A mechanism for Free Will?

[t_w]

Determinism seems to be incompatible with free will, as if our actions are completely caused/determined by events external to our control, our actions are essentially not under our control. Even if they are under our control, the part of us that controls them has already been formed by factors we had no control over(genes). Randomness is completely contrary to free will - as a random event cannot have been encouraged to happen by a conscious entity. Seeing as the existence of free will is suggested by various paradoxes(Newcomb's paradox) and seeing as the above are the only two reasons any given event happens(e.g. it is random, or it is caused by something else), by which mechanism could free will operate?

 

[David Gould]

What is Newcomb's paradox?

 

[t_w]

I've created a new thread on it.

 

[elman]

Determinism seems to be incompatible with free will, as if our actions are completely caused/determined by events external to our control, our actions are essentially not under our control. Even if they are under our control, the part of us that controls them has already been formed by factors we had no control over(genes). Randomness is completely contrary to free will - as a random event cannot have been encouraged to happen by a conscious entity. Seeing as the existence of free will is suggested by various paradoxes(Newcomb's paradox) and seeing as the above are the only two reasons any given event happens(e.g. it is random, or it is caused by something else), by which mechanism could free will operate?

By you having the ability to chose and exercising that ability.

 

[t_w]

By you having the ability to chose and exercising that ability.

Any choice would either be a choice as a result of other causes(cannot be free will) or a random choice(definitely ain't free will).
Besides, why do assume we have the ability to choose? How do you know for sure that there is only one possible choice at any 'crossroads' of choices? Say I don't know whether to go to school or not. If I don't go to school, how do I know it was possible that I could have gone to school? How do I know whether I went to school because I 'felt like it', or because no alternative was possible. (as in no alternative was compatible with previous events).

Elman, if you are arguing for free will, it is not wise to use the argument:
If I have a choice, free will exists.
I have a choice(another way of saying 'I have free will')
Therefore free will exists.

This argument is clearly circular.

 

[elman]

Any choice would either be a choice as a result of other causes(cannot be free will) or a random choice(definitely ain't free will).
Besides, why do assume we have the ability to choose? How do you know for sure that there is only one possible choice at any 'crossroads' of choices? Say I don't know whether to go to school or not. If I don't go to school, how do I know it was possible that I could have gone to school? How do I know whether I went to school because I 'felt like it', or because no alternative was possible. (as in no alternative was compatible with previous events).

Elman, if you are arguing for free will, it is not wise to use the argument:
If I have a choice, free will exists.
I have a choice(another way of saying 'I have free will')
Therefore free will exists.

This argument is clearly circular.

I assume I have the ability to choose because I observe it and experience it. Why would you assume I do not? I am not controled by my dna, my environment, nor anything else outside of me. I did not say I was not influenced by these things, but being influenced is not the same as being controled and one can chose agaisnt the influences being felt. You know that you could have chosen a different path by using your mind and experience. Your logic and reasoning all point to your being able to have made a different choice in any given situation than you did. What do you mean by circular?

 

[t_w]

I assume I have the ability to choose because I observe it and experience it. Why would you assume I do not?

I have assumed nothing of the kind. In fact, I have assumed nothing at all. I questionied assumptions like the one you made.

I am not controled by my dna, my environment, nor anything else outside of me. I did not say I was not influenced by these things, but being influenced is not the same as being controled and one can chose agaisnt the influences being felt.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you have a device that makes decisions. Let's call it X. Now, X is formed entirely by your genes and your environment(and don't misinterpret the meaning of environment - it means ANYTHING exterior or perhaps interior that affects you). So I hereby conclude that your X was formed by factors you had 0 control over, and thus any decisions you make are direct results of the factors that formed X, not of you.

You know that you could have chosen a different path by using your mind and experience. Your logic and reasoning all point to your being able to have made a different choice in any given situation than you did. What do you mean by circular?

