Why free will is impossible

[Read-Only]

I think our differences are probably mostly in how we are defining free will. I do think we have a limited free will within ranges of predisposition. The basic programing of all life is to stay alive and procreate. To stay alive we need to eat, breath and drink water and stay within a temperature range, not get eaten by other animals or killed by fellow humans, ...etc. To procreate we need to attract a mate we can have sex with.

From these basic needs, you throw in all the genetic possibilities, the personalities, education and skills of the parents and region of the world where you were born. The local neighborhood you grow up in. All of these things shape the ranges of predisposition you will be able to exercise your limited free will in.

But my main point in corresponding with you is to point out that you are not BOUND by those things at all. You have it within you - if you chose to exercise it - the ability and freedom to completely break free from ALL those things.

In plainer words, you ARE limited by those things ONLY if you don't change them. And you ARE free to change them if you really want to. As proof of what I'm saying, I'm certain that you have (as have I) known people who were the exact OPPOSITE of their parents. People who moved from the ghetto to a better neighborhood and did well as a result. And people who came from a poor family, didn't get a first-rate education YET were successful enough to live a very comfortable life.

Do you know what the MAJOR problem is with people today? Themselves! They will blame their troubles on everyone around them - and even "fate" - rather than try to improve their lives. You could call it laziness, if you choose, but the point is that they THEMSELVES are responsible for their own inaction. Not their parents. Not their friends. And certainly not that mythical thing called "fate."

 

[KilljoyKlown]

But my main point in corresponding with you is to point out that you are not BOUND by those things at all. You have it within you - if you chose to exercise it - the ability and freedom to completely break free from ALL those things.

In plainer words, you ARE limited by those things ONLY if you don't change them. And you ARE free to change them if you really want to. As proof of what I'm saying, I'm certain that you have (as have I) known people who were the exact OPPOSITE of their parents. People who moved from the ghetto to a better neighborhood and did well as a result. And people who came from a poor family, didn't get a first-rate education YET were successful enough to live a very comfortable life.

Do you know what the MAJOR problem is with people today? Themselves! They will blame their troubles on everyone around them - and even "fate" - rather than try to improve their lives. You could call it laziness, if you choose, but the point is that they THEMSELVES are responsible for their own inaction. Not their parents. Not their friends. And certainly not that mythical thing called "fate."

I don't really disagree with that, somewhere back in this thread I believe I said that free will could take place at a few key points in ones life. However I don't think our day to day living involves free will. I think free will is a rare thing and takes a great deal of work and effort. Once a free will decision is made the effort drops off and it may be years before you need to do it again if at all. Most people will fight to stay in their comfort zone (very little if any free will takes place there). People that make a habit stepping beyond their comfort zone will exercise free will more than the rest of us.

 

[Read-Only]

I don't really disagree with that, somewhere back in this thread I believe I said that free will could take place at a few key points in ones life. However I don't think our day to day living involves free will. I think free will is a rare thing and takes a great deal of work and effort. Once a free will decision is made the effort drops off and it may be years before you need to do it again if at all. Most people will fight to stay in their comfort zone (very little if any free will takes place there). People that make a habit stepping beyond their comfort zone will exercise free will more than the rest of us.

Glad to see you are coming around a bit. But the real truth is that we all exercise free will each and every day.

One thing you may not be getting is the difference between "predisposition" and "predetermination". It's that last one (which is just a myth) that would do away with free will, not the first. Predisposition is something common to people - I might have a predisposition for blue shirts or white shirts - and that would certainly affect (and probably to some degree, restrict) my choice of clothing. But by no means does it prevent me from deciding to wear a red shirt one day.

I might also have a predisposition for corn flakes for breakfast. But that doesn't prevent me from having bacon & eggs or a different cereal whenever I decide I want something different for a change.

Sure, we ALL have things that fit within our comfort zone and that's exactly what predisposed means - at some point in life while choosing different things, we decided on certain ones. And then we use those choices we made over and over - often times daily.

But just because I'm most comfortable right here at home, I'm in no way prevented from jumping up (as I did one day) and driving a few hundred miles to Key West in the middle of a freezing winter here in the mountains.

So I think that once you get a good grip on the HUGE difference between being predisposed and things being predetermined FOR you, you'll finally set yourself (will and all) free.

 

[Sarkus]

Sorry, but all I can tell you is that you're either being bull-headed or foolish. There's no middle ground. If you want to think that ALL your choices are already made in advance for you, then I would clearly vote for the latter.

Again, this all boils down to what you consider "free-will" to actually be.
Furthermore, determinism is not the only alternative to free-will... randomness is also there.

