Do we have free will?

[Chesterton]

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?

Yes. But it wouldn't factor in because that's a potential future operational antecedent, not a working antecedent, from my POV.

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.

But that's sort of my point. However you work it, whatever you do, my will renders any calculations useless.

 

[underpressure]

Yes. But it wouldn't factor in because that's a potential future operational antecedent, not a working antecedent, from my POV.



But that's sort of my point. However you work it, whatever you do, my will renders any calculations useless.

If I do my calculations, then decide to interfere by giving you a prediction, then yes you will do something different to my original calculations. If you are saying free will is just merely the ability to act on new information, then of course free will exists. If I did decide to interfere, I don't see why I couldn't recalculate what you were going to do, if I do really have the ability to predict the future. I don't see why I'd interfere anyway, couldn't I just write the prediction down on a bit of paper and show you afterwards what it was?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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'm the opposite: I find science for science's sake a purer, more noble, and more satisfying endeavour than science for humanity's sake, or science for my bank account's sake.

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.

Perhaps he died on the cross because it was the method of execution at the time . I'm a scientist, I burn poetry books for fun.

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.

I'm a scientist, but only when I choose to be (ironically enough, in a thread on free will). If I want an explanation, I'll be scientific about it. But science doesn't do anything more than explain things. So, if I want advice on love, I'll listen to my (infuriatingly cryptic) heart, instead of my (distressingly cold) head.

Besides, you know my views on mixing romance and science from our long discussion elsewhere. Which I must get back to.

 

[Washington]

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".

Ah, the illusion of free will is not an illusion of everything. I don't know where you got that idea, but it certainly wasn't from me.

The content and the process are in the same place - the atoms which make up your brain. You can't differentiate.

Sure I can. The process is the function of determinism, and the content is the determined product. The function is neither right or wrong, its simply the cause-effect engine by which the universe operates. However, the content can be wrong, and in this particular case it amounts to the illusion (mistake) that we have free will, which is no different than the mistake a first grader may make in believing that 9 - 4 = 6. Both are incorrect.

If all human experience is merely appearance to the brain, then that has to include the process and perception of thinking.

Correct.

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.

But it is correct, if for no other reason than the alternative is complete randomness, and I doubt this bankrupt notion is more appealing. However, if you have a third alternative I'd be delighted to consider it.

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.

I see where you're trying to come from, but just because we can recognize (use reason) to determine the engine of effect is determinism does not negate the validity of our reason. To use your analogy a bit, it's like being in a pick up game of soft ball, where the rules are decide upon and each player also functions as a referee of those rules. Being a participant does not negate the ability to recognize the rules of that participation.

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.

And just where does your presumption that determinism is an irrational force come from? I haven't seen you establish such a thing, and merely saying so certainly doesn't do it.

Chesterton.
After going back and rereading some of your posts in answer to the comments I and others have made, I'm editing my post here to give you kudos for sticking in the discussion. I admire your resolve to help us understand your point of view.

 

[Chesterton]

If I do my calculations, then decide to interfere by giving you a prediction, then yes you will do something different to my original calculations. If you are saying free will is just merely the ability to act on new information, then of course free will exists. If I did decide to interfere, I don't see why I couldn't recalculate what you were going to do, if I do really have the ability to predict the future.

But you could recalculate and I could still defy the new prediction. You could recalculate again, and I could defy again.

I don't see why I'd interfere anyway, couldn't I just write the prediction down on a bit of paper and show you afterwards what it was?

Good question, although the point of my experiment is imagining a way to discover if a man has will, and your suggestion sort of bypasses that part. You could write down the prediction and show me afterwards, but that wouldn't demonstrate that I didn't choose. It would just show that you knew what I would choose. And that's the usual Christian reconciliation of God's omniscience with free will. Some people reply that if He knows what you're going to choose, then you're not free to choose, but that conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

 

[Chesterton]

Perhaps he died on the cross because it was the method of execution at the time . I'm a scientist, I burn poetry books for fun.

