Free will

[Tokey-tokerson]

Ok let's say that I travel back in time and just start killing everyone left and right. It wouldn't make a difference because it would be the same as someone that just happened to be living back then to do the same thing. Nothing would change because even though I did travel from the future to do it, it's in the past. The past doesn't change, and the future doesn't change. The term present is imaginary, although you can make choices in the present that will effect the future, but there is only one future although no one can see it. Or something.

 

[DarthMom]

Punishment shouldn't be about making people pay for their choice so that you can feel good. It should be about teaching someone not to do something, and making an example so that others won't do the same thing. Free will aside, punishment exists to lower crime. It has nothing to do with determinism.

i think you need to reread what i said and think about this....if it isn't a choice, if it isn't free will...if you are programmed to do something, then you have no choice, therefore, no punishment.

yes it is absurd, bc yes, hard determinism is absurd.

 

[shoe70]

Yeah, how would we know? It's the old "brains in glass jars" argument -- that all of this stuff ... the world ... or the matrix ... or whatever is just all of us floating in glass jars entertaining ourselves with the idea of it being real.

We think we make choices. But most stuff just happens and then we busy ourselves making excuses for why we 'chose' to do it that way.

We wouldn't. I was just stating the arguments that determinism puts forth, but like I said in an earlier post, determinism isn't something one can 'live by'.

It IS a choice, a choice that is made based on those underlying factors. In other words, if we were to go back and run through the scenario a million times, with the exact same initial conditions each time, the outcome would always be the same.

This is not true and there does not have to be a supernatural ego for it to be otherwise, thanks to quantum mechanics:

Imagine a water faucet with two knobs - hot and cold - each of which you can twist continuously. Water comes streaming out of the faucet, but there is a strange property to this system: The water is always either totally hot or totally cold - no in between. .... The only way you can tell which state the water is in is by sticking your hand in and feeling it. Actually, in orthodox quantum mechanics, it is trickier than that. It is the act of putting your hand under the water that throws the water into one or the other state. Up until that very instant, the water is said to be in a superposition of states. .... As long as no measurement is made of the system, the physicists cannot know which state the system is in. ..... The system, up until the moment of observation, acts as if it were not in a state. For all ... purposes - the system isn't in any state at all.

Where am I going with this? Well, here are two points to consider: 1) probability influences everything and so nothing is set in stone, and, 2) the observer plays a critical role in 'determining' the outcome of the probability (the water is neither hot or cold until you touch it). To which extent this analogy can be extended to our level of reality is debatable but the idea remains that if you're talking about fundamental laws governing the universe (and therefore our actions) you're about 50 years behind (or more, I'm not very good with my physics history).

 

[Tokey-tokerson]

How is the future not set in stone? If time moved backward you would probably disagree.

I have no idea how 'state' is being used in that quote you made, there are 4 states plasma, gas, liquid, and solid. Water is always liquid, if it's gas it's called steam, and if it's solid it's called ice. Even though it's all H20.

Sorry, but if you were trying to go some where you have failed to logically explain anything, to me at least.

 

[Dyno_oz]

Free will is self evident.

For each moment 'I am' - 'I choose'.

I agree that my will is not totally free - I can't perorm miracles - but the limited free will I have is very useful.

I was just stating the arguments that determinism puts forth, but like I said in an earlier post, determinism isn't something one can 'live by'.

That shows that it is a flawed view. Look, I can see how some people see merit in the idea of determinism, but that could just be a metaphor of their dependent way of living.

What makes the decision? Something outside the brain? If it's within the brain, as I believe, then it can be explained through the mechanical process of determinism.

IMO, Determinism is flawed as it is ignorant of consciousness. Any theory describing human interaction with their surroundings MUST include consciousness to be complete - as it's an integral part of human experience.

The act of will could be seen as an exertion of consciousness onto the body and mind. It has been said by ancient sages that at the root of our being is consciousness. So at each moment, WE become aware of something - a situation or desire etc, WE make a decision, WE will the action, WE see the results.

