Does Free Will Exist?

[Ken-1122]

Wiccan Child (quote) “Ah, now you're adding new terms: not only is free will the ability to choose, but it's the ability for an intelligent being to choose.

(reply) no I wasn’t saying the being must be intelligent, but I do believe the being must be conscience in order for it to make a choice

(quote) As for toasters, I disagree. Our hypothetical toaster, which pops out toast based on when a radioactive particle decays (â la Schrödinger's Cat), does so based on entirely internal factors - there is no pre-design on when the toaster 'chooses' to pop out the toast, on whether the toaster chooses to pop out barely crisp bread or black ash, etc. The radioactive element belies any pre-design, and introduces a series of toasters that do something different each time.
How, then, is that not a choice?”

(reply) sounds like your toaster is malfunctioning. That’s not free will, that’s broken!
Next when I said “define choice as the ability to choose between 2 or more options.”

Wiccan replied (quote) “That's not a definition, that's a tautology. "Choice is the ability to choose" doesn't tell us anything new, any more than "Plato is Plato" does.”

(reply) Then what kind of a definition are you looking for?

(quote) “Nonetheless, we could create a toaster with a radioactive trigger or a pseudo-random number generator that would make it do something different each time.”

(reply) As I mentioned before, in order to choose you must be conscience of what you are doing.

K

 

[sandwiches]

Wiccan Child (quote) “Ah, now you're adding new terms: not only is free will the ability to choose, but it's the ability for an intelligent being to choose.

(reply) no I wasn’t saying the being must be intelligent, but I do believe the being must be conscience in order for it to make a choice

(quote) As for toasters, I disagree. Our hypothetical toaster, which pops out toast based on when a radioactive particle decays (â la Schrödinger's Cat), does so based on entirely internal factors - there is no pre-design on when the toaster 'chooses' to pop out the toast, on whether the toaster chooses to pop out barely crisp bread or black ash, etc. The radioactive element belies any pre-design, and introduces a series of toasters that do something different each time.
How, then, is that not a choice?”

(reply) sounds like your toaster is malfunctioning. That’s not free will, that’s broken!
Next when I said “define choice as the ability to choose between 2 or more options.”

Wiccan replied (quote) “That's not a definition, that's a tautology. "Choice is the ability to choose" doesn't tell us anything new, any more than "Plato is Plato" does.”

(reply) Then what kind of a definition are you looking for?

(quote) “Nonetheless, we could create a toaster with a radioactive trigger or a pseudo-random number generator that would make it do something different each time.”

(reply) As I mentioned before, in order to choose you must be conscience of what you are doing.

K

So, now you must be a conscience to choose? I checked out five dictionaries and none of them mentioned consciousness. Why are you adding this?

This is the most common definition I found:
"An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

So, I would grant you that a toaster may not be able to choose but a traffic light does. It must decide whether it must let Street Y traffic go first or Street Z traffic go. It judges the different variables (time of the day, amount of cars, who got there first, etc) and makes a decision. Does a traffic light have free will?

 

[Ken-1122]

So, now you must be a conscience to choose? I checked out five dictionaries and none of them mentioned consciousness. Why are you adding this?

This is the most common definition I found:
"An act of selecting or making a decision when faced with two or more possibilities."

So, I would grant you that a toaster may not be able to choose but a traffic light does. It must decide whether it must let Street Y traffic go first or Street Z traffic go. It judges the different variables (time of the day, amount of cars, who got there first, etc) and makes a decision. Does a traffic light have free will?

Being conscience seems necessary to make a choice IMO. the traffic light isn't making a choice it is just reacting to the sencors in the street that determine the amount of traffic during that time. The traffic light is not aware of the number of cars on the street, it's just doing what it was programmed to do

K

 

[sandwiches]

Being conscience seems necessary to make a choice IMO. the traffic light isn't making a choice it is just reacting to the sencors in the street that determine the amount of traffic during that time. The traffic light is not aware of the number of cars on the street, it's just doing what it was programmed to do

K

How is what you do based on stimuli and your own processing system different from what the traffic light does?

PS. And some traffic lights are aware of how many cars are on the street or at least near the intersection they control.

