How do you define Free Will?

[Bluegill]

One night during my senior year of high school, I stayed up late working on a paper about Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse-5. Fueled by instant coffee and sugar cookies, I lapsed into a long period of comtemplating the nature of free will.

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.

I don't know if I can repeat my thought processes from that night without spending several more sleepless days studying Tralfamadorians and sci-fi concepts of four-dimensionality. Ugggh. But I think I was right, anyway.

Another note: We were discussing free will in a college class once, and our professor brought up some famous person's argument in favor of free will. According to this argument, picture a hungry mule in a field. There are piles of hay on opposite sides of the mule, each the exact same distance away. Also, the piles of hay are exactly alike. There is no way whatsoever to distinguish one pile of hay from another, and therefore there is no way to decide which pile of hay to go to for food.

It's absurd, according to this argument, to think that the mule, with no way of making a decision about which way to go, would stand there and starve. He would use free will to decide to go in one direction or the other, eat, and keep from starving to death.

But I disagree with this argument. With no way of making a decision, how do we know that the mule wouldn't stand there and starve?

I suspect that "free will" is just another way of saying that the inevitable, complex series of causes that provoke a response in the human brain are beyond our ability to grasp.

 

[Jesse2]

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.

I suspect that "free will" is just another way of saying that the inevitable, complex series of causes that provoke a response in the human brain are beyond our ability to grasp.

Thank you. I think these two paragraphs sum it up nicely, and I doubt I could say it better myself. Is it necessary to say that 'free will is an illusion'? If so, why?

As for 'fate', I say hindsight is 20/20. It's easy to say that anything that has already happened was 'fated' to happen that way because there is no way to change what has already happened. If we try to apply this concept of fate to the future, we are attemping prophecy, and that is when we stumble. As it's already been said in this thread, we lack the brain-power to prophecy with any accuracy except in the simplest of cases.

 

[Yahweh]

I can never get the free will folks to explain how it works. Somehow, I make a decision. Something(s) determined that decision, unless I made a random choice. Whatever that something is, it determined the decision. The decision was determined. Where's the free will?

~~ Paul

Well, if I cant explain what free will is, I'll explain what it aint.

If you give ask a human a question, the human responds. But, there is no "If this condition is true, then do this behavior".

Decision making is not based on randominity either. Humans make choices at their own accord, they base them on criteria they set for themselves. Humans self create their own criteria, these may be based off taste, environment, others, inner convictions, but in any case humans make decisions at their own will.

Free will is a part of being conscious. To suggest humans are not aware of their own "being" would be completely absurd.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yahweh said:

Humans self create their own criteria, these may be based off taste, environment, others, inner convictions, but in any case humans make decisions at their own will.

Taste is a function of environment and upbringing. The environment is not my will. Inner convictions stem from upbringing and experience. It's all determined by something else.

Either it is determined by prior events or it is random. What else is there?

~~ Paul

 

[Jesse2]

Humans make choices at their own accord, they base them on criteria they set for themselves. Humans self create their own criteria, these may be based off taste, environment, others, inner convictions, but in any case humans make decisions at their own will.

You mentioned environment and others (meaning other humans?). As Paul stated, "taste is a function of environment and upbringing" Environment, once again, is a factor or cause to assist in determining decisions. This supports my original point that "each choice is made by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors."

 

[Yahweh]

Yahweh said:
Taste is a function of environment and upbringing. The environment is not my will. Inner convictions stem from upbringing and experience. It's all determined by something else.

Either it is determined by prior events or it is random. What else is there?

~~ Paul

Prior event help establish some of the criteria by which humans make decisions and perform actions. It doesnt suggest humans are incapable of having free will though.

 

[Yahweh]

You mentioned environment and others (meaning other humans?). As Paul stated, "taste is a function of environment and upbringing" Environment, once again, is a factor or cause to assist in determining decisions. This supports my original point that "each choice is made by a combination of both genetic and environmental factors."

Well then you were correct in assuming choices are related to genetic and environmental factors, but at the root of all conscious choices is free will.

(Keep in mind I'm trying to explain free will in laymens terms, I dont want to resort to sorting through various neuropsychological reasons or going all out Philosophy 404 at the moment...)

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Yahweh said:

Prior event help establish some of the criteria by which humans make decisions and perform actions. It doesnt suggest humans are incapable of having free will though.

Wait, I'm trying to get someone to define free will! It's not predeterminism and it's not randomness. What is it? What exactly is free, and what is it free from?

~~ Paul

 

[Jesse2]

Well then you were correct in assuming choices are related to genetic and environmental factors, but at the root of all conscious choices is free will.

Free will is "1. The ability or discretion to choose" By that definition, of course we have free will. But, again, each choice is determined by genetic and environmental factors. If there is something other than these factors determining the choice, then what is that "something"?

