• Is free will possible, or are we always affect by some level of determinism
    354 replies, posted
I've been reading recently a lot in regards to the subject of Free Will and whether or not it is actually possible. At first I believed it was utterly impossible, as I thought that since our minds had to obey the natural laws, it would thus be impossible for us to choose things Freely. However the idea of Quantum Mechanics came up, which of course means that thing, at least on a sub atomic level, are to some degree unpredictable and some attempt to argue that this could allow room for Free Will. This however makes little sense to me, even if there is a level of randomness to the universe, surely this does not mean we have Free Will, just that what will happen will be unpredictable, but still outside of our control. Stephen Hawking also seems to agree with at least the idea of a level of determinism in his book "The Grand Design" in which he states : "our understanding of the molecular basis shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and therefore are as determined as the orbits of the planets." Thus I find the idea of total free will to be somewhat unlikely
I got free will, I got free bird, and I'm free fallin'. Check mate. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("This is not debate/Awful ban history" - JohnnyMo1))[/highlight]
I don't think behavior is completely determined, due to the inherently random behavior of atoms on quantum scales. This does not mean that free will exists however, because randomness isn't up to you. "If the behavior of atoms is determined, then there's no freedom. If it's random, then there's no will." -Some random speaker I forgot Also this is a pretty good video regardless of what you think of his other views: [video=youtube;FanhvXO9Pk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FanhvXO9Pk[/video]
Determinism. Consider a game of craps. Let's say a man rolls the dice and gets a 7. Now imagine you have a magical remote control that can rewind time. If you go back to the dice roll, it will come up a 7 every time no matter what, assuming you don't make any changes. Now look at the universe. Rewind to the big bang, and let it all play out again. Things won't randomly start happening differently. If you played it all out back to present time, everything would be exactly the same. If you disagree, please explain why.
It seems to me that most folks are predisposed towards certain actions because of their genes, or a previous experience, etc. I want to say that there's only sorta-free will, as each person is constrained by conscious/unconscious processes that aren't all within each person's control.
[QUOTE=Explosions;43164925]Determinism. Consider a game of craps. Let's say a man rolls the dice and gets a 7. Now imagine you have a magical remote control that can rewind time. If you go back to the dice roll, it will come up a 7 every time no matter what, assuming you don't make any changes. Now look at the universe. Rewind to the big bang, and let it all play out again. Things won't randomly start happening differently. If you played it all out back to present time, everything would be exactly the same. If you disagree, please explain why.[/QUOTE] Because the state of the modern universe is heavily influenced by quantum effects in the early universe. These may not be exactly the same if you tried again.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43164936]Because the state of the modern universe is heavily influenced by quantum effects in the early universe. These may not be exactly the same if you tried again.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. This does nothing to explain free will because, as you said, "randomness isn't up to you."
[QUOTE=Explosions;43164954]Fair enough. This does nothing to explain free will because, as you said, "randomness isn't up to you."[/QUOTE] Yeah people who try to explain free will through quantum mechanics are... Well it's not really their fault I guess. But for all intents and purposes most of my day to day thinking treats the world as though there was free will. Like if I read a news story about someone committing a horrible crime I'll still feel resentment towards that person.
I'm leaning towards a deterministic universe (save for quantum shenanigans), but I don't know... Even people who believe in determinism or lack of free will look both ways before crossing the street.
[QUOTE=Im Crimson;43165292]I'm leaning towards a deterministic universe (save for quantum shenanigans), but I don't know... Even people who believe in determinism or lack of free will look both ways before crossing the street.[/QUOTE] That's not how determinism works. Of course people would look both ways, their parents taught them and they know of examples of people getting hit by cars. Hence, they protect themselves. Maybe you're talking about some sort of religious determinism where god is watching out for you or something.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43164936]Because the state of the modern universe is heavily influenced by quantum effects in the early universe. These may not be exactly the same if you tried again.[/QUOTE] but to what extent do quantum effects influence the macro world? As far as I know quantum physics is something that only really effects sub atomic particles and its effects are mostly negligible on the macro world. [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Im Crimson;43165292]I'm leaning towards a deterministic universe (save for quantum shenanigans), but I don't know... Even people who believe in determinism or lack of free will look both ways before crossing the street.[/QUOTE] Determinism doesn't necessarily imply fate. As has been stated there is at least a certain level of indetermination within the universe. Because of this you would still need to look both ways since there would be no real way of your knowing what was coming as the universe is unpredictable. However your looking both ways was still a preprogrammed response so that you personally could gain more imformation on the road you're crossing is safe. The real question is, did you choose to look both ways, or because of how things are, were you going to do it regardless.
