So often people go on and on about Free Will. So many arguements surround ideas that it is a myth and only exists because we want it to. Others go on about determinism etc etc.

Well those who advocate it's existence can have a chance to describe the nature of free will.

What is it?
How is it free and how free is it?

My thoughts on the subject (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=28527)

So often people go on and on about Free Will. So many arguements surround ideas that it is a myth and only exists because we want it to. Others go on about determinism etc etc.

Well those who advocate it's existence can have a chance to describe the nature of free will.

What is it?
How is it free and how free is it?We have free will, but it requires more or less that we aren't aware of it, (cause then we would only have one option), free will happens when we haven't accomplished what we want, but delay it and while we delay it more and more options gathers. Until we find the right one, but then we have alot of unnecessary options that we have to solve also, and etc. etc.

Some of the options are better and some are worse, but you can't know which options are better and which options are worse before you see it in relations to other options. My experiance tells me that the first option is often the correct one (also because you can skip all of the junk waiting for a option that is just as good as the first one - but the first option may instead get you in weird situations - which may be one of the reasons why it is ruled out (even though it isn't wrong)), even if the option doesn't seem to be at first, I've seen that if I didn't pick that particular one then other things around me would change into a less good scenario. There is a will that is based on experiance and intellect and there is a will that is based on intuition. Intuition is probably the best way (cause that picks the original choice), but that takes courage because you don't see the option before you choose it. That's because the option might be good at the particular moment, though it doesn't seem good at first (or may not be good at any other moments than that particular one). Intuition is something you don't see but know anyway, if you saw it then you would pick another way that isn't good because you ruled it out using your intellect (depending on the looks of it).

Free will does exist, cause even if it is a illusion, it must be a illusion of something. Though the free will that we have is only a illusion, it's a illusion of the will that actually do exist. But everything is a illusion, cause we are describing God, we are made in God's image, the truer we become the better do God's image become - we become better painters (so to say) and this gives us the fullfillment of the gifts (like free will).

I have given this analogy before, but I do it again. God gave us alot of gifts, free will was one of them, but the gift changes depending on where you are, if you are untrue then the gift becomes untrue. We could describe it with God as the sun, and the ray of light fading as it goes further away from the sun, is existance. Everything is more or less real depending on how far it is away from the sun (source, God), thus free will can be so much more than what we perceive it to be, if we come closer to God, every feeling becomes more true when it is close to God, the feeling becomes glorified (but be aware, the closer you get to God the more obvious do your faults become, cause it works in comparance). This is also the indication if we are on the right track or not, we feel more real and more true if we are on the path to God. Everything is more or less real, like a fading light.

One raven, thanks for your link. The quick read I gave it ( I will read it again ) suggests determinism and I happen to agree however be it as it may I really wanted to find out what advocates of free will describe the nature of free will in the context that they usually defend it with.

What is Free will?
How free is it?

Cyperium, Thanks for your response. You state that God has givien us free will, what do you mean by the words Free Will? What is the nature of free will?
So often we just use these two words but fail to adequately describe what they mean.
Is anything actually "Free"?
Does freedom exist? ( in absolute)

One raven, thanks for your link. The quick read I gave it ( I will read it again ) suggests determinism and I happen to agree however be it as it may I really wanted to find out what advocates of free will describe the nature of free will in the context that they usually defend it with.

Partly, yes.
But strict determinism would rule out free will, or do I not understand it correctly?

In that discussion, I am standing against strict determinsm and in favor of a combination of the two.

Everything that has ever happened will tip the scales, but ultimately you have the choice to act in any way you wish within the confines of your surroundings.

Everything that has ever happened will tip the scales, but ultimately you have the choice to act in any way you wish within the confines of your surroundings.

I like this. So we have free will in a deterministic sense.

If one imagines a circle and allows this to represent infiniite choice and you are in the circle given the task of making a choice, what determines one choice over another?

Why does one choice become more attractive?

I have often held to the notion that it is in fact our ability to NOT choose and reject all choices (other than "NOT" to choose) that gives us free will.

