is there free will?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, I claim there is random chance, and it therefore follows that there is random chance in our decision making. This being so, our decisions are not pre-determined, ergo Free Will is possible.

As to the Universe being orderly, Quantum Theory tells us that a situation has a variety of possible outcomes with varrying probability, not one pre-determined outcome.

I don't see the relation between random chance and free will. Imagine that you are in an ice cream shop picking your favorite ice cream. In a largely deterministic world you would probably pick your favorite, unless you have an urge to go for variety, or something else like that. Your favorite was predetermined, possibly be some combination of genetically coded taste buds, what kind of ice cream you had first, etc. Is this really a bad thing? Your choice may be predetermined, but it's based on who you are and what you want.

If there is random chance, then how is that different from you flipping a coin to decide between two flavors? It doesn't sound like a choice at all.

So human bodies are not a dictatorship or an autocracy but more a federal constitution. However it is still very much possible that our body as a whole has free will, because there are (many) situations thinkable in which nothing from outside this body influences the body in such way that the body has no choice left but to obey. The point I'm trying to make is that our concept of freedom must evolve alongside our conception of human beings. Since the idea the mind and body are separated is fading in our conception of human beings it should likewise fade in our conception of free will.

...

To say that a person has free will because he (in this case is soul or mind or any similar phrase) makes his own choices, amounts to as much as to say that, a person is free because nothing outside this person influences him so that he has no choice but to obey that external influence.

I mostly agree, but disagree with the direction you took it. Saying that the human body is not a dictatorship would lead me to the conclusion that free will doesn't apply to the body as a whole. I can't choose not to be hungry, right? If we have any sort of free will, it rests in the part of our brain that is conscious, that thinks and has urges to overcome our "basic" urges. It's not very powerful, but it's what separates us from most animals.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't see the relation between random chance and free will. Imagine that you are in an ice cream shop picking your favorite ice cream. In a largely deterministic world you would probably pick your favorite, unless you have an urge to go for variety, or something else like that. Your favorite was predetermined, possibly be some combination of genetically coded taste buds, what kind of ice cream you had first, etc. Is this really a bad thing? Your choice may be predetermined, but it's based on who you are and what you want.

If there is random chance, then how is that different from you flipping a coin to decide between two flavors? It doesn't sound like a choice at all.

Determinism would mean that whether or not the coin landed heads or tails would be determined before you flipped it, with 100% certainty. Random chance is a prerequisite for Free Will because wihtout it the universe has no room for divergence from it's ordained course.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Determinism would mean that whether or not the coin landed heads or tails would be determined before you flipped it, with 100% certainty. Random chance is a prerequisite for Free Will because wihtout it the universe has no room for divergence from it's ordained course.

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

[The Stranger]

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

it seems to me like one of you is talking about the present and the other one about the future. if not, ignore this comment. i follow interested!

[Rhyfelwyr]

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

I think what PVC means is that the random element is necessarily in order to make you able to pursue more than one course of action, and it is this ability that makes your will 'free'. With a random element, you have the ability to weigh up your options in any given scenario, and from this give each their own probablity for actually taking them. Without a random element, you will only ever choose the one path. You may 'will' to do it, but your will was not free - there was no random element, hence what you did was inevitable, hence your will was not 'free' in the sense that it could ever have done anything differently.

So say you can pick two flavours of ice cream, one vanilla, the other chocolate. Vanilla is your favourite. It was the first flavour you ever tried, it tastes nice and creamy, and it reminds you of your holidays. Chocolate has less going for it, but it does satisfy your sweet tooth.

Now, if your decision making has a random element, the above factors may lead you to lean 80% in favour of vanilla, and 20% in favour of chocolate. On average, 4 times out of 5 you will go for vanilla. But in each case, you were able to choose chocolate, and some times you did. Chocolate wasn't just a flavour that was taken into consideration and then overriden every time by vanilla - there was in each case a very real chance that you might go for chocolate.

But in a deterministic world where there isn't a random element to decision making, every single time you will take vanilla. Sure, you want to take vanilla. You 'will' to do it, and you get what you want. But you could never have chosen the chocolate, without first changing your own tastes. Therefore, you do not have 'free will' as the term is generally used, since there was only one course of action you could take, the one which you 'willed' to do.