Your argument was circular. A circular argument assumes the conclusion in the premises. My point is, we don't know at all whether we could have chosen a different path. It certainly feels that way, but that could be for a multitude of reasons e.g. the stability the illusion of free will offers to society(protection from murderers).

 

[Im_A]

Determinism seems to be incompatible with free will, as if our actions are completely caused/determined by events external to our control, our actions are essentially not under our control. Even if they are under our control, the part of us that controls them has already been formed by factors we had no control over(genes). Randomness is completely contrary to free will - as a random event cannot have been encouraged to happen by a conscious entity. Seeing as the existence of free will is suggested by various paradoxes(Newcomb's paradox) and seeing as the above are the only two reasons any given event happens(e.g. it is random, or it is caused by something else), by which mechanism could free will operate?

maybe free-will is only the choice of what deterministic vessel you want to ride on.

may seem pretty contradictory at first tho, but it's something that comes to my mind in regard to the long to dialogue of free-will vs. determinism.

 

[t_w]

maybe free-will is only the choice of what deterministic vessel you want to ride on.

may seem pretty contradictory at first tho, but it's something that comes to my mind in regard to the long to dialogue of free-will vs. determinism.

But then that choice to ride a certain vessel would be entirely determined. Any attempt to reconcile determinism and free will seems to give rise to contradictions and paradoxes every time.

 

[Im_A]

But then that choice to ride a certain vessel would be entirely determined. Any attempt to reconcile determinism and free will seems to give rise to contradictions and paradoxes every time.

i'm not using this question as an argument for free-will, but do you think you ever make a choice?

or the choices you make, are the ever outside of influence from some other source?

and lastly, is it a bad thing if we don't really have free-will?

 

[t_w]

i'm not using this question as an argument for free-will, but do you think you ever make a choice?
or the choices you make, are the ever outside of influence from some other source?

I think both.

and lastly, is it a bad thing if we don't really have free-will?

I can't see how a world without freewill could be any different so I guess it can be eliminated by occam's razor(the axioms of an entity should not be multiplied beyond necessity)

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

I assume I have the ability to choose because I observe it and experience it. Why would you assume I do not?

I have assumed nothing of the kind. In fact, I have assumed nothing at all. I questionied assumptions like the one you made.

You have to assume something to question assumptions.
Quote

I am not controled by my dna, my environment, nor anything else outside of me. I did not say I was not influenced by these things, but being influenced is not the same as being controled and one can chose agaisnt the influences being felt.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you have a device that makes decisions. Let's call it X. Now, X is formed entirely by your genes and your environment(and don't misinterpret the meaning of environment - it means ANYTHING exterior or perhaps interior that affects you). So I hereby conclude that your X was formed by factors you had 0 control over, and thus any decisions you make are direct results of the factors that formed X, not of you.

Here is a lot of assumptions on your part that are unrealsonable and illogical. That means among other things your conclusion does not conform to emperical reality.

Quote

You know that you could have chosen a different path by using your mind and experience. Your logic and reasoning all point to your being able to have made a different choice in any given situation than you did. What do you mean by circular?

Your argument was circular. A circular argument assumes the conclusion in the premises. My point is, we don't know at all whether we could have chosen a different path. It certainly feels that way, but that could be for a multitude of reasons e.g. the stability the illusion of free will offers to society(protection from murderers).

Your argument is the one that assumes the conclusion. You are assuming things are not as they seem to be.

 

[Osiris]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

I assume I have the ability to choose because I observe it and experience it. Why would you assume I do not?


You have to assume something to question assumptions.

Let's assume that there is this giant monster floating around earth which is not detectable by our senses.

If we were to question this assumption, what is it that you think we would be assuming by questioning it?

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you have a device that makes decisions. Let's call it X. Now, X is formed entirely by your genes and your environment(and don't misinterpret the meaning of environment - it means ANYTHING exterior or perhaps interior that affects you). So I hereby conclude that your X was formed by factors you had 0 control over, and thus any decisions you make are direct results of the factors that formed X, not of you.

