Do we have free will?

[underpressure]

Chesterton, I think your argument rests on the fact that you have thought processes, and you are able to assess different alternatives before making a decision, therefore we must have free will. We know humans are able to do that, the question is given exactly the same circumstances with exactly the same biology, experiences, memories etc would this being always behave in the same way. Obviously it is impossible to set up such an experiment, but interested in what you think would happen in the below thought exercise:

I think the best thought exercise in regards to free will is 'if you could go back in time (strictly as an observer), would history pan out the same?'. Personally, I don't see why things would pan out any differently (all things the same), so I'd struggle to see where the free will is.

Unless you define free will as just the ability to weigh up options, make decisions, carry out actions etc, then yes, of course free will exists.

 

[Chesterton]

Chesterton, I think your argument rests on the fact that you have thought processes, and you are able to assess different alternatives before making a decision, therefore we must have free will. We know humans are able to do that, the question is given exactly the same circumstances with exactly the same biology, experiences, memories etc would this being always behave in the same way. Obviously it is impossible to set up such an experiment, but interested in what you think would happen in the below thought exercise:

I'm not sure I understand your thought experiment, because you mention going back strictly as an observer. Obviously if one was merely observing, the actions would be the same.

But you also said "Unless you define free will as just the ability to weigh up options, make decisions, carry out actions etc, then yes, of course free will exists."

Yes, free will is the ability to make decisions. It means there are at least two choices and you're free to do one or the other.

 

[underpressure]

I'm not sure I understand your thought experiment, because you mention going back strictly as an observer. Obviously if one was merely observing, the actions would be the same.

But you also said "Unless you define free will as just the ability to weigh up options, make decisions, carry out actions etc, then yes, of course free will exists."

Yes, free will is the ability to make decisions. It means there are at least two choices and you're free to do one or the other.

But you already admit things would pan out the same if we went back in time, so you must admit, all things the same, we would always come to the same decision.

I don't know if you know anything about computer programming, but the chess program, 'Deep Blue', works on a brute force method, it weighs up every move possible and all future moves, to calculate the likeliest best move now. It weighs up thousands of moves but given a certain situation it will always make the same move. If it is it just the ability to weigh up different choices that defines free will, then a computer must have free will too.

 

[Washington]

But you can't pick and choose.

Not sure what you're referring to here. Just what do you see as being picked and chosen?

The reasoning which concludes that free will is illusion has to include that everything is illusion, including the reason, science and logic which leads to the conclusion.

Only in so far as I would be unable to recognize it as such. It's the content (the regarding of a will free of cause) that is the illusion (the mistake), not the process of thinking so--the reasoning.

You saw off the limb you're sitting on.

Not sawing off anything. My reasoning, no matter what the subject, is no less determined than anything else.

 

[Chesterton]

But you already admit things would pan out the same if we went back in time, so you must admit, all things the same, we would always come to the same decision.

No, it's different whether you are observing or acting. If you're just traveling back in time to observe the past, the past is what it is and can't change. (And actually we all can mentally observe the past, via memory.) But if you could travel back to act in the past, you'd have the same ability to choose as you did the first time.

I don't know if you know anything about computer programming, but the chess program, 'Deep Blue', works on a brute force method, it weighs up every move possible and all future moves, to calculate the likeliest best move now. It weighs up thousands of moves but given a certain situation it will always make the same move. If it is it just the ability to weigh up different choices that defines free will, then a computer must have free will too.

The key words are "the likeliest best move". It is programmed to find the one move which is the best one. There is only ever one best move, given the considerations of the rules of the game. So it doesn't actually make a choice, it merely seeks out and finds something. Granted it's much more complicated than a simple Boolean search, but it's the same action in principle.

 

[underpressure]

No, it's different whether you are observing or acting. If you're just traveling back in time to observe the past, the past is what it is and can't change. (And actually we all can mentally observe the past, via memory.) But if you could travel back to act in the past, you'd have the same ability to choose as you did the first time.

You wouldn't be the same person though, as you'd have new memories and experiences, so of course you would make a different choice. Let's say you went back in time and replaced the 'you' but also all your memories and experiences and changes in biology were set back to exactly how you were the first time around, so you wouldn't even be aware that you'd gone back in time, in effect exactly the same person in exactly the same place, would you act the same as you did the first time round? If the answer is yes, you'd have to wonder whether free will exists if we we would always act in a particular way, if you think we you might act differently then I'd like you to explain how? If you still disagree, then well, you disagree...

