Free Will

[durangodawood]

You had a reason, or something caused you, or provoked you, or made you, or caused you, or "whatever", etc, to change or make that decision, etc.

And it could have been any number of things, the very least of which was your choosing it completely randomly, or of your own supposed free will, or 100% completely arbitrarily, etc.

And then those previous reasons also had causes, and so on and so forth, etc, and you did not choose it or change it ever at all 100% arbitrarily, etc.

And the "reason" I am not giving specifics right now, is because there are just way "too many", etc, but they all played a part in your choosing, etc.

And all of these things can be known, or can calculated/laid out mathematically, etc.

God Bless!

I didnt have a reason. I created a brand new one there, on the spot.

Now I did have pre existing preferences and all sorts of other conditioning that typically sway decisions this way or that. But in this case I added a brand new reason, which happened to prevail.

While I can see you have an intuitively compelling argument, I'm thinking you may have over-promised by offering proof of your position.

 

[Neogaia777]

I didnt have a reason. I created a brand new one there, on the spot.

Now I did have pre existing preferences and all sorts of other conditioning that typically sway decisions this way or that. But in this case I added a brand new reason, which happened to prevail.

While I can see you have an intuitively compelling argument, I'm thinking you may have over-promised by offering proof of your position.

I only said I could prove your reasoning/position wrong, etc, and I think I just did that, and have been doing that all throughout this thread now, for 15 pages now, quite compellingly.

Anyway, it's staring you in the face, etc, the "proof", etc, so do what you will with it, etc, because right now, I've got better things to do, and other things I could be doing, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I didnt have a reason. I created a brand new one there, on the spot.

Now I did have pre existing preferences and all sorts of other conditioning that typically sway decisions this way or that. But in this case I added a brand new reason, which happened to prevail.

You keep telling yourself that, ok...

There is nothing new under the sun, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

I only said I could prove your reasoning/position wrong, etc, and I think I just did that, and have been doing that all throughout this thread now, for 15 pages now, quite compellingly.

Anyway, it's staring you in the face, etc, the "proof", etc, so do what you will with it, etc, because right now, I've got better things to do, and other things I could be doing, etc.

God Bless!

Correction, 16 pages now, etc.

Anyway, my cat is sick and I have an appointment to take him in to go see the vet soon...

Later/God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

Because there might be 50,000 reasons, but they do not cause my decision. I do.

It's nonsensical to say that reasons do not cause you to make a decision. They are called 'reasons' because that's what they are. They are 'why you do things'. You cannot separate 'you' from the reasons why you make a choice. For every single choice you make you'd either be able to nominate the reasons for doing so or admit you don't know what they were. And admitting that you don't know is NOT the same thing as saying that there weren't any.

If there literally was no reason then you've made a random choice and that's not associated with free will in any way.

 

[doubtingmerle]

That statement makes no sense. Molecules have no independent existence.

Regardless of whether molecules have "independent existence", they still make up the brain that thinks.

 

[SelfSim]

It's nonsensical to say that reasons do not cause you to make a decision. They are called 'reasons' because that's what they are.

There are no reasons you'd know about (the 2nd person) until they're they're expressed using language by the decider (1st person). Any reasons known to the decider but not known to anyone else, are only real to the decider and not to you, thus they cannot be called 'reasons' by the 2nd person because they don't yet exist for that person.
(Unless you're God or a 100% accurate mind reader, that is).

They are 'why you do things'.

Again you state the belief as a going-in posit. All that can happen in logic, from this point forwards, is to claim evidence that re-inforces the believed-in truth of that going-in posit.

You cannot separate 'you' from the reasons why you make a choice.

Don't you mean you (the 2nd person) cannot separate that person (the 1st person) from their reasons until they express the existence of those reasons by using language to communicate their existence to you?
The decider (1st person) may or may not know their reasons, or have 'no reasons', but that doesn't cause them to suddenly lose their self-awareness, (or awareness of their own identity).