(Keep in mind I'm trying to explain free will in laymens terms, I dont want to resort to sorting through various neuropsychological reasons or going all out Philosophy 404 at the moment...)

Good, because I don't think we need to get that deep to answer the given question(s).

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Jesse2

I don't think we need to get that deep to answer the given question(s).

I think that depends on the answer(s).

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: No.

That's pretty simple. Since humans don't have it, no further explanation is really required; humans don't have lots of things we might imagine.

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: Yes.

That seems to require further explanation.

Let's simplify where we can.

Our actions are directed by our thoughts (with the exception of some features which the human nervous system -- like those of other animals -- is equipped with, that run on automatic; poke a stick at our eyes and we blink, throw a rock at us and we duck, etc. We have little or no conscious level control over most of these, so we really aren't concerned with them. Any control we do have over these is of the nature of reconditioning them to respond differently; they are still triggered automatically, and respond automatically.)

So then the question (again) is: can we control our thoughts?

Experiment:

During the five seconds immediately following your reading this sentence, DO NOT visualize a purple cow.

Results?

That we choose is clear. What is not so clear is whether we choose what we choose.

 

[Jesse2]

So then the question (again) is: can we control our thoughts?

Experiment:

During the five seconds immediately following your reading this sentence, DO NOT visualize a purple cow.

Results?

That we choose is clear. What is not so clear is whether we choose what we choose.

I read that somewhere in Indian (of the Hindu variety) culture that it was unlucky to think of a monkey while you were getting medical care. Yes... How do you try not to think of the monkey? (or in this case, of the purple cow)

In this case, the variation may lie not in whether or not you visualize the purple cow, but how much you visualize it. One person may visualize it for less than a second, another may do it for longer. Also, the purple cow may be visualized stronger for one person than another.

I'm not really sure if all this talk about monkies and cows is on subject.

 

[elliotfc]

I can never get the free will folks to explain how it works. Somehow, I make a decision. Something(s) determined that decision, unless I made a random choice. Whatever that something is, it determined the decision. The decision was determined. Where's the free will?

~~ Paul

What outside of you compelled you to post your response to this forum Paul?

Free will is within you. It is you. It is your nature. If your decisions are determined from outside of you, by someone or something else, fill us in.

I am a "free will" folk. I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will. No other creative entities in the universe have control over my will.

-Elliot

 

[Jesse2]

If your decisions are determined from outside of you, by someone or something else, fill us in.

Choices are made by individuals. Genetics and environment are the two factors in our choices. What else is there?

I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will.

I agree with you about responsibility. If a man commits a crime, he should do the time. How else will he learn? How else can society be protected from him? How else could his environment teach him?

 

[Yahweh]

I think that depends on the answer(s).

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: No.

That's pretty simple. Since humans don't have it, no further explanation is really required; humans don't have lots of things we might imagine.

Q: Do humans have free will?
A: Yes.

That seems to require further explanation.

Let's simplify where we can.

Our actions are directed by our thoughts (with the exception of some features which the human nervous system -- like those of other animals -- is equipped with, that run on automatic; poke a stick at our eyes and we blink, throw a rock at us and we duck, etc. We have little or no conscious level control over most of these, so we really aren't concerned with them. Any control we do have over these is of the nature of reconditioning them to respond differently; they are still triggered automatically, and respond automatically.)

Those are invalid examples. They are spontaneous reflexes. People can override their "duck and cover" reflexes if they really really want to for some reason. The brain is equipped to perform a lot of involunatary actions.

So then the question (again) is: can we control our thoughts?

Experiment:

During the five seconds immediately following your reading this sentence, DO NOT visualize a purple cow.

Results?

That we choose is clear. What is not so clear is whether we choose what we choose.

Your "dont visualize a purple" cow is flawed. If someone does happen to visualize the cow, its only be a purple cow was suggested.

Humans do have the ability to control their thoughts. They can write a story, they can do math, they can talk to themselves.

Humans have about 10000 thoughts a day (or it might be 5000, I forgot). These thoughts dont "randomly fire", they are influenced by the environment around you if you are not doing something to deliberately control them. Most human thoughts tend to be "organized" (meaning they are not completely irratic, they tend to be linked flow). Its very hard to keep yourself from thinking for more than a few seconds. To believe humans are not responsible for their actions is absurd. If humans did not have free will, they would not be self-aware. Humans are self-aware and they are able to make decisions at their own accord.

One of the things that suggests free will is then number of choices you could have made. You could have had a burrito, you had a hamburger instead. You cannot go back and change this of course, but it was definitely a choice you had, and for whatever your reasons were, you chose the hamburger instead of the burrito. (This is very simpified version of the philosophical priniciple called Causation and Control & Ability To Do Otherwise.)