I am not a fan of Rush, but this seems to be a fitting quote.

"If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice."

The reason(s) that one choice would be desirable over another can not be boiled down quite so simply.

What pair of socks are you wearing?
What made you choose that pair?
It could seem as simple as, "They were the closest clean pair when I woke up."
But then you have to look at why they were the colsest clean pair...
What made you decide to wear all the other ones that are not dirty?
Why did you not do laundry last night?
Why did you buy those socks in the first place?
Did you go to that store with the specific purpose, or did you remember when you saw them on display?
Why did Bill (the merchandizing manager) decide to place them there on display?
What if Bill was out sick that day?
Why does Bill work at Walmart, anyway?
Something as simple as what socks you are wearing could be traced back to a million (conservative) points of decision made by yourself and people you have never met, some of them are not even alive anymore.
It was your laziness that made you choose the closest clean pair.
There are a million reasons why you are lazy.
However, you DO have the choice to act against your typical nature, and decide, "I want to wear red socks today, just because I want to." and dig in your sock drawer to find you red socks to wear.
Again, whatever made you decide that you want to wear red socks could have a million points of decision behind it, but you were not compelled to wear them.
Any choice you make can be traced back through the matrix of all of our interconnected decisions, however, at that point of deciding what to wear, you have a nearly limitless number of ways to go, and that choice, in turn, will effect everything else down the line.

Everything anyone ever does is influenced (not determined, influenced) by prior choices made.
Likewise, every choice you make will influence choices down the line.

That is what I believe, anyway, and I have seen nothing yet that would make me reconsider that belief.

In the book I am currently working on I relate the Determinism/Free Will question to a game of pool (8-ball).

The options you have are strictly limited by:
1.) the position of the cue ball
2.) the position of all the other balls on the table
3.) where your strengths and weaknesses lie in your pool skills
4.) whether you are playing high or low balls

One and two are dependent upon:
a.) every shot made in the game up to that point
b.) the idiocyncracies of the table (such as: felt thickness, type and wear; dynamics of the rails; balance of the table; etc)
c.) the skills of all the payers on the table
d.) coincidences not directly related to the game (such as: what kind of day the players had; how many drinks they had; etc)

Three is dependent upon far too many things to list.

Four is dependent upon the first ball sunk on the table, which not only relies upon the skills of (at least one of) the players, and luck (for lack of a better word). The results of the break are part skill and part luck, and the coin toss (if there was one) for the break was luck.

Now, it is your turn to shoot, and all of these factors have determined the situation you currently find yourself in.
Your options are limited, but you DO have options.

At this point, those who deny free will will say that what shot you take is determined by your perception of the table, how you have been playing that day, your perception of your skills, the type of person you are (like going for glory shots, or taking a safety), even what your favorite color is.

My view is that you have this table in front of you, you look at it and see all your options (you may miss a few), and based on that (influenced, to different degrees, by all the things in the above paragraph) you make a decision regarding what course of action you will take.

After that, your pool skills, mood, blood achohol level, luck, etc will all determine the outcome of that particular shot, then you go back up to the top again.

Does that make any sense?

"and along comes a tall blonde with slender legs and a nice butt and the game of pool is forgotten and the desire to follow the tail is overwhelming."

Of course what you say makes perfect sense and also I like the use of the word "influence" as differentiated to the word "determined"

But of course Free will advocates tend to get upset when they think that they are just "pawns" in some intergallactic interplay. They find it difficult to swallow that every action is influenced by every action "past and Present"

I repeat however that it is the ability to reject a choice that gives the rejector freedom to choose.

A drug addict is incapable in the main of rejecting his choice to continue with his addiction. It is only when he can reject the choice to use that he is empowered thus achieving a greater free will.

Influencianism instead of determinism....hmmmmmm...yes I like that makes more sense and allows for greater freedom in the understanding. Thanks for that One Raven

But of course Free will advocates tend to get upset when they think that they are just "pawns" in some intergallactic interplay. They find it difficult to swallow that every action is influenced by every action "past and Present"

Some people can not distinguish the difference of having your apparent choices both influenced and limited by the natural course of interaction, and the notion of being a puppet on the strings of some cognizant diety.

