Free will and determinism

[Thermal]

You're basically arguing that free will must exist, because the alternative would be too horrible/unpleasant/annoying to contemplate. That's not a very good starting point.

Your assessment is factually untrue. My starting point is Cogito Ergo Sum, baby. The very words 'to think' carry free will. I await some evidence that this most fundamental foundation of existence is an illusion.

What else other than environment and genetics is there?

The ongoing process of consciousness.

You're arguing for some sort of soul, something that would make a serial killer bad for the choices he has made, and a selfless samaritan good. What is it that makes one person perform the worst atrocities, and another person the greatest heroics?

The process of consciousness is not a soul. That's a pretty outlandish projection. It's got nothing to do with the good/bad dichotomy.

One of them surrendered to his base instincts, while the other transcended everything ... because? Because nothing. The more one thinks about this, the more it becomes apparent that free will doesn't make sense.

I note 'reason' doesn't factor into your considerations. I wonder why?

Interestingly, the no-free-will argument is actually very religious. Everything in its place and in order. Must be very reassuring to you. The majority of us are fine with embracing the chaos that free will results in, warts and all.

And you present nothing by way of demonstrating...well, anything. You rely entirely on criticizing others. So what do you have by way of evidence? I do so hope you will fall back on the 'press the button when you feel compelled to' experiment. That one's a hoot.

 

[Darat]

Optical and auditory illusions are working on different principles than free will. We could just as well proclaim gravity is an illusion and put up an MC Escher stair pic as a 'proof'. It doesn't prove anything.

Free will is generally understood as something like 'the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded', or to have independent agency over your fate. Legal systems worldwide function on whether an individual has free will, otherwise they could not be held accountable, as they had no choice. Even yea verily this very forum would serve no purpose, as argumentation would be pointless. We could not agree or disagree, or even change our minds without free will.

So to claim that we don't have free will is pretty much a fringe belief, that needs the proverbial extraordinary evidence. Can anyone provide what they consider solid evidence that this commonly understood state doesn't exist? No changing the subject, or passing the buck, or shifting the burden, or other word games. And toying with 'unencumbered' choice doesn't mean anything; we are all influenced by environmental/genetic factors. Those may predispose us to a particular conclusion or increase the probability of reaching one, but it does not negate free will.

Why should there be any point to anything?

 

[grunion]

I have my right hand out with my thumb and forefinger extended. If I choose to put down my thumb then one new universe comes into existence with just my forefinger extended. If I chose to put down my forefinger, then another, different universe comes into existence. That is free will.

 

[Thermal]

Why should there be any point to anything?

Pick anything you like. Eating, say. The point is to nourish the body, satiate hunger, and/or derive pleasure from the sensations.

Should we be endeavoring in activities that are entirely random and serve no purpose?

 

[Darat]

Pick anything you like. Eating, say. The point is to nourish the body, satiate hunger, and/or derive pleasure from the sensations.

Should we be endeavoring in activities that are entirely random and serve no purpose?

I would say there is no evidence that there is any purpose to reality, it simply is.

 

[Dr.Sid]

The issue is with definition. No decision is unimpeded. First it's impeded by the choices given. Then it's impeded by your past experience. Your free will for the most part chooses the best available choice based on prior experience. What do mean by "free" in this context ?

 

[Thermal]

I would say there is no evidence that there is any purpose to reality, it simply is.

Holup: a purpose to reality sounds like a meaning of life gig. That's not where I am going.

It just 'is', agreed. What I am thinking is that we can exist independently through reason. 'Thinking' does not suggest working through some higher power.

 

[Thermal]

The issue is with definition. No decision is unimpeded. First it's impeded by the choices given.

Which are not entirely out of your control, within practical limits. Sure, I can't choose to have cocktails this evening on Mars. but my choices of refreshments and where to enjoy them are not much encumbered, except by my own choices of what is worth the effort.

Then it's impeded by your past experience. Your free will for the most part chooses the best available choice based on prior experience. What do mean by "free" in this context ?

I beg to differ. Most of my choices are very poor, and rarely are the best, and often relating to experiences that are entirely imaginary. Kind of sucks for me, but makes the point here.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Which are not entirely out of your control, within practical limits. Sure, I can't choose to have cocktails this evening on Mars. but my choices of refreshments and where to enjoy them are not much encumbered, except by my own choices of what is worth the effort.



I beg to differ. Most of my choices are very poor, and rarely are the best, and often relating to experiences that are entirely imaginary. Kind of sucks for me, but makes the point here.

So how do you choose ? My guess is you simply don't know. Is that "free" ?

 

[Leumas]

I would say there is no evidence that there is any purpose to reality, it simply is.

