is there free will?

[The Stranger]

i just am not in the mood to continue where i left of yesterday so ill just post the things i do have. sorry if its a bit fragmented or inconsistent.

Freedom in its most radical form is when one is subjected to nothing but oneself, meaning that nothing outside the individual controls his choices. This type of radical freedom would only exist in a situation when the individual is all there is, usually only Gods are attributed this type of freedom. Yet somehow this type of freedom, which is a divine freedom is also the standard to which humans are sometimes held. We must return freedom to the humans, it must become a human freedom, not an animal one, nor a divine one.

With neurosciences on the rise, more insight is being gained into the biochemical processes of our body. So while our conception of what a human is, is changing rapidly, our concepts which apply to humans are not changing at the same rate. This results in a Cartesian concept of free will, e.g. the idea that there is a rational faculty in each human being which controls it from a centralized point in the body, being pitted against a modern conception of what a human being is, e.g. we can conclude as much as that there is no such centralized rational faculty in our body. From the absence of this centralized rational faculty some people like to conclude the absence of free will. This is not a valid conclusion however. Free will may very well still exist, but instead of just one part of our body deciding for everything else, parts of our body decide for their own jurisdiction and as a body together they decide for the body as a whole. 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. So if our conception of what we are as human beings changes from the soul to the body than so must it change in our conception of free will. Thus the 'he' is no longer soul but body, yet the concept of free will applies to the body as well as it did to the soul before.

The objection can be made that we are not aware of these choices at the bodily level and thus the choices are not rational and so one is not free. Yet why is rationality a requirement for freedom? Are animals not free, or rationally impaired human beings? And if it is truly so that our current conception of human beings is the right one, than it has always been so. Why should the actions we would have labeled as an act of free will not years ago be labeled as determined only because it turns out we are not aware of them.



if this: "a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals." is the definition of rational. i dont see why the body cant be rational. and thus when the body is rational and the body makes choices, then the body must have 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]

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.

[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!

[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.

[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]

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

[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?

[Reenk Roink]

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

Non-deterministic interpretations of QM don't feel right at all. As I mentioned in that post, there are other interpretations that do support determinism. (Furthermore it has yet to be shown that any kind of indeterminism is distinguishable from determinism at anything above the Quantum level).

TS: yes

[The Stranger]

Non-deterministic interpretations of QM don't feel right at all. As I mentioned in that post, there are other interpretations that do support determinism. (Furthermore it has yet to be shown that any kind of indeterminism is distinguishable from determinism at anything above the Quantum level).

TS: yes

meh.. im just now reading nietzsche. so im not willing to go into your answer right now. because i foresee a whole lot of blood haha :P

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Non-deterministic interpretations of QM don't feel right at all. As I mentioned in that post, there are other interpretations that do support determinism.

Don't "feel" right? That sounds like just a personal opinion. You yourself admitted that the majority of Scientists support nondeterministic interpretations.

(Furthermore it has yet to be shown that any kind of indeterminism is distinguishable from determinism at anything above the Quantum level).

Irrelevant, the whole edifice is still little more than a theory, that's like me saying, "It has yet to be demonstrated that there is any form of determinism".

I would also note that The Stranger's earlier musings on a shift between body/soul in terms of our understanding of conciousness is somewhat odd, as greater understanding of the mechanical body has no bearing on the existence of a soul, nor have we yet been able to define conciousness itself.

[Strike For The South]

I think yall are looking at the forrest when you should be more focused on the trees

[Sasaki Kojiro]

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.

Yes, but I don't see the point in saying that because

1) The are conceptions of free will compatible with determinism
2) randomness is not control

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.

Generally, newtonian physics works on the large scale, but not on the micro scale. It seems reasonable to say that determinism is accurate on the large scale.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The are conceptions of free will compatible with determinism.

Name one.

In order for the Will to be "Free" it must be unbound, if it is fettered by fate then it is not "Free".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Name one.

In order for the Will to be "Free" it must be unbound, if it is fettered by fate then it is not "Free".

It's generally called "compatibilism". Many varieties.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's generally called "compatibilism". Many varieties.

That's all you've got? I was hoping for a reasoned argument.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

That's all you've got? I was hoping for a reasoned argument.

All you made was an assertion

You are saying that free will requires regulative control, i.e. that you have to be able to choose between different alternatives. Other people would argue that you have free will if you have guidance control, i.e. you bring about your actions even if you don't have any alternative. I was talking about this in the ice cream example. Do you define freedom as the ability to do anything? I would think not, because then no one could have free will, since we are all fettered by gravity. Some might say that a freely taken action originates in a certain way from your psychological self.

[Reenk Roink]

Don't "feel" right? That sounds like just a personal opinion. You yourself admitted that the majority of Scientists support nondeterministic interpretations.