Maybe this is a neurological subject, if the difference between making two decisions really comes down to a sufficiently tiny electrical impulse in a sufficiently complex and tiny physical structure maybe it could fall under the umbrella of 'quantum uncertainty' that these things are so often labelled with. I'd agree that it's unlikely though, my feeling is that the laws governing the universe are robust enough that all but the most tiny and immeasurable of events are calculable enough to be considered predetermined, and those events below that threshhold would presumably be unable to noticeably affect history. It's fun to hypothesise about.
[QUOTE=MazerRackham;43165984]Maybe this is a neurological subject, if the difference between making two decisions really comes down to a sufficiently tiny electrical impulse in a sufficiently complex and tiny physical structure maybe it could fall under the umbrella of 'quantum uncertainty' that these things are so often labelled with. I'd agree that it's unlikely though, my feeling is that the laws governing the universe are robust enough that all but the most tiny and immeasurable of events are calculable enough to be considered predetermined, and those events below that threshhold would presumably be unable to noticeably affect history. It's fun to hypothesise about.[/QUOTE] But quantum uncertainty wouldn't mean free will, you still don't have a choice in what happens, it just means that you can't predict it exactly.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43166133]But quantum uncertainty wouldn't mean free will, you still don't have a choice in what happens, it just means that you can't predict it exactly.[/QUOTE] It would provide proof of concept for free will though, any black mark against determinism would. Again, I don't actually think it's the case. It's just the first possibility I could think of.
Free will is an illusion.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43165437]but to what extent do quantum effects influence the macro world? As far as I know quantum physics is something that only really effects sub atomic particles and its effects are mostly negligible on the macro world.[/QUOTE] It's quite plausible that quantum fluctuations are the seed that determined how the universe looks today on a cosmological scale. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primordial_fluctuations[/url] [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=MazerRackham;43166152]It would provide proof of concept for free will though, any black mark against determinism would.[/QUOTE] I don't see how. Like people have been saying, you don't need determinism to be true to have free will be false.
[QUOTE=MazerRackham;43166152]It would provide proof of concept for free will though, any black mark against determinism would. Again, I don't actually think it's the case. It's just the first possibility I could think of.[/QUOTE] Well it doesn't really. Quantum uncertainty is more randomness, you still don't choose what happens, as was pointed out in that Sam Harris video above. Free will just seems like a logical impossibility, you would have to be able to choose what you choose free of any influences, which of course is impossible as to be free of influences you would effectively have to not exist. Quantum uncertainty does put a black mark against super determinism where everything is predetermined from the beginning of the big bang, but that is not the only idea of determinism.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43166320]I don't see how. Like people have been saying, you don't need determinism to be true to have free will be false.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Free will can be impossible even without determinism, but surely it's impossible by definition if determinism is the case. [QUOTE=carcarcargo;43166339]Well it doesn't really. Quantum uncertainty is more randomness, you still don't choose what happens, as was pointed out in that Sam Harris video above. Free will just seems like a logical impossibility, you would have to be able to choose what you choose free of any influences, which of course is impossible as to be free of influences you would effectively have to not exist.[/QUOTE] I reckon randomness would be the closest we could get to genuine free will. Also, I'd like to state for a third time that [I]I'm not convinced that free will exists either[/I]. It was just a thought.
[QUOTE=MazerRackham;43166505] I reckon randomness would be the closest we could get to genuine free will. Also, I'd like to state for a third time that [I]I'm not convinced that free will exists either[/I]. It was just a thought.[/QUOTE] It's not really free will at all though and isn't much different from super determinism in how much free will it gives you, since it isn't your will that is effecting the random event, it's still totally out of your control. I know I'm arguing against a devils advocate, but it's still a discussion on the matter to be had.