You're saying "Poetry Can Take A Hike"? You ought not stoop to the level of you-know-who.

And from an Englishman. Shame on you.

I'm a scientist, but only when I choose to be (ironically enough, in a thread on free will). If I want an explanation, I'll be scientific about it. But science doesn't do anything more than explain things. So, if I want advice on love, I'll listen to my (infuriatingly cryptic) heart, instead of my (distressingly cold) head.

"Dissociative identity disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a condition in which a person displays multiple distinct identities or personalities (known as alter egos or alters), each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment."

Might want to get that checked out.

 

[Chesterton]

Ah, the illusion of free will is not an illusion of everything. I don't know where you got that idea, but it certainly wasn't from me.

I didn't say anything about the illusion of free will. I don't believe it's illusion. I said it's determinism which by definition makes everything an illusion.

But it is correct, if for no other reason than the alternative is complete randomness, and I doubt this bankrupt notion is more appealing. However, if you have a third alternative I'd be delighted to consider it.

I don't see how randonmess is an alternative, because no one is sure if there can be such a thing as randomness in a universe where everything is governed by laws. My second alternative is of course, God. I think Taure's essay near the beginning of this thread made a good point when he said something to the effect that the idea of a willful agent is nonsense (within this natural universe). But willful agency is an attribute we Christians give of God, who is outside of this universe. And along with that, we believe God, to a limited extent, imparted this same agency to his creations - "God made man in His image" (Genesis 1:27) ;"ye are gods" (John 10:34).

I see where you're trying to come from, but just because we can recognize (use reason) to determine the engine of effect is determinism does not negate the validity of our reason. To use your analogy a bit, it's like being in a pick up game of soft ball, where the rules are decide upon and each player also functions as a referee of those rules. Being a participant does not negate the ability to recognize the rules of that participation.

But if you believe the mind experiences the world as mere appearances, then the experience of reason is also just an appearance. And then so are all your conclusions and beliefs which stem from reason.

And just where does your presumption that determinism is an irrational force come from? I haven't seen you establish such a thing, and merely saying so certainly doesn't do it.

From the atheist view, everything in the universe is just matter and/or energy. That includes our brains and neural networks, and everything we are. Matter/energy is not rational; it doesn't have a mind, and it doesn't do things for reasons. It only follows determined laws. (And bear in mind that "laws", like gravity and magnetism, cannot be said to be reasonable. That mass warps spacetime, and that opposite charges attract, literally make no sense. )

J.B.S. Haldane said it well: "It seems to me immensely unlikely that mind is a mere by-product of matter. For if my mental processes are determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain I have no reason to suppose that my beliefs are true. They may be sound chemically, but that does not make them sound logically. And hence I have no reason for supposing my brain to be composed of atoms."

After going back and rereading some of your posts in answer to the comments I and others have made, I'm editing my post here to give you kudos for sticking in the discussion. I admire your resolve to help us understand your point of view.

Why thank you, kind sir.

 

[underpressure]

But you could recalculate and I could still defy the new prediction. You could recalculate again, and I could defy again.

You might defy my prediction, that would mean either I can't really predict the future, or the future is not possible to predict maybe because of this unknown element we will call 'free will' which I guess in effect is randomising your decision making. And I guess this is the problem with thought exercises, is you still never really get a definite answer, they just help you to conceptualise the idea. I think it would be theoretically possible to calculate the future so long as you don't interfere after you've calculated the results, we already know there is a lot of predictability with the way humans behave, we just don't know yet whether we are 100% predictable.

Good question, although the point of my experiment is imagining a way to discover if a man has will, and your suggestion sort of bypasses that part.

You could write down the prediction and show me afterwards, but that wouldn't demonstrate that I didn't choose. It would just show that you knew what I would choose. And that's the usual Christian reconciliation of God's omniscience with free will. Some people reply that if He knows what you're going to choose, then you're not free to choose, but that conclusion doesn't logically follow from the premise.