Limited free will - but free will never the less. Think about it.

 

[Dyno_oz]

Determinism hinges on the idea that all acts from the beginning of time are predetermined. This is not inline with spontaneous free choice - something we all have experienced.

 

[Pegasus]

Here's a few good posts that may help clarify some things, Dyno_oz

I made this thread because I wanted to. However, I did not CHOOSE to want to. Since the factor that made me choose was me wanting to, and I didn't choose that, I didn't choose to make it.

The biggest problem in these discussions, and I saw a few people mention this, is the lack of a clear definition for the word "you". A lot of people think of the conscious experience as "I", the entity making the decisions. I think this is a flawed definition.
It makes much more sense to take into account all the genetic factors involved in your development, your experiences stored in memory, your current mood, etc, when defining the self. Whats interesting is that we can see how physical structures and chemical events in the brain represent these things. structures of neurons that fire together can be thought of as symbols. All of these symbols are interconnected to millions of others, in various ways. Neural structures (symbols) that fire together, wire together. This tendency to fall into habit is something which greatly influences our actions. Most of the activity in the brain is at a subconscious level, but this activity almost certainly is contributing to your decision making. When you take all these factors into account, its easier to see why the experience of choice is not an entity unto itself, but a mental manifestation of an extremely complex physical process.

It IS a choice, a choice that is made based on those underlying factors. In other words, if we were to go back and run through the scenario a million times, with the exact same initial conditions each time, the outcome would always be the same. There is no supernatural ego "choosing" anything, the choice is made based on the neural structure of that person. If you include this in your definition of the self, then its fine to say that person A chose to do action B. What doesn't make sense is to say that person A could have chosen between action B and action C.

That should help you understand the concept a bit better, and what exactly is being referred to as lacking free will. What you are describing as being 'ignorance of conciousness' is where you are misguided in understanding the concept. The conciousness, in our opinion, IS the experience of determinism happening: your brain is determining how to react. How it would react is not controlled by anything outside of it's conditioning and genetic makeup.

 

[Pegasus]

i think you need to reread what i said and think about this....if it isn't a choice, if it isn't free will...if you are programmed to do something, then you have no choice, therefore, no punishment.

He understands what you said. He was explaining his take on it.

yes it is absurd, bc yes, hard determinism is absurd.

DarthMom has spoken!!!

 

[DarthMom]

lol :D

well that is what we are doing, sharing our opinion! i think i am actually confident enough to admit that because i can't argue against the seemingly rational defense of hard determinism, it still isn't clicking.


you can't argue 1+1+1+1+1= something....after an infinity of free will among it? or can you?

 

[satricion]

I remember a thread about determinism a little while ago that I posted in, but I'll post the same argument here because I think it's pretty much flawless.


Free will is impossible. Absolutely. This is for two reasons. Firstly, the determinism/indeterminism debate:


Determinism is either true or false. It is impossible to prove either way, but we know that it has to be either one or the other. So, in any given reality, determinism is either true or false.

If determinism is true, then free will is false. This is because if determinism is true then the natural laws that governed the universe are such that they have created my thoughts, mental state and actions such as they are, and so they could not be any other way. Even should I consciously decide to make a rational, free choice, I could not, objectively speaking, have chosen anything else, natural laws being as they are.

However...if determinism is false and indeterminism is true, then free will is STILL false. If determinism is false, then my thoughts, desires and whatever are the result of completely random events. Since it is impossible to be in control of random events, I can not be said to have free will, since free will implies some free control over my own thoughts.

So there you have it...despite the fact that it's impossible to prove determinism, it doesn't matter. Whatever the case in our reality, either determinism or indeterminism is true, and both of these scenarios are incompatible with free will.

Furthermore...Galen Strawson has argued that the above discussion is irrelevant because free will is a logically incoherent and hence impossible concept.

Essentially, Strawson argues that free will is impossible because it leads to an unsolvable infinite regress in causality.