If quantum mechanics allow "impossible magic stuff" to happen, such as events that havent been caused by anything, then anything is possible when it comes to free will
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43166649]It's not really free will at all though and isn't much different from super determinism in how much free will it gives you, since it isn't your will that is effecting the random event, it's still totally out of your control. I know I'm arguing against a devils advocate, but it's still a discussion on the matter to be had.[/QUOTE] Thinking about free will adds wrinkles to my brain that I don't need. You're correct that it's not true free will in that it's still subject to defined laws, I think unpredictability is the closest analog we can hope for.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;43165437]but to what extent do quantum effects influence the macro world? As far as I know quantum physics is something that only really effects sub atomic particles and its effects are mostly negligible on the macro world.[/QUOTE] When the universe was very small quantum effects could make changes that are exasperated by inflation. [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=TNOMCat;43166743]If quantum mechanics allow "impossible magic stuff" to happen, such as events that havent been caused by anything, then anything is possible when it comes to free will[/QUOTE] No, there is no impossible magic stuff. It's just quantum mechanics.
[QUOTE=Falubii;43166767] No, there is no impossible magic stuff. It's just quantum mechanics.[/QUOTE] AKA magic stuff that nothing is causing to happen. If there is no way to predict the result then nothing is affecting the random decisions therefore they are caused by nothing out of nowhere
[QUOTE=TNOMCat;43166809]AKA magic stuff that nothing is causing to happen. If there is no way to predict the result then nothing is affecting the random decisions therefore they are caused by nothing out of nowhere[/QUOTE] Quantum mechanics is not "it's magic anything can happen." Quantum mechanics still allows you to predict outcomes, the laws are just probabilistic, in contrast with classical mechanics, and the fact that we can only calculate probabilities does not really create room for free will in any meaningful sense.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43166875]Quantum mechanics is not "it's magic anything can happen." Quantum mechanics still allows you to predict outcomes, the laws are just probabilistic, in contrast with classical mechanics, and the fact that we can only calculate probabilities does not really create room for free will in any meaningful sense.[/QUOTE] I said nothing is making those random probabilistic decisions if there is no variables at all that affect it.. And then nothing is really causing the particle to move either, or the thing that would be moving it would cause the motion in a theoretically predictable way
[QUOTE=TNOMCat;43167013]I said nothing is making those random probabilistic decisions if there is no variables at all that affect it.. And then nothing is really causing the particle to move either, or the thing that would be moving it would cause the motion in a theoretically predictable way[/QUOTE] But the states of particles still evolve in a predictable way apart from wavefunction collapse, and depending on the interpretation of quantum mechanics you believe, wavefunction collapse might not be all that strange either (or it may not happen at all).
[QUOTE=TNOMCat;43166809]AKA magic stuff that nothing is causing to happen. If there is no way to predict the result then nothing is affecting the random decisions therefore they are caused by nothing out of nowhere[/QUOTE] But it doesn't allow magic stuff. While it does assert that even if you build a computer the size of the universe that it would be impossible to accurately predict what exactly would happen in every part of the universe at a point due to a level of uncertainty at a subatomic level, it does not imply magic in any way. This is a usual misunderstanding of quantum mechanics that even I had until I really started to read about it.
What do we mean by free will here? I think human beings, through introspection, always have the ability to change their lifestyle choices. That through a process of conditioning we have accepted a number of things about our lives as inevitable and unchangeable, but in the day-to-day our commitments to these ideals are tested, and as rational beings we can choose whether to follow them or not. [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] I also just want to say that it is nearly impossible to prove free will since determinism is the one operating on the "scientific model". If thats the case, then I'd say the inability for human behavior to be predicted 100% should function as proof of free will.