Well yeah it's a personal opinion. Anyway, I frequently disregard the opinions of many people with the scientific mindset especially on metaphysical issues (such as scientific realism). Many scientists today are scientific realists, but there's a very good argument that constructive empiricists stand on firmer ground, for example.

The interpretation of QM that I support for example (or other interpretations that others support), is as consistent with the results of QM as the main one. Just because many scientists today don't like it is as irrelevent as the fact as Einstien did like it.

Irrelevant, the whole edifice is still little more than a theory, that's like me saying, "It has yet to be demonstrated that there is any form of determinism".

But it's absolutely relevant. It shows that invoking QM and interpreting the results as proof of ontological indeterminism does not do anything to the argument for determinism that is made in respect to free will.

Determinism certainly has some extremely strong arguments for it however. Cause-effect relations abound. Determinism above the Quantum level has a much stronger argument for it than any kind of indeterminism.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

All you made was an assertion

You are saying that free will requires regulative control, i.e. that you have to be able to choose between different alternatives. Other people would argue that you have free will if you have guidance control, i.e. you bring about your actions even if you don't have any alternative. I was talking about this in the ice cream example. Do you define freedom as the ability to do anything? I would think not, because then no one could have free will, since we are all fettered by gravity. Some might say that a freely taken action originates in a certain way from your psychological self.

Free Will requires options, if you have only one option then your "Will" is being externally directed and is totally unfree. Since it certainly appears we have Free Will (otherwise we would not have started this agument) I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

[Andres]

I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

Me too.

I decided to post in this thread today. Prove to me that I did not post out of my own free will but that I did it because I was determined to do so. And even if you can prove that everything is determined: does it matter? I certainly don't feel like everything I do is determined. If my free will is but an illusion, then it's a damn good one. Maybe it's so good because it's not an illusion?

Filosophy is nice and fun and it offers good thinking exercises, but it often occupies itself with fruitless questions, "do we have a free will?" being one of them. Who cares if what I'm doing has always been determined or not?

Of course, there are some things we can't control. Some call it "luck" or "bad luck", others "coincidence" and others "destiny", but the fact that there are some things beyond our control doesn' mean that we don't have free will. I have a free will.

Feel free to convince me otherwise.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Quite, but why bother to try and prove us wrong if the world is deterministic. Then it doesn't matter either way.

[Andres]

Quite, but why bother to try and prove us wrong if the world is deterministic. Then it doesn't matter either way.

Determinism is just an excuse for hippies and communists to be lazy

"It's not my fault that I'm lazy! I was determined to be so!"

Bah.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Free Will requires options, if you have only one option then your "Will" is being externally directed and is totally unfree. Since it certainly appears we have Free Will (otherwise we would not have started this agument) I tend to think the burden of proof must lie on determinism.

I agree that the fact that we started this argument is evidence that we have free will, a certain kind of free will. But I disagree with your definition. It is entirely possible for the world to be deterministic and for us to have started this argument.

With determinism, your actions are merely predictable, not "externally directed". And why would you want to live in a world where your actions weren't predictable? Would you want to be unpredictable? Would you want "I'm perfectly normal now, but could go crazy at any moment if a certain random event occurs"?

Essentially it seems like your concluding determinism to be false based on the assumption that it's incompatible with free will. But why do you assume that?

"It's not my fault that I'm lazy! I was determined to be so!"

That's fatalism.

[Andres]

With determinism, your actions are merely predictable, not "externally directed".

Then the word determism is poorly chosen. Our actions are predictable (only to a certain extent, certainly if you look at the individual level), not determined.

That's fatalism.

Semantics.

The difference is not that big.

Determinism:

"I'm lazy, but so what, everything is determined anyway, so I can just as well be lazy."

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Then the word determism is poorly chosen. Our actions are predictable (to a certain extent, certainly if you look at the individual level), not determined.

They are predictable to the extent that they are determined. The idea being, that if there was some demon who understood perfectly the laws of nature, and had exact information about the world, he could predict exactly what choice you would make. If it was up to you entirely, then your actions wouldn't be predictable. If there is an element of randomness, then it isn't predictable either, but since randomness isn't choice it's generally best to just leave the complicated physics out of the discussion.

There would be no predictability without some level of determinism. Now we as people can't predict very well, but that's because we have a limited capacity. You can't predict where all the balls will go when you break on a pool table, but do you think that some thing that had more capability couldn't predict where each ball would end up, based on information about the cue ball?

Semantics.

The difference is not that big.

Determinism:

"I'm lazy, but so what, everything is determined anyway, so I can just as well be lazy."

That's fatalism, a nice definition of it by the way. Determinism is the "idea that every event is necessitated by antecedent events and conditions together with the laws of nature".

Why don't you think there is a significant difference? Fatalism is a kind of "it doesn't matter if I wear my seatbelt, my date of death is predetermined". But of course, it does matter if you wear your seatbelt.