If God knows what we are going to do, and he knows the exact mechanisms with how and why we reach the decisions we do, then that makes us 100% predictable, in other words it makes us determined. I'm not sure how free will can co-exist, unless we change the definition of it so that free will simply means the thought processes when weighing up decisions, although in that case using the word 'free' seems like false advertising here as what are you actually free from?

 

[tanzanos]

..........

 

[quatona]

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

So calling determined beings "machines" adds a lot of noise, compared to simply calling them "determined".

The idea of "proving determinism" is an oxymoron.

How exactly is it an oxymoron?

I don't think it can be done.

Of course it can´t be done. That´s why I said "even if it could...".

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.

No disagreement there. However, your assumption was that determinism claims or implies that atoms are the determining agents. I adressed this particular assumption, not the idea that the universe is made of atoms.

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!"

This comparison merely demonstrates a profound lack of understanding of what determinism says.

 

[underpressure]

Lets put it this way: There is no way one can position an electron at any given time, thus if one electron's position cannot be determined then the consequences of a single action will have in the future is beyond calculation at this technological stage we are in. Just keep in mind Chaos theory when messing with time!

Yes, I don't disagree, chaos theory makes it near impossible to predict precise results into the future, although it isn't theoretically impossible to be able to predict the future for a limited amount of time before rounding errors come into play. Obviously we wont likely see such technology, but it was just mean as a thought experiment.

 

[tanzanos]

.........

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You're saying "Poetry Can Take A Hike"? You ought not stoop to the level of you-know-who.

Hah, he-who-must-not-be-named is my idol.

And from an Englishman. Shame on you.

I was being sarcastic! I'm quite partial to poetry. "In thee the end of nature’s works is known, in thee all judgment is absolved alone". Poignant, no?

"Dissociative identity disorder is a psychiatric diagnosis that describes a condition in which a person displays multiple distinct identities or personalities (known as alter egos or alters), each with its own pattern of perceiving and interacting with the environment."

Might want to get that checked out.

It's not a disorder if it works .

Anyway, back to our discussion. Do you agree that it's at least possible that we don't have free will?

 

[tanzanos]

.........

 

[Chesterton]

If God knows what we are going to do, and he knows the exact mechanisms with how and why we reach the decisions we do, then that makes us 100% predictable, in other words it makes us determined. I'm not sure how free will can co-exist, unless we change the definition of it so that free will simply means the thought processes when weighing up decisions, although in that case using the word 'free' seems like false advertising here as what are you actually free from?

I don't agree that being predictable equals being determined. Theoretically, why couldn't you predict what a person will freely choose? Of course God doesn't predict, He merely sees. He sees me right now as a child, as I am now, and as an old man. And he sees me freely acting at all times.

How exactly is it an oxymoron?

Because it would be a proof that proofs are unreliable. It'd be reasoning which invalidated reasoning. It'd be like a ship at sea...no, wait. It'd be like a shoe salesman who uh,...umm... I seem to have run out.

No disagreement there. However, your assumption was that determinism claims or implies that atoms are the determining agents. I adressed this particular assumption, not the idea that the universe is made of atoms.

Then what is/are the determining agents? Aren't you an atheist?

 

[Chesterton]

I was being sarcastic! I'm quite partial to poetry. "In thee the end of nature’s works is known, in thee all judgment is absolved alone". Poignant, no?

My apologies. I thought you sort of meant it.

Anyway, back to our discussion. Do you agree that it's at least possible that we don't have free will?

I guess I can agree it's possible to the same degree I can agree that Descarte's demon is possible.

But if I say "yes it's possible", I'm then allowing the possibility that my answer is not "my" answer, but rather a bit of determined output which could not have been otherwise. And that answer would render the question, the answer, and all discussion meaningless.

If you ask me "do we have free will" and I answer with "no" or "pancakes", both answers would be equally meaningless. They would not be answers in the sense we think of what an "answer" is, with the potential attributes of "true" or "false". They'd be mere physical output.