I believe the latter scenario is the reality we live in, and that's why I said earlier why I believe we have a 'will', but not a 'free will'.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Now, if your decision making has a random element, the above factors may lead you to lean 80% in favour of vanilla, and 20% in favour of chocolate. On average, 4 times out of 5 you will go for vanilla. But in each case, you were able to choose chocolate, and some times you did. Chocolate wasn't just a flavour that was taken into consideration and then overriden every time by vanilla - there was in each case a very real chance that you might go for chocolate.

But that isn't at all implied by quantum randomness (as far as I understand it). If something is random, it isn't by choice, that's part of the definition.

But in a deterministic world where there isn't a random element to decision making, every single time you will take vanilla. Sure, you want to take vanilla. You 'will' to do it, and you get what you want. But you could never have chosen the chocolate, without first changing your own tastes. Therefore, you do not have 'free will' as the term is generally used, since there was only one course of action you could take, the one which you 'willed' to do.

That's not true though. Say that you like vanilla better, but chocolate reminds you of the holidays. The song in the ice cream shop might also remind you of the holidays and then you buy chocolate. You may feel that you have to much consistency in your life and go for something different. Just because it's deterministic doesn't mean it isn't complex.

[Reenk Roink]

wow reenk how very constructive of you haha... who the hell is being naive thinking he has knowledge. that he knows the truth of anything?

if everything is predestined, by what is it predestined?

I think you misunderstood what I mean and it's my bad for using naive as the adjective. It still fits, but the better word would be a simple non determinism (a la Lucretius). Human actions aren't caused or influenced by anything, including "rational" considerations. I was just answering your question.

Of course, one could then argue that this kind of model doesn't allow for free will either, as their is no choice anyway (it is 'random' for lack of a better term).

--

God.

As to the Universe being orderly, Quantum Theory tells us that a situation has a variety of possible outcomes with varrying probability, not one pre-determined outcome.

First thanks for the clarification with Catholic doctrine.

The QM argument against determinism is probably the (mildly) promising one, but it does run into some problems. First the interpretations of QM by many scientists I believe is one that embraces ontological randomness and denies determinism, but their are definitely others which don't answer the determinism question or answer positively and my view is firmly that there isn't any ontological randomness.

Furthermore, you can find many arguments that while granting the particular interpretation of QM with micro-indeterminism, do not grant that it amplifies to the macro level (read neurons) thus making the discussion of QM irrelevant.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

No, it's only a prerequisite for a certain conception of free will. And certainly not sufficient. Random chance cannot possibly equal free will, because when you flip coins to determine your actions it is the coin that decides, not you. In an extreme random chance scenario, everytime you pass someone on the street you have a chance of flipping out and killing them. All it takes is the right coin flips.

You misunderstand, I merely meant that random chance is a pre-requisite, i.e. that without a random element in the universe that Free Will would be impossible, the idea can't even get off the ground.

I think what PVC means is that the random element is necessarily in order to make you able to pursue more than one course of action, and it is this ability that makes your will 'free'. With a random element, you have the ability to weigh up your options in any given scenario, and from this give each their own probablity for actually taking them. Without a random element, you will only ever choose the one path. You may 'will' to do it, but your will was not free - there was no random element, hence what you did was inevitable, hence your will was not 'free' in the sense that it could ever have done anything differently.

So say you can pick two flavours of ice cream, one vanilla, the other chocolate. Vanilla is your favourite. It was the first flavour you ever tried, it tastes nice and creamy, and it reminds you of your holidays. Chocolate has less going for it, but it does satisfy your sweet tooth.

Now, if your decision making has a random element, the above factors may lead you to lean 80% in favour of vanilla, and 20% in favour of chocolate. On average, 4 times out of 5 you will go for vanilla. But in each case, you were able to choose chocolate, and some times you did. Chocolate wasn't just a flavour that was taken into consideration and then overriden every time by vanilla - there was in each case a very real chance that you might go for chocolate.

But in a deterministic world where there isn't a random element to decision making, every single time you will take vanilla. Sure, you want to take vanilla. You 'will' to do it, and you get what you want. But you could never have chosen the chocolate, without first changing your own tastes. Therefore, you do not have 'free will' as the term is generally used, since there was only one course of action you could take, the one which you 'willed' to do.

I believe the latter scenario is the reality we live in, and that's why I said earlier why I believe we have a 'will', but not a 'free will'.

Clearly you and I have been arguing for too long.

The QM argument against determinism is probably the (mildly) promising one, but it does run into some problems. First the interpretations of QM by many scientists I believe is one that embraces ontological randomness and denies determinism, but their are definitely others which don't answer the determinism question or answer positively and my view is firmly that there isn't any ontological randomness.

