How do you define Free Will?

[Jesse2]

So free will is a matter of choice, and that requires a brain capable of making a choice. Of thinking, in other words. So, can our actions be predicted, if we could perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation? In that case, free will is an illusion, but the distinction between this illusion and the reality of our lives is meaningless. It seems, to all extents and purposes, as if we have free will, and we'll never be able to tell the difference.

I would say our free will is a product of our ability to consider the consequences of our actions and direct our movement in the way we want. An atom hit by another atom cannot choose the direction it travels. The sun cannot look into the future, see where it's going to collide with another star, and change its motion.

So, free will is only an illusion if we could 'perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation' Since we cannot perform that task, does that make free will a real phenomenon? Yes, precisely because we need a word to define our ability to make choices, just as we need the word 'random' to define the roll of a pair of dice. If we could predict, with certainty, the outcome of such a roll, it would no longer be random.

 

[Yahweh]

The concept of free will must be reconciled with the universal law of cause and effect through time. The thinking goes, that everything happening in the universe now is the result of what happened just before this, and in turn that was determined by what was happening before that, all the way back to the beginning of the universe. Lacking consciousness, the atoms and molecules that make up the universe can not be said to have free will. You must have the "will" before you can assign that property. The universe operates only by action and reaction, leading to more action and reaction, but always in predictible directions. By this thinking, the fact that you're sitting there looking at a computer screen was predestined from the birth of the universe.

I dont believe that is an accurate assumption. "Free will" stems from consciousness, and consciousness exists on at a higher level than the molecular level.

The fact that I'm sitting here at my computer is not predestined from birth, that would violate the law of Causality (the law that says you cannot really know an event is going to happen until it actually happens). Furthermore, it would violate the law that says "You will an action, and you can will otherwise".

So free will is a matter of choice, and that requires a brain capable of making a choice. Of thinking, in other words. So, can our actions be predicted, if we could perform the impossible task of knowing enough about all the factors that enter the equation?

If you've seen the movie "12 Monkeys", there is a part where author of the movie wrote in a line that said "You know what they did, those government guys must've scanned my brain into a computer, and generated every thought I was going to have in the next 10 years, that's how they've been following me".

In that case, free will is an illusion, but the distinction between this illusion and the reality of our lives is meaningless.

Free will is not an illusion. Its roots are more complex than "chemical reactions that occur in the brain". If that were only it, then there would be no consciousness. You cant compare human consciousness and free will to mixing baking soda and vinegar because they are non-analogous.

It seems, to all extents and purposes, as if we have free will, and we'll never be able to tell the difference.
I would say our free will is a product of our ability to consider the consequences of our actions and direct our movement in the way we want. An atom hit by another atom cannot choose the direction it travels. The sun cannot look into the future, see where it's going to collide with another star, and change its motion.

Geeze, thinking about this sort of thing this time of night makes my head hurt. I think I going to exercise some free will and go watch TV for a while. Or maybe not.

TV good, TV make me no have to think.

 

[Jesse2]

I dont believe that is an accurate assumption. "Free will" stems from consciousness, and consciousness exists on at a higher level than the molecular level.

A higher level? On what basis? Consciousness is on a higher level of consciousness than is non-consciousness. That's like saying that green is on a higher level of green than is red. Unless you provide some other determining factor of "highness".

The fact that I'm sitting here at my computer is not predestined from birth, that would violate the law of Causality (the law that says you cannot really know an event is going to happen until it actually happens).

It is easy to say that anything that has already happened was predestined to happen. To say something was predestined is not the same as saying that you knew it would happen. To say something is predestined to happen in the future is an attempt at prediction.

 

[Cinorjer]

I dont believe that is an accurate assumption. "Free will" stems from consciousness, and consciousness exists on at a higher level than the molecular level.

If you believe that there is something separate from our bodies that constitutes the "self" - call it spirit or soul - then you could say that consciousness resides in that spirit, and the laws that govern base matter have no bearing on the subject of free will. If by higher level you mean something else, you'd have to explain.

The fact that I'm sitting here at my computer is not predestined from birth, that would violate the law of Causality (the law that says you cannot really know an event is going to happen until it actually happens). Furthermore, it would violate the law that says "You will an action, and you can will otherwise".

