Why free will is impossible

" "free" as opposed to determined."

Same mistake, over and over. False alternatives. You don't "win" by saying choice is caused. That doesn't eliminate free choices, it enables it.
It is NOT a mistake, as has been explained to you again and again and again. You just either refuse to listen or are unable to understand.
It has been explained how, in the question you set up, determination equates to predetermination which equates to "no freedom".
If you wish to dispute that, then lay out your criticism of the points raised.

Events aren't predetermined to beings who can see them coming and have the power to sidestep them.
No being can see the future and sidestep it. They can merely make assessments of possible futures. These assessments are part and parcel of the predetermined events and the "power to sidestep them" is illusory.

To put it in the simplest way: what happens, happens. It can be no other way.

Perhaps you are confusing predetermination with predictability? :shrug:

It's not going to get any simpler than this.
:shrug:
Perhaps that you see it as "simple" limits your ability to actually grasp the legitimate arguments raised against your position, as all you come back with is "I have choice! I have choice! I don't agree with you! I have choice!"
 
some of us actually look at the pattern of activity that we perceive... and understand that the pattern, in the scenario you have set up of perfect causation, logically leads to the pattern being deterministic and thus pre-determined - and thus not free. And we conclude that the "free-will" you say exists is mere illusion.

Conscious perception of free will is indeed sometimes an illusion. Our decisions are influenced by predictable forces of chemistry, biology and electromagnetism.

However, to make the argument "since we can predict a lot of what people's decisions will be, we have no free will" isn't really supportable. Our mental processes are inherently chaotic systems, and thus not completely predictable by any outside agency. We have demonstrated that we can affect the output of that chaotic systems consciously.

So the question devolves to "can we actually make choices?" Are our actions able to be influenced by our consciousness independently of any of the predictable factors that influence it? There's no way to prove this 100%, nor disprove it 100%, since our consciousness is inextricably intertwined with those very factors.

To me, therefore, the argument "we have no free will" is not supportable; to support it one would have to prove that consciousness depends 100% in a predictable way on the physical substrate of our brain. And until we can prove that, we cannot demonstrate the absence of free will (i.e. the ability to make decisions independent of pre-existing physical conditions.)
 
But our brain does not operate like a straight forward computer program. Our mind is divided into sections with competing drives. Our more primitive brain is driven by an animalistic search for pleasure, whereas our prefrontal cortex is logical. Add to that, our brain is divided in half and each side of it has different preferences and strengths.

Thus, when we make a decision, we have different parts of our brain pushing for different outcomes. We can choose to think, that is, obey the dictates of our prefrontal cortex. Or we can choose to listen to the inner chimp and just go with the flow. We can choose to listen to the more artistic right hemisphere, or the more logical left hemisphere.

What we call free will is our ability to decide which inner drive to respond to. Whether or not there is some magical element of uncertainty built into the process is not important, the fact that we can choose what course our life takes is. That we are responsible for the choices we make.

That is true that there are competing parts of the brain, but it doesn't necessarily follow that we "choose" which drives to listen to. I alluded to this in an earlier post. It is possible that we have algorithms that we use to determine priority of competing impulses and what we perceive as a choice is the process of applying that algorithm determining those priorities.

The ultimate problem is that the brain is physical and physical systems other than the brain *always* behave either deterministically (with the current state following directly from the immediately preceding physical state) or in accordance with quantum mechanics. Ignoring compatibilism (also discussed above, but basically rejecting it myself because I find it's arguments unconvincing...YMMV), we either have to conclude that the will is not "free" or that the brain is the one structure in the universe that we know if that is not bound by the same rules as other physical objects.

One position that may be is that we have a "soul" and that free will arises from the influence of the immaterial soul over the physical brain. (Or, equivalently for this purpose, one can posit an immaterial "mind" separate and apart form the brain that has a similar influence.) Many people avoid this argument because dualism is a non-naturalistic explanation and most of us have a preference for finding a defense of free will that is either naturalistic or which proves the existence of free will logically.

The best any of can do, if we understand the issue, is to state our preferred explanation while at the same time realizing that our positions only rest on intuition and personal preference (at least at present) and that the contrary position is equally supportable (even if it is not our preference).
 