 

[Ken-1122]

How is what you do based on stimuli and your own processing system different from what the traffic light does?

PS. And some traffic lights are aware of how many cars are on the street or at least near the intersection they control.

I have the option to do something different; if the sensors in the street tells the traffic light it should be green on road X, the traffic light has no other option but to turn green on road X. I would have the ability to remain red if I choose to

Ken

 

[Wiccan_Child]

no I wasn’t saying the being must be intelligent, but I do believe the being must be conscience in order for it to make a choice

OK, so your new criterion is "must be conscious".

(reply) sounds like your toaster is malfunctioning. That’s not free will, that’s broken!

You're being glib - how is it not a choice?

Next when I said “define choice as the ability to choose between 2 or more options.”
Then what kind of a definition are you looking for?

One which tells me about the thing in question. If I look up the definition of a hitherto unknown word (e.g., 'Malu'), I would prefer to find a definition that tells me what a Malu is (as opposed to, say, "A Malu is any thing called a Malu").

You say that you know, to scientific standards, that you have free will, and that free will is the ability to choose, and that the ability to choose is the ability to choose. Somehow, you haven't really defined your terms.

When you say you have free will, what do you mean?

As I mentioned before, in order to choose you must be conscience of what you are doing.

And as I said, that's an extra term in your definition. Perfectly acceptable, of course.

So, why do you have to be conscious? Are you saying that consciousness provides a mechanical difference, or is it just an aesthetic differentiation, such as between 'true hair' and 'faux hair'? That is, is a conscious chooser basically the same as an inanimate chooser, but you only called the concious chooser's choices as such?

 

[sandwiches]

I have the option to do something different; if the sensors in the street tells the traffic light it should be green on road X, the traffic light has no other option but to turn green on road X. I would have the ability to remain red if I choose to

Ken

So, you're saying if your choices are constrained or limited, you don't have free will? Do I not have free will because I can't just choose to float off the ground without aid? Do I not have free will if they only have Coke or water at a restaurant, so I am limited to Coke, water, or nothing?

 

[Ken-1122]

Ken: “no I wasn’t saying the being must be intelligent, but I do believe the being must be conscience in order for it to make a choice[/font]”

Wiccan child (quote) “ so your new criterion is "must be conscious"……..You're being glib - how is it not a choice?”

(reply) It is my point of view that you must be conscious to be able to make a decision because you must be able to think and aware of your thoughts in order to make a choice. As far as a malfunctioning machine having free will, if it is unable to think, it didn’t make the choice.

(qu0ote) “You say that you know, to scientific standards, that you have free will, and that free will is the ability to choose, and that the ability to choose is the ability to choose. Somehow, you haven't really defined your terms.
When you say you have free will, what do you mean?”

(reply “When did I say anything about “scientific standards”? it is my POV that I have free will. If you ask me to define free will, I will say the ability to choose. If you don’t know the definition of “choice” I will say to desire, to want, to wish for, etc. or whatever verb might come to mind. If you are gonna be such a “tard” and not know the definition of those words, then I will concede an inability to articulate proof that I have free will to you using the English language until you learn the definition of basic English words.

(quote) “So, why do you have to be conscious? Are you saying that consciousness provides a mechanical difference, or is it just an aesthetic differentiation, such as between 'true hair' and 'faux hair'? That is, is a conscious chooser basically the same as an inanimate chooser, but you only called the concious chooser's choices as such?[/font]”

(reply) “” conscious is to be able to think and be aware of your thoughts and existence. I believe you must be able to do those things in order to make a choice

It’s late now, I will respond to sandwich later

K

 

[Wiccan_Child]

When did I say anything about “scientific standards”?

When you said you knew you had free will inasmuch as you know anything - i.e., by empirical evidence, the bedrock scientific standard.

it is my POV that I have free will. If you ask me to define free will, I will say the ability to choose. If you don’t know the definition of “choice” I will say to desire, to want, to wish for, etc. or whatever verb might come to mind. If you are gonna be such a “tard” and not know the definition of those words, then I will concede an inability to articulate proof that I have free will to you using the English language until you learn the definition of basic English words.