Deep Thought would beg to differ... it is 42!!!

 

[Leumas]

I have my right hand out with my thumb and forefinger extended. If I choose to put down my thumb then one new universe comes into existence with just my forefinger extended. If I chose to put down my forefinger, then another, different universe comes into existence. That is free will.

WOW... that must be god speaking... no???

I think you have all this universe gig wrong... including how powerful your fingers are.

 

[Thermal]

So how do you choose ? My guess is you simply don't know. Is that "free" ?

Through reasoning, that handy byproduct of a running consciousness. Said reasoning may be Mr Spock rational, or I may be feeling aggressive and choose a sledgehammer approach. My choice may be based on my experience, or made to satisfy another agenda that I might imagine. I am free, although subject to influence, how I frame my decision making.

 

[Leumas]

Optical and auditory illusions are working on different principles than free will.

No they do not! It is all the product of physical processes within the grey cells in the brain.

We could just as well proclaim gravity is an illusion and put up an MC Escher stair pic as a 'proof'. It doesn't prove anything.

Well.... let's have a look at this statement of yours more closely....

1. We did not know that gravity existed for most of our lives
2. Many people still deny it
3. We still do not really understand it despite the most brilliant minds trying
4. If you never go into outer space you would never feel it
5. And the illusion is ... that you do not even know it exists... that is the illusion... the illusion is that despite spinning at 1000 mph and at the same time hurtling through space at 68,000+/- mph you have absolutely no idea that is hapenning
6. Christians burned people alive for discovering the above facts because they could not believe their god could do that

So your analogy fails.... gravity is an illusion that has been dispelled by facts of physics.... just like free-will.

Free will is generally understood as something like 'the capacity of agents to choose between different possible courses of action unimpeded', or to have independent agency over your fate. Legal systems worldwide function on whether an individual has free will, otherwise they could not be held accountable, as they had no choice. Even yea verily this very forum would serve no purpose, as argumentation would be pointless. We could not agree or disagree, or even change our minds without free will.

Yes we can.... because our decisions are an INTERACTION with outside influences at that instant as well as the STORED SUM TOTAL of our previous INTERACTIONS and trajectories taken due to those interactions... as well as the the genetic makeup ... which itself is the sum total of INTERACTIONS made by other gene bags.

So to claim that we don't have free will is pretty much a fringe belief, that needs the proverbial extraordinary evidence.

Yes the extraordinary evidence is called Neurobiology... Chemistry... Physics... microbiology... and Genetics... DNA... etc. etc. etc.

Rejecting that is akin to the Catholic Church rejecting Heleocentricity.

Can anyone provide what they consider solid evidence that this commonly understood state doesn't exist?

The problem with commonsense... is that it is common... not to mention it is an ad populum fallacy....

The catholic church also asked the same question of Galileo Galilee while they were burning Giordano Bruno and Banning the writings of Kepler and Copernicus.

No changing the subject, or passing the buck, or shifting the burden, or other word games. And toying with 'unencumbered' choice doesn't mean anything; we are all influenced by environmental/genetic factors. Those may predispose us to a particular conclusion or increase the probability of reaching one, but it does not negate free will.

We are sure the brain is physical and its neuronal firings are physical and they are the result of the DNA that made all the lipids and proteins in it and the chemicals it has acquired from the blood which has acquired them from the environment.

What we are not sure about is how we store the memory that we use as a feedback mechanism (see image below) to influence the firing process in addition to the chemicals.

But those are the sum total of all the previous firings due to previous firings and chemicals.

At every instant the brain is at a state that has been set by previous states and current environmental factors (see image below)

None of this is freely willed by the definition of this term.

Where one is born ... at what era of time... to whom ... and how... is a random set of environmental factors that start a trajectory jump off point that is not in anyway under the control of the person being born

And from that point onwards each neuronal firing is the result of a feedback mechanism that depends on the environment at the moment of firing as well as the state of the brain which is the result of the previous states.

A path of which not a single point is freely willed.

Click on the image to view it in a better resolution
[imgw=500]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_5128262dae1baa2a1a.jpg[/imgw]​

 

[Leumas]

The squares you are so convinced are demonstrating something can easily be shown to be the same color.

And that is precisely the point....

1. if I had shown the image to many people with common sense who have not been told this is an illusion they would have had no idea that the squares are of the same color.
2. even after telling people that it is... they cry balderdash
3. even after I show them they are in doubt

You are doing the same thing for the "free-will" illusion.

Just block out the surrounding elements with your hands till the two blocks are in view, with a bit of the adjoining blocks shown. Without the visual confusion, it is pretty clear that they are the same color.

Precisely... if only you could do the same with the "free-will" illusion and remove that confusion.

