News:

if there were no need for 'engineers from the quantum plenum' then we should not have any unanswered scientific questions.

Main Menu

does "free will" actually exist?

Started by yepimonfire, December 22, 2011, 09:25:10 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Pharaoh Cat

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
The one thing that may alter a completely deterministic world view is intelligent self-consciousness and self-reflection, which humans alone possess on this planet, it appears.

I've watched my cat follow a decision process that looks pretty human to me, as far as I can tell.  For example, I recently started handing little treats to her.  Her initial reaction was to move away from my outstretched hand, as she tends to interpret most interactions as some sort of game involving some sort of chase.  But she wanted the treat.  I watched her hesitate, then move toward my hand, them move away, them move toward it again, and finally take the treat.  Something was definitely going on in her head.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
The mere act of considering all the alternatives presented by a situation interferes with the process of strict determinism.

I don't see why.  Genes and history determine whether alternatives will be considered at all, and which alternatives, and by what standard they'll be measured.  Genes and history determine our thoughts and our feelings, which in turn determine our actions.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
While deterministic forces may still apply within the feedback loop -

They do, of course.

Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
- the whole process of stopping the normal course of cause/effect to thoughtfully reflect has introduced a previously unknown factor into the equation.

Every entity has some method of processing stimulus so as to generate a response.  That method may be mechanical, as in the case of a tire jack, or chemical, as in the case of a stomach, or psychodynamic, as in the case of an animal.  Whatever the method, the stimulus will be processed and a response will be generated, and in every instance, the processing will follow the path laid down for it by the entity's governing nature and the entity's history.
"The Logic Elf rewards anyone who thinks logically."  (Jill)

Whitney

I think our ability to make decisions by analyzing situations and possible outcomes rather than by acting purely on natural instinct counts as free will; at least in a practical sense.

I don't really focus too much on if reality is deterministic or not because at the end of the day we'd all still act as if it were not....it's just something that can be interesting to discuss from an academic point of view.  I don't think we actually know enough about the universe yet to know exactly how much of reality is determined by previous events (like how far back does the butterfly effect go).

I don't think the existence or lack of a soul affects free will as I can imagine programing a computer so that it could function (genes) and placing it in a world where it could interact (environment) and that it would be able to do so freely only being held back by basic barriers necessary to its existence.  A soul would just be god (or something) programming something that is beyond natural explanation.

Sgtmackenzie

I am a firm believer in free will.   I am also a firm believer in freedom to choose.   I think they are one and the same.   

For example, the westboro baptist church has the free will to do what they do and picket funerals.   They have the freedom to choose to say what they say, but maybe that choice should still have consequences?   Maybe this would help them make the "right" choice based on a broader societal view that sees what they are doing is harmful to those that are just trying to grieve?

On the opposing side, maybe I as an adult make the choice to let my 8 year old sit on my lap and steer my vehicle down a dirt road.   When I was growing up, this was normal and something my father did with me, yet today - I would likely be put in jail for "choosing" to do such a thing.

Free will and freedom of choice is like ethics.   An Ethical choice isn't necessarily "legal" or "illegal".    That is based on what society as a whole deems as right and wrong.

One problem I see in America today is that more and more freedom of choice and free will is being legislated out of the hands of individuals. (For example, we make laws to punish a choice that is deemed "wrong" by making it illegal or even worse -- a government agency with little oversight does so)  Instead, the decision whether a choice that is made is right or wrong lies in the hands of people that may not reflect the society an individual grew up in.     

I think this may be one reason Free Thought is so "popular" today.    Choices, or "Free Will" are slowly being taken out of the hands of individuals and the only thing left is free expression of thought.

Apologies for going a bit off topic - excercising free speech =P

DeterminedJuliet

I think there should be a distinction between "determinist" and "fatalist". I don't think that "determinism" really conflicts with free will for any practical purpose, but "fatalism" does.

"Determinist", to me, implies the logical conclusion of cause and effect - if you know every single possible variable, you should be able to know the effect. On the largest scale, this should apply to every aspect of human nature. Of course we don't have anywhere close to that amount of knowledge that this would require, but it should be theoretically possible. However, even if this were the case, I would argue that this doesn't need to mean that we have no "free will".

What's the definition of free?
Quote"1. Not imprisoned or enslaved; being at liberty.
2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another"

So, if we're talking about variables, can we really say that we're enslaved by them? I don't think so. Every aspect of our reality is limited in one way or another - humans need boundaries, but that doesn't mean these boundaries are all prisons. We think and process using our (limited) brains, but how many of us feel like we're enslaved by our brains? Maybe some people do, but I'd argue that most don't.

Similarly, when it comes to this position, can we say that we're controlled by the obligation or will of another? Not really. Even if all of the variables line up and we can predict every outcome, there's no "purpose" or will behind the variables and the outcomes don't need to have any coherent direction beyond being the logical conclusion of the variables. We are still the primary players, despite the fact that our actions may be predicted.