It is pretty simple to see that everything you do is influenced by past actions and will influence future actions.
You don't need a puppet master for that.

I think it may be valid to work this word "influence" a little.

In the physical world as in innanimate matter. An object propelled to a certain point can be pre-determined asssuming nothing else "influences" it's path.

You roll a ball to a pocket on the billiard table and yes it's course is predetermined almost absolutely ( except say an earh quake orexplosion etc etc)

You push a person, on the other hand, towards a pocket or destination and that persons behaviour can only be said to be influenced and not predetermined, because at all times he has an abiltity to reject the destination ( the Pocket) where as the ball has not this ability except to follow it's physics so to speak.

A scenario could be used such as a man in a prison cell and for political reason goes on a hunger strike. The guards place lots of food in his cell so as to tempt him. They even force some food into his mouth. But in the end the man dies of starvation even though one would suggest that the food supplied should have determined his behaviour.

This of course distinguishes man from lesser sentient animals in that we have the ability to reject life for an ulterior purpose, where as our humble lesser animals usually can't take that path or choice.

WE know that a pig will eventually eat food provided ( this being predeterminable) when hungry enough but one can not say the same for man.

Influence implies to me that choice is always available where as determinism implies a lacking of choice.

I think possibly that self-determinism is still valid as a concept and I see no conflict with influencanism...( Ha I like that word)
What do you think?

Cyperium, Thanks for your response. You state that God has givien us free will, what do you mean by the words Free Will? What is the nature of free will?
So often we just use these two words but fail to adequately describe what they mean.
Is anything actually "Free"?
Does freedom exist? ( in absolute)Actually, total free will would be to do a choice without picking one, cause as soon as there are possibilities the free will is less free. The exception to this might be if there were neverending possibilities, or creating possibilities (which would then be done by neverending possibilities - maybe using the principle that nothing doesn't exist, thus if you do nothing then you get something...so what do you get and why do you get that particular something? I guess because it has most meaning in the moment, but that would mean that something knowing about meaning would pick that choice for you - my guess, God). But in a way, you give the meaning (since you allways mean to say something right before you say it - but is more a indication that God really picks the right meaning for you, cause if you feel you mean something before you say it then you have allready missed your first choice - maybe, maybe not, you see, this is only what I think at the moment, if something else turns up then I want to be able to change my view on this), which might make God pick the choice that is best in the meaning that you are in (which is my second interpretation). In turn this might lead to what I said before, that we should pick the first will that comes to us, cause I guess that will is closer to it's source. Though if you wait you will miss that choice and have to wait until a certain cycle is completed to get a similar choice - at least from what I can understand, though not completly sure about.

So how can we dare to take the first choice, the choice that isn't influenced by our limited understanding of it? Cause as soon as we put understanding to it, then it becomes less than it could be. I have a feeling that the first choice comes in just the right moment, so at that particular moment, the choice has most meaning, if you miss it then gradually it will loose meaning, until the cycle is completed and the choice will come up again, now with a little less meaning than before - unless you choose a option before the cycle is completed that is. I guess we can back-track on that cycle though, but how that is possible I don't know - or at least can't explain, I guess using a harmony of some kind. Feeling in touch with the moment is when we can say exactly the right things, right?

Cyperium, I think you are referring to acting on impulse, be it the first impulse.
That to not act and think about it colours the impulse subjectively, thus loosing it's initial value.
In the psi world some call this Auto speach or auto function where by the person drops violition and allows themselves to speak or act purely on impulse.

Cyperium, I think you are referring to acting on impulse, be it the first impulse.
That to not act and think about it colours the impulse subjectively, thus loosing it's initial value.
In the psi world some call this Auto speach or auto function where by the person drops violition and allows themselves to speak or act purely on impulse.I didn't know they had a name for it, I'm very suspiscious of naming things, since I think that takes away the flexibility of the word, or takes away the flexibility of what the word represents (cause the word becomes so intimitly associated with the representation that the representation becomes the word instead of the word the representation) (hope you see what I mean here).