The illusions of purpose lead us to think
That there are reasons, of some motive link,
Why one change occurs and not another,
And even that there are reasons that cover
Specific changes in locations of energy,
The energy choosing to go there, intentionally,
Such as a purpose for a change in structure,
This being as such as the opening of a flower;
Yet, this should not be confused with energy
Achieving to be there, in that specific bower,
Since, at root, of all the power,
Even that of the root of the flower,
That there is, is the degradation by dispersal,
This being mostly non reversible, and universal.

The energy is always still spreading, thencely,
Even as some temporarily located density—
An illusion of specific change
In some region rearranged,
But, actually, it’s just lingering there, discovering,
Until new opportunities arise for exploring,
The consequences but of random opportunity,
Beneath which, purpose still vanishes entirely.

Events are the manifestations
Of overriding probability’s instantiations
Of all of the events of nature, of every sod,
From the bouncing ball to conceptions of gods,
Of even free will, evolution, and all ambition;
For, they’re of our simple idea’s elaborations;
Although, for the latter stated there
And such for that as warfare,
Their intrinsic simplicity
Is buried more deeply.

And yet, though sometimes concealed away,
The spring of all creation is just decay,
The consequence and instruction
Of the natural tendency to corruption.
 
The illusions of purpose lead us to think
That there are reasons, of some motive link,
Why one change occurs and not another,
And even that there are reasons that cover
Specific changes in locations of energy,
The energy choosing to go there, intentionally,
Such as a purpose for a change in structure,
This being as such as the opening of a flower;
Yet, this should not be confused with energy
Achieving to be there, in that specific bower,
Since, at root, of all the power,
Even that of the root of the flower,
That there is, is the degradation by dispersal,
This being mostly non reversible, and universal.

The energy is always still spreading, thencely,
Even as some temporarily located density—
An illusion of specific change
In some region rearranged,
But, actually, it’s just lingering there, discovering,
Until new opportunities arise for exploring,
The consequences but of random opportunity,
Beneath which, purpose still vanishes entirely.

Events are the manifestations
Of overriding probability’s instantiations
Of all of the events of nature, of every sod,
From the bouncing ball to conceptions of gods,
Of even free will, evolution, and all ambition;
For, they’re of our simple idea’s elaborations;
Although, for the latter stated there
And such for that as warfare,
Their intrinsic simplicity
Is buried more deeply.

And yet, though sometimes concealed away,
The spring of all creation is just decay,
The consequence and instruction
Of the natural tendency to corruption.

That looks like something Lauren Tursllino would write ! Man alive it does . Your a great writer . She is a Great writer and you are at the same threshold in time as her . Digging from the same well . On the forefront of pioneers . The cutting edge of the knife
 
The cutting edge of the knife

It is a beauty and a brilliance
Flashing up in its destructance;
For, everything isn’t here to stay its “best”;
It’s merely there to die in its sublimeness.

Like slow fires making their brands, energy breeds;
Yet, ever consumes and moves on, as more it feeds,
Then spreads forth anew, this unpurposed dispersion,
An inexorable emergence with little reversion,
Ever becoming of its glorious excursions
Through the change that patient time restrains,
And feasting upon the glorious decayed remains,
In its progressive march through losses for gains.


Everything that ever happens,
Including life and all our questions—
Meaning every single event ever gone on
Of both the animate and the non—
Is but from a single theme played upon.

This, then, is of the simplest analysis of all,
For it heeds mainly just one call—
That of the second law’s dispersion,
The means for each and every occasion,
From the closest to the farthest range—
That which makes anything change.

These changes range from the simple,
Such as a bouncing ball resting still
Or ice melting that gives up its chill,
To the more complex, such as digestion,
Growth, death, and even reproduction.

There is excessively subtle change, as well,
Such as the formations of opinions tell
And the creation or rejections of the will.

And, yet, all these kinds of changes, of course,
Still become of one simple, common source,
Which is the underlying collapse into chaos—
The destiny of energy’s unmotivated non-purpose.