Here is a lot of assumptions on your part that are unrealsonable and illogical. That means among other things your conclusion does not conform to emperical reality.

Actually, his example is logical and it does conform emperical reality.

There are things in our biological body which we don't have control over... if you are born with down syndrome, would you say that down syndrome does not have control over you? you could say it, but that is not the reality... just as you say genetics has no control over you, you could say it... but that is not the reality.

Quote

You know that you could have chosen a different path by using your mind and experience. Your logic and reasoning all point to your being able to have made a different choice in any given situation than you did. What do you mean by circular?

It is circular because the choice generated by your mind and experience is the product of all your experiences (caused by the environment) plus genetics. 'Choosing a different path' might well be a result of experiences + genetics ... not freewill.

t_w explained it here:

Elman, if you are arguing for free will, it is not wise to use the argument:
If I have a choice, free will exists.
I have a choice(another way of saying 'I have free will')
Therefore free will exists.

Your argument is the one that assumes the conclusion. You are assuming things are not as they seem to be.

"Things are not what they seem" is really what emperical evidence is based on... this is not an assumption, rather it is a reason to why science always goes by evidence.

 

[t_w]

Osiris has refuted pretty much everything Elman said, so there isn't much for me to add. All I'll say is that this is remarkably similar to debating a theist - atheists correctly state the burden of proof is on theists to prove God - theists fallaciously believe atheists are required to disprove God! Similarly, Elman believes we have to disprove freewill, rather it is his responsibility to reinforce his assumption that free will exists - something he has failed to do so far.
I am reminded of Bertrand Russell's analogy to a china teapot that is orbiting the sun. We can't disprove it, because it is too small and could be in so many spaces. Should we therefore assume it exists? Or should its existence be proved before we assume it exists? The same applies to God and freewill.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Determinism seems to be incompatible with free will, as if our actions are completely caused/determined by events external to our control, our actions are essentially not under our control. Even if they are under our control, the part of us that controls them has already been formed by factors we had no control over(genes). Randomness is completely contrary to free will - as a random event cannot have been encouraged to happen by a conscious entity. Seeing as the existence of free will is suggested by various paradoxes(Newcomb's paradox) and seeing as the above are the only two reasons any given event happens(e.g. it is random, or it is caused by something else), by which mechanism could free will operate?

Presumedly, most christians would say the soul is the origin of the free choice. You are speaking from the context of the physical person. In the case of the physical person, his actions are caused by the decision of the soul.

Randomness is not contrary to free will. In fact I would say it's necessary for the capacity of real intelligence and true objectivity, but that's another OP for another time. I will say that I think people misunderstand "randomness" when they speak of it in the context of free will. Being random doesn't mean that someone is mindless and will do just whatever, simply that what they do cannot be determined by the environment around them. They could be extremely predictable 99 out of 100 times and simply be different on one single time. Randomness is simply being unpredictable. So a being with free will would likely be unpredictable.

If you think about something starting from rest and moving in a direction (without any other force pushing it in that direction), then we can safely say that the direction that thing moves in is random as we simply have no way of predicting which direction it will go.

Although I don't think we're starting from rest. We do live in a world with a lot of forces acting upon us. I don't think free will means that there are no outside forces -- simply that those forces don't determine what we do. Our actions to outsiders still appear random. When you ask me what's my favorite flavor of ice-cream, I can still do the chicken dance in response. If you can't predict that, then you must admit that my actions are random, which does support the claim of free will. Although you may argue simply that you're predicting powers aren't that great and that if only you knew more then somehow you'd be able to predict it better.

 

[Code-Monkey]

Osiris has refuted pretty much everything Elman said, so there isn't much for me to add. All I'll say is that this is remarkably similar to debating a theist - atheists correctly state the burden of proof is on theists to prove God - theists fallaciously believe atheists are required to disprove God! Similarly, Elman believes we have to disprove freewill, rather it is his responsibility to reinforce his assumption that free will exists - something he has failed to do so far.
I am reminded of Bertrand Russell's analogy to a china teapot that is orbiting the sun. We can't disprove it, because it is too small and could be in so many spaces. Should we therefore assume it exists? Or should its existence be proved before we assume it exists? The same applies to God and freewill.