[QUOTE=Flameon;43167208]What do we mean by free will here? I think human beings, through introspection, always have the ability to change their lifestyle choices. That through a process of conditioning we have accepted a number of things about our lives as inevitable and unchangeable, but in the day-to-day our commitments to these ideals are tested, and as rational beings we can choose whether to follow them or not. [editline]13th December 2013[/editline] I also just want to say that it is nearly impossible to prove free will since determinism is the one operating on the "scientific model". If thats the case, then I'd say the inability for human behavior to be predicted 100% should function as proof of free will.[/QUOTE] I think that, if our thoughts are the product of the physical state of our brain and its interactions with the environment (which I would contend is the case), then to say that a person "chooses" anything is meaningless. Nature chooses for them. That's why we don't have free will, and it doesn't depend on determinism.
Free Willy [I]In response to the issue of pre-determined actions, I take the approach of the compatibilist in order to clarify what is actually meant by the term ‘free will’. By appealing to the compatibilist definition of free will, that to be free is to do what one wishes to do, I find that the freedom of one’s will is not at all infringed by predetermination. By contrasting examples where one can be considered to not have free will, I tease out the notion that free will exists in the ability for an agent to rationally, and perhaps irrationally, choose between a set of unhindered desires to produce an action. In reference to ‘Minority Report’ , the concept of free will can be seen when John’s knowledge of his report leads to his agency reasoning differently than it would have otherwise.[/I] The Seer speaks; “Coming from the parking lot you walk past the bumper cars on the right side and you follow the gravel path until you find a small crimson tent. As you enter you ask me if this is the right place to have your fortune told.” The Seer stops the voice recorder and a man walks into the tent. He asks “Is this the right place where I can have my fortune told?” The Seer replays her recording to the man, and he is so unsettled by her prediction that he runs out of the tent. The Seer says; “I did not see that coming”. The preservation of a person’s power to do as he or she wishes is an ideal which is held highly within human thought. The concept of being forced to do otherwise, or being helpless in your circumstance is one which terrifies many people to this day. Indeed the concept of being coerced or helpless is one which is used widely today to alleviate the guilt of people involved in a crime. This all has to do with an argument which has been raging within the field of philosophy for hundreds of years, that is free will. The issue of free will is one which has not been settled despite efforts of many philosophers throughout those ages. The problem which began all of this is that of the apparent causal nature of our reality. If I bump into something, that something tends to respond in a predictable way. This has led many thinkers to reason that since we are arguably some-thing then we too must be being bumped in some way. The conclusion that many have drawn from this is that we do not have free will, that we are in effect just along for the ride while the causal forces of the universe do their job. Unfortunately, to claim as such would be to make a fundamental second claim about how we should be referring to free will. In defense of the notion of free will, some have argued that the way you talk about it matters greatly to whether you have it. When we say that we have free will, what is it exactly that we are referring to? One common answer is that free will is the ability to have done otherwise given the same circumstances. This answer is promoted by those who belong to the incompatibilist camp, which hold that if what we choose is predetermined, then we by definition cannot have free will. The issue which this runs into is that even if one is to concede that given all the same circumstances one would in fact be compelled to do the same, that does not necessarily lead to a violation of one’s free will. If we are to examine the phrase “all the same circumstances” then we might find that it also includes the will of the agent in question. To say that given the same circumstances one would act the same is simply to say that given a situation where someone wills do do action A, they will do action A. This leads to the another definition of free will which is not violated by predetermined events. In this case free will is simply the ability to do what one wills to do at a given moment in time. The pre-determinacy of the decision is inconsequential to whether or not the freedom of the agent in question has been violated. Under this definition of free will, a violation only occurs if an agent’s normal choice in a situation is unduly affected by an overpowering factor, such as a gun to someone’s head. In that case the agent no longer operates according to the same set of reasoned outcomes, and instead must prioritize actions which would facilitate his not being affected negatively by that factor. Similarly, free will is infringed upon when one does not have the entirety of his mental faculties. If a person cannot weigh given outcomes to produce a decision which reflects his own reasoned desires, then he cannot be truly exercising his free will as understood by the second definition. Ultimately the violation of free will can be understood as the the impeding, or restricting of the phenomenological choice making process. Commonly, the case of a drug