Free Will

[Opethian]

Do you believe in free will, defined as:

Free will: the belief that 2 persons, with the exact same body structure (everything, thus the same genes, the same injuries, the same memory, etc...), and receiving the exact same environmental stimuli (thus being in the exact same place and receiving the exact same sensory input) can perform 2 different actions. Thus that they have a real "choice". !!! See below.

A) Yes I believe in free will, because I believe in the supernatural, thus a soul allowing for free will, regardless of physical laws.

B) Yes I believe in free will, but I do not believe in the supernatural. (please explain why, since this would seem like a fallacious position to me)

C) No I don't believe in free will, but I do believe in the supernatural.

D) No I don't believe in free will, and I don't believe in the supernatural.

E) Other (explain).

Please explain your position and reasons behind it.

EDIT: Definition altered: If you want to assert that free will as defined here exists, and can be explained by natural phenomena, you have to be able to point out a phenomenon which is only applicable to humans, and other animals/organisms which you think are capable of "free will actions". This to prevent us from debating about a "free will" which is also applicable to rocks and rivers .

 

[Lifesaver]

"Yes I believe in free will, because I believe in the supernatural", and I add that I do not think the human mind is capable of fully comprehending itself, and thus I think it impossible to give a full description of how free will works.

But notice that even accepting the existence of the soul does not make it "easy" to accept free will, because even if we forget about the physical reactions of the brain we still have the connections and causality estabilished between our thoughts, and it is hard to explain just how a person with a precise mental state (the sum of its present thoughts, its values, memories, acquired tendencies, etc) could choose differently than it did in a given particular situation.

 

[elman]

Do you believe in free will, defined as:

Free will: the belief that 2 persons, with the exact same body structure (everything, thus the same genes, the same injuries, the same memory, etc...), and receiving the exact same environmental stimuli (thus being in the exact same place and receiving the exact same sensory input) can perform 2 different actions. Thus that they have a real "choice".

A) Yes I believe in free will, because I believe in the supernatural, thus a soul allowing for free will, regardless of physical laws.

B) Yes I believe in free will, but I do not believe in the supernatural. (please explain why, since this would seem like a fallacious position to me)

C) No I don't believe in free will, but I do believe in the supernatural.

D) No I don't believe in free will, and I don't believe in the supernatural.

E) Other (explain).

Please explain your position and reasons behind it.

I believe we make our own choices and they are not forced upon us by environment or genitics or any combination thereof. I don't believe that has anything to do with the existence of God. I not only believe two people which are exact duplicates in exactlly the same circumstances could and might make different decisions. I also believe the same person in an exact repeat of the circumstances might make a different decision from the first decision.

 

[elman]

"Yes I believe in free will, because I believe in the supernatural", and I add that I do not think the human mind is capable of fully comprehending itself, and thus I think it impossible to give a full description of how free will works.

But notice that even accepting the existence of the soul does not make it "easy" to accept free will, because even if we forget about the physical reactions of the brain we still have the connections and causality estabilished between our thoughts, and it is hard to explain just how a person with a precise mental state (the sum of its present thoughts, its values, memories, acquired tendencies, etc) could choose differently than it did in a given particular situation.

I think it is only hard to explain if you assume we are not making our decisions and the appearance that we are is only an illusion. I don't assume it is only illusion. I see no reason to assume that.

 

[Apollonian]

That is a very odd way to define "free will". Are you presuming to say that you can account for all possible phenomena? For instance: Are you going so far as to say that even all of the quantum conditions are exactly the same?

Such a position is not "fallaceous" perse, but it does seem irrelevant to me. In other words, if you assume all of these things, then the two individuals in question are actually the same individual! Giving them different names does not make that thing making the decision a different person.

If we say that the two "persons" make different decisions, then that seems equivalent to saying that a single person may have made a different decision regardless of circumstance. However, the fact remains that he/she did make a decision. To say which decision is a matter of historical fact, present ambiguity, or future speculation.

If we say that the two "person" make the same decision in the same situation, then that seems to be the same as saying that someone will inevitably make a particular decision given certain circumstance. However, since we cannot know all of the conditions of that person at that time, can we really predestin a person's will at all? Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that the more one looks at the "state" of the person at that moment, the less clear the outcome becomes, and the more we know what the outcome is the less we know about the state! So then, though we may conjure the idea that a person is destined to make particular choices, we have no way of proving it.