Free will should be used following the truth, do what you really want. But that was easier when we were young, cause then we didn't have all of the adult expectations on us. We were allowed to move freely - well, more or less depending on the situation (because we didn't have to follow that many social-situation-rules), it's actually kind of a world within the world. Though there's problems in any stage, and maybe we didn't feel free because of the adult supervision all the time, but freedom moved from one place to another as we grew up I guess, and many things were replaced by responsibility.

One thing that most people have experiance in one way or another, is that we learned how to fool other's to think that we did something that we really didn't, or didn't do something that we really did.

This made us come up with all sorts of explanations to justify our "lie" - as in the example below it may not necessarily be a "Lie" with a big "L" but merely a small manipulation - so we allready from a early age started to walk the path of dishonesty (...or lies) (which undermines free will). Though the lies (or dishonesty) may not have been that serious and kinda accepted by people in society and around you, the small step from truth lead to another step (by justifying) and another step (when somebody asked you, and you had to give more details to your lie (or...) - which required that you got personally involved in the lie (...)), and another step (when you actually started to believe the lie (?...riddle...?)) yourself - since you identified with it) and so on... I've made this post so that it sounds like it happens to everybody, but it may be exceptions - I don't know - but if there are then that person would be very, very honest, or without faults. Cause faults are often covered-up by lies. Remember though that the lies doesn't have to be grandiour and big.

It can be as simply as this scenario:

Tom hears a joke from his friend Jim.
Tom tell the joke loud in the classroom and everybody starts laughing.
Teacher say that it was a really good joke.
Tom makes teacher believe that he made the joke himself, and don't mention his friends name.

This at first may not seem like he ever lied, sure he kept the truth about Jim away from the teacher, but merely because the teacher sort of assumed that Tom made it himself, or Tom makes her assume that he made it himself. Tom thinks that "well, I'd rather keep her assuming that I'm good at making jokes".

Cause Tom knows he is doing something wrong - but maybe socially acceptable to certain limits.

Maybe Tom really is good at making jokes, then he can justify his "lie" honestly, by telling jokes that he made himself to her, but that dishonest ground will still be there. The only way to get rid of it, is to justify his friend Jim, cause he was the one to receive the real credit - though Tom might even have told the joke better.

Justifying his friend Jim might be hard though, since maybe that joke would - if Tom was honest - strengthen the bounds that Jim had with the teacher. Maybe Jim even foresaw that Tom would say it loud in the classroom. And so on and so forth. See how this little lie had so many consequences that were partially hidden from the beginning? These kind of lies - that are this small - are mostly taken care of by mere coincidence (or so it seems), but the example is made to show how things may develop. If Tom starts later to actually say when the joke is made by him or his friend then the bad ground becomes justified (we can't be disallowed to change for the better), it can be as easy as "I heard a good joke from Jim the other day...Blah blah...", or "Jim told me this joke...blahabla...", or when the joke is finished "Jim told me that, and I laughed my...blah blahabla...off", etc.

Free will is only true to the degree that you are. You determine what you follow, am I really following my own will now, or am I following societies will, rules and regulations? The Law? Moral codes? There will allways be a law to follow, otherwize free will would be pointless, but within the room of the law are freedom, free will is thus "do what you want with the parts that you can do what you want with". We should be careful of manipulating things that are controlled by law, since the law is there for a reason - and now I don't mean police law, though I don't recommend breaking them either. We should follow that universal law so that it becomes automatic and you can be really free without breaking any laws, and even so there are unlimited possibilities. But then we have to figure out what to do with our free will...

There are truthful ways of becoming better than you are right now, cause we really are worse than we could be. So to become better, follow the truth, we can be everything we want to be - if we follow the truth (cause in a way, what you really want to be is what you allready has been - or that you could identify with). However, there might be ways to become better than you ever were, the possibilities are neverending, but being true to oneself is a big first step, I would think.

Is it free will, or is it a trick? If you do not like taking personal responsibility for your actions, then there is no free will. If you do take personal responsibility for your actions, but still beliieve there is no free will, you expect pity. If you take personal responsibilty for your actions, and believe in free will, you expect respect.