Ok, so the weight of Scientific opinion is against determinism. Why do you dissagree.

Furthermore, you can find many arguments that while granting the particular interpretation of QM with micro-indeterminism, do not grant that it amplifies to the macro level (read neurons) thus making the discussion of QM irrelevant.

The point about Quantom Theory is that it demonstrates that Physics generally does not actually support a deterministic worldview, as was previously claimed. Ultimately we know very little about how the universe works, we just have a lot of theories that fit the (very limited) data.

[The Stranger]

I think you misunderstood what I mean and it's my bad for using naive as the adjective. It still fits, but the better word would be a simple non determinism (a la Lucretius). Human actions aren't caused or influenced by anything, including "rational" considerations. I was just answering your question.

Of course, one could then argue that this kind of model doesn't allow for free will either, as their is no choice anyway (it is 'random' for lack of a better term).

--

God.
.

i already though so. no worries.

anyhow, if god determined everything, than he is the cause of human actions right?

[The Stranger]

I don't see the relation between random chance and free will. Imagine that you are in an ice cream shop picking your favorite ice cream. In a largely deterministic world you would probably pick your favorite, unless you have an urge to go for variety, or something else like that. Your favorite was predetermined, possibly be some combination of genetically coded taste buds, what kind of ice cream you had first, etc. Is this really a bad thing? Your choice may be predetermined, but it's based on who you are and what you want.

If there is random chance, then how is that different from you flipping a coin to decide between two flavors? It doesn't sound like a choice at all.



I mostly agree, but disagree with the direction you took it. Saying that the human body is not a dictatorship would lead me to the conclusion that free will doesn't apply to the body as a whole. I can't choose not to be hungry, right? If we have any sort of free will, it rests in the part of our brain that is conscious, that thinks and has urges to overcome our "basic" urges. It's not very powerful, but it's what separates us from most animals.

no it can't choose not to be hungry. but i dont see hunger as some influence from the outside. it is part of the bodily functions. it is part of life. life needs to be sustained or otherwise it will die. no free will can alter that. the body though is free to choose not to eat, to ignore this hunger, or to eat and choose what it eats. its probably much more complicated, i have to get more into biology. i already foresee difficulties with allergies and stuff.

the brain which is conscious, or the conscious activity of the brain is very limited, i believe the entire body thinks, but just not everything is translated into the conscious part of the brain. only those actions that cannot do without.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

no it can't choose not to be hungry. but i dont see hunger as some influence from the outside. it is part of the bodily functions. it is part of life. life needs to be sustained or otherwise it will die. no free will can alter that. the body though is free to choose not to eat, to ignore this hunger, or to eat and choose what it eats. its probably much more complicated, i have to get more into biology. i already foresee difficulties with allergies and stuff.

the brain which is conscious, or the conscious activity of the brain is very limited, i believe the entire body thinks, but just not everything is translated into the conscious part of the brain. only those actions that cannot do without.

Well, it's true that people have starved themselves to death. Some monks in Japan used to practice self-mummification. You could, I suppose, see that as the ultimate expression of free will.

But it still seems like it's the one part of the brain that exercises it. If you quit smoking, then your "body" (including parts of the brain) was very strongly pushing to keep smoking. There is conflict within the body. And I don't feel that that part is really "you". It's sort of like an outside influence.

[The Stranger]

Well, it's true that people have starved themselves to death. Some monks in Japan used to practice self-mummification. You could, I suppose, see that as the ultimate expression of free will.

But it still seems like it's the one part of the brain that exercises it. If you quit smoking, then your "body" (including parts of the brain) was very strongly pushing to keep smoking. There is conflict within the body. And I don't feel that that part is really "you". It's sort of like an outside influence.

it is free will... but there is one problem. is it rational? i doubt it is when you take rational in the optimal sense. but on the other hand it might be rational because it is thoroughly thought through. or maybe that just makes it reasonable? if it is not rational, than how can there be nonrational free will? and how can a rational body willingly wish and practice its own demise?

i dont see why those parts of the body are not you? they are certainly part of you, or do you believe we, as a rational soul or whatever, are chained within a body, which we use but not are. in the same way we use a car perhaps. the body can be in conflict, just as your desires can be in conflict. will i buy a new tv or a new playstation? will i date this girl and forsake my friends? etc