Now do the same with free will. Go on, demonstrate it. What you have been doing is skipping the 'demonstration' step and jumping straight to the 'conclusion' step.

Yes the "fingers" are called Neurobiology... Chemistry... Physics... microbiology... and Genetics... DNA... etc. etc. etc.

Rejecting those "fingers" blocking out the confusion is akin to the people who still cry out balderdash even after the "fingers" have dispelled the illusion.

All you are showing is that optical illusions exist and can be convincing. That is not an argument for or against free will.

Yes it is an argument against yet another illusion that you cannot see how the "fingers" of science can dispel the confusion about.

You just need to use the right "fingers"... but you need to read about those "fingers" and in depth and lots and lots of reading.... many people are not able or willing to do so... and prefer to go with the ad populum common sense.

 

[Leumas]

Pick anything you like. Eating, say. The point is to nourish the body, satiate hunger, and/or derive pleasure from the sensations.

Noooo.... the sensation of pleasure from the eating is yet another way the brain tricks itself.... the sensation is entirely a byproduct of the drive to eat to survive and the sensation of having done that is a FEEDBACK mechanism of the control system.... see Figure 16.3 in the above post.

Should we be endeavoring in activities that are entirely random and serve no purpose?

This question stems from lack of understanding of what evolution is... and control systems ... and feedback control systems.... as well as what random is.

 

[Leumas]

Your assessment is factually untrue. My starting point is Cogito Ergo Sum, baby. The very words 'to think' carry free will. I await some evidence that this most fundamental foundation of existence is an illusion.

I boil therefore I exist ... says a kettle... the very fact that I boil shows free will says the kettle.

 

[Leumas]

Through reasoning, that handy byproduct of a running consciousness. Said reasoning may be Mr Spock rational, or I may be feeling aggressive and choose a sledgehammer approach. My choice may be based on my experience, or made to satisfy another agenda that I might imagine. I am free, although subject to influence, how I frame my decision making.

A robot also makes choices through reasoning... this reasoning is called an Algorithm In its CPU.... do you say it has free will???


Our brains are just as programmed through our genes and the trajectory through space-time and the sum total of all our previous programmed responses to INTERACTIONS.

Humans are running a self-referential self-adjusting algorithm... where the algorithm is the genes and the self-adjusting is done by memory and feedback through the self-referential search through memory for successful responses to previous interactions... and in the higher level algorithms in some people even the unsuccessful interactions too. (See Figure 16.3 in the post above)

 

[Olmstead]

The ongoing process of consciousness.

Which is based on your genetics and your environment. There is no "you" separate from genetics and the environment. Where would it have come from? You were given your genetic makeup, and then the the environent shaped you. Any choices you have made to turn yourself into what you are were made because of those two things, and are therefore just part of them. To argue anything else would mean that there is a "you" that is separate from your body, a "you" who has the "will" to do something other than what your body was always going to do.

Your real problem is that you don't like that idea. It makes everything you have done in your life meaningless, because it wasn't you who did it, it simply happened, just like a chemical reaciton always happens in the right circumstances.

The process of consciousness is not a soul. That's a pretty outlandish projection. It's got nothing to do with the good/bad dichotomy.

If it's not a soul, it's part of the body, which is formed by genetics and the environment. Hence, there is nothing else.

I note 'reason' doesn't factor into your considerations. I wonder why?

Interestingly, the no-free-will argument is actually very religious. Everything in its place and in order. Must be very reassuring to you. The majority of us are fine with embracing the chaos that free will results in, warts and all.

You're kididng, right? This is the gangrenous limb of philosophy that gets hacked off whenever it comes up because it brings everyone down.

And you present nothing by way of demonstrating...well, anything. You rely entirely on criticizing others. So what do you have by way of evidence? I do so hope you will fall back on the 'press the button when you feel compelled to' experiment. That one's a hoot.

I can find the experiments with split-brain patients who were completely convinced that they were freely choosing to do something for one reason, even though it was obvious that they were doing it for a completely different reason.

But here's the problem. No matter what is discovered, no one can completely prove a negative. Free will might still be hiding somewhere vague, just like God might still be hiding somewhere vague. No matter the evidence, there is always a way out.

 

[grunion]

WOW... that must be god speaking... no???

I think you have all this universe gig wrong... including how powerful your fingers are.

My point being the question is too trivial. Don't you think God has power over my fingers if there is any intention to be assumed?

 

[Leumas]

My point being the question is too trivial. Don't you think God has power over my fingers if there is any intention to be assumed?

gods do not exist... and consequently are nothing... and have nothing to do with a discussion about free-will... unless you contend that there is one... then you have to demonstrate that it exists and can have any relevance.