 

[tanzanos]

.........

 

[quatona]

One attribute of a machine is that it performs action solely determined by input. If you say that's what a human does, you're saying a human is literally a machine.

That´s fallacious.
One attribute of a car is that it´s made of metal. If you that´s what a knife is madeof, your´re saying a knife is literally a car.

Realistically, yes I can't help but appreciate them. But intellectually, rationally, I don't see any reason to appreciate them if they're not somehow real.

That´s your prerogative. I guess this would be a convincing reason for you not to accept determinism even if it could be proven?

Appreciating any experience of reality which isn't real is like masturbating and pretending in your mind you're with a real lover.

And there´s nothing delusional about masturbating and pretending in your mind that you´re with a real lover, as long as you are aware that you´re not with a real lover.

What, you don't believe in free will, but you're okay with blaming me for poor grammar as if "I" had something to do with it?

No, I wouldn´t be ok with anyone blaming you for it. I am, however, completely ok with pointing out the error and asking you to clarify.

YOU DON'T KNOW ME! YOU DON'T KNOW MY OPERATIONAL ANTECEDENTS!

You are correct. I also don´t know the operational antecedents that determined you to take my remark that simply addressed a point you made personally, and I don´t blame you for it. That´s why I put a lot of effort in making sure to address your arguments and refraining from addressing the person.
My determinism, however, is fully reconcilable with contradicting what I find fallacious reasoning, thereby becoming one of the determining factors of your future. Just as everything I read from you becomes a co-determining factor in my future.

(In case the reference is out of date - a person who thinks he's Napoleon is an old fashioned stereotype of a mentally insane person.)

Even Napoleon himself?

The atoms in one person's brain move so that he thinks he's Napoleon. The atoms in another person's brain move so that he thinks a rose is pretty. But the man is not really Napoleon, it just appears that way to him. So neither is the rose really pretty, it also just appears that way. Everything's an illusion; everyone is deluded.

If everything is an illusion, those who are aware that it´s an illusion are at least in this point not deluded.
Gladly, determinism doesn´t state nor imply that "everything is an illusion".
If you insist on discussing philosophy on basis of calling "delusional" those who hold a different view , the only "illusion" and "delusion" that determinism states is the idea that there´s "freewill".

There is no "right" way for atoms to move.

I don´t know who told you that determinism is about the way atoms move in your brain. It doesn´t.
If, however, this is just meant to be another one of your creative metaphores, when asked to respond from within this metaphore my answer is: Determinism states that people who believe in "freewill" are victims to "wrong movements of atoms in their brains" (in a more down to earth language: It states that they are mistaken).

Both, determinism and "freewillism" allow for being mistaken. However, in the deterministic pov one is determined to be mistaken, while in the "freewillistic" worldview one has freely chosen to be wrong (whatever that might mean).

If you are determined to (or, from within your worldview: freely choose to) call delusional those who expose a delusion as such you are merely shooting the messenger.

 

[quatona]

Long post, but basically in every line, as above, you're merely asserting that determinism is true.

Sure, just like everyone who argues for "freewill" merely has been asserting it. At no point did I even only attempt to prove it or soemthing.
You are completely correct: When discussing determinism, I ask you to hypothetically accept it´s true. This would be the prerequisite for doing what you kept doing: an attempt of a reductio ad absurdum.
If attempting a reductio ad absurdum in regards to "freewill" I would have to do the same.
If you want to argue against the existence of pink elephants, neither the argument "but since pink elephants don´t exist, so those who believe in them are delusional" nor the argument "But if pink elephants existed that would a. be pretty inconvenient and b. mean that everyone who believes in pink elephants is delusional" would help your case.

That doesn't really present anything to be discussed,

Yet, you did start a discussion by tackling determinism. (And you did so on basis of erroneous assumptions about what determinism states and implies. I have been trying to correct you on these errors, as well as trying to point out what I perceived as logical fallacies.)

So, yes, there was something to be discussed: Your line of reasoning against determinism.
I was and am, however, aware, that pointing out errors in the arguments against determinism doesn´t help establishing determinism as true. It just refutes certain arguments against it.

except for everything that's been said so far by everyone in the thread.