Ultimately, the idea of "free will" is either true by definition (ie A person has chosen, and will choose that which it is in their will to choose) or becomes a moot point (if you believe that it is not possible to prove or disprove the idea). If you think I'm presenting a false dichotomy, I'd be interested to hear it.

To what extent are you excluding the element of the perception of "free will" in your definition? Isn't it the preception of the freedom which we have which makes our will free (ie because to us it is free and we know no other perspective)?

A corellary question is: If I, being the same person that I am, were to suddenly have had a completely different set of experiences, then I imagine I would certainly make different decisions. But here is the interesting part... If I were told that my memory had been altered and that my experiences were not entirely my own, would I still act out those (possibly fake) experiences in my will?

It seems to me that the question here isn't "Do you believe in Free Will?" but rather "What do you believe to be the nature of consciousness?" and "Is consciousness reduceable to physical causality or is there a fundamentally inaccessible metaphysical element to it?"

 

[Opethian]

That is a very odd way to define "free will". Are you presuming to say that you can account for all possible phenomena? For instance: Are you going so far as to say that even all of the quantum conditions are exactly the same?

I know that uncertainty principles would form a problem for this, but just for the sake of the argument, presume we have found a theory that bypasses uncertainty and that all physical phenomena are perfectly predictable.

Such a position is not "fallaceous" perse, but it does seem irrelevant to me. In other words, if you assume all of these things, then the two individuals in question are actually the same individual! Giving them different names does not make that thing making the decision a different person.

That's exactly the point. Which is why the only possible explanation to allow these 2 physically identical persons to perform a different action under the same circumstances, is a supernatural explanation.

If we say that the two "persons" make different decisions, then that seems equivalent to saying that a single person may have made a different decision regardless of circumstance.

That's exactly what I meant.

However, the fact remains that he/she did make a decision. To say which decision is a matter of historical fact, present ambiguity, or future speculation.

If we say that the two "person" make the same decision in the same situation, then that seems to be the same as saying that someone will inevitably make a particular decision given certain circumstance. However, since we cannot know all of the conditions of that person at that time, can we really predestin a person's will at all? Quantum mechanics seems to indicate that the more one looks at the "state" of the person at that moment, the less clear the outcome becomes, and the more we know what the outcome is the less we know about the state! So then, though we may conjure the idea that a person is destined to make particular choices, we have no way of proving it.

Obviously. That's why this is a matter of philosophy and not a matter of science. Maybe in the future with a unified theory and other scientific advances it may be possible to approach this matter more scientifically.
Maybe if I would add something to my definition of free will, for instance that free will means 2 physically the same persons under the same circumstances can perform different actions on a schale larger than explicable by quantum phenomena.

Ultimately, the idea of "free will" is either true by definition (ie A person has chosen, and will choose that which it is in their will to choose) or becomes a moot point (if you believe that it is not possible to prove or disprove the idea). If you think I'm presenting a false dichotomy, I'd be interested to hear it.

It is unprovable whether god exists or not, but that doesn't stop millions of people debating and philosophising on the subject.

To what extent are you excluding the element of the perception of "free will" in your definition? Isn't it the preception of the freedom which we have which makes our will free (ie because to us it is free and we know no other perspective)?

Free will is an illusion that is essential for human consciousness to function effectively. The question is, is it an illusion caused by the refreshing and receiving of new information through the senses while certain processes are already running in the brain to calculate which is the optimal action to undertake, or is it a real phenomenon which has a supernatural mechanism behind it?

A corellary question is: If I, being the same person that I am, were to suddenly have had a completely different set of experiences, then I imagine I would certainly make different decisions. But here is the interesting part... If I were told that my memory had been altered and that my experiences were not entirely my own, would I still act out those (possibly fake) experiences in my will?

I don't really quite understand the final question. What do you mean with "acting out experiences in your will"?

It seems to me that the question here isn't "Do you believe in Free Will?" but rather "What do you believe to be the nature of consciousness?" and "Is consciousness reduceable to physical causality or is there a fundamentally inaccessible metaphysical element to it?"

It seems to me the latter is just a more profound version of the former.

