Is free will a paranormal concept?

[Skiltch]

www.dilbertblog.typepad.com

There have been several posts in the last few days about the concept of free will. The writer, Scott Adams (does Dilbert cartoons) does not believe in it and has actually classified it in paranormal. The current fight started when he basically said, 'It is not the Islamic fundamentalists' fault for attacking us and killing us anymore than it is our fault for responding in kind. We are all just doing what our biology says we will do.' (Paraphrased).
Here's one of the relevant quotes:

"I could weasel out of this by noting that the EXISTENCE of free will is the extraordinary claim, since it implies the supernatural, and so the burden of proof is on those who would claim it."

I was curious what you all thought, since paranormal is dealt with regularly over here.
Free will is generally defined over there as having the ability to do something even if your brain chemistry, genes, nature, nurture, everything physical says not to do it. Another way of looking at it might be as a soul that could resist what the corporeal parts of you want to do. Adams defined it as:

"Free will is an individual’s ability to change the physics of the material world in such a way that the normal chain of cause and effect is broken. In the case of free will, this change happens to the physics of the brain. Furthermore, the initial cause of this change can not itself be deterministically caused by something else, but it can be informed.

["]So in this definition, if a lawnmower had free will, it could decide whether or not the gasoline would be ignited by the spark plug. The decision would not be based on the normal laws of physics. But a lawnmower has no free will, so we need not worry about it."

Do y'all believe in free will? If so, do you think it's paranormal by definition?

 

[tkingdoll]

Well if you define it that way, then you are looking at examples like 'mind over matter', faith healing, etc, so yes, that would be paranormal. The mind cannot overrule the body in the way that some people like to believe. I can put off urinating but eventually I will have no choice.

But I define free will simply as the absence of fate or pre-ordained outcomes to actions by an intelligent, active higher power. In other words, I am not 'meant' to do something - my actions have no 'meaning' in the universe.

I don't dispute that I am a slave to certain instincts or bodily functions, but I wouldn't claim that having to urinate whether I 'choose' to or not negates free will by my definition of it.

How quickly will this thread turn into a metaphysics/existentialism debate?

And how sorry are we all that Interesting Ian isn't here to join in?

Of course, I typed that of my own free will. I was not pre-ordained to type it.

 

[Apathia]

Well if you define it that way, then you are looking at examples like 'mind over matter', faith healing, etc, so yes, that would be paranormal. The mind cannot overrule the body in the way that some people like to believe. I can put off urinating but eventually I will have no choice.

But I define free will simply as the absence of fate or pre-ordained outcomes to actions by an intelligent, active higher power. In other words, I am not 'meant' to do something - my actions have no 'meaning' in the universe.

I don't dispute that I am a slave to certain instincts or bodily functions, but I wouldn't claim that having to urinate whether I 'choose' to or not negates free will by my definition of it.

How quickly will this thread turn into a metaphysics/existentialism debate?

And how sorry are we all that Interesting Ian isn't here to join in?

Of course, I typed that of my own free will. I was not pre-ordained to type it.

Not believeing in a metaphysical free will doesn't give you a Get Out of Responsibility Free Card.
"But Judge, I could help myself. I don't have a free will, so the only thing I could do was beat my wife to death. That's just Biology. You can't send me to prison for that!"

Won't hold up in a court of law!

 

[Dogdoctor]

So was Gandhi exercising free will since he did not respond in kind?

 

[tkingdoll]

Not believeing in a metaphysical free will doesn't give you a Get Out of Responsibility Free Card.
"But Judge, I could help myself. I don't have a free will, so the only thing I could do was beat my wife to death. That's just Biology. You can't send me to prison for that!"

Won't hold up in a court of law!

Well it's a good job that's not what I said then, isn't it?

 

[Skiltch]

Not neccesarily implied, Hyparix. Even if 'guilt' was thrown out of law (because of there being no free will, no choice, and thus no way to be 'guilty') punishments could still happen based on deterence. Some people could have cautious genes/brain waves/whatever that would only let them committ crimes if they wouldn't be punished for it.

 

[Apathia]

Well it's a good job that's not what I said then, isn't it?

I accidently responded to the OP in the wrong post.

 

[tkingdoll]

I accidently responded to the OP in the wrong post.

Hee hee

 

[Dancing David]

It is a rather weak argument, and perhaps sarcastic.

Even under materialism free will can exist, it is under determinism that free will does not exist.

I recognise that free will may be an illusion, but given the random and chaotic nature of human biology, I doubt that determinism will prevail.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Isn't like saying that given the chaotic nature of planetary weather conditions that you doubt determinism will prevail there?

 

[PopeTom]

Free will is generally defined over there as having the ability to do something even if your brain chemistry, genes, nature, nurture, everything physical says not to do it. Another way of looking at it might be as a soul that could resist what the corporeal parts of you want to do. Adams defined it as:

So, would using birth control qualify as an exercise in free will?
Biology is not even remotely my strong point, but I was under the impression that living organisms pretty much exist to pass on their genetic information to the next generation? So by over riding that base biological imperative just for the sake of experiencing sex for the pleasure of sex does that meet the qualification of free will as outlined by the above quote?