I'd like to ask you, how would you look at this situation with your mathematician's hat on? Could we make any possible analogy to math: Is there any type of equation where the correct answer renders the equation meaningless? If not, how could the answer to the question of free will be "no, we don't have it"?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

My apologies. I thought you sort of meant it.



I guess I can agree it's possible to the same degree I can agree that Descarte's demon is possible.

But if I say "yes it's possible", I'm then allowing the possibility that my answer is not "my" answer, but rather a bit of determined output which could not have been otherwise. And that answer would render the question, the answer, and all discussion meaningless.

Not necessarily. We are still capable of changing our minds (or, rather, we will change our minds, if that is how the atoms just so happen to dance). That it's beyond our control doesn't mean it stops happening.

If you ask me "do we have free will" and I answer with "no" or "pancakes", both answers would be equally meaningless. They would not be answers in the sense we think of what an "answer" is, with the potential attributes of "true" or "false". They'd be mere physical output.

What are they otherwise?

I'd like to ask you, how would you look at this situation with your mathematician's hat on? Could we make any possible analogy to math: Is there any type of equation where the correct answer renders the equation meaningless? If not, how could the answer to the question of free will be "no, we don't have it"?

The answer given depends on whether the person asked believes we have free will. If we don't, then his answer is determined solely by atoms and electrical discharge: he hears sound, his brain's synapses fire in particular ways, his muscles move, and the sound "No, we don't" is produced. Just because we don't have free will doesn't mean we don't learn and think and ponder and philosophise. It just means we don't have any real control, despite what we may think to the contrary.

But, then again, we may actually have free will, in which case the answer is whatever you want it to be.

 

[underpressure]

I don't agree that being predictable equals being determined.

I'm not sure why? I did say 100% predictable, if we are able to predict an event 100% I'd say it must be determined. For instance we can predict with great accuracy when the next solar eclipse is going to be, so you'd have to say the mechanisms that are moving the earth, moon etc are likely determined.

Theoretically, why couldn't you predict what a person will freely choose?

I think you are going to have to give me a definition of what 'free will' or being able to freely choose means to you.

Of course God doesn't predict, He merely sees. He sees me right now as a child, as I am now, and as an old man.

If your future is known, to at least God, then I'm not sure how you could argue that your future isn't determined,.

And he sees me freely acting at all times.

Again you are going to have to explain that.




I think all in all, free will is one of those things most people intuitively believe to be true, because we experience making decisions and weighing up different options all the time. But we're not experts on our own brains yet, what I would imagine likely to be true though is that our brains, as complex as they are, work in a very mechanistic manner. If it did turn out that our brains aren't following natural laws, causation, and we are actually breaking the second law of thermodynamics, then I suppose we are going to have a hell of a job explaining what is going on, and they might well call this 'free will'. All the signs though seem to be pointing at the idea that our brains work in a mechanistic manner, at least we haven't found anything that would contradict a mechanistic working of the brain.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If your future is known, to at least God, then I'm not sure how you could argue that your future isn't determined.

If I watch a home video, I know what will happen. Does that mean the people being filmed didn't have any free will? It's the same with God: the choices we make are ours and ours alone, but we will make those choices. God could, say, fast-forward 10 years into the future and observe what choices we freely make.

 

[underpressure]

If I watch a home video, I know what will happen. Does that mean the people being filmed didn't have any free will? It's the same with God: the choices we make are ours and ours alone, but we will make those choices. God could, say, fast-forward 10 years into the future and observe what choices we freely make.

Okay, we are saying here that whenever God watches our future it never changes, like the video tape, which would make our lives determined. So what is free will if our future is destined? Just like the way the planets orbit the sun, our lives will go a particular way too, only difference really is the complexity of our lives and brain functions compared to a planet orbiting the sun.

It brings us back to the definition of free will. What do you mean by freely make, how do you freely make a choice? Because the way I see it, all our choices and decisions are effected by both the make of the brain and past experiences we have had, I don't know how you can ever make a free choice?