So often people go on and on about Free Will. So many arguements surround ideas that it is a myth and only exists because we want it to. Others go on about determinism etc etc.

Well those who advocate it's existence can have a chance to describe the nature of free will.

What is it?
How is it free and how free is it?

I'm no advocate of anything and I don't want to take sides in a debate about whether free will exists or not; I'd just like to highlight some concepts pertinent to the problem (QQ, that is the question expressed in your post if I'm not mistaken).

Free will exists if free actions exist. An action was free if you could have done otherwise than you actually did. You could have done otherwise if there wasn't a set of conditions from which what you did followed by deterministic (ie. causal) laws, but that doesn't imply that what you actually did was completely haphazard. The latter condition means that although there were no causes determining it, there were reasons explaining it.

Free will is not to be found in the spectrum ranging from absolute deterministic events to absolute randomness (provided the latter is a logically coherent notion at all). The hallmark of a free decision is that although you could have done otherwise, even refrained from doing it, you actually did it, and can give your reasons why you did it and not something else instead.

Poteous, you make a valid point and I agree.
Btw Machaon, even in a deterministic sense where free will is only a sense and not a reality still doesn't remove responsibility for your actions because responsibility is a part of that "myth" as well.

Quantum Quack]

[/b]What is Free will?
How free is it?[/b]

I would say "free will" is the ability to to determine ones outcome, and it is as free as ones level of intelligence and understanding.

Jan Ardena.

Hello everyone.

I think we have a tendency to relate our thinking too much to the things we see in the physical world. I belive that with the hugeness and complexity of the universe it would be unrealistic to belive that we can experience all there is through our naturegiven senses.

Therefore I will suggest the following:

There is more than the one reality that we live in and relate to... the nature. But we are in a very high degree unable to experience these other realities.

But we have certain indications to what these other sides of us "want us to do", and these indications is feeling of inspiration, love, happiness..... in other words; things that gives life quality and meaningfullness.

The different realities is interconnected and influences eachother, but they also have individual attributes.

In the world we see, there is free will... we can do whatever we want. In example:
we can choose to observe the lion despite of our fear of it. Other animals may not.

But in the other realitie(s) things are "given" to us by some kind of "force". These things that are given to us we can choose to follow (or not) in the world that we see.

The difficult part is to know how to do the right decisions.... I belive the right decisions are the ones that gives inspiration, happiness, love.. etc.

So, what i'm saying is that we can choose what we want in the world we see, which gives us free will. But the right thing to do is to choose the things that are "given" to us, which will rob us for our free will (but give us happiness).

So I belive we can have both.

Of course, if you have ceased to believe that "self" is anything more than a useful, yet ultimately illusionary, model, then the concept of "free will" is pretty incoherent. But I don't expect that to go over well here. Heh.

You'd be surprised Max Action - there's a lot of Buddhists and stuff here...

Welcome to Sciforums!

the idea of free will for me, depends on is string theory and it sucessors solve the uncertainty principal. If uncertanty truely exsists, then free will might exsist. if uncertainly doesn't exsist, then I see no method through which free will can occur.

in direct response to the post on page one about the game of eightball, the quote suggests that the players has limited options based on the situation within the game. However, that is assuming that the person has decided to play the game by the agreed apon rules. If they don't, then another world of options opens up, with it's own limitations and repercussions.

Ever day that you wake up, you first have to decide to live before you can do anythihng else. This decision is usually not a conscious one, but it still must occur.

the idea of free will for me, depends on is string theory and it sucessors solve the uncertainty principal. If uncertanty truely exsists, then free will might exsist. if uncertainly doesn't exsist, then I see no method through which free will can occur.

River-wind, so good you wrote this! I've never understood how physical indeterminism could solve the problem of free will, but maybe now you can explain it to me. What I don't understand is how the existence of genuine random processes could help us with the problem of free will, ethical responsibility and the like. Could you please elaborate on the connection between physical randomness and, say, moral responsibility (a concept that essentially presupposes free will)? Thanks.

