egg come first or the chicken I don't know that yet . That part is still confusing as can be to some degree . If the dream was created long ago by the usage of the word is the dream in a constant evolving state . Dependent on the trickle effect of information silo vaults collapsing . Repeats of the past with new twist from the availability of new information gathering .

 

[Believe]

I have free will and I'm proving it by CHOOSING to post here. Just because you cannot rise above your circumstances doesn't mean the rest of us can't.