There's no need to stoop to insults. My point is that your definition is inherently vacuous and meaningless - it is a long-standing philosophical problem to define just what is meant by 'free will'. The problem arises because free will is not, and has never been, well defined; people want to have their cake ("Humans have free will") and eat it ("Only humans have free will"), yet there is nothing about free will that indicates that it a) exists, b) cannot exist in other things, or c) can be demonstrated to exist.

Thus, I ask you again, for the umpteenth time, what evidence do you have for concluding that you have free will?

 

[Ken-1122]

When I said: “I have the option to do something different; if the sensors in the street tells the traffic light it should be green on road X, the traffic light has no other option but to turn green on road X. I would have the ability to remain red if I choose to”

Sandwich said (quote) “So, you're saying if your choices are constrained or limited, you don't have free will? Do I not have free will because I can't just choose to float off the ground without aid? Do I not have free will if they only have Coke or water at a restaurant, so I am limited to Coke, water, or nothing?”

(reply) I said nothing of the sort. Of course nobody has unlimited freewill, there will always be limitations on the options available to us; I said the traffic light would only be able to do one thing; I would have a choice to do something else.

Wiccan Child (quote) “When you said you knew you had free will inasmuch as you know anything - i.e., by empirical evidence, the bedrock scientific standard.”

(reply) Oh so now you claim I said empirical evidence? Sounds like you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about scientific proof. I claim to have free will and will continue to believe so until proven otherwise and so far you haven’t proven otherwise.

(quote) “My point is that your definition is inherently vacuous and meaningless”

(reply) I disagree! I gave you my definition of freewill, I even asked your definition of free will to make sure we are on the same page as far as definitions; (something you refused to do) I explained where I got my definition of free will, and I explained how this definition applies to myself.
If you want more explanation than that, you are gonna have to tell me what kind of explanation you are looking for.

(quote) “it is a long-standing philosophical problem to define just what is meant by 'free will'”

(reply) for me it’s not! You must be talking about somebody else.

(quote) “The problem arises because free will is not, and has never been, well defined;”

(reply) I gave you my definition. You talkin about someone else huh?

(quote) “people want to have their cake ("Humans have free will") and eat it ("Only humans have free will")”

(reply) You definitely are talking about someone else!

(quote) “yet there is nothing about free will that indicates that it a) exists, b) cannot exist in other things, or c) can be demonstrated to exist.

(reply) I gave examples of freewill enacted in my life. I never claimed only humans have free will.

(quote) “Thus, I ask you again, for the umpteenth time, what evidence do you have for concluding that you have free will?

(reply) I’ve given you examples; you need to be clearer of the type of answer you are looking for.

Ken

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I said nothing of the sort. Of course nobody has unlimited freewill, there will always be limitations on the options available to us; I said the traffic light would only be able to do one thing; I would have a choice to do something else.

But what's the difference between you 'freely choosing' to remain red, and an internal random 'decision maker' making the choice to stay red? What is it you have, that the traffic light doesn't?

You will only ever make one decision in any given scenario, so how do you know that you could have make a different one? How do you know it's not just an illusion of biology?

Wiccan Child (quote) “When you said you knew you had free will inasmuch as you know anything - i.e., by empirical evidence, the bedrock scientific standard.”

(reply) Oh so now you claim I said empirical evidence? Sounds like you are trying to put words in my mouth. I never said anything about scientific proof. I claim to have free will and will continue to believe so until proven otherwise and so far you haven’t proven otherwise.

Because the onus of proof is on me, not you. You say it yourself: I claim to have free will. That is a positive claim, one which requires substantiation - otherwise it's as vacuous as if I'd have claimed you don't have free will.

As for your claims about empirical support, you stated thusly:

"I know I have free will, just as I know the Earth is round, I know the effects of gravity will be in place tomorrow, and I know if I inhale enough water, I will die. Now can I prove it? No! ... In other words, to "know" simply means to be convinced beyond a shadow of doubt. "

You explicitly stated that you know you have free will in the same way you 'know' any other empirical statement. You gave a list of things that are known empirically, not axiomatically.