I too look forward to River-wind's comments.
Maybe we as human are that randomness or uncertainty and in being so are truely free willed.

Say the centre of free will is in fact a centre of randomness. which we are.

Another thing that I wanted to mention, a converstaion I had whilst counseling a friend.
I asked him when he asked his wife a question was she fully free to answer yes or no to the question.
or
was she answering the way HE wanted her to.
he pondered this question for a while and I think discovered something about free-will.....

Proteus42: Moral responsibility does not presuppose free will; if we believe that a person who is punished for their crimes is less likely to commit them again, that can be described as a tendency rather than a choice.

Some determinists believe that punishment for criminal behaviour should be more severe than it is, for this reason.

Proteus42: Moral responsibility does not presuppose free will; if we believe that a person who is punished for their crimes is less likely to commit them again, that can be described as a tendency rather than a choice.

Some determinists believe that punishment for criminal behaviour should be more severe than it is, for this reason.

This is true. If punishment is a means to build up certain dispositions in the punished person, then the question of free will doesn't arise (at that stage). Still, moral responsibility presupposes free will because if there's no free will, then there's no moral responsibility (and X presupposes Y if X is not possible without Y).

I too look forward to River-wind's comments.
Maybe we as human are that randomness or uncertainty and in being so are truely free willed.

Say the centre of free will is in fact a centre of randomness. which we are.


Now, one direction is fairly easy to see: if all events are completely determined, there's not much point in talking about free agents and their free will. If everything is determined, there's no free choice. So if there's free choice, things can't be completely determined. But this latter statement is nothing but a paraphrase of the previous one. The question which I'd like to get some answer to from River-wind is this: If there are genuinely indeterministic events, how will this fact explain free will? This is a completely different question and needs an independent line of reasoning.

I can only hope River-wind won't let us down. From his concise post, I got the impression that he had a firm theory as to how to derive free will from modern string theory or the Principle of Uncertainty. Alas, we can't do anything else now but wait!

Well, if uncertainty doesn't exsist, then everything must be deterministic, from what I know of physics. A roll of the dice would be fully dependant on factors prior to the roll, which in turn are wholly dependant on factors prior to that. If there was no such thing as quantum uncertainty, then you could, before the die are rolled, determine with 100% accuracy using simple math what the final roll would be. Take into account the strength of the throw, the spin placed on the die, any wind, smoke, etc in the air, the surface rigidity and texture of the surface that the die roll along; the angle of the throw, the angle of the surface, any curvature of the surface, so on and so forth.
However, current physics suggests that you can't know all that, because there are certain things that you cannot know. The definition is that you can't know the direction, speed, and location of a particle all at the same time. Therefore, it is impossible to map the entire scene surrounding the dice roll. You can know 66% of the needed information (two of the three particle information variables), but 33% of the needed information cannot be determined effectively.
However, there is a good chance that that remaining 33% is still deterministic - in fact, given that you can either know direction and velocity, *or* direction and position *or* velocity and position, it would appear that all three factors are most certainly deterministic. We just don't have a way to measure them directly.
Now, more modern theories might be able to explain the underlying principals behind the three factors we are looking at - they could possibly define the causes of V, D, and P. While we still may not be able to know V,D and P, we may be able to determine the background for those values, and extrapolate those values through calculation.
I don't know where this stands, however - given the difficult nature of testing these theories, we may never actually be able to utilise this functionality - it may end up just being a philosophy based on untested scientific theory.

Now, if it turns out down the road that there is something about cosmic strings or whatever is the basis of the universe that is truely, in all definitions of the word, random, and uncertainty is a fundimental part of the universe, then it would allow for the possibility of truely random occurances. This would allow for the possibility of free will (I'll make this connection further down).