Everything you have said so far came down to:
'I don´t believe I am determined because I don´t like the implications of that notion.'
(My response: If that´s enough to determine you to not believe in it then be it. Personally, I don´t find the only alternative - that we are acting randomly - any more attractive, btw.)
'If determinism were true, this would mean I am deluded about having "freewill".'
(My response: Yes, and if "freewill" were true I would be deluded about being determined. However, your conclusion that if determinism were true I, the determinist, would be deluded in this question, doesn´t make any sense whatsoever.)

 

[Chesterton]

Not sure what you're referring to here. Just what do you see as being picked and chosen?

You used reason to determine that everything is an illusion or "appearance" in the mind, so that "everything" has to include the reason you used. You can't say "everything in my mind is merely an appearance, except the one thing I used to determine that everything is an appearance".

Only in so far as I would be unable to recognize it as such. It's the content (the regarding of a will free of cause) that is the illusion (the mistake), not the process of thinking so--the reasoning.

The content and the process are in the same place - the atoms which make up your brain. You can't differentiate. If all human experience is merely appearance to the brain, then that has to include the process and perception of thinking. Determinism isn't wrong, per se. It can't be correct or incorrect; it just doesn't compute - it's Garbage In, Garbage Out of the human mind.

To put it another way, Reason cannot be the referee or umpire of this question of free will vs. determinism, because Reason is one of the players. Reason can't be the judge, because Reason is a defendant in the trial.

Not sawing off anything. My reasoning, no matter what the subject, is no less determined than anything else.

If what appears to us to be reason is determined by natural, irrational forces, then it's not reason. It's an illusion, and has no validity.

 

[Chesterton]

You wouldn't be the same person though, as you'd have new memories and experiences, so of course you would make a different choice. Let's say you went back in time and replaced the 'you' but also all your memories and experiences and changes in biology were set back to exactly how you were the first time around, so you wouldn't even be aware that you'd gone back in time, in effect exactly the same person in exactly the same place, would you act the same as you did the first time round? If the answer is yes, you'd have to wonder whether free will exists if we we would always act in a particular way, if you think we you might act differently then I'd like you to explain how? If you still disagree, then well, you disagree...

Yes, I imagine you'd have to act the same, but that's because your experiment dictates "everything is the same". You'd still be the same rational decision-making being, and you'd be basing your action on the same information, reasoning, emotion, etc., that you used the first time. Free will has to do with the future, not the past. We can all agree that the past is determined.

But then again, if you somehow go back and you're unaware of it...hmm...that could be happening right now. Lately I've been feeling like every day is a Monday.

I have a thought experiment looking at something more possible - going into the future (which we're doing right now). Suppose you're an omniscient being, and know everything - the motions of every sub-atomic particle, and my complete history including all my experiences. You could predict my every thought and action, because you knew all the operational antecedents. If you told me I was going to say "pancakes" around 10:00 tomorrow, I yet remain free to willfully defy the prediction. I'd be free to disobey what Nature determines, therefore, Nature does not determine.

 

[Chesterton]

You obviously are unaware of Bonobo and chimp societies! With the exception of they not having the capability to pass on knowledge to the next generation all other aspects of their societies are remarkably similar and in some cases identical to ours. This exception is what keeps their societies static. In other words if we have free will then they have free will too.

I specifically mentioned that you could have an orderly society without the moral feeling that your fellow beings do things willfully.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Then why do you act a particular way? Why are you civil? Do you choose to be civil, or are you programmed by the motions of particles to be civil? If we're all programmed to act as we do in any given situation, then how could we as a species possibly come to approve and praise some types of actions, and disapprove of others? It doesn't do to give an answer about evolution and utility/survival. We could have safety and order without having developed the moral feeling within us. If we lived in a deterministic world, we'd still have to separate thieves and murderers from the rest of society for safety, but there's no reason we'd feel a need or desire to punish them. (And we all have those feelings.) How could we possibly have come to morally judge the natural motions of particles in men's brains? Might as well morally assess the orbit of a planet.