There are no constraints that prevent free will (under normal conditions... under special conditions a person could certainly put an electrode up to your brain and make a limb twitch). There are no outside forces that control my actions, I am conscious therefore I am responsible for my own actions (under normal conditions... I realize all the "what if someone did this to you" and other hypothetical scenarios).

 

[Jesse2]

Yahweh, I have no disagreement with what you have said, but what allows any of these choices to escape causality?

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Humans do have the ability to control their thoughts. They can write a story, they can do math, they can talk to themselves

A computer program could do those things.

Those are invalid examples. They are spontaneous reflexes. People can override their "duck and cover" reflexes if they really really want to for some reason.

As I noted. Please reread the paragraph more carefully.

These thoughts dont "randomly fire", they are influenced by the environment around you if you are not doing something to deliberately control them.

The term 'randomly' is going to be confusing at this point. I suggest that the thoughts fire 'spontaneously'.

Your "dont visualize a purple" cow is flawed. If someone does happen to visualize the cow, its only be a purple cow was suggested.

So you agree then that if a purple cow is suggested, you don't have a choice NOT to visualize one?

You could have had a burrito, you had a hamburger instead.

Maybe you don't even like burritos. Do you have a choice about that?

 

[evildave]

Well, here's a nice example in math.

We can plot the position of objects in 3-space 4-dimensionally. It's actually quite trivial, and at the same time useful. You see, when you know when/where it left, and when/where it arrives, assuming a straight line, collisions can be predicted to the millisecond given sets of these line segments. Since time proceeds in the same direction and rate for all (unless we muddy up my tidy little model slightly with relativity), the location of every object can be determined at any moment based on a scaling calculation. In addition, using a 3D line distance formula, and doing the opposite algebra, we can determine when a collision might happen, and use that time to check where both bodies are in space. Simple, trivial collision testing and rejection for treating time like another dimension, similar to the difference between 2D and 3D. In this case, three and a half D. Saves a LOT of cycles.

Now, some people might leap to the conclusion that this arithmetic "proves" something about reality. Well, as a matter of fact it does. It proves that people confuse their models of reality with reality easily. This is a SIMPLE MODEL of *A* world, and NOT the actual world. Even the concept of "causality" is only a MODEL we slap on top of what we perceive reality to be.

Even in my simple model, it doesn't mean that the final position of any objects is always known. I can build a schedule for what should be done for this millisecond, versus that millisecond, but there are still inputs from thousands of players to consider. They change their minds, pick things up, put things down. All beyond my control.

Even their inputs are unpredictable. If someone presses "go forward", they have no idea (and neither do I) whether they pressed that key just as someone started a HUGE download on too an ISP spread too thin.

Many inputs beyond my control. NO accounting for any of them. All I can do is adjust to what the world does to the process and hope the testing I devise proves it really works before it goes live.

Routinely, we predict outcomes with minimal information. That's what models are for. We model people, things, places. Our models are not always right. Even if it was perfect on one day, things change.

The gap between ignorance and brilliance is our free will.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Elliotfc said:

Free will is within you. It is you. It is your nature. If your decisions are determined from outside of you, by someone or something else, fill us in.

What does "within you" mean? I'm not saying my decisions are made by someone else. I'm asking what the sources of my decisions are, other than prior states of my brain and randomness. Where's the free part?

I am a "free will" folk. I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will. No other creative entities in the universe have control over my will.

Agreed, but I still don't see what's free. People seem to imagine some ethereal *I* making decisions, nonrandomly, without the weight of prior experience. I don't understand what that means. Either you base a decision on previous experiences, or you choose at random, or some of both. What other choice is there?

~~ Paul

 

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by elliotfc

I believe that each human is responsible for his/her actions. That is how I conceive free will.

In other words, "We must believe in free will, otherwise we will have no basis for a system of moral values." This is the 'argument from adverse consequences' -- by this logic, finding a defendant guilty could be considered the proper thing to do on the basis of its potential effectiveness as a deterrent to others, rather than on the basis of the evidence against him.

 

[Skeptical Greg]

In other words, "We must believe in free will, otherwise we will have no basis for a system of moral values." This is the 'argument from adverse consequences' -- by this logic, finding a defendant guilty could be considered the proper thing to do on the basis of its potential effectiveness as a deterrent to others, rather than on the basis of the evidence against him.

In the absence of free will, how could you even define morals. We already give people the benefit of the doubt when they are presumed to be insane.. i.e. " They had no control over what they were doing . . No free will ... " So they are not morally responsible ..

If no one had free will, no one would be morally responsible, and there would be no morals.


It isn't clear to me if you assume there is at least the illusion of free will..