 

[DailyBlessings]

I'm somewhere between the first two options. I do believe in free will, but I hardly think that a supenatural miracle must be involved every time I make a decision. It doesn't bother me if something has a physical "cause"- I don't accept a complete divide between natural and supernatural things to begin with.

 

[Job_s_First_Son]

Voted Free will - Yes Supernatural - No.

 

[elman]

I'm somewhere between the first two options. I do believe in free will, but I hardly think that a supenatural miracle must be involved every time I make a decision. It doesn't bother me if something has a physical "cause"- I don't accept a complete divide between natural and supernatural things to begin with.

I agree. I may have a reason to decide something one particular way, but that does not mean I had no choice.

 

[Apollonian]

That's exactly the point. Which is why the only possible explanation to allow these 2 physically identical persons to perform a different action under the same circumstances, is a supernatural explanation.

Given complete knowledge of physical processes, and excluding Heisenburg's Principle, either there is a supernatural element allowing the possibility of "free will" as you define it or there does not exist a "free will" as you define it. Agreed.

Obviously. That's why this is a matter of philosophy and not a matter of science. Maybe in the future with a unified theory and other scientific advances it may be possible to approach this matter more scientifically.

I would assert that the developments of Quantum Mechanics (specifically Heisenburg's Uncertainty principle) most certainly have relevance in philosophy as well as science. If you wish your philosophy to be relevant to the reality in which we operate, it makes sense to avoid assumptions which take us outside that reality.

If you assume complete knowledge of all physical processes, you have made yourself a God-like observer. The troublesome part is that we cannot be sure how God (or a god even in the most general sense) thinks. How can we who have finite knowledge extrapolate to the infinite?

Who is to say that the entire discussion is based around the philosophical proof or disproof of "free will"? In other words, how can you be sure that the discussion isn't just about you willing "free will" to exist or not to exist? How can you know that your philosophy (excluding science) is relevant?

Maybe if I would add something to my definition of free will, for instance that free will means 2 physically the same persons under the same circumstances can perform different actions on a schale larger than explicable by quantum phenomena.

The problem is that the Brain does very much operate at the quantum level, given its primary form of operation in millions of electro-chemical interactions. So then, if you are not making decisions with your brain, how then do you decide things? Or if you decide things without your brain, how then do you influence your brain (and body) to act upon that decision?

It is unprovable whether god exists or not, but that doesn't stop millions of people debating and philosophising on the subject.

Millions of people have no idea of what philosophy really is (let alone science). "Debating" the issue of whether God exists or not does not consist of millions of people contradicting each other, setting up straw-man arguments, ad-hominem arguments, and a variety of other falsifications. People are left to choose what they believe since God's existence may be (un)provable (since to my knowledge we cannot prove that proof of God's existence may not be available some time in the future). It is not a matter of philosophy but one of faith.

Discussion topics are either inside or outside the universe of discourse. If the topic is outside the universe of discourse, it isn't philosophy but rather fantasy or pure speculation. Fantasy and fiction have their places, but they are not philosophy which attempts to speak to topics pertaining to reality. Speculation can be interesting but must lead somewhere other than a "slippery slope". If you cannot link your philosophy to reality, then you are no different than those who once thought the Earth to be the surface of a flat plane rather than an oblate spheroid.

In short, there is a distinction between the rational process of philosophy and the belief resulting from philosophy (or the lack thereof).

Free will is an illusion that is essential for human consciousness to function effectively.

This is an assertion and not a proof. Free will may or may not be "an illusion" since we don't understand what the reality of free will actually is. The fact that the human consciousness functions is self-evident.

The question is, is it an illusion caused by the refreshing and receiving of new information through the senses while certain processes are already running in the brain to calculate which is the optimal action to undertake, or is it a real phenomenon which has a supernatural mechanism behind it?

I'm afraid you may also have an odd idea about what "supernatural" means. Can you define it? I fear that the above argument is more superstitious than logical.

Even if we (as God-like observers) were to have complete knowledge of a person's "state"... that person would still experience confusion over the sensory information available. That confusion would make it impossible to "calculate which is the optimal action". If you mean to say that a person will calculate the action that they will act out, this is a tautology.

I give you credit for an interesting take on the subject though.

I don't really quite understand the final question. What do you mean with "acting out experiences in your will"?