For the first, all you seem to be saying is that we don't have a time machine to look into the future and psychic abilities are a joke. Of course I'd agree with that. But all you seem to be saying is that we don't have the ability to gather enough information to predict our actions. But that's because of the sheer complexity, not that it couldn't be done. For the second, the whole debate is whether this law actually exists, or is an illusion. It certainly feels like I have the ability to choose. Someone who knows me inside and out, such as my wife, can predict what I'll do in a broad sense. In that broad sense, our every action is governed by our individual personality, our memories and habits and beliefs interacting with the world around us. Complete freedom of action would only come from an insane mind. Much of what we do in life does not involve conscious decisions, after all. The question remains, are we ultimately players acting out a script or free agents? Since we can't stand outside of time, we simply have no way of knowing. There's no way of testing to find out, since the universe will look exactly the same to us no matter which is true.

 

[Yahweh]

A higher level? On what basis? Consciousness is on a higher level of consciousness than is non-consciousness. That's like saying that green is on a higher level of green than is red. Unless you provide some other determining factor of "highness".

First there is the atomic level, thats atoms and stuff.
Then there is the molecular level, that'd be molecules.
...
Biological
...
Cellular
...
Multicellular
...
Organized mulicellular (such as animals with specific organs to perform functions)
...
And on and on

Its kinda like legos, a lego is fine. If you take a whole mess of legos, you can turn them into a lego tower. Lego tower exists on a higher level than lego block. (Note: I'm not inferring intelligent design)

 

[Jesse2]

So dogs and dolphins have free will too... right?

 

[Yahweh]

If you believe that there is something separate from our bodies that constitutes the "self" - call it spirit or soul - then you could say that consciousness resides in that spirit, and the laws that govern base matter have no bearing on the subject of free will. If by higher level you mean something else, you'd have to explain.

Please, dont try to twist my words into something I didnt say.

Hey, I'm a better philosopher than a biologist, but I do have my training in etymology and biology (and Philosophy as it happens).

Consciousness is not a property of matter, obviously. Thats why atoms are no conscious (whaaaa? Really?). But the brain, made of matter, generates consciousness (specifically from the cerebral cortex). I'm not able to say much more without speaking out of my range of expertise. See, nothing magical, no souls, no spirits, purely explainable phenomena by purely natural means.

And in all seriousness, if you've followed my posts, I really wouldnt come off as the type to believe in chakra or any of that other bullplop.

For the first, all you seem to be saying is that we don't have a time machine to look into the future and psychic abilities are a joke. Of course I'd agree with that. But all you seem to be saying is that we don't have the ability to gather enough information to predict our actions. But that's because of the sheer complexity, not that it couldn't be done. For the second, the whole debate is whether this law actually exists, or is an illusion. It certainly feels like I have the ability to choose. Someone who knows me inside and out, such as my wife, can predict what I'll do in a broad sense. In that broad sense, our every action is governed by our individual personality, our memories and habits and beliefs interacting with the world around us. Complete freedom of action would only come from an insane mind. Much of what we do in life does not involve conscious decisions, after all. The question remains, are we ultimately players acting out a script or free agents? Since we can't stand outside of time, we simply have no way of knowing. There's no way of testing to find out, since the universe will look exactly the same to us no matter which is true.

Free will is a hotly debated subject in Philosophy. To say its all an illusion is not without its absurdities.

 

[Yahweh]

So dogs and dolphins have free will too... right?

Yes they do.

Insects on the otherhand, everything I know about insects, their biology, their neurology, their psycology places more evidence on the "not self-aware".

 

[Jesse2]

Please, dont try to twist my words into something I didnt say. (snip)
Free will is a hotly debated subject in Philosophy. To say its all an illusion is not without its absurdities.

Is anyone here stating "It's all an illusion"?

 

[Jesse2]

Yes they do.

So, now that you have stated that humans, dogs, and dolphins all have free will, can you point to a statement in this thread (or one that you'd like to make) that accurately defines what free will is? Can free will defined this way escape causality? Which causes can free will escape? I am repeating what Paul C. has asked, perhaps with slightly different wording.

 

[Yahweh]

Is anyone here stating "It's all an illusion"?

I'm not sure if its relevant, but theres been more then the worlds fair share of Philosophers who've stated Free Will is all an elaborate illusion. Sorry, I cant think of any off the top of my head right now...