For every single choice you make you'd either be able to nominate the reasons for doing so or admit you don't know what they were. And admitting that you don't know is NOT the same thing as saying that there weren't any.

So you concur that 'no reason' exists and is real for the decider, prior to making a decision?

If there literally was no reason then you've made a random choice and that's not associated with free will in any way.

Why did you add the word 'literally' there? It adds no further meaning for you (the 2nd person), as you (the 2nd person) has no idea as to whether a reason or not exists until its expressed by the decider (the 1st person).
The practice of adding such words, conveys exactly the meaning of 'word salad'.

 

[Bradskii]

There are no reasons you'd know about (the 2nd person) until they're they're expressed using language by the decider (1st person). Any reasons known to the decider but not known to anyone else, are only real to the decider and not to you, thus they cannot be called 'reasons' by the 2nd person because they don't yet exist for that person.

This is abject nonsense. My wife is not going to the gym this morning. She didn't say why but I know as sure as God made little green apples that she has a reason for not going. Whether I know what the reason is or not, it still exists.

 

[partinobodycular]

This is my concept of free will. It aligns with some 'soul' or ghost in the machine behind the curtain being able to make decisions outside all the usual causes and restrictions. For what purpose I don't know. It's only useful if you know the future and make a decision that is blatantly wrong at the time but which will result in some indeterminate benefit.

Most people think free will means simply choosing chocolate over vanila. But if all conditions were exactly the same then you'd always make the same choice. I can't see that in any way being described as free will.

Once again I've had too much time to think, and it occurs to me that your conclusion is wrong, because your premises are fundamentally flawed.

Let's assume for the moment that we could indeed recreate the conditions exactly as they existed at the moment of any given choice. Let's rerun this decision making process a statistically significant number of times, and then examine the results. Logically there are two possible outcomes. (Arguably more)*

1. The choices will be exactly the same every time.
2. The choices will exhibit a random distribution.

Question, which of these two outcomes would one expect to see if the subject didn't have free will?

Answer, outcome number two. Lacking a "ghost in the machine" the results would be random.

What you've overlooked is the fact that in any physical system, i.e. the brain there will always be some degree of uncertainty. And since we've recreated the conditions "exactly", we've also recreated the uncertainty. Which means that the corresponding outcome will be a random distribution.

The only way that we could get the exact same result every time is if there is indeed a "ghost in the machine", some variable not subject to the uncertainty inherent in the initial conditions.

*To be precise the outcome will be probabilistic, not random.

 

[Bradskii]

Once again I've had too much time to think, and it occurs to me that your conclusion is wrong, because your premises are fundamentally flawed.

Let's assume for the moment that we could indeed recreate the conditions exactly as they existed at the moment of any given choice. Let's rerun this decision making process a statistically significant number of times, and then examine the results. Logically there are two possible outcomes. (Arguably more)*

1. The choices will be exactly the same every time.
2. The choices will exhibit a random distribution.

Question, which of these two outcomes would one expect to see if the subject didn't have free will?

Answer, outcome number two. Lacking a "ghost in the machine" the results would be random.

What you've overlooked is the fact that in any physical system, i.e. the brain there will always be some degree of uncertainty. And since we've recreated the conditions "exactly", we've also recreated the uncertainty. Which means that the corresponding outcome will be a random distribution.

The only way that we could get the exact same result every time is if there is indeed a "ghost in the machine", some variable not subject to the uncertainty inherent in the initial conditions.

*To be precise the outcome will be probabilistic, not random.

Random means random. The fact that you've called it 'probabilistic' doesn't change that. If you had a truly random system that spat out black or red each time, then by definition it is random. But the probabilities are that the numbers of red and black will tend towards equality.

If it is a random decision, then the probability that it will be A rather than B doesn't change that. If it's A then it doesn't become non-random because of that.