All that appears to us to be motive and purpose
Is in fact ultimately motiveless, without purpose;
Even aspirations and their achievement’s ways
Have fed on, and come about through the decay.

The deepest structure of change is but decay;
Although, it’s not the quantity of energy’s say
That causes decay, but the quality, for it strays.

Energy that is localized is potent to effect change,
And, in the course of causing change, it ranges,
Spreading and becoming chaotically distributed,
Losing its quality but never of its quantity rid.

The key to all this, as we will see,
Is that it goes though stages wee,
And so it doesn’t disperse all at once
As might one’s paycheck inside of a month.

This harnessed decay results not only for
Civilizations, but for all the events going fore
In the world and the universe beyond,
It accounting for all discernible change,
Of all that ever gets so rearranged;
For, the quality of all this energy kinged
Declines, the universe unwinding, as a spring.

Chaos may temporarily recede,
Quality building up for a need,
As when cathedrals are built, or forms,
And when symphonies are performed;
But, these are but local deceits,
Born of our own conceits;
For, deeper in the world of kinds
The spring inescapably unwinds,
Driving its energy away—
As ALL is being driven by decay.

The quality of energy meant
Is of its dispersal’s extent.
When it is totally precipitate,
It destroys; but when it’s gait
Is geared through chains of events
It can produce civilization’s tenants.
 
Conscious perception of free will is indeed sometimes an illusion. Our decisions are influenced by predictable forces of chemistry, biology and electromagnetism.
Predictable? Really?
And why only "sometimes" an illusion - I would have thought it either is or is not?

However, to make the argument "since we can predict a lot of what people's decisions will be, we have no free will" isn't really supportable.
Then don't make that argument. I'm not sure anyone yet has - so to argue against it is somewhat of a strawman. :shrug:

Our mental processes are inherently chaotic systems, and thus not completely predictable by any outside agency. We have demonstrated that we can affect the output of that chaotic systems consciously.

So the question devolves to "can we actually make choices?" Are our actions able to be influenced by our consciousness independently of any of the predictable factors that influence it? There's no way to prove this 100%, nor disprove it 100%, since our consciousness is inextricably intertwined with those very factors.
I'm not sure why you have introduced the matter of predictability by an outside agency. It is not necessary to do so but enough to speak in absolutes... i.e. with perfect knowledge is it predictable or not?

The scenario under discussion (as set up by RegularOldGuy mid-thread) is with regard "perfect causation" and no randomness... so a fully determined universe. With perfect knowledge of a single moment in such a universe, the next moment is absolutely predictable. This is strict determinism.
Whether we (as conscious beings) or any other external agent is able to predict is neither here nor there, since while predictability by such an agent implies determinism, determinism does not imply predictability by such an agent - because of complexity or lack of knowledge.

To me, therefore, the argument "we have no free will" is not supportable; to support it one would have to prove that consciousness depends 100% in a predictable way on the physical substrate of our brain.
No we wouldn't. First - predictability has zip to do with it.
Secondly, given the scenario of perfect causation (everything is caused... nothing is uncaused) and no randomness - as set up in the question under discussion (mid-thread somewhere), we would merely need to show that everything is determined (i.e. the result of the causes acting on it and only of those causes), which (in the scenario given) leads to predetermination, which leads to zero free-will.
If a single moment is caused by the moment before, and there is nothing uncaused and just a singular outcome (no randomness) then each moment is entirely pre-determined by the moment before. Whether a conscious agent can predict the moment given their own subjective knowledge of the preceding moment is thus irrelevant.

And until we can prove that, we cannot demonstrate the absence of free will (i.e. the ability to make decisions independent of pre-existing physical conditions.)
:shrug: Who said anything about demonstrating? Why the need to demonstrate?
 
It is a beauty and a brilliance
Flashing up in its destructance;
For, everything isn’t here to stay its “best”;
It’s merely there to die in its sublimeness.

Like slow fires making their brands, energy breeds;
Yet, ever consumes and moves on, as more it feeds,
Then spreads forth anew, this unpurposed dispersion,
An inexorable emergence with little reversion,
Ever becoming of its glorious excursions
Through the change that patient time restrains,
And feasting upon the glorious decayed remains,
In its progressive march through losses for gains.