There is a book called Free Will and Illusion by Smilansky, it deals with both the "Free will is an illusion" and "Illusions? Ya sure" sides.

 

[Yahweh]

So, now that you have stated that humans, dogs, and dolphins all have free will, can you point to a statement in this thread (or one that you'd like to make) that accurately defines what free will is?

In a minimalist nutshell, free will is the conscious ability to select a course of action at accord to ones desires (or willings).

Can free will defined this way escape causality?

No, but it escapes the idea of that the future is predetermined and inevitible (simply put, there is no such thing as fate).

 

[Jesse2]

In a minimalist nutshell, free will is the conscious ability to select a course of action at accord to ones desires (or willings).

Very well. With certainty, can one's desires or willings be separated from causes?

No, but it escapes the idea of that the future is predetermined and inevitible (simply put, there is no such thing as fate).

Is it possible that the future is predetermined without us consciously being able to determine it?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Free will is a term used to describe the conscious ability of someone to make descisions at their own accord. Its completely absurd to believe consciousness and free will is an illusion or to believe in fate or devine will because if that were the case, it would conflict with the Law of Causality (which is the principle of or relationship between cause and effect). Fate and Devine Will are metaphysical, I dont believe in them. Free Will is physical (an aspect of self-awareness), I believe in it.

Do you believe in libertarian free will, or the hollow type of free will implied by compatibilism?

 

[Yahweh]

Very well. With certainty, can one's desires or willings be separated from causes?

Are you suggesting spontaneously generated willings? Well, I dont think there can be effects without causes, perhaps the causes from a spontaneous willing is vague or unknown (but still existant). Most of the desires people have tend to be influenced from prior events.

Is it possible that the future is predetermined without us consciously being able to determine it?

That is a perfectly valid Philosophical assumption, but it would violate the law of Causality and some kind of law of linear time (suggesting the future exist, we are just waiting to get there). It would also suggest humans have no free will, or that humans are puppets dancing about to some Godly being's devine will.

In my opinion (based on Philosophy and all that other stuff I spent my time learning about), there is no predetermined future.

 

[Yahweh]

Do you believe in libertarian free will, or the hollow type of free will implied by compatibilism?

Sorry, my brain has been fried a bit throughout the day (its been very busy).

Can you explain what those two terms are and how they differ?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Sorry, my brain has been fried a bit throughout the day (its been very busy).

Can you explain what those two terms are and how they differ?

Libertarian free will means we can act outside physical laws (so the physical world is not closed). This is the common mans understanding of free will. Compatibilism, on the other hand, means that although we know from our immediate experience that we have free will, we nevertheless at all times act in accordance with physical laws ie we have free will and physical laws can describe our behaviour brought about by our freely chosen actions (thus in this case determinism is compatible with free will).

 

[Yahweh]

Libertarian free will means we can act outside physical laws (so the physical world is not closed). This is the common mans understanding of free will. Compatibilism, on the other hand, means that although we know from our immediate experience that we have free will, we nevertheless at all times act in accordance with physical laws ie we have free will and physical laws can describe our behaviour brought about by our freely chosen actions (thus in this case determinism is compatible with free will).

Well, I dont believe humans could act outside of the laws of physics (they could certainly will it, but their actions would be futile ), so I'll go with the shallow type of free will. However, I dont believe the shallow type of free will is compatible with determinism because I dont believe the future is predetermined.

 

[Jesse2]

I'm going to answer my own questions here, for the sake of being practical.

Very well. With certainty, can one's desires or willings be separated from causes?

No.

Is it possible that the future is predetermined without us consciously being able to determine it?

It is possible. In fact, I think it is very likely. I am in very close agreement with what Bluegill said:

I finally reached the conclusion that there is no such thing as free will, but that since the world behaves exactly as if we DO get to make choices, then it's better to just accept the notion that we have free will.

Furthermore, while the concepts of determinism and free will can be fun to talk about, beliefs about either need not have any practical effect on real life. Criminals can still go to jail. In any event, I do not see how these discussions can threaten anyone's moral standards.

 

[Loki]

Yahweh,

Allow me to clarify Ian's quesiton for you. It should be "Do you believe in illogical libertarian free will, or the rational type of free will implied by compatibilism?"

However, I dont believe the shallow type of free will is compatible with determinism because I dont believe the future is predetermined.

Determinism and predetermination are not (necesarily) the same.