"Acting out the path determined by one's past 'states' (experiences) in agreement or contrast to one's present 'state' "

To rephrase without obfuscation: "To what extent does the present, in addition to the past, affect the free will?"
and
"Does a "present" state even exist?"

In other words, if we are to talk about our "free will" in the present we must first show that the present actually exists and determine its effect upon the past and the future. The problem is that if you believe human consciousness to be an interaction of elements in the brain, then there is no "present" state of consciousness except to interpolate between the past (experiences) and the future (speculations).

There are some who assert that the awareness of will (or free-will) is an "emergent" process. In other words, when the brain contains sufficient complexity it may become aware of its own states and thereby it's "will". The question is then: what is "free" in that will?

It seems to me the latter is just a more profound version of the former.

I would much rather have a profound and insightful philosophical discussion than a trivial or superstitious one.

Then again, I do enjoy a thorough discussion like this one if only for the intellectual exercise!

PS - I also recognize that a part of philosophy is determining what exactly the real universe of discourse contains.

 

[billwald]

There is no test for the existance of free will.

 

[Apollonian]

I'd like to clarify one point which I didn't make very well.

It is entirely appropriate to make simplifying assumptions in order to create a theory which instructs us regarding reality but is itself incorrect. Indeed, one has to make some assumptions in order to create any rational theory at all. Newton's gravitation and much of classical physics is a good example. However, the ultimate aim is still understanding reality and not simply an intellectual exercise. The simplistic model inevitably yields to the more profound one.

 

[quatona]

Do you believe in free will, defined as:

Free will: the belief that 2 persons, with the exact same body structure (everything, thus the same genes, the same injuries, the same memory, etc...), and receiving the exact same environmental stimuli (thus being in the exact same place and receiving the exact same sensory input) can perform 2 different actions. Thus that they have a real "choice".

A) Yes I believe in free will, because I believe in the supernatural, thus a soul allowing for free will, regardless of physical laws.

B) Yes I believe in free will, but I do not believe in the supernatural. (please explain why, since this would seem like a fallacious position to me)

C) No I don't believe in free will, but I do believe in the supernatural.

D) No I don't believe in free will, and I don't believe in the supernatural.

E) Other (explain).

Please explain your position and reasons behind it.

I see no reason to assume that anything is anything beyond the results of all factors involved.
I do think that two hypothetical persons with the exact same genetics, with the exact same experiences and in the exact same situation will do the exact same.
Even if I would assume them to act differently, I would have to ask why that is. The only convincing answer in that case would be: random.

 

[Apollonian]

The only convincing answer in that case would be: random.

Or pseudo-random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandomness

Many things may simply be sufficiently complex that they appear random to us, when they may in fact not be. There are other things besides genetics which determine a person's behavior. The gestalt is not the sum of the parts.

 

[quatona]

Or pseudo-random.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudorandomness

Many things may simply be sufficiently complex that they appear random to us, when they may in fact not be. There are other things besides genetics which determine a person's behavior. The gestalt is not the sum of the parts.

Yes, sure. There´s hardly any way around it being determined by countless factors, though, and there´s hardly any reasonable way of establishing the notion of a "will" as being the undetermined determining factor. That was my point.

 

[meebs]

I think to an extent both.

Yes we do have choices and the freedom to follow that choice, however, There are other beings on this planet (and even non-living factors that can affect the result!) and whatever your choice another thing - a limitation is going to affect your path - and you do the same, your choice will affect another persons.

Do you get my meaning?

oh yes, and i dont beleive in the supernatural, obviously.

In short - a limited free will?

 

[quatona]

I think to an extent both.

Yes we do have choices and the freedom to follow that choice, however, There are other beings on this planet (and even non-living factors that can affect the result!) and whatever your choice another thing - a limitation is going to affect your path - and you do the same, your choice will affect another persons.

Do you get my meaning?

Yes, I think so. If I am not mistaken you are referring to the social idea of "free will" rather than the religious/philosophic one.

In short - a limited free will?