Everything that ever happens,
Including life and all our questions—
Meaning every single event ever gone on
Of both the animate and the non—
Is but from a single theme played upon.

This, then, is of the simplest analysis of all,
For it heeds mainly just one call—
That of the second law’s dispersion,
The means for each and every occasion,
From the closest to the farthest range—
That which makes anything change.

These changes range from the simple,
Such as a bouncing ball resting still
Or ice melting that gives up its chill,
To the more complex, such as digestion,
Growth, death, and even reproduction.

There is excessively subtle change, as well,
Such as the formations of opinions tell
And the creation or rejections of the will.

And, yet, all these kinds of changes, of course,
Still become of one simple, common source,
Which is the underlying collapse into chaos—
The destiny of energy’s unmotivated non-purpose.

All that appears to us to be motive and purpose
Is in fact ultimately motiveless, without purpose;
Even aspirations and their achievement’s way.
Have fed on, and come about through the decay.

The deepest structure of change is but decay;
Although, it’s not the quantity of energy’s say
That causes decay, but the quality, for it strays.

Energy that is localized is potent to effect change,
And, in the course of causing change, it ranges,
Spreading and becoming chaotically distributed,
Losing its quality but never of its quantity rid.P

The key to all this, as we will see,
Is that it goes though stages wee,
And so it doesn’t disperse all at once
As might one’s paycheck inside of a month.

This harnessed decay results not only for
Civilizations, but for all the events going fore
In the world and the universe beyond,
It accounting for all discernible change,
Of all that ever gets so rearranged;
For, the quality of all this energy kinged
Declines, the universe unwinding, as a spring.

Chaos may temporarily recede,
Quality building up for a need,
As when cathedrals are built, or forms,
And when symphonies are performed;
But, these are but local deceits,
Born of our own conceits;
For, deeper in the world of kinds
The spring inescapably unwinds,
Driving its energy away—
As ALL is being driven by decay.

The quality of energy meant
Is of its dispersal’s extent.
When it is totally precipitate,
It destroys; but when it’s gait
Is geared through chains of events
It can produce civilization’s tenants
.
Reminds me of Bad Religion.
random blobs of power expressed as that which we all disregard,
ordered states of nature on a scale that no one thinks about,
don't speak to me of anarchy of peace or calm revolt,
man, we're in a play of slow decay orchestrated by boltzmann,

it's entropy, it's not a human issue,
entropy, it's a matter of course,
entropy, energy at all levels,
entropy, from it you can not divorce
and your pathetic moans of suffrage tend to lose all significance,

extinction, degradation;
the natural outcomes of our ordered lives,
power, motivation; temporary fixtures for which we strive,
something in our synapses assures us we're ok
but in our disquilibrium we simply can not stay,
it's entropy......

a stolid proposition from a man unkempt as I,
my affectatious I can not rectify,
but we are out of equilibrium unnaturally,
a pang of consciousness of death
and then you will agree​
.
 
I'm not sure why you have introduced the matter of predictability by an outside agency. It is not necessary to do so but enough to speak in absolutes... i.e. with perfect knowledge is it predictable or not?

No, certainly not. We learned that from Heisenberg.

The scenario under discussion (as set up by RegularOldGuy mid-thread) is with regard "perfect causation" and no randomness... so a fully determined universe. With perfect knowledge of a single moment in such a universe, the next moment is absolutely predictable. This is strict determinism.

Agreed. And were the universe like that, free will would indeed be an illusion.

Secondly, given the scenario of perfect causation (everything is caused... nothing is uncaused) and no randomness - as set up in the question under discussion (mid-thread somewhere)

Ah, so I missed your premise. Yes, I agree that if the universe were truly deterministic (and could be observed without altering that determinism) that there would be only the illusion of free will.
 
.

