A definition of free will

[Anders Lindman]

A part of the scientific method is to test hypotheses with experiments. In the case of free will one such test is to see if it's possible to remove choice from a personal experience. Since today's instruments probably can't measure the brain in such detail and not without huge machines such as MRI, the test can instead be done subjectively by people.

If I can remove choice from my daily life for say one week, and successfully be able to manage my life as usual, then that is an indication of choice being an illusion.

 

[Brian-M]

If the universe is deterministic, you only have the Illusion of free-will, how can it be anything else.

Paul

Depending on how you define things, free will could be a completely deterministic process that happens to produce a persistent illusion of non-determinism.

Free will implies the possibility of different possible post-conditions from a single pre-condition. In an entirely deterministic universe, that is not possible. Any pre-condition will lead to only a single possible post-condition.

Even in an entirely deterministic universe, multiple possible "post-conditions" would also be true if the exact nature of the processes involved are not known.

But exactly what definition of free will are you using here?

My concept of free will is where an entity considers a situation, and chooses a course of action based on it's own internal biases, desires and goals, with the decision-making processes being free from outside control. This concept of free will works just fine in a completely deterministic universe.

I think the main problem is that the phrase free will is rather vague, allowing people to use it in mutually exclusive ways. Free will? Free from what?

 

[Manopolus]

There are two hypotheses in my definition. The first is that reality is a deterministic process. The second is that this process is computationally irreducible. This means that it's impossible to fully predict the future. The only way to move towards the future is for the process of creation to run, and our free will is a part of that process, not separate from it.

So there is a single path going from the past up to the present moment, but no path beyond that. The path into the future is created moment to moment and cannot be fully predicted beforehand.

The other kind of determinism, the one Laplace proposed, means that the future can in theory be seen for someone with enough power to calculate it. Computational irreducibility pulls that possibility away and makes the future undetermined, and the only way to determine it completely is by the process of creation in the moment.

You have a strong illusion of free will, but that is all it is - an illusion.

Free will is not seen empirically - there is absolutely no evidence for it, and it is not consistent with what we know about how reality works.

My answer to both is the same.

It might be a good thing to remember that model of reality which you keep tucked inside your head somewhere is just that... a model. It is not reality, itself. That collection of knowledge must itself have a deterministic view because that's the way the human mind works. Most of it has to do with isolated concepts in a vacuum, and disregards the more chaotic existence that we experience every day.

Yes, for every effect that we know the why of, there is a known cause, and for everything that we know how to do, there is a process by which we know how to do it. If you've noticed I'm nearly talking myself into circles there, you might be close to seeing my point.

If you look at your collection of knowledge about how things work and try to deduce a deterministic view from that, all you are doing is making an identity statement about the nature of your knowledge. It says nothing about the world we actually live in, and everything about knowledge, itself.

Knowledge is deterministic in nature, in other words.

There are things that we do every day that we don't consciously know how to do, and there are things that people do every day that confound any attempt at reason. Chaos exists, and so does free will. Both are essentially two sides of the same coin. True, we don't know anything about these things, and probably never will -- because by definition they defy the very meaning of what it is to know.

-But we can experience it-

Lack of understanding doesn't make the rock hurtling at your head into an illusion, nor does it do the same for free will. Deny the existence of either and you're usually in for a bad day.

 

[Aridas]

Depending on how you define things, free will could be a completely deterministic process that happens to produce a persistent illusion of non-determinism.

I'm afraid that that earns an eyeroll, from me, at least.

Even in an entirely deterministic universe, multiple possible "post-conditions" would also be true if the exact nature of the processes involved are not known.

Irrelevant. What you were answering made no mention, nor gave reason to believe that it was based in any way on the knowledge or understanding of anyone or anything. So, to stay within that statement... The illusion of multiple possible "post-conditions" could exist, but not actually multiple possible post-conditions.

My concept of free will is where an entity considers a situation, and chooses a course of action based on it's own internal biases, desires and goals, with the decision-making processes being free from outside control. This concept of free will works just fine in a completely deterministic universe.

I think the main problem is that the phrase free will is rather vague, allowing people to use it in mutually exclusive ways. Free will? Free from what?

As opposed to what *I* would consider the much more common Free to what?

Either way, you're correct when you're saying that you're using the term in a completely different way than it generally seems to be used. Freedom from coercion is a different concept from there being any other options in the first place.

 

[yy2bggggs]

So, to stay within that statement... The illusion of multiple possible "post-conditions" could exist, but not actually multiple possible post-conditions.

I have no idea what illusion you or Paulhoff are referring to. These multiple possible "post-conditions" that I perceive, I perceive to be part of my imagination. It therefore makes no sense to say that they're illusory--are you saying that they aren't actually in my imagination, but I'm just imagining that they are? Or are you saying that you feel these things are more than just part of your imagination?

 

[Paulhoff]

I have no idea what illusion you or Paulhoff are referring to. These multiple possible "post-conditions" that I perceive, I perceive to be part of my imagination. It therefore makes no sense to say that they're illusory--are you saying that they aren't actually in my imagination, but I'm just imagining that they are? Or are you saying that you feel these things are more than just part of your imagination?

IF the universe is predetermined, then free-will is an illusion.

Now, free-will to many is to be able to do anything you want. That also is an illusion, anything you do has some type of cost.

Paul

 

[yy2bggggs]

Paulhoff:

You quoted me, but you did not address my post.

The word illusion has specific implications; if I have an illusion of x, that means that I perceive x. It has nothing to do with beliefs; I do not, for example, believe that the lines in my avatar bulge out. I do perceive that they do--that is an illusion.