I don´t think so. But if working from that assumption, the implications need to be reconsidered, and there are huge implications. "Free will" seems to be crucial to many worldviews, and they stand and fall with its existence. Mainly, "free will" is a necessary prerequisite to constitute guilt, sin, responsibility/accountability (whatever that might mean).
If looking at a certain outcome, we see a lot of people involved in it, and we see a lot of factors that are codetermining the behaviour of those people and the outcome. If we would succeed in clearly identifying all those factors and substract them, what´´s left is the "free will" part. Yet, "free will" is usually used as an absolute ("you have free will, therefore you are accountable/responsible"), whilst a limited "free will" would mean limited "accounability/responsibility", and it would necessitate us to look very deeply into every issue to discern what´s left of this responsibility/accountability. I suspect that there won´t be much left in any case (actually I think it is zero).

Has anyone observed this, too: Many people - when describing someone else´s behaviour they disapprove of - always add a "you chose to..." to the sentence. Whilst if talking about their own actions they apparently are fully aware of the complexity of each situation and go to great detail how and why they "had to" do what they did.

To anyone who´s interested, here´s is a little experiment: Add a "choose to" to each and every verb with which a person who believes in "free will" describes herself and others.
(Like for the above sentence:
To anyone who chooses to be interested, here´s a little experiment: Choose to add a "choose to" to each and every verb with which a person who chooses to believe in "free will" chooses to describe herself and others.)

 

[meebs]

Yes, I think so. If I am not mistaken you are referring to the social idea of "free will" rather than the religious/philosophic one.

heh thankyou for putting it simpler for me

yes - Social and physical rather than spiritual. Though its still a philosophy of mine.

I don´t think so. But if working from that assumption, the implications need to be reconsidered, and there are huge implications. "Free will" seems to be crucial to many worldviews, and they stand and fall with its existence. Mainly, "free will" is a necessary prerequisite to constitute guilt, sin, responsibility/accountability (whatever that might mean).
If looking at a certain outcome, we see a lot of people involved in it, and we see a lot of factors that are codetermining the behaviour of those people and the outcome. If we would succeed in clearly identifying all those factors and substract them, what´´s left is the "free will" part. Yet, "free will" is usually used as an absolute ("you have free will, therefore you are accountable/responsible"), whilst a limited "free will" would mean limited "accounability/responsibility", and it would necessitate us to look very deeply into every issue to discern what´s left of this responsibility/accountability. I suspect that there won´t be much left in any case (actually I think it is zero).

Well i cant see it from a religious/spiritual sense so i have no idea. I guess we do have free will - but i still think the limiting factors (social and physical still) apply.

 

[elman]

Yes, I think so. If I am not mistaken you are referring to the social idea of "free will" rather than the religious/philosophic one.


I don´t think so. But if working from that assumption, the implications need to be reconsidered, and there are huge implications. "Free will" seems to be crucial to many worldviews, and they stand and fall with its existence. Mainly, "free will" is a necessary prerequisite to constitute guilt, sin, responsibility/accountability (whatever that might mean).
If looking at a certain outcome, we see a lot of people involved in it, and we see a lot of factors that are codetermining the behaviour of those people and the outcome. If we would succeed in clearly identifying all those factors and substract them, what´´s left is the "free will" part. Yet, "free will" is usually used as an absolute ("you have free will, therefore you are accountable/responsible"), whilst a limited "free will" would mean limited "accounability/responsibility", and it would necessitate us to look very deeply into every issue to discern what´s left of this responsibility/accountability. I suspect that there won´t be much left in any case (actually I think it is zero).

Has anyone observed this, too: Many people - when describing someone else´s behaviour they disapprove of - always add a "you chose to..." to the sentence. Whilst if talking about their own actions they apparently are fully aware of the complexity of each situation and go to great detail how and why they "had to" do what they did.

To anyone who´s interested, here´s is a little experiment: Add a "choose to" to each and every verb with which a person who believes in "free will" describes herself and others.
(Like for the above sentence:
To anyone who chooses to be interested, here´s a little experiment: Choose to add a "choose to" to each and every verb with which a person who chooses to believe in "free will" chooses to describe herself and others.)

I chose to respond and point out that it unworkable to have to determine the extent we are responsbile for all our decisions because we don't have the ability to do that.

 

[elman]

I see no reason to assume that anything is anything beyond the results of all factors involved.
I do think that two hypothetical persons with the exact same genetics, with the exact same experiences and in the exact same situation will do the exact same.
Even if I would assume them to act differently, I would have to ask why that is. The only convincing answer in that case would be: random.

I see no reason to asume my choice are being made by someone other than me and in the scenario I think the only convincing answer is he decided differently that time.