QM has more or less debunked pure determinism, and has done so through the identfication of randomness at that level... randomness within a probability function for a given interaction... i.e. whereas determinism equates to "same inputs = same outputs", QM suggests "same inputs = random output within a probability function".

What all this randomness does, at QM level, is then filtered through the macro-level world to give a world that behaves at the macro-level very much free of free-will. Simply put, we are the sum of the micro-level interactions. We can no more influence the randomness of QM than we can decide to turn off the Earth's gravity.
And that is what "free-will" requires... us (our consciousness) to somehow affect the randomness.

Now, if we define "free-will" as "a pattern of activity that gives the appearance of self-determination" then this exists... but it is merely "an appearance of..." - i.e. an illusion. Just as a mirage exists, it is still an illusion of what it appears to be.

And I don't think our conscious selves can ever break through the illusion... I tend to think (although no proof, no supporting links etc) that one can not be conscious without the illusion, and the illusion only holds for conscious people, that they (consciousness and free-will) are part and parcel of the same.


So if you think free-will exists... let's first be sure what you actually mean by the term.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Your sure of that are you? What if I could say we have been programed by evolution and we live within the constraints of our programming? How do you define what is a robot?

As I have stated in other words above "determinism" (a complete and predictable causal nexus) is necessary for us to have either free or compelled decisions. To be uncaused certainly can't work, as that disconnects my desires from my actions. Thus or "programing" can be either mechanistic/knee jerk actions or the type of higher level, reflective, feed-back process which allows us to see where we have been and how our decisions have worked out in the past as well as to see where we are going and deciding if that's really where we want to go, given the priorities we actually value and the particular needs and desires we choose to follow, as opposed to those influences we decide we should ignore. That ability to use that type of "mechanism" within a reliably predictable causal nexus is why we can be free (if we chose to act that way) and the wasp (who brings his food to the edge of his hole and checks his hole before taking the food into the hole each and every time until he dies) does not.

Are you trying to imply that anything you just said constitutes free will. Again I say predisposed personality easily accounts for everything you just said.

But isn't it possible to fight your predispositions? "Predisposed" doesn't explain every choice. Sometime we indulge ourselves and mechanisticly do what we are predisposed to do, but other times, not.

 

[phlogistician]

But my main point in corresponding with you is to point out that you are not BOUND by those things at all. You have it within you - if you chose to exercise it - the ability and freedom to completely break free from ALL those things.

If that were true, surely all a proponent of 'Free Will' has to do, is to choose to not believe in Free Will, to prove their point?

 

[Regular0ldguy]

I don't really disagree with that, somewhere back in this thread I believe I said that free will could take place at a few key points in ones life. However I don't think our day to day living involves free will. I think free will is a rare thing and takes a great deal of work and effort. Once a free will decision is made the effort drops off and it may be years before you need to do it again if at all. Most people will fight to stay in their comfort zone (very little if any free will takes place there). People that make a habit stepping beyond their comfort zone will exercise free will more than the rest of us.

I think this really means we pretty much agree. If there is "any" freedom then you are the classical "determinist" who thinks that because you can explain everything that caused a particular decision, that freedom doesn't exist. That fallacy is equating "caused" with "compelled" or "predetermined" or "unfree".

 

[Regular0ldguy]

QM has more or less debunked pure determinism, and has done so through the identfication of randomness at that level... randomness within a probability function for a given interaction... i.e. whereas determinism equates to "same inputs = same outputs", QM suggests "same inputs = random output within a probability function".

What all this randomness does, at QM level, is then filtered through the macro-level world to give a world that behaves at the macro-level very much free of free-will. Simply put, we are the sum of the micro-level interactions. We can no more influence the randomness of QM than we can decide to turn off the Earth's gravity.
And that is what "free-will" requires... us (our consciousness) to somehow affect the randomness.

I have a prejudice here. If there really is true "randomness" built into the structure of the world, those are miracles, i.e. uncaused and therefore unpredictable events. I'm wondering therefore, if that is true, why don't all those little miracles combine to reveal themselves in some larger miracles, If it is random, it would seem that every once in a while all the "stuff" would fall the same way one day and do something really huge and really odd. And that would keep happening, occasionally and regularly everywhere in every thing. To me that is a reductio ad absurdum of the randomness theory. If you say they are all always too small and spread too evenly to ever have a macro effect, that sounds a little like an unverifiable hypotheses. What a happy coincidence, no connection between cause and effect but it acts like there is. Wouldn't Occam's razor make it easier to believe that the micro "randomness" might be merely a observational anomaly? Perhaps something we can't do, or get around or understand quite yet?