One position that may be is that we have a "soul" and that free will arises from the influence of the immaterial soul over the physical brain. (Or, equivalently for this purpose, one can posit an immaterial "mind" separate and apart form the brain that has a similar influence.) Many people avoid this argument because dualism is a non-naturalistic explanation and most of us have a preference for finding a defense of free will that is either naturalistic or which proves the existence of free will logically.
I don't know how valid it is, but there are at least a few scientists who claim there is a possible scientific basis for the soul:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108463
 
Agreed. And were the universe like that, free will would indeed be an illusion.
...
Ah, so I missed your premise. Yes, I agree that if the universe were truly deterministic (and could be observed without altering that determinism) that there would be only the illusion of free will.
:)
The odd thing is that even taking Heisenberg et al into account, and introducing randomness - i.e. that the same inputs lead to different possible outputs - there is still no free-will, just an element of randomness - and of course unpredictability.

As for observation altering the determinism... surely the act of observation is part and parcel of the determined events... which while inroducing randomness does not, as far as I can understand, allow for a directed result in a given interaction... which is what I see free-will as having to do.
i.e. you can not choose what state to observe... observation merely collapses the wavefunction to a (seemingly) random state.
 
I don't know how valid it is, but there are at least a few scientists who claim there is a possible scientific basis for the soul:

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=108463


I will have to read it...but Deepak Chopra is not usually a good go to guy on scientific questions, imo. He's made a career out of misunderstand quantum mechanics. I guess I should read it first, but my lack of respect for Chopra runs deep. :)
 
I will have to read it...but Deepak Chopra is not usually a good go to guy on scientific questions, imo. He's made a career out of misunderstand quantum mechanics. I guess I should read it first, but my lack of respect for Chopra runs deep. :)
Chopra is not the author of the theory, Sir Roger Penrose and Dr Stuart Hameroff are. I saw Dr Hamerof on Thru the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman and was intrigued by his ideas. I googled quantum consciousness and Chopra's article was the first to come up. I had not heard of him so I used his article as the basis of the thread.

Heres a link to the Center for Consciousness Studies At the University of Arizona. Copra has nothing to do with that AFAIK
 
:)
The odd thing is that even taking Heisenberg et al into account, and introducing randomness - i.e. that the same inputs lead to different possible outputs - there is still no free-will, just an element of randomness - and of course unpredictability.

I disagree. One of the more profound results of Heisenberg's work was the conclusion that not only is it hard to know the future, it is in fact impossible. Thus free will is possible.

The next question is - can you in fact make choices that are independent of history and outside stimulus? One way to answer that is to define consciousness as an inherently chaotic system, and thus can demonstrate that small changes to initial conditions result in unpredictable (and seemingly random) outputs. If a given stimulus produces a random output, then your choices CAN be independent of initial conditions and environment.

The final question is - does that mean we have free will? That gets into definitions. If the ability to make independent decisions that are not predictable by any means is free will, then we have it. If the ability to make independent decisions uninfluences by _any_ external stimulus, then we don't. In between those two extremes lies a wide variety of definitions.
 
I disagree. One of the more profound results of Heisenberg's work was the conclusion that not only is it hard to know the future, it is in fact impossible. Thus free will is possible.
:confused:
I said that it leads to unpredictability (i.e. impossible to know the future). So with what do you actually disagree?

As for whether free-will is possible... as you have also stated it depends on one's definition.
In this thread I have already offered a definition that allows free-will to exist, irrespective of the underlying nature of the interactions - whether you include uncertainty, randomness, anything at all: "Free-will is a pattern of activity that gives the conscious appearance of self-determination" or something along those lines. Whether the underlying nature is determined, has randomness, is predictable (in an absolute sense) etc... "free-will" within this definition is what our consciousness perceives as "making a choice"... and is thus only applicable to the conscious.

The final question is - does that mean we have free will? That gets into definitions.
Indeed.
If the ability to make independent decisions that are not predictable by any means is free will, then we have it.
First this begs the question of what it is to "make decisions".
Second, I would say that unpredictability (assuming we are taking Heisenberg into account) is an aspect of any definition of free-will, but is not in and of itself the defining characteristic. I would argue that a simple non-chaotic but random system is unpredictable yet would not sensibly be considered something with "free-will".

If the ability to make independent decisions uninfluences by _any_ external stimulus, then we don't. In between those two extremes lies a wide variety of definitions.
I would tend to agree - and have previously argued that whether free-will exists or not depends on one's definition of free-will.
 