Hmm... I think the default belief is that are actions are not determined. I would say that if you say there is no free will and our actions are determined by the environment, then you are the one making the positive claim and the burden of proof lies with you. But regardless of who has the burden of proof.... all empirical evidence from my view points to free will.

So the claim that our actions are determined seems to be like that china teapont orbiting the sun. I don't know why I should have believe that my actions are caused unless someone has at least some shred of empirical evidence for it.

I will say that I think people have some notion that free will seems to mean that we can do anything. If the soul is the free agent, but the soul uses the brain as basically a radio receiver for a lack of a better analogy... then it stands to reason the actions will be limited by the reception the brain provides. So if the brain is damaged, then it's likely that the messages sent to the brain would not be properly received. But that's sort of a minor issue. The bigger thing people imply is that free will should somehow grant us superpowers. So if I will myself to fly, then if I have free will then I really should be flying. I think most rational people seem to understand that free will is restricted within the laws of nature. So flying, as not permissible by people without the aid of technology, is not possible. But free will would allow me to say poptart or click-click-clack to you when you asked me what time it is.

 

[Osiris]

Presumedly, most christians would say the soul is the origin of the free choice. You are speaking from the context of the physical person. In the case of the physical person, his actions are caused by the decision of the soul.

Our body works well already without the need of a soul, Occam's Razor would take care of that.

Randomness is not contrary to free will. In fact I would say it's necessary for the capacity of real intelligence and true objectivity, but that's another OP for another time. I will say that I think people misunderstand "randomness" when they speak of it in the context of free will. Being random doesn't mean that someone is mindless and will do just whatever, simply that what they do cannot be determined by the environment around them. They could be extremely predictable 99 out of 100 times and simply be different on one single time. Randomness is simply being unpredictable. So a being with free will would likely be unpredictable.

Randomness is a contradiction to the "will"... if it is random then you never willed it.

Randomness only means that we cannot determine it, but it doesn't mean that it's always the case.

If you think about something starting from rest and moving in a direction (without any other force pushing it in that direction), then we can safely say that the direction that thing moves in is random as we simply have no way of predicting which direction it will go.

No. You are suggesting putting this something in a black box and never considering how it works. (see the problem here?)

What if this something was a robot that I made? Will you say it is random? To you it might me, but to me it isn't because I was the one the created it.

Although I don't think we're starting from rest. We do live in a world with a lot of forces acting upon us. I don't think free will means that there are no outside forces -- simply that those forces don't determine what we do. Our actions to outsiders still appear random. When you ask me what's my favorite flavor of ice-cream, I can still do the chicken dance in response. If you can't predict that, then you must admit that my actions are random, which does support the claim of free will. Although you may argue simply that you're predicting powers aren't that great and that if only you knew more then somehow you'd be able to predict it better.

The robot I make could also do the chicken dance when asked what flavor ice cream he likes.

Elman, if you are arguing for free will, it is not wise to use the argument:
If I have a choice, free will exists.
I have a choice(another way of saying 'I have free will')
Therefore free will exists.

Code-Monkey, basically your rebuttal is that you can choose something else that other people won't know... which is what t_w said not to do.... because it plainly is circular reasoning.

 

[Osiris]

Hmm... I think the default belief is that are actions are not determined. I would say that if you say there is no free will and our actions are determined by the environment, then you are the one making the positive claim and the burden of proof lies with you. But regardless of who has the burden of proof.... all empirical evidence from my view points to free will.

I guess my little robot friend has freewill too.