And as above, I don't see how miracles result in freedom, but rather just the opposite, I'm going to be "compelled" by pure chance. I can't control my own behavior. Talk about unfree!

 

[Regular0ldguy]

If that were true, surely all a proponent of 'Free Will' has to do, is to choose to not believe in Free Will, to prove their point?

That sounds like Descartes trying to suddenly disbelieve everything. You can't do that. You have too much evidence to the contrary. If you want to change a belief, you need to do some homework so that you can reevaluate your position, you may end up going the other way, but you may not. Beliefs aren't like socks.

 

[phlogistician]

If you want to change a belief, you need to do some homework so that you can reevaluate your position, you may end up going the other way, but you may not. Beliefs aren't like socks.

What you describe sounds more like reprogramming yourself, than having a 'Free' choice.

 

[Sarkus]

I have a prejudice here. If there really is true "randomness" built into the structure of the world, those are miracles, i.e. uncaused and therefore unpredictable events.

Randomness does not necessarily imply uncaused or unpredictable.
A die, when rolled, will land on a number between 1 and 6. It is predictable in this regard.
The randomness is in which output will arise from the probability function, and the die roll was caused.

And miracles... well, that term alone is rather loaded, so I'd rather avoid it as we all have our own understanding of the term. Mine would be something that defies the laws of the universe, so clearly "randomness" would not be it.

I'm wondering therefore, if that is true, why don't all those little miracles combine to reveal themselves in some larger miracles, If it is random, it would seem that every once in a while all the "stuff" would fall the same way one day and do something really huge and really odd.

The larger (i.e. the more interactions involved), the less likely anything "miraculous" will occur... basic math.

And that would keep happening, occasionally and regularly everywhere in every thing. To me that is a reductio ad absurdum of the randomness theory.

Indeed it would be if that is what you expect to happen. But as it is mathematically not to be expected... :shrug:

If you say they are all always too small and spread too evenly to ever have a macro effect, that sounds a little like an unverifiable hypotheses. What a happy coincidence, no connection between cause and effect but it acts like there is.

Again, not sure where this understanding comes from that there would be no connection between cause and effect... randomness does not imply it (see example above).

Wouldn't Occam's razor make it easier to believe that the micro "randomness" might be merely a observational anomaly? Perhaps something we can't do, or get around or understand quite yet?

It might well be, but that does not alter the position: either we understand the "randomness" (i.e. and can fully predict it) which would disprove free-will, or we have genuine "randomness" which again leaves no room for free-will.

 

[E=mc rectangled]

Alright, im about to solve the whole problem here. There is free will and I can reason it out for you. Human life is purely decissions. Let's make this easy and pretend that all decissions only have simply outcomes. If I choose one then i have used my personal experience combined with my personality as a whole to decide which to pick. While, this may seem like all free will is gone from this, the problem simple is science. What has happened in my life my seem to affect it but the free will comes in when it comes to how my brain processes that experience. The start of this is not a voluntary action and thus is free from "intention". The initial response my brain has is then stored, creating my personality. My personality is then shaped by my free will to accept or reject the processed information. This shaping CANNOT be at all influenced by the outside world or other information because it is all done at nearly the speed of light in the minds subconscious. This choice is the only free will there is in the brain but it leads to every single choice made otherwise. The fact is that free will is so far from what we usually consider our choice that it may seem non-existant, but our subconscious makes choices for us that are every bit voluntary and every bit deserving of consequences.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

What you describe sounds more like reprogramming yourself, than having a 'Free' choice.

So if you are free to reprogram yourself as you wish to be, how is that not a measure of freedom? Pretty darned free. If you were both a computer and your own programmer, that sounds pretty free.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Alright, im about to solve the whole problem here. There is free will and I can reason it out for you. Human life is purely decissions. Let's make this easy and pretend that all decissions only have simply outcomes. If I choose one then i have used my personal experience combined with my personality as a whole to decide which to pick. While, this may seem like all free will is gone from this, the problem simple is science. What has happened in my life my seem to affect it but the free will comes in when it comes to how my brain processes that experience. The start of this is not a voluntary action and thus is free from "intention". The initial response my brain has is then stored, creating my personality. My personality is then shaped by my free will to accept or reject the processed information. This shaping CANNOT be at all influenced by the outside world or other information because it is all done at nearly the speed of light in the minds subconscious. This choice is the only free will there is in the brain but it leads to every single choice made otherwise. The fact is that free will is so far from what we usually consider our choice that it may seem non-existant, but our subconscious makes choices for us that are every bit voluntary and every bit deserving of consequences.

