Does Free Will Exist?

[jonmichael818]

Definitions are arbitrary, so may be anything as defined. My definition is more useful than yours, because mine isn't just another synonym for "contradiction". Mine is as true and more useful than yours, ergo I'd expect people would use my definition over yours.



free will

 
–noun 1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.

That's consistent with my definition.

free will — n 1. a. the apparent human ability to make choices that are not externally determined b. Compare determinism the doctrine that such human freedom of choice is not illusory c. ( as modifier ): a free-will decision 2. the ability to make a choice without coercion: he left of his own free will: I did not influence him





What free will? By your definition it doesn't exist. Why exactly do we need another synonym for "contradiction"?

So you are a compatabilist, right?

 

[jonmichael818]

Exactly! And that choice was via free will!

You conveiniently left out the rest of my post with regards to that specific response.

No! the weather didn’t decide for me, I decided because of the weather. I could have just as easily decided I didn’t feel like going back into the house to exchange keys and driven my Honda to work. That was a free will decision I made; nobody forced me.

Ken

But you didn't.

It is always possible to say in retrospect that you could have decided otherwise. Next time decide to drive the Honda, then ask why you choose to drive the Honda? Because you wanted to prove to me that you could choose otherwise. But in that case you would be choosing it because of this free will debate. Like I said everything has a reason, its all cause and effect, all based in genetic makeup and environment.

I posted this video in response to someone else, but maybe you might understand it better.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6S9OidmNZM[/youtube]

 

[chris4243]

So you are a compatabilist, right?

Yes, but I do not believe the world is deterministic (see quantum mechanics), so that's rather irrelevant I would think.

 

[HAPMinistries]

Fantastic. Then we can safely ignore this paragraph as that is not what this experiment was trying to show.



Are you saying that people were coerced into answering one way or another?

Since you seem to know you can ignore the example, then I am sure you can answer your own question.

 

[HAPMinistries]

This is not that difficult a question, either god is omniscient or he is not, period.

Neither, period.

 

[sandwiches]

Since you seem to know you can ignore the example, then I am sure you can answer your own question.

Of course the answer is "no." The people weren't coerced into giving one of the two answers; therefore, they exercised their "free will."

 

[jonmichael818]

Neither, period.

Prove it

 

[jonmichael818]

Yes, but I do not believe the world is deterministic (see quantum mechanics), so that's rather irrelevant I would think.

Ok, because compatibilism is essentially just complex determinism, but since you bring up QM I will speek to that issue.

It is true that we do not know whether the universe is governed by strictly deterministic laws or whether the uncertainty of QM will always be uncertain.
It greatly depends upon which interpretation you hold with regards to QM.
The two most popular views are the "Copenhagen" and the "Many Worlds."
Copenhagen is uncertain and deals with probabilities, whereas the Many World's view is deterministic.
The problem with the Copenhagen interpretation with regards to the issue of free will, is that it deals with the truly random and cannot be predictable to 100% accuracy. (Although we do have some pretty good accuracy even if it is not 100%.) The reason this presents a problem to free will, is because the truly random does not give you free will either. The truly random is exactly that, random, and no will (free or otherwise) is involved.

 

[Ken-1122]

Jonmichael (quote)” You conveiniently left out the rest of my post with regards to that specific response.

(reply) I didn’t see the fact that my genetic makeup prefers darken bananas over less ripe ones as something that negates my free will so I left it out

(quote)It is always possible to say in retrospect that you could have decided otherwise. Next time decide to drive the Honda, then ask why you choose to drive the Honda? Because you wanted to prove to me that you could choose otherwise. But in that case you would be choosing it because of this free will debate. Like I said everything has a reason, its all cause and effect, all based in genetic makeup and environment

(reply) yes everything has a reason, and if this is what you call “cause and effect” then I would say that is a part of my free will

I looked at the Video and I don’t think it proves your point. Being able to read a person’s brain and determining the decisions they are about to make before he makes it doesn’t mean his decision wasn’t made via free will

K

 

[chris4243]

The truly random is exactly that, random, and no will (free or otherwise) is involved.

Hence why I say free will is a combination of random (pseudorandom is ok too) and deterministic processes. But riddle me this: perhaps what you call "random" is in fact free will or a component of it. There is, as you wanted, nothing that will constrain the random result so it is as free as possible. And to your objection, consider what I said about how I consider free will to be the combination of random and deterministic.

After all, if free will were to exist, how would a scientist describe it?

 

[jonmichael818]

I didn’t see the fact that my genetic makeup prefers darken bananas over less ripe ones as something that negates my free will so I left it out.

Your genetic makeup is like a digital code of information. Your computer has a specific coding in its programing. Does your computer have free will too?

yes everything has a reason, and if this is what you call “cause and effect” then I would say that is a part of my free will

How do you define free will?

I looked at the Video and I don’t think it proves your point. Being able to read a person’s brain and determining the decisions they are about to make before he makes it doesn’t mean his decision wasn’t made via free will

K

It shows that the brain acts like a type of computing device, a neural network that behaves with regards to input, output info, or stimuli. Your brain is biology, which is founded in chemistry, which is founded in physics. Physics is either deterministic or random, and neither give you free will.