That is determinism/uncertainty. Now, quantum stuff.
It is possible, in quantum physics, for anything to happen. While most possible things do not happen (such as you blinking out of exsistance, and suddenly finding yourself on pluto) due to a very very low probability, it is all considered possible. the universes smallest energy packets, called quanta, can pop in and out of exsistance at seemingly random times. even very small sub-atomic particles can do this (keep in mind that energy and metter are the same thing, just in a different form. Quanta popping and matter popping are largely similar phenomenon, just different) This influx or removal of energy or matter in the universe can have a fair effect on how things turn out. Just a month ago, it was shown for the first time that quantum flux can effect how protiens fold under controlled conditions. maybe 99.9% of the time, they form one way, but there is that .1% where there is enough disturbance to the proccess caused by the quanta popping in and out that the protien folds itself differently than normal. This Randomness has an effect!
However, again, if VSL or string theory or whatever, can determine how or why these quanta pop in and out of the universe such that they can be predicted, then we have lost that facet of randomness. It will again be that everything is deterministic - quanta only pop in and out in certain circumstances - predict those circumstances, predict the quanta/particle 'popping', predict that .1% misfolded protein.

Now, to connect randomness to free will.
Let say that physics in the next 200 years figure out that string theory is dead on, and that string vibrations can be determined. future quanta/particle popping is fully predictable, based on the current state of stirng vibrations, so protien folding is 100% predictable. From there, molecule movement in the environment is fully mappable, molecule movement in cells is mappable, cell matter and energy transfer is mappable, so on and so forth.
You could then trace a persons molecular, atomic, subatomic, and even quantum states, and predict his or her future based on that mapping. This is based on the idea that the human brain makes desisions based on prior expirience, something which certainly appears to be true. Kids touch something hot, they learn not to touch that thing again. All desitions made would be based on the current location of matter and energy in both the person and their situation - the die example above will have been mapped fully.
Taking things back a bit to the big bang, you have a thing, really small, with everything in it, including space itself. this isn't a dot in the middle of space, this *is* space. There is a disturbance, and the thing explodes, spewing out space, time, matter and energy. At first, everything is a flat sheet, fairly uniform. however, small discrepancies in how the matter and energy spread out causes it to clump together into what later become planets and stars and galaxies. The location and the spin and the size of everything that exsists now, if we assume the string theory/predictability thing above, was determined by the presence and distrobusion of matter and energy before. back at the begining. The big bang occured, and the location of everything then leads, step by step, directly to now. The earth, the people on it, all determined by the distrobution of matter then, no randomness, no uncertainty. Things happened they way they did because of the starting set of variables.
Your body was determined by that first instant. your parents were determined by that first instant. your birthplace and our expiriences through life were determined. not by some magical or godly force, but by what was, and how it was. Your behavior, determined by your DNA, your childhood, your parents, (your nuture and your nature combined), is the result of your past, and determines how you act in the future.
you and your entire life, were set from the begining. You still have the ability to make choices, but those choices were already set-your actions are based on what already is, so yuor life was laid out by the spread of matter in the begining of time.

However, this doesn't answer the question of how matter became non-uniform in the first place. In order for clumps to occur, there has to be (in a deterministic universe) smoething which caused that non-uniformity. If string theory, etc can explain this, then fine, if not, then the question of randomness and uncertainty still remains.

Now, to free choice. If randomness doesn't exsist, then while you can still make choices, those choices are determined by past events, and can be mapped before they occur. therefore while you have choice, it could be considered that you don't have free choice. You can't learn the mapping and purposely go against it; your desire to break out of the mapping wouold be, in fact, part of the map, so removing yourself from it would be part of the map to begin with.
So even without free choice, you still have freedom - you can decide to sit around or to work hard; even though the choice is determined, it is still yours to make.

If randomness *does* exsist, however, if quantum popping and uncertainty are truths of the universe, then nothing can be fully mapped. You can't, with 100% accuracy, predict the roll of a die or the folding of a protein. In this case, your choices cannot be mapped by even a God-like being; you, in this case, have true free will. You can decide, based on either prior history, to follow a deterministic path using the same rules of biological thought (nature and nurture), or you can decide to move away from that, and take hold of randomness to allow for choices which would otherwise fall outside of your available options.
Free will in this universe isn't a guarentee, it's just now an option, by the inclusion of full random possibilty.


As for moral judgment, I'