:m: I might have to read this a few more times.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

: either we understand the "randomness" (i.e. and can fully predict it) which would disprove free-will, or we have genuine "randomness" which again leaves no room for free-will.

So a predictable causal nexus makes free will impossible and an unpredictable causal nexus makes free will impossible.

So what do you think free will is? That's pretty critical since it can't exist under either A or not A.

 

[Sarkus]

So a predictable causal nexus makes free will impossible and an unpredictable causal nexus makes free will impossible.

So what do you think free will is? That's pretty critical since it can't exist under either A or not A.

Who says it has to exist??

As I have previously said, it depends on one's definition of free-will:

If you define free-will as actual self-determination then I say it does not exist - for the reasons I have given... if it does not exist under either A or not-A then logically it does not exist.

However, if you define it along the lines of: "a pattern of activity that gives the appearance of self-determination" then it DOES exist - but is mere illusory with regard actual self-determination... hence merely the appearance of.
Much like a mirage exists, but is illusory with regard the appearance.

I think free-will (the illusion of self-determination) is an integral part of consciousness: they are both of the same category of phenomena, and one without the other is meaningless.

 

[phlogistician]

So if you are free to reprogram yourself as you wish to be, how is that not a measure of freedom? Pretty darned free. If you were both a computer and your own programmer, that sounds pretty free.

I'm afraid not, that only implies the possibility of reprogramming, and that the existing program can choose another.

Events are either determined, or random. I can't reconcile this with 'Free' will myself.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Who says it has to exist??

As I have previously said, it depends on one's definition of free-will:

If you define free-will as actual self-determination then I say it does not exist - for the reasons I have given... if it does not exist under either A or not-A then logically it does not exist.

However, if you define it along the lines of: "a pattern of activity that gives the appearance of self-determination" then it DOES exist - but is mere illusory with regard actual self-determination... hence merely the appearance of.
Much like a mirage exists, but is illusory with regard the appearance.

I think free-will (the illusion of self-determination) is an integral part of consciousness: they are both of the same category of phenomena, and one without the other is meaningless.

So I think we are moving from one definitional failure to another. What exactly is "actual self-determination"?

Creating your self in the literal sense like a god would? (Bootsraps - which is internally inconsistent and even logically impossible). Severing all ties to your training, influences, intelligence, emotions, goals, priorities, values, instincts, knowledge etc. etc.?

This is the exact same mistake in terminology about a new phrase.

You apparently think "actual self-determination" means no influences at all. So how is that different than "uncaused" and how is that different than no causal nexus, and how is that different than an unconnected string of miracles?

Same problem, new phrase.

 

[Regular0ldguy]

Events are either determined, or random. I can't reconcile this with 'Free' will myself.

That's because you really aren't talking about comparing what we all normally think of as free behavior with what we know is compelled behavior.

Both are caused, we are just identifying one type of process (making free decisions without compulsion) with unfree decisions (internally, or externally forced to do something though you would rather do something else if you were free to choose).

Determinists have let a very slick verbal maneuver make them accepts a concept of "free" which can't exist (neither caused or uncaused), so they say nothing is free and freedom doesn't exist.

 

[arfa brane]

A definiton of freedom of choice seems to require that we understand what we mean by freedom on the one hand, and choice on the other.

We already know that a coin has two choices, and "freedom" is what a coin has when it's spinning (ok, that's more of a heuristic). So does our own sense of freedom have a corresponding "spin":: neural activity that leads to a choice is like a random process, which somehow converges into a recognisable pattern?

We also believe that we make unconscious decisions. So what determines them?
Another problem is our tendency to believe that when an outcome is good for us, it was because of a choice we made (to join an organisation, accept a job offer, buy a lottery ticket), but when an outcome isn't good, it was because of circumstances beyond our control, in which we had no freedom to choose.

This tends to make me think that the "freedom" is just a convenient illusion (I have an idea I'm not alone in this thinking).

And again, we think there is choice because we don't know all the details, we don't because we can't. This gives us a sense that some things are "freely caused", or that our limited knowledge of chains of causality gives the appearance of freedom (as in when a coin is spinning in the air, we have limited knowledge of its orientation).

So freedom is the illusion left when parts of the causal chain are "broken" by the limitation of knowledge about it. Choice can be about whether you think you acted freely, or had no choice (e.g. your house catches fire, a meteorite crashes through your roof, your car is struck by lightning, etc), Choice is "given", and we're free to choose, but only because we don't know any better.