I disagree. One of the more profound results of Heisenberg's work was the conclusion that not only is it hard to know the future, it is in fact impossible. Thus free will is possible.

The next question is - can you in fact make choices that are independent of history and outside stimulus? One way to answer that is to define consciousness as an inherently chaotic system, and thus can demonstrate that small changes to initial conditions result in unpredictable (and seemingly random) outputs. If a given stimulus produces a random output, then your choices CAN be independent of initial conditions and environment.

The final question is - does that mean we have free will? That gets into definitions. If the ability to make independent decisions that are not predictable by any means is free will, then we have it. If the ability to make independent decisions uninfluences by _any_ external stimulus, then we don't. In between those two extremes lies a wide variety of definitions.

You see that is not true about knowing the future. By determination you can't have high probability of the future out come . If you can direct the forces of nature and analyze the out come from past experience then there is a high probability of the out come . Predictable by all accounts. Some of the equations humans have come up with are almost flawless in the prediction . All based on natural laws that govern
 
You see that is not true about knowing the future. By determination you can't have high probability of the future out come.

At a macroscopic level - yes, you can predict things with high probability of success. You cannot predict with 100% success.

Predictable by all accounts. Some of the equations humans have come up with are almost flawless in the prediction . All based on natural laws that govern

Also agreed! But there's that "almost" that you can't eliminate.
 
Here's a dilemma for our ability to predict outcomes: the brain appears to act in a random fashion (i.e. neural activity is chaotic), but we experience 'definite' thoughts, and we act 'definitively' once we decide what to do, this amounts to solving a problem of some kind, like how to tie shoelaces, or open a door and walk through it.

So if the neural patterns are random and chaotic, how do our brains manage to 'converge' on a decision? How does the appearance of determination from randomness affect our perception of freedom of choice?

Apparently neurons cooperate, and start to act in concert, or if you will, they start singing the same tune together (in groups which form in a spontaneous, but random process). Does this begin at the individual neuron level, or does it require some kind of selective process, which initially looks chaotic? What does this "selection" of groups have to do with choices?

In other words, if neural activity is fundamentally chaotic in nature, how does the brain 'select' groups of them so they cooperate, and does that explain the process of making a decision in order to solve a problem like how to tie shoelaces?
 
Here's a dilemma for our ability to predict outcomes: the brain appears to act in a random fashion (i.e. neural activity is chaotic), but we experience 'definite' thoughts, and we act 'definitively' once we decide what to do, this amounts to solving a problem of some kind, like how to tie shoelaces, or open a door and walk through it.

Mathematically speaking, "chaos" is not random. Physical systems covered by Chaos Theory are entirely deterministic without any element of chance or probability being involved. The changes in the states of chaotic systems are simply so sensitive to initial conditions, and those conditions so difficult to keep track of or determine, that we find it nearly impossible to predict a given outcome.

When you roll dice for example. There is no real "chance" involved. The force you put into the throw, the topology and elasticity of the surface on which the dice land, and spin you impart to the dice as you throw them and a myriad other factors would (if we could track them all accurately in real time) allow us to determine the exact result of each throw. That is a practical impossibility, of course, so we think of the process as random.

Each throw, however, at the moment you launch it, has a definite force, trajectory, topology, sets of elasticities, etc., and the die shows only one result in the end. The weather is similar. An unspeakable number of interactions go to make up the weather, but in the end, the weather settles down into a definite state. As varied as the weather can be, though, there is a "strange attractor" that keeps the weather generally close to a given set of expectations. The mathematical weather simulators I know of do not include random elements, they are completely deterministic as well.

In the same way, if thoughts were generated chaotically, they'd be very sensitive to initial conditions, but yet crystalize in the end into a one clear thought. The outcome is even predictable in very broad strokes, much as the weather is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
 
To put it in the simplest way: what happens, happens. It can be no other way.

And that vacuous assertion tells us nothing about whether any particular act was free or compelled. Those two caused acts have different characteristics. Causation does not equal compulsion.

And it is you who are equating causally determined with immutably predetermined.

It is obvious that you aren't ever going to get it.
 
Back
Top