Free will requires that I cause my own mental state (from which my thoughts and actions come). My mental state at time 1 comes from my mental state at time -1. Which comes from my mental state at time -2. And so on back down into infinity to when I was born.

Essentially, free will requires that you cause yourself, which is impossible. You can not exist before your very first mental state in order to cause it. So free will is an incoherent and hence impossible concept.

So there you have it! Free will is incompatible with determinism, indeterminism, and itself! Sorted.

 

[Dyno_oz]

... What you are describing as being 'ignorance of conciousness' is where you are misguided in understanding the concept. The conciousness, in our opinion, IS the experience of determinism happening: your brain is determining how to react. How it would react is not controlled by anything outside of it's conditioning and genetic makeup.

Whoever came up with determinism was ignorant of their own inner workings.

How can you put the body and mind at a higer level of functioning than consciousness?

8(

Essentially, free will requires that you cause yourself, which is impossible. You can not exist before your very first mental state in order to cause it. So free will is an incoherent and hence impossible concept.

What's wrong with willing yourself out of extinction and into relative existance due to desire?

Maybe the first cause is consciousness allowing itself to bound to something - like a desire. This desire cannot be quenched in void space - can it? Space and time, mass and energy is needed - so it is born to quench desires. When you have had enough of chasing desire - countless eons later - you can go back to extinction via meditation.

Free will. Forever. %)

 

[elemenohpee]

Ok, I'll try and explain my position a little clearer. The first thing we need to do is seperate the conscious experience of free will, choice, etc, from the actual physical structure of neurons which represent the memories that you have experienced, your ideas, the current state of your brain as a whole, etc. This is just to show the distinction, in reality they are just different aspects of the same thing. What you need to focus on is the physical brain, which acts in accordance with the laws of the universe.
Why do we act the way that we do? At conception, your DNA kicks off the development of an adult human brain. Remember that this DNA is billions of years old, it has evolved to the point that the organism it creates can interact with other organisms at a very high level. Up on this level is social interaction. Isn't it strange how almost every civilization on earth has a form of the golden rule, empathy for other people, a taboo on murder, etc? Its because its coded into our DNA, its a stable pattern that allows us to coexist with each other. Instead of focusing on the experience of choice, look at human interaction as a complex exchange of information. Everyone's brains are wired differently, and so everyone's reactions to certain stimuli are different. This is what makes you you, not your conscious experience of being you.
Some people's brains are wired so that they do not follow the normal, acceptable course of social interaction. These are your child molesters and murderers. I realize that these people did not choose to be raised in an abusive home, get molested by their uncle at 15, or inherit bad genes. That is completely irrelevant to the fact that we have agreed that they cannot continue to live in society if they do not follow our laws. The particular brain structure that they have does not allow them to live in society without breaking our laws. We need a check on how people behave if we want to keep our stable society.

 

[shoe70]

How is the future not set in stone? If time moved backward you would probably disagree.

I have no idea how 'state' is being used in that quote you made, there are 4 states plasma, gas, liquid, and solid. Water is always liquid, if it's gas it's called steam, and if it's solid it's called ice. Even though it's all H20.

Sorry, but if you were trying to go some where you have failed to logically explain anything, to me at least.

I'll elaborate. First of all, when I say state, I don't mean the fundamental states of matter, but rather whatever state a given object (in this case the water in a faucet) can be in. In this case it's either hot or cold. The actual state is determined by probability and there is no way to predict it because what it will be because it is completely random. However, it does have a cause, that cause being your measuring of the temperature of the water. Once the water is measured the water assumes a state of either hot or cold, which is determined by probability. I should have really used electron spin or something more realistic for this analogy. In that case the act of measurement would be light particles hitting the electron and bouncing back to your microscope or whatever.

So it's like the poster above me pointed out, that either determinism or indeterminism is true, the above argument pushing towards the latter.

 

[elemenohpee]

tokey: i dont think anyone here is in a position to speculate on what would happen if you went back in time, its not really relevant to this discussion.

IMO, Determinism is flawed as it is ignorant of consciousness. Any theory describing human interaction with their surroundings MUST include consciousness to be complete - as it's an integral part of human experience.