To feel without reason is the madness and tragedy of existence. To have to do anything for no reason is maddening, in fact, the absence of reason is a definition of madness. That was Sisyphus' punishment, to be made to act for no reason, leading to nothing. I once read a story in a science magazine about incidences of insanity in Holocaust survivors. In some Nazi camps, in order to keep the prisoners occupied and tired, prisoners were given the make-work of moving a great pile of rocks or something from one end of the camp to the other. When they'd finished, they had to move the pile back to the other side. Then back again, and on and on, for no reason. An inordinate number of men who had to do this became insane. Others chose to die rather than keep obeying.

The above is analogous to the situation of an atheist; existing and being made to act with no purpose, while feeling and desiring purpose. In contrast Christianity harmonizes feeling and reason holistically and logically. Atheists generally like to call themselves rational, but what could possibly be more unreasonable than to use your reason to deny the reasonableness of your reason?

</ramble>

Hmm, I see what you mean. But it again comes down to (what I consider to be) evolved instincts: though I rationally know that raising kids etc is a futile endeavour, my mind is such that it considers this an end unto itself. Academically, I know why I feel satisfied working toward that goal, but that doesn't change the fact that I feel satisfaction. Even the biggest nihilist in the world cannot change the fact that he experiences emotions.

All I can think of is "resignation". Just giving up, admitting you live under delusion, and just saying you enjoy the delusion because that's all there is. I wonder if any sane human could ever truly, fully believe hold that view. To think that everything you feel and think you are is not real - it's madness.

I disagree. Doing something without reason is madness (as you yourself said). I don't act without reason, inasmuch as my mind is concerned: it busies itself with this and that, deciding, thinking, learning, justifying, etc. Whether this is my God-given soul or a mechanical algorithm, it still does that. As far as my mind is concerned, there is purpose to my actions. This purpose may be an illusion conjured up by millennia of evolution, but it's there all the same.

Intellectually, I know (or, at least, believe) there is no real purpose to anything, that human behaviour is a fantastically complex program. But I still irrationally feel like there is. I know why I feel that way, but that doesn't change the fact that I do.

So, yes, I willingly live in a delusion, of sorts.

 

[Chesterton]

That´s fallacious.
One attribute of a car is that it´s made of metal. If you that´s what a knife is madeof, your´re saying a knife is literally a car.

They both have metal in common. The idea of determinism is that we and machines both have "action determined solely by input" in common.

That´s your prerogative. I guess this would be a convincing reason for you not to accept determinism even if it could be proven?

The idea of "proving determinism" is an oxymoron. I don't think it can be done.

I don´t know who told you that determinism is about the way atoms move in your brain. It doesn´t.

I don't know what you learned the physical universe is made of, but it seems to be made of atoms, which act according to laws. That includes your brain.

If, however, this is just meant to be another one of your creative metaphores, when asked to respond from within this metaphore my answer is: Determinism states that people who believe in "freewill" are victims to "wrong movements of atoms in their brains" (in a more down to earth language: It states that they are mistaken).

Both, determinism and "freewillism" allow for being mistaken. However, in the deterministic pov one is determined to be mistaken, while in the "freewillistic" worldview one has freely chosen to be wrong (whatever that might mean).

If you are determined to (or, from within your worldview: freely choose to) call delusional those who expose a delusion as such you are merely shooting the messenger.

Since you like the metaphors : Determinism is like reaching blindly into a hat, pulling out a random number, and saying "I've found the right answer to a question! The answer is 42! Why is it the right answer? Because it's the answer I was determined to find, regardless of whether or not it's right!"

 

[Chesterton]

Sure, just like everyone who argues for "freewill" merely has been asserting it. At no point did I even only attempt to prove it or soemthing.
You are completely correct: When discussing determinism, I ask you to hypothetically accept it´s true. This would be the prerequisite for doing what you kept doing: an attempt of a reductio ad absurdum.
If attempting a reductio ad absurdum in regards to "freewill" I would have to do the same.
If you want to argue against the existence of pink elephants, neither the argument "but since pink elephants don´t exist, so those who believe in them are delusional" nor the argument "But if pink elephants existed that would a. be pretty inconvenient and b. mean that everyone who believes in pink elephants is delusional" would help your case.

Yet, you did start a discussion by tackling determinism. (And you did so on basis of erroneous assumptions about what determinism states and implies. I have been trying to correct you on these errors, as well as trying to point out what I perceived as logical fallacies.)