What, then, is the evidence for your belief? What is it that convinced you "beyond a shadow of a doubt" that you have free will?

Or, if you want to retract your above remarks, are you now saying that you have no evidence to support your claim?

(quote) “My point is that your definition is inherently vacuous and meaningless”

(reply) I disagree! I gave you my definition of freewill, I even asked your definition of free will to make sure we are on the same page as far as definitions; (something you refused to do) I explained where I got my definition of free will, and I explained how this definition applies to myself.
If you want more explanation than that, you are gonna have to tell me what kind of explanation you are looking for.

As I said, one that isn't inherently vacuous. You continue to claim you have free will, that you just 'know' you have free will, without ever supporting that claim.

for me it’s not! You must be talking about somebody else.

I gave you my definition. You talkin about someone else huh?You definitely are talking about someone else!

I gave examples of freewill enacted in my life. I never claimed only humans have free will.

I’ve given you examples; you need to be clearer of the type of answer you are looking for.

You haven't given examples. You've given scenarios where you believe, without any cited evidence or rationale, that free will is at work. If your perceived free will were merely an illusion, everything would pan out exactly the same. How, then, are those scenarios demonstrations of free will?

 

[Ken-1122]

But what's the difference between you 'freely choosing' to remain red, and an internal random 'decision maker' making the choice to stay red? What is it you have, that the traffic light doesn't?

You will only ever make one decision in any given scenario, so how do you know that you could have make a different one? How do you know it's not just an illusion of biology?

(reply ) I have free will because my decisions are not random; they are the result of my thoughts. The traffic light does not think.

K

 

[Wiccan_Child]

(reply ) I have free will because my decisions are not random; they are the result of my thoughts. The traffic light does not think.

K

How do you know your actions are the results of your thoughts, and not vice versa? Recent studies have shown that the brain is already gearing up to enact a certain action quite some time before you've even 'decided to do that action.

And if your thoughts determine your actions, how do you know that your thoughts aren't predetermined?

 

[Ken-1122]

How do you know your actions are the results of your thoughts, and not vice versa? Recent studies have shown that the brain is already gearing up to enact a certain action quite some time before you've even 'decided to do that action.

And if your thoughts determine your actions, how do you know that your thoughts aren't predetermined?

(reply) because I have no reason to believe otherwise. Now if you have some information that proves that our thoughts are predetermined, I woulld be happy to hear it.

K

 

[Wiccan_Child]

because I have no reason to believe otherwise.

That is not a reason to believe anything, and is the antithesis of rational and scientific thought. Rationally, we can only believe something if we have reason to, not if we don't have reason not to. By your logic, I would be perfectly justified in believing in a tribe of invisible elephants living on a distant planet.

Of course, if you protest the improbability of this scenario, then you acknowledge that probability is itself a good enough reason not to believe in something - and thus I put it to you that free will is such an improbable concept, and semi-deterministic neurology such a more probable alternative, that you are honour-bound to rescind your claim.

Now if you have some information that proves that our thoughts are predetermined, I woulld be happy to hear it.

K

I'm sure you would. However, since you are the one making the claim, the onus of proof is on you. Simple stating you have no reason not to believe it, neither substantiates your claim nor belies a healthy understanding of science.

 

[sandwiches]

(reply) I said nothing of the sort. Of course nobody has unlimited freewill, there will always be limitations on the options available to us; I said the traffic light would only be able to do one thing; I would have a choice to do something else.

So, you're saying that the only way a traffic light would have free will is to do something that it is INCAPABLE of doing??

That makes no sense. I can only do that which I am capable of doing and nothing else. Do I not have free will?

 

[Maxwell511]

If we define free will as the ability of the brain to act differently according to the same circumstance. Same meaning for example the same event, not a similar event that happens at a different time or place. So that if time was rewound and played again the person would not necessarily act in the same manner. Then I think that free will exists with relatively strong reason.

If we define free will as the ability of the brain to control the ability to act differently according to that same circumstance. I don't think it exists.

The brain is a very chaotic system. It is not a computer that has hardware (genetics) that operates deterministically to inputs (environment) to produce an output (reaction).