The act of will could be seen as an exertion of consciousness onto the body and mind. It has been said by ancient sages that at the root of our being is consciousness. So at each moment, WE become aware of something - a situation or desire etc, WE make a decision, WE will the action, WE see the results.

I'm of the opinion that consciousness is a phenomenon which arises out of the physical workings of the brain. Particularly when some part of the brain tries to "model" another part of the brain. Try thinking about thinking and see how you get progressivly more aware of yourself. This is your brain making connections with itself, recognizing things about itself. This is just my hypothesis, but just recognize that determinism still allows for consciousness.

How can you put the body and mind at a higer level of functioning than consciousness?

Isn't it interesting how conscious events and neural events in the brain are correlated? This is because the "functioning" of the brain and consciousness are just two different ways of describing the smae pattern. And anyways, consciousness is a higher level of abstraction than the physical events in the brain.

 

[Jamshyd]

1.I was unable to choose whether to come to this life or not.
2. "I" cannot choose when to die - even if I try to "choose" to kill myself, there will always be left one teeny tiny bit of "luck" involved that determines the final outcome.
3. Therefore my supposed choice is, really, governed by "luck." And so is its outcome.

I'd define "luck" as being the string of random but completely inter-connected, favourable and unfavourable, circumstances that determine the final outcome of whatever so-called "choice" I make.

I have no free-will when it comes to my birth and my death, and have only an illusion of it during my life when, in fact, all my "choices" AND their outcomes are governed, at least ultimately, by luck as I define it above. Why on earth should I believe that I have free-will?

 

[SmC]

Lets see where I have free will, hmm, well making this post is out of my own free will. Yes, i am influenced to post in it, but the final decision is down to me. I could've posted yesterday but I chose not to. Yes, I chose. Now i'm choosing to post in it today, I didn't have to, but I decided to. No one else, not God, but me. If we believed that we didn't have free will then we could just blame all our mistakes on God, or whatever...

 

[qwedsa]

^a determinist would agree that 'you' are choosing to do these things. in order to understand a determinist's perspective, we need to take a look at what 'you' is

'you,' would you not agree, is your mind? your mind decides to do something, why? well here we can branch off into two directions

1. psychologically, the sum of your experiences (memories) to date and your interpretation of those experiences (dependent on both previous memories and the structure of your brain determined by genetics) caused you to do that action

so who is the chooser? the past determines the present, whether we're talking about your mind (a complex system) or the position and state of each water molecule in a river (a complex system)

2. your brain decides to do an action. the action occurs because certain neural pathways flare up, signals are sent to the muscles, and you do the action. why did those pathways flare up? for the same reason a computer lights up a pixel on the screen; your neurons are activatig in patterns, doing the exact same thing a computer does when it runs programs (the difference is it is programmed by genes and memories instead of a programmer)

so who is the chooser? the past determines the present whether we're talking about all the molecules in your brain (a complex system) or the universe as a whole (a complex system)

p.s. determinism doesnt have much of a place for god, im not sure why you're bringing him into this discussion. and with determinism, there arent any real 'mistakes' to require blame for anyway. any 'meaning' is entirely subjective

 

[qwedsa]

there has to be free will, otherwise, childmolesters and drug addicts are not responsible for their behavior, and i can't accept that.

there has to be free will, otherwise, those rats wont keep pushing the lever in those addiction experiments huh8)

tell me, why cant animal behavior be reduced to physical interactions?

 

[elemenohpee]

I don't think any of us are really in disagreement here. The argument boils down to the definition of the self, and its relationship with the rest of the universe. The advocates of free will are seperating the self from the universe, and then saying that they are free to do as they choose. Which is correct, except that the self is really just a part of the universe, acting according to physical laws. For anyone whose interested, I would suggest reading up on monism, functionalism, and pantheism to get rid of the dualism between the self and the universe.

 

[qwedsa]

^exactly. i was trying to put it into words as well as he did heh