So, yes, there was something to be discussed: Your line of reasoning against determinism.
I was and am, however, aware, that pointing out errors in the arguments against determinism doesn´t help establishing determinism as true. It just refutes certain arguments against it.

Everything you have said so far came down to:
'I don´t believe I am determined because I don´t like the implications of that notion.'
(My response: If that´s enough to determine you to not believe in it then be it. Personally, I don´t find the only alternative - that we are acting randomly - any more attractive, btw.)
'If determinism were true, this would mean I am deluded about having "freewill".'
(My response: Yes, and if "freewill" were true I would be deluded about being determined. However, your conclusion that if determinism were true I, the determinist, would be deluded in this question, doesn´t make any sense whatsoever.)

I disagree.

 

[SamTP77]

I recommend the book "freedom evolves" by Daniel Dennet that is a pretty good book you bet. After reading that book I think we have free will or something that acts like free will because we are free to make a choice when presented with an opportunity to make a choice. Another point the book made was sure maybe you have a preference for chocolate over vanilla but I mean we shouldn't worry about free will for something like that, more like worry about it for your decision about who you want to marry and under what conditions will I endure abuse to keep a job for instance.

Take care,

Sam

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I recommend the book "freedom evolves" by Daniel Dennet that is a pretty good book you bet. After reading that book I think we have free will or something that acts like free will because we are free to make a choice when presented with an opportunity to make a choice.

Sounds like a circular tautology to me. Are we free to choose?

 

[tanzanos]

..........

 

[underpressure]

Yes, I imagine you'd have to act the same, but that's because your experiment dictates "everything is the same". You'd still be the same rational decision-making being, and you'd be basing your action on the same information, reasoning, emotion, etc., that you used the first time. Free will has to do with the future, not the past. We can all agree that the past is determined.

But then again, if you somehow go back and you're unaware of it...hmm...that could be happening right now. Lately I've been feeling like every day is a Monday.

I have a thought experiment looking at something more possible - going into the future (which we're doing right now). Suppose you're an omniscient being, and know everything - the motions of every sub-atomic particle, and my complete history including all my experiences. You could predict my every thought and action, because you knew all the operational antecedents. If you told me I was going to say "pancakes" around 10:00 tomorrow, I yet remain free to willfully defy the prediction. I'd be free to disobey what Nature determines, therefore, Nature does not determine.

When I was working out what you would do in the future, had I taken into account that I was going to give you a prediction, in my calculations? if I hadn't then obviously that would render my calculations completely useless, and I'd have to re-work out what you are going to do this time including the fact that I have or will tell you that you are going to say pancakes.

 

[Chesterton]

Hmm, I see what you mean. But it again comes down to (what I consider to be) evolved instincts: though I rationally know that raising kids etc is a futile endeavour, my mind is such that it considers this an end unto itself. Academically, I know why I feel satisfied working toward that goal, but that doesn't change the fact that I feel satisfaction. Even the biggest nihilist in the world cannot change the fact that he experiences emotions.

I know what you're saying, but when I see perceive something as an end unto itself, it's inherently unsatisfying. Science for science's sake, art for art's sake, life for life's sake, seem like a masturbatory, pointless circle. I wonder if God chose to die on a cross because of the symbolism; it's almost the opposite of a pointless circle. A cross points in each direction, extending to infinity, infinitely extending, giving itself, rather than maddeningly wrapping up self within self.

I disagree. Doing something without reason is madness (as you yourself said). I don't act without reason, inasmuch as my mind is concerned: it busies itself with this and that, deciding, thinking, learning, justifying, etc. Whether this is my God-given soul or a mechanical algorithm, it still does that. As far as my mind is concerned, there is purpose to my actions. This purpose may be an illusion conjured up by millennia of evolution, but it's there all the same.

Intellectually, I know (or, at least, believe) there is no real purpose to anything, that human behaviour is a fantastically complex program. But I still irrationally feel like there is. I know why I feel that way, but that doesn't change the fact that I do.

So, yes, I willingly live in a delusion, of sorts.

Well if you admit the irrationality of it, that's all I'm really trying to say. But you're a man of science; ironically our situation should be more unsatisfying to you than to me, the romantic.