 

[jonmichael818]

Hence why I say free will is a combination of random (pseudorandom is ok too) and deterministic processes.

You still have a problem.
Lets say you have a combination of random and deterministic events take place in the brain. One event will be random the next deterministic the next random the next deterministic and so on. Each event is either random or deterministic, both of which do not give you free will no matter how many times you intermix random and deterministic events.

Furthermore, an event cannot be both random and deterministic simultaneously. Therefore your combination theory does not make any sense.

But riddle me this: perhaps what you call "random" is in fact free will or a component of it. There is, as you wanted, nothing that will constrain the random result so it is as free as possible. And to your objection, consider what I said about how I consider free will to be the combination of random and deterministic.

After all, if free will were to exist, how would a scientist describe it?

We have no control over the random or the deterministic events, so how can we have a will that is free and that is within our control? I addressed the combination theory above.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You still have a problem.
Lets say you have a combination of random and deterministic events take place in the brain. One event will be random the next deterministic the next random the next deterministic and so on. Each event is either random or deterministic, both of which do not give you free will no matter how many times you intermix random and deterministic events.

Furthermore, an event cannot be both random and deterministic simultaneously. Therefore your combination theory does not make any sense.

Why not? What if free will is a complex interaction of lots of different phenomena in the brain, some quantum mechanically indeterminate, some determinate? What if deterministic events and their outcomes have an affect on the probability distributions of random events? Wouldn't that constitute a sort of 'compatiblist' theory?

We have no control over the random or the deterministic events, so how can we have a will that is free and that is within our control? I addressed the combination theory above.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Neither, period.

It's a logical necessity that he be either/or. I don't even have to define 'omniscient' for this to be so.

 

[jonmichael818]

Why not? What if free will is a complex interaction of lots of different phenomena in the brain, some quantum mechanically indeterminate, some determinate? What if deterministic events and their outcomes have an affect on the probability distributions of random events?Wouldn't that constitute a sort of 'compatiblist' theory?

I would agree that it could be along the lines of compatibilism.

However, (as far as I know) we do not know whether "deterministic events and their outcomes have an affect on the probability distributions of random events." (If I am wrong on this please correct me.)
In that case the best we can do is say that we do not know if free will exists or not. We certainly cannot claim that it does in fact exist, nor can we say that it does not exist. Which I am perfectly comfortable saying that I do not know for certain, but I can make a pretty good argument against it.

Though I think it still may depend on how someone defines free will?

 

[chris4243]

You still have a problem.
Lets say you have a combination of random and deterministic events take place in the brain. One event will be random the next deterministic the next random the next deterministic and so on. Each event is either random or deterministic, both of which do not give you free will no matter how many times you intermix random and deterministic events.

I never claimed each event within my brain is itself free will. The emergent property is free will; the components are deterministic and non-deterministic.

Consider this claim: there is no car. Each component of the car is obviously not a car. Therefore no matter how many components you have, you don't have a car. Thus, cars don't exist.

 

[jonmichael818]

I never claimed each event within my brain is itself free will. The emergent property is free will; the components are deterministic and non-deterministic.

Consider this claim: there is no car. Each component of the car is obviously not a car. Therefore no matter how many components you have, you don't have a car. Thus, cars don't exist.

Free will as defined by the compatibilist is an emergent property, but emergent properties are still determinant, just as the compatibilist admits with regards to free will.

Unless you take the stand of "strong emergence?" However, strong emergence leads to the idea of irreducibility, which interestingly enough sounds very much like the argument made by supporters of Intelligent Design.

Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.-Wikipedia/Strong Emergence

 

[chris4243]

Perhaps a simpler example then. Consider a triangle. The triangle is made of three edges. But suppose you try looking at the components. None of the edges are a triangle. The triangle is irreducible; if you remove a part it is no longer a triangle. Do you consider that none of the components of a supposed triangle are triangles, as evidence that triangles do not exist? If not, why that claim for free will?

 

[jonmichael818]

Perhaps a simpler example then. Consider a triangle. The triangle is made of three edges. But suppose you try looking at the components. None of the edges are a triangle. The triangle is irreducible; if you remove a part it is no longer a triangle. Do you consider that none of the components of a supposed triangle are triangles, as evidence that triangles do not exist? If not, why that claim for free will?

The triangle could be a fractal Sierpinski style.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLxQOTJGt8c&feature=related[/youtube]

 

[Ken-1122]

Jonmichael1818 (quote) “Your genetic makeup is like a digital code of information. Your computer has a specific coding in its programing. Does your computer have free will too?”

(reply) No! Computers are not conscience, and they don’t make choices; they just do as they are programmed to do

(quote)” How do you define free will”

(reply) The same way the dictionary does; the ability to make a voluntary choice

(quote)” It shows that the brain acts like a type of computing device, a neural network that behaves with regards to input, output info, or stimuli. Your brain is biology, which is founded in chemistry, which is founded in physics. Physics is either deterministic or random, and neither give you free will."


(reply) The video just showed by using machines you can look at the function of the brain and predict the choice the person is about to make.
If you look at a person with a ball in his hand, and you predict he is about to throw the ball judging on how his body begins to move, that still doesn’t mean he didn’t make a “voluntary choice” to throw the ball!

K