It's only when you get into an argument of "fatalism" that I think we move into "no free will" territory. Fatalism implies a "mover" or that there is an unconscious direction that everything we do moves us towards. Like Oedipus (or the stupid "final destination" movies) nothing we do can stop our "fates". It's less about cause = effect and more about action = destiny. Personally, I loathe the idea of fatalism because it strikes me as completely ego-centric. I don't think the universe gives a flying fig about what happens to any of us.

Sooo yeah. Those are my two cents  ;D
"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Sgtmackenzie

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 23, 2011, 12:25:40 AM
Personally, I loathe the idea of fatalism because it strikes me as completely ego-centric. I don't think the universe gives a flying fig about what happens to any of us.

Sooo yeah. Those are my two cents  ;D

Agreed!   Fatalism is like the lazy man sitting down and saying, where is my food woman!!?    Then complaining when he is about to die of malnutrition.    Life is not about any one individual, it is about how you impact the lives of those around you.

The Magic Pudding

I accept that everything should be predictable to an omniscient being.
I'm not sure predictable detracts from freedom.
I am me, I've inherited characteristics from the universe which will determine what I type next.
But I have inherited these things, they are mine, so my decisions are mine, I own them.
I don't really accept the theoretical predictability of my actions makes me less free except in an extremely abstract sense.

Sgtmackenzie

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 03:29:56 AM
I accept that everything should be predictable to an omniscient being.
I'm not sure predictable detracts from freedom.
I am me, I've inherited characteristics from the universe which will determine what I type next.
But I have inherited these things, they are mine, so my decisions are mine, I own them.
I don't really accept the theoretical predictability of my actions making makes me less free except in an extremely abstract sense.

The idea of an omniscient being that can see the outcome of every possible choice but doesn't step in to share this information is just ludicrous.

The idea of predictability in a choice or series of choices could only be marginally equated with the Reasonable person rule in Law.   If a reasonable person has the motive and opportunity to kill another human being but decides not to do so because of the punishment (lets say in a Death Penalty state) we can assume that is what a reasonable person would do.    In a case where someone DOES make the choice to kill another human being, they are therefore unreasonable under the law and should be punished.     That is what the punishment is there for to deter the choice we DONT want to see as a society.    Society invents these rules not because we know what choices will be made under a set of circumstances, but because we know what will deter those choices.

We are free - to make our own choices.   That some believe those choices are predestined by or known by an omniscient being seems to me to be a completely unreasonable idea.   Also, unproven to date with no positive data with which to theorize.

The Magic Pudding

Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 23, 2011, 03:40:59 AM

The idea of an omniscient being that can see the outcome of every possible choice but doesn't step in to share this information is just ludicrous.


omniscience:  The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Probably is ludicrous, it is just a way of imagining the implications of determinism.
An omniscient being could have no other ability other than to know.

Squid

Quote from: Pharaoh Cat on December 22, 2011, 08:44:16 PM
Quote from: Ecurb Noselrub on December 22, 2011, 07:18:11 PM
The one thing that may alter a completely deterministic world view is intelligent self-consciousness and self-reflection, which humans alone possess on this planet, it appears.

I've watched my cat follow a decision process that looks pretty human to me, as far as I can tell.  For example, I recently started handing little treats to her.  Her initial reaction was to move away from my outstretched hand, as she tends to interpret most interactions as some sort of game involving some sort of chase.  But she wanted the treat.  I watched her hesitate, then move toward my hand, them move away, them move toward it again, and finally take the treat.  Something was definitely going on in her head.


It all greatly depends on how those terms are operationalized.  There's research on non-human primates that shows they exihibit forethought, self-awareness and self-recognition, show empathy, coordinate with each other in complex ways, plan ahead and solve problems through application of knowledge.  Some have gone so far as to identify aspects of regional group differences in social behavior as primitive culture.

Sgtmackenzie

Quote from: The Magic Pudding on December 23, 2011, 04:06:01 AM
Quote from: Sgtmackenzie on December 23, 2011, 03:40:59 AM

The idea of an omniscient being that can see the outcome of every possible choice but doesn't step in to share this information is just ludicrous.


omniscience:  The state of being omniscient; having infinite knowledge
Probably is ludicrous, it is just a way of imagining the implications of determinism.
An omniscient being could have no other ability other than to know.

How do you know an omniscient being could have no other ability than to know.   Is this something you know that you aren't sharing?    :D

yepimonfire

Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 22, 2011, 02:34:30 PM
I've never really understood the "question" of free will. Or, rather, how anyone could have a completely deterministic point of view.

I mean, if I'm "destined" to be a rocket scientist, does that mean that I can drop out of highschool and just coast along in life because it's bound to happen anyways? Obviously our choices have weight and impact our lives. Everyone makes choices, so I get confused when people start arguing about this kind of thing.  ???

no, this means that based on your exact situation reading this thread caused you to believe dropping out of highschool will not affect your future because you are predestined. so the only thing you were predestined to do is to read this thread and drop out of highschool. never becoming anything.

basically what i meant was are our reactions set in stone based on our circumstance. if we kept being presented with the same exact circumstance with the same knowledge and memories of the past, would we honestly be able to make a different choice?