I will say that I think people have some notion that free will seems to mean that we can do anything. If the soul is the free agent, but the soul uses the brain as basically a radio receiver for a lack of a better analogy... then it stands to reason the actions will be limited by the reception the brain provides. So if the brain is damaged, then it's likely that the messages sent to the brain would not be properly received. But that's sort of a minor issue. The bigger thing people imply is that free will should somehow grant us superpowers. So if I will myself to fly, then if I have free will then I really should be flying. I think most rational people seem to understand that free will is restricted within the laws of nature. So flying, as not permissible by people without the aid of technology, is not possible. But free will would allow me to say poptart or click-click-clack to you when you asked me what time it is.

No one says that if we had freewill we should be able to fly...

What you are suggesting that freewill aer the actions taken by the soul which tells the brain how to act...

If the soul's decisions aren't determined, what do you think would be the soul's freewilled decision if the brain was empty of all information? The brain was healthy but it just lacked information? What would be your choices? Seems as though choices are dependent on information...

It is funny that you gave the little speech about how we should prove that freewill does not exist yet you say this things about the brain being operated by the soul.

I say the brain already works fine without the need of the soul (an external entity controlling it), the soul is an extra entity not necessary to explain how the brain works - the burden is on you to prove that the soul controls the brain.

 

[elman]

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

You have to assume something to question assumptions.

Let's assume that there is this giant monster floating around earth which is not detectable by our senses.

If we were to question this assumption, what is it that you think we would be assuming by questioning it?

You would be assuming its non existence.

There are things in our biological body which we don't have control over... if you are born with down syndrome, would you say that down syndrome does not have control over you? you could say it, but that is not the reality... just as you say genetics has no control over you, you could say it... but that is not the reality.

You have created a straw man. I never said we had control over everything. You on the other hand are assuming we have control over nothing. That is not reality.

Quote

You know that you could have chosen a different path by using your mind and experience. Your logic and reasoning all point to your being able to have made a different choice in any given situation than you did. What do you mean by circular?


It is circular because the choice generated by your mind and experience is the product of all your experiences (caused by the environment) plus genetics. 'Choosing a different path' might well be a result of experiences + genetics ... not freewill.

If that statement were fact you are correct. The problem here is you assume it is correct. I assume it is not. Neither of us can prove our assumptions. We can emperically see that we can make choices that are not determined by environment and/or genetics because we are not locked into the same choices each time on the same issues.

Quote
Originally Posted by: elman

Your argument is the one that assumes the conclusion. You are assuming things are not as they seem to be.

"Things are not what they seem" is really what emperical evidence is based on... this is not an assumption, rather it is a reason to why science always goes by evidence.

Evidence which includes empirical evidence. Sometimes things are what they seem to be.

 

[t_w]

Presumedly, most christians would say the soul is the origin of the free choice. You are speaking from the context of the physical person. In the case of the physical person, his actions are caused by the decision of the soul.

All matter is physical. Man is entirely matter. We have no reason to believe humans have an aspect that is not material.

Randomness is not contrary to free will.

You don't understand the meaning of random then. If I make a choice to go to war, and I make it by flipping a coin - i.e. heads-fight, tails-don't, then that choice(to go to war) was not a result of free will because I didn't will it. It was random. of course, it can be argued my choice to flip the coin is the result of free will, but that doesn't change the fact that whether or not I went to war was not chosen by me.

Although I don't think we're starting from rest. We do live in a world with a lot of forces acting upon us. I don't think free will means that there are no outside forces -- simply that those forces don't determine what we do. Our actions to outsiders still appear random. When you ask me what's my favorite flavor of ice-cream, I can still do the chicken dance in response. If you can't predict that, then you must admit that my actions are random, which does support the claim of free will.

Here(bold) lies the root of your misunderstanding. Just because I, with my extremely limited knowledge, can't predict something, does not mean it cannot be predicted. No human can predict completely who will win the world cup. if we had enough information, we could form a deterministic model that would allow us to predict it. And besides, randomness is contrary to free will. This is even accepted by the most confident free-will supporters.