If it's not random then there is a reason. And the reasons will depend on the environment up to that point. Repeat the same situation exactly and there is nothing which would prompt a different decision.

 

[sjastro]

Tossing a coin is not even random, but can be calculated by the factors at hand, the way the person picks up the coin, rests it on their fingers or thumbs, tosses or flips it, force, aerodynamics, how the wind is blowing that day, and any other factors, and how it eventually lands, either heads or tails, etc.

God Bless!

Tossing a coin can be random, it follows a binomial distribution and for large sample sizes can be approximated as normal probability distribution (red curve).

If there were underlying independent factors which affected the coin toss, each factor could produce a skewered distribution resulting in an overall multimodal distribution.

Binomial distributions like normal distributions are based on random variables.

 

[renniks]

You had a reason, or something caused you, or provoked you, or made you, or caused you, or "whatever", etc, to change or alter or make that decision, etc.

There is a vast difference between a "reason" or being "provoked" and being caused to do something.
Again having a reason doesn't cause something to happen.
Someone else provoking you doesn't cause something to happen.
Those are influences, not the thing itself.
You still have to make a choice.

 

[renniks]

It's nonsensical to say that reasons do not cause you to make a decision.

It's nonsensical to say that reasons cause you to make a decision.
Nothing causes you to choose a certain path but you.
Reasons don't cause anything.

 

[partinobodycular]

Random means random.

It doesn't matter to me, you can call it whatever you want, it really doesn't make any difference.

Repeat the same situation exactly and there is nothing which would prompt a different decision.

As I pointed out, uncertainty is inherent in any physical system, so there's no way to avoid the fact that even if the situation is identical every time, the outcome won't be. It's just physics. Sorry

Think of it this way, we could set up the double slit experiment EXACTLY the same every time. And I do mean EXACTLY. But every time the outcome will be different.

 

[Neogaia777]

After 16 pages of this, I'm out for a while, you can all have and live in your delusions (except you @Bradskii)...

I've got better things to be doing, etc...

God Bless!

 

[AV1611VET]

After 16 pages of this, I'm out for a while, you can all have and live in your delusions (except you @Bradskii)...

I've got better things to be doing, etc...

God Bless!

That's your choice.

 

[Bradskii]

It's nonsensical to say that reasons cause you to make a decision.
Nothing causes you to choose a certain path but you.
Reasons don't cause anything.

Then give me a decision you made for no reason.

 

[Bradskii]

It doesn't matter to me, you can call it whatever you want, it really doesn't make any difference.

As I pointed out, uncertainty is inherent in any physical system, so there's no way to avoid the fact that even if the situation is identical every time, the outcome won't be.

In which case it's random.

 

[Bradskii]

There is a vast difference between a "reason" or being "provoked" and being caused to do something.
Again having a reason doesn't cause something to happen.
Someone else provoking you doesn't cause something to happen.
Those are influences, not the thing itself.
You still have to make a choice.

And what do you base your choice on?

 

[sjastro]

After 16 pages of this, I'm out for a while, you can all have and live in your delusions (except you @Bradskii)...

I've got better things to be doing, etc...

God Bless!

That's most unfortunate as you might have learnt something regarding randomness.
Scientists need to be very careful to not fall for the three card trick of mistaking randomness or statistical noise with a real signal.
For example tossing a coin is an unbiased experiment producing random results.
If we toss the coin once there is 1 in 2 chance of heads, twice a 1 in 4 chance of 2 heads, and ten times a 1 in 1024 chance of 10 heads in a row.
If we tossed the coin ten times and got 10 heads in a row we might start to suspect the experiment is biased but a 1 in 1024 chance are not astronomical odds for being purely random.
Tossing the coin 20 times resulting in 20 heads is a 1 in 1,048,576 chance making it unlikely this is a random occurrence.

Scientists in fields such a particle physics base discoveries on five sigma which is approximately a 1 in 3,500,000 chance of the signal being random and not real.