If you're going to call free will an illusion that people have, you had better be using the term to point to something I perceive; either that, or I don't have it. This is the complaint. (Furthermore, I add suspicions that I'm not simply "broken" or significantly different than other people; so I don't think my not having such illusions is a fluke).

IF the universe is predetermined, then free-will is an illusion.

What I perceive is consistent with both determinism and indeterminism. I perceive that I make a selection between imagined alternatives; implying that there's a selection process involved, that the selection process depends on the alternatives I imagine, and that they are alternatives that specifically are imagined (i.e., they do not seem to be "reality"; they seem to be imagination).

Note that I'm not discussing belief--see above. Belief is irrelevant as to whether or not I am experiencing an illusion (it's entirely possible to believe the illusion, but it is also possible not to).

Now, free-will to many is to be able to do anything you want. That also is an illusion, anything you do has some type of cost.

I have no idea what you mean by this. Anything you want? Cost?

 

[Paulhoff]

Paulhoff:

You quoted me, but you did not address my post.

The word illusion has specific implications; if I have an illusion of x, that means that I perceive x. It has nothing to do with beliefs; I do not, for example, believe that the lines in my avatar bulge out. I do perceive that they do--that is an illusion.

If you're going to call free will an illusion that people have, you had better be using the term to point to something I perceive; either that, or I don't have it. This is the complaint. (Furthermore, I add suspicions that I'm not simply "broken" or significantly different than other people; so I don't think my not having such illusions is a fluke).

What I perceive is consistent with both determinism and indeterminism. I perceive that I make a selection between imagined alternatives; implying that there's a selection process involved, that the selection process depends on the alternatives I imagine, and that they are alternatives that specifically are imagined (i.e., they do not seem to be "reality"; they seem to be imagination).

Note that I'm not discussing belief--see above. Belief is irrelevant as to whether or not I am experiencing an illusion (it's entirely possible to believe the illusion, but it is also possible not to).
I have no idea what you mean by this. Anything you want? Cost?

I said nothing about Belief.

Illustion is something that isn't Real.

Humans love to make things complex.

Paul

 

[Anders Lindman]

If you look at your collection of knowledge about how things work and try to deduce a deterministic view from that, all you are doing is making an identity statement about the nature of your knowledge. It says nothing about the world we actually live in, and everything about knowledge, itself.

Yes, it's only a proposal I presented, a hypothesis. I think it's a cool idea where even randomness can be explained as a deterministic process.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Let's say that a person has true free will to choose between alternative A and alternative B. Then only when A and B are equally good does such choice make sense. Otherwise the quality of the persons life and of society as a whole will go down and down. And in reality it's doubtful than two choices can be equally good since they depend on a huge number of related things.

With the scenario of the choice between A and B only being a deterministic process, then the choice may be said to not be truly free. On the other hand, with increased knowledge, the choices a person makes will become better and better, even when the process of acquiring more knowledge also is deterministic. With more knowledge the choices may not be more real but they will become more powerful.

 

[Craig4]

Let's say that a person has true free will to choose between alternative A and alternative B. Then only when A and B are equally good does such choice make sense. Otherwise the quality of the persons life and of society as a whole will go down and down. And in reality it's doubtful than two choices can be equally good since they depend on a huge number of related things.

With the scenario of the choice between A and B only being a deterministic process, then the choice may be said to not be truly free. On the other hand, with increased knowledge, the choices a person makes will become better and better, even when the process of acquiring more knowledge also is deterministic. With more knowledge the choices may not be more real but they will become more powerful.

Nice word salad. You've still done nothing to show an application for any of this.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Nice word salad. You've still done nothing to show an application for any of this.

Removing choice tremendously improves my life. So, I'm satisfied. Good luck with your choices.

 

[Anders Lindman]

It's a pretty interesting shift to switch from free will as choice to free will as co-creation. Because even IF true free will is possible in the sense of having actual choices, co-creation is nicer and more powerful than choice-making imo.

 

[Craig4]

Removing choice tremendously improves my life. So, I'm satisfied. Good luck with your choices.

Really? I don't get that from your posts.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Really? I don't get that from your posts.

I'm still very much operating based on the old choice-making paradigm and it will take a while for the effect of the new paradigm of creation to be significantly noticeable on an external level.

 

[Craig4]

I'm still very much operating based on the old choice-making paradigm and it will take a while for the effect of the new paradigm of creation to be significantly noticeable on an external level.

No, my point was that your reasoning and decision making skills don't appear to be working for you.

 

[Anders Lindman]

No, my point was that your reasoning and decision making skills don't appear to be working for you.

That's because my mind is still operating with the old choice-making paradigm. It will take a while before the new realization has a practical effect.

 

[Craig4]

That's because my mind is still operating with the old choice-making paradigm. It will take a while before the new realization has a practical effect.

Really, I'm clear on the fact that I'm making choices and my choices are pretty well working out for me just fine. You've done nothing that would make me reconsider how I make choices.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Really, I'm clear on the fact that I'm making choices and my choices are pretty well working out for me just fine. You've done nothing that would make me reconsider how I make choices.

But choice means confusion as I see it. And I feel kind of a relief when thinking about the possibility of reducing confusion in my mind. Of course, the idea must be tested to see if it really works in practice, and that's a bit difficult it seems. I guess the human mind has become very conditioned to use choice-making for dealing with things. And such deep habit takes time to change probably.

 

[Anders Lindman]

Another reason for reducing the uncertainty of choices is that the amount of information in society is increasing at an accelerating speed. The former CEO of Google, Eric Schmidt, said that the total amount of information produced by humanity since the dawn of civilization up till 2006 now is produced within two weeks! And he said that a couple of years ago.