 

[Skiltch]

Not necessarily, at least not by the Adams definition. If someone is 'wired' or raised to not want to have kids, for instance, it wouldn't be free will but would instead be their biology having them use birth control.

 

[simonmaal]

The findings of Libet (1985) are interesting. They suggest that when we make a decision, unconscious processes precede (temporarily) the moment at which we decide we are about to act. In other words, the ‘brain’ makes a decision and then 350 milliseconds later, we become aware of the decision and attribute a conscious, personal agency to it.


Still can't post links to my references, so I'll expand on these findings when I've posted enough messages! I hate not being able to sustantiate my arguments.

 

[simonmaal]

Not believeing in a metaphysical free will doesn't give you a Get Out of Responsibility Free Card.
"But Judge, I could help myself. I don't have a free will, so the only thing I could do was beat my wife to death. That's just Biology. You can't send me to prison for that!"

Won't hold up in a court of law!

Ah but what about the case of the man who murdered his partners' parents while sleepwalking? Amazingly, that did hold up in a court of law!

PS Sorry again for lack of references, I'm yet to get to 15 posts! I'll come back and edit this message to include a link as soon as I get permission to do so!

 

[Rufo]

I have thought quite a lot about this and have found that free will is something that people are very sensitive about. If you imply that there is no free will, people get upset. Some feel like they are just a cog in a machinery without their precious free will, and are terribly insulted when their thoughts are compared to other chemical processes. I've also noticed that this can easily get even more important to some people who have abandoned other supernatural beliefs, as if they are trying to compensate for that by valuing free will above all. People on these forums, however, tend to be above such vanity.

However...

What we might have to ask ourselves is whether or not it matters if we have free will. Most people I know about experience that they are making decisions, which means that there clearly is at least an illusion of free will. And practically, what exactly is the difference between Free Will™ Real Edition and Free Will™ Illusion Edition?

Not that it's not an interesting question, not that I don't love theoretical philosophy, but if we come to the conclusion that there is no free will, what exactly will the difference be?

 

[simonmaal]

Hi Rufo

As you demonstrate, the question of free will is not merely a scientific one, it is also a moral and political issue. My own thoughts are that, by identifying those things we cannot control, we can focus on those we can. By doing this, we can at least gain a conscious experience of autonomy (even if this might be an illusion).

 

[DeviousB]

So, would using birth control qualify as an exercise in free will?

No, since (in Adams view) the chemistry of your brain is the driving force in this case.

What Adams is proposing is that if the brain is an entirely deterministic and naturalistic mechanism, then your every action and reaction will be precisely determined by some combination of the sum of your nature and nurture to that point - even input from some quantumly undecidable source would merely be another 'nurture' input. Alternatively, if other factor allows a person the 'free will' to decide something, then that factor is non-naturalistic - i.e. not produced by the chemical/electrical state and activity of the brain - hence would be supernatural.

Basically, if all thought is a product of the entirely naturalistic processes of the brain, then free-will is an illusion. You would be physically incapable of ever thinking or deciding anything other than what the output of the hypercomplex state-machine in your head was inflexibly bound to do.

Three problems: -

1) If we assume that no action of a human being can ever really be 'voluntary', then any claim to hold copyright on a creative work is non-sensical. Scott Adams didn't create Dilbert, it is merely the inevitable consequence of his biology, he has no more creative rights to it than over the exhalations from his lungs. Yet on every cartoon he produces he puts a little copyright symbol, does he not believe his own argument then?

2) We can empirically determine that we have free-will. Present an individual with two identical coins. Ask him to choose one to keep. Which did he choose and why? Reverse the experiment. Give the subject two identical coins and have him hold both out towards you. Choose which he may keep and take back the other. Which did you choose and why? We act as though we have free will. We believe we have free will. To claim that these actions are deterministic is to put upon oneself the burden of proof. Our apparent free-will is the empirically observed phenomena to be explained. Saying it is deterministic, means proving it is deterministic; otherwise it is an argument from ignorance/incredulity.

3) http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~jas/one/freewill-theorem.html

 

[Dancing David]

Isn't like saying that given the chaotic nature of planetary weather conditions that you doubt determinism will prevail there?

It is a personal belief, and I am mainly basing it on the potential for cognition to have a non-determinist influence on behavior.

It is a belief, not a scientific premise. I don't have a belief on if the weather will be deterministic. More likely chaotic without the potential for free will. As I said , I aknowledge that free will could very likely be an illusion.

 

[DeviousB]

As I said , I aknowledge that free will could very likely be an illusion.

I liken it to the atheist's argument against agnosticism.

If you have a universe that is, to all intents and purposes, indistinguishable from a conceptal universe devoid of god, why behave as if it is anything other than devoid of god.

If you behave in a way that in imperceptibly different from a being with free will, why treat this as anything other than free will?

Science says, "We don't know what causes (the illusion of*) free will." [* Delete as applicable]. Scott Adams says, "Science tells us there is no such thing as free will."

Scott Adams is wrong.

 

[simonmaal]

Scott Adams says, "Science tells us there is no such thing as free will."

A more sound position to take would have been, "Science suggests there is no such thing as free will."

Note: I'm not arguing for or against the existence of free will (did I just choose to write that statement); I am objecting to binary thinking based on incomplete data.