People seem to think that the brain is a stable system that will always produce the same answer and take this as a given in free will/determinism debates. This is despite the fact that such a brain is at an evolutionary disadvantage to a brain that is chaotic. The chaotic brain is more sensitive to subtle differences in sensory input and therefore can potentially tell the differences between situations that can produce life and death results depending on the reaction. This sensitivity to subtle differences in input signals may also (I think likely) mean that the brain can have a sensitivity to leakage signals due to random quantum effects inside the brain and therefore it is incredibly credible that people act non deterministically in some constrained manner.

What's the difference between a deterministic system and random one with an infinitesimal variance? A lot, but also very little. And even if the variance is not so small, if the error in our measurements is greater than it, we cannot tell if we are looking at at deterministic system or a "random" one. I am biased on this btw in that I think that a deterministic system has a very special probability distribution, if they exist.

If free will is defined as acting in a manner that is not causally related to the environment or genetics then that is very possible (very plausible) with our current understanding of neuroscience and physics. It is not as an extraordinary claim as it seems.

If you go by the second definition, above, you are saying we (the brain) can determine the outcome of quantum events that occur inside it. That would require a hell of a lot of evidence.

 

[sandwiches]

If we define free will as the ability of the brain to act differently according to the same circumstance. Same meaning for example the same event, not a similar event that happens at a different time or place. So that if time was rewound and played again the person would not necessarily act in the same manner. Then I think that free will exists with relatively strong reason.

If we define free will as the ability of the brain to control the ability to act differently according to that same circumstance. I don't think it exists.

The brain is a very chaotic system. It is not a computer that has hardware (genetics) that operates deterministically to inputs (environment) to produce an output (reaction).

People seem to think that the brain is a stable system that will always produce the same answer and take this as a given in free will/determinism debates. This is despite the fact that such a brain is at an evolutionary disadvantage to a brain that is chaotic. The chaotic brain is more sensitive to subtle differences in sensory input and therefore can potentially tell the differences between situations that can produce life and death results depending on the reaction. This sensitivity to subtle differences in input signals may also (I think likely) mean that the brain can have a sensitivity to leakage signals due to random quantum effects inside the brain and therefore it is incredibly credible that people act non deterministically in some constrained manner.

What's the difference between a deterministic system and random one with an infinitesimal variance? A lot, but also very little. And even if the variance is not so small, if the error in our measurements is greater than it, we cannot tell if we are looking at at deterministic system or a "random" one. I am biased on this btw in that I think that a deterministic system has a very special probability distribution, if they exist.

If free will is defined as acting in a manner that is not causally related to the environment or genetics then that is very possible (very plausible) with our current understanding of neuroscience and physics. It is not as an extraordinary claim as it seems.

If you go by the second definition, above, you are saying we (the brain) can determine the outcome of quantum events that occur inside it. That would require a hell of a lot of evidence.

I think this is where mere complexity and vanity comes into play. We like to think that we're special, that we're somehow not bound by nature or the behavior of particles. The reality is that while the brain is chaotic and very complex, unless we can detect and understand all variables involved in a decision, there's no way to tell if a decision is truly deterministic or stochastic. Even if we were to take into effect quantum processes such as virtual particles and whatnot, the fact remains that it is quite possible that given the same set of circumstances (electric and chemical state of the brain, quantum processes, etc) the exact same outcome would be derived in every single instance.

 

[Maxwell511]

I think this is where mere complexity and vanity comes into play. We like to think that we're special, that we're somehow not bound by nature or the behavior of particles.

You understand your sentence above is how I feel about determinists. Determinists seem to think they are not bound by the laws of physics as we understand them.

 

[Maxwell511]

The reality is that while the brain is chaotic and very complex, unless we can detect and understand all variables involved in a decision, there's no way to tell if a decision is truly deterministic or stochastic.

True.

Even if we were to take into effect quantum processes such as virtual particles and whatnot, the fact remains that it is quite possible that given the same set of circumstances (electric and chemical state of the brain, quantum processes, etc) the exact same outcome would be derived in every single instance.

Depends on the the stability of the problem posed to the brain.