addict is given to further explore the issues which arise within the context of free will. In such a case it can be argued that although the want or desire of the addict in question is to get the next hit of that drug, the reasoned desire, at least commonly, is that they not want to have that next hit. The problem which arises is the question of whether the drug addict is free in his choice. Under the definition proposed earlier, the drug addict would be free only if he could do what he wished to do at the given time. So in that sense he is free unless he should be confined to a rehabilitation clinic. The issue however is the secondary desire of not wanting to want the next hit. The addict is in this case being coerced chemically in a way similar to the man with the gun, causing his reasoning to be heavily skewed in favor of the desires caused by coercion. So in this sense he is not free. Although this is the case for the drug addict, who is being unduly coerced, what can be said of the main character John in the movie “Minority Report”? In this movie a police officer is predicted to kill a man by a very reliable set of psychics referred to as ‘precogs’. Learning of this, the man sets off on a course to avoid this very event. Owing the movie it’s title, there was a secondary ‘minority report’ by one of the precogs which predicted that John does not kill the man. In this theoretical case we find that when John found about the prediction, the set of information which he can draw upon is different than if he had just gone on about his business. In the final moments of the choice scene, John feverishly points the gun at the predicted victim as a kidnapped member of the precog group tells him ‘you can choose’1. Interestingly it seems that the movie placed her there in these final crucial moments as reminder that his set of information to draw upon and ‘choose’ with is now altered. Sadly seconds after the time runs out, and in a very American fashion John reads the man his miranda rights, the victim pulls the gun to his own body and forces the shot. To clarify, this scenario was different from the majority report which predicted the original murder, which was acted solely by John. In this case we find the infringement of free will where the gun was discharged against the will of John. For if we are to examine the situation closer we would find that John’s reaction time may not be fast enough for him to weigh and decide that he wants to resist the forcing of the trigger. In the end it is the freedom of one’s ‘will’ which gives way to free will, as opposed to the ability of a person to act completely unpredictably. What exactly constitutes an entirely free will is quite debatable, but it is this will which governs the decisions made by humans. To say that it is someone’s will that they eat scones this morning as opposed to cereal, is perhaps to say that they prefer to eat scones this morning because they ate cereal last time. The circumstance is highly related to the decision that is made, but that is not to say that one’s will is being impeded by that circumstance. Instead it would be more accurate to say that the will is the intelligent deliberation of choice when presented with various circumstance. That is to say, the answer of what collectively constitutes the will is what one would do given a varying range of situations. This comes together to make up a concept of personhood which is intrinsically linked to the will. Indeed, it is how you would act given different situations that constitutes you as a person. If you had a perfect doppleganger which is the identical in every aspect except that he has the will to kill the mayor should he ever get the chance, then the difference between you and him can be expressed as that difference in your wills. Ultimately it is the expression of one’s will which gives meaning to most people’s lives. Indeed to predict what someone will do is simply to say that you know someone well enough to say what he wills to do given that moment’s circumstance. In no way does it seem clear that one’s will is being violated just by virtue of his tendency to act upon his desires. Instead the ambiguity seems to lie in defining exactly what it is to be making a decision while not being unduly coerced. In the case of John, we see that his will only seems to be restricted when he cannot exercise his control as an agent with desires. Yet in the case of the drug addict, we found that his coercion was chemical, in a way similar to the adrenaline produced when a gunman threatens you. To say that your will is free is simply to say that you have the ability to act upon your desires without being unduly coerced. If a man’s will is predetermined, it speaks nothing to whether his will is being freely exercised or not. [I]In the case of the man who visited the Seer, even though his every move was predicted, it was still within the freedom of his will to run out of that tent.[/I] [editline]12th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Explosions;43164925]Determinism. Consider a game of craps. Let's say a man rolls the dice and gets a 7. Now imagine you have a magical remote control that can rewind time. If you go back to the dice roll, it will come up a 7 every time no matter what, assuming you don't make any changes. Now look at the universe. Rewind to the big bang, and let it all play out again. Things won't randomly start happening differently. If you played it all out back to present time, everything would be exactly the same. If you disagree, please explain why.[/QUOTE] If there is any random workings within the universe that is false. There is random workings within the universe. Therefore that is false.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.