DeterminedJuliet

Quote from: yepimonfire on December 23, 2011, 04:28:59 AM
Quote from: DeterminedJuliet on December 22, 2011, 02:34:30 PM
I've never really understood the "question" of free will. Or, rather, how anyone could have a completely deterministic point of view.

I mean, if I'm "destined" to be a rocket scientist, does that mean that I can drop out of highschool and just coast along in life because it's bound to happen anyways? Obviously our choices have weight and impact our lives. Everyone makes choices, so I get confused when people start arguing about this kind of thing.  ???

no, this means that based on your exact situation reading this thread caused you to believe dropping out of highschool will not affect your future because you are predestined. so the only thing you were predestined to do is to read this thread and drop out of highschool. never becoming anything.

basically what i meant was are our reactions set in stone based on our circumstance. if we kept being presented with the same exact circumstance with the same knowledge and memories of the past, would we honestly be able to make a different choice?

Possibly. Haven't there been some situations in your life where you made a choice, but it was a very, very difficult choice to come by and you aren't even certain, afterwards, why you made it? I don't think every decision that I've made and everything that's happened to me so far has ever been a certainty. I think probabilities are more useful for understanding the nature of our experiences. Everything else seems like a trick of retrospect to me, really.

For instance, the paragraph I just wrote is pretty consistent with my "style" of writing, but it isn't the only way I could have ever written what I wanted to say while staying in a familiar "DJ-way". Yes, maybe if you knew all of the variables that were going in my brain, you could predict exactly what I was going to write, but I don't think that means it was the only "choice" available to me.

"We've thought of life by analogy with a journey, with pilgrimage which had a serious purpose at the end, and the THING was to get to that end; success, or whatever it is, or maybe heaven after you're dead. But, we missed the point the whole way along; It was a musical thing and you were supposed to sing, or dance, while the music was being played.

Light

I went over this more in my evolution thread, but I want to make a couple points here, since I see several people believing in determinism.

I don't believe determinism is applicable to all reality.

One of the main arguments a determinist will use is the cause-effect argument.   That all things must follow the laws of physics, which are cause-effect logic, deterministic.  But, the cause-effect relationship only applies to material systems.  If you start with the premise that consciousness and the choices from it are the products of matter, then the cause-effect is logical.

However, if one starts with the premise that consciousness is immaterial and eternal, the cause-effect chain would not absolutely bind them.  Since, from this premise, consciousness is not the creation of matter, therefore not effected by matter.  Our consciousness role would be to direct matter and energy.  Of course, this premise can bring up several questions of its own, but I won't go into that further now.

The second premise, which I posted on, so I'll just briefly mention, is based on intuitive senses.   If one admits that their intuitive senses are capable of providing them with information that is accurate to a degree, of objective reality, such as the sense of hunger among many others, then it is hard to argue why all humans would also develop a sense of agency, which is completely illusionary.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: Light on December 23, 2011, 05:16:31 AM
The second premise, which I posted on, so I'll just briefly mention, is based on intuitive senses.   If one admits that their intuitive senses are capable of providing them with information that is accurate to a degree, of objective reality, such as the sense of hunger among many others, then it is hard to argue why all humans would also develop a sense of agency, which is completely illusionary.

Hunger isn't an intuitive sense, it's instinctual and hardwired. It just is one of those sense that you're born with and you'll know when it's satisfied. There's no need to postulate actual higher learning with this one. Sort of like pain. When you feel pain you do, but when you remove yourself from what's causing you pain, you don't feel pain anymore. some of those involve responses that have even become automatic, so whether free will is involved in a conscious decision to remove your hand from a flame is really debatable. That is an automatic response, and it's better for it, because if people had to first make a string of conscious decision, more harm might be done.

My hand is in the fire, it's causing me pain. I don't like pain. I must remove my hand from the fire.

(removes hand)

Meanwhile, the hand was at least a couple of seconds longer in the fire than it would've been had the response bypassed the brain areas which make those sort of decisions.

Likewise, how do we know that all of the processes that lead up to our decisions are conscious? Is it applicable, in your opinion to say that you chose to remove your hand?

As for situations and circumstances that could cause people to make certain choices...though varied, how is thinking that a certain choice was the best possible one given the situation any different?

(I hope my writing's been clear, it's late and so it's probably muddled. I hope I got the point across.)   
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


Light

#29
Good points.  I do believe in subconscious processes.  No one I would say, is fully in control of all their decisions.

I'd like to put aside the actual decision for a minute though, and just focus on the sense itself.  A child, as you say,  is hard-wired, so-to-speak, to know by sense alone,  certain objective information about reality, such as the need to eat, without having to reason.

And a child gradually develops other senses, and they become more acute with time.  Why would a child, all humans, begin to develop the sense of agency, that they have some freedom, if this sense gives zero information about objective reality, while the other senses do give the child information?

Also, if the sense of agency is 100% illusionary, as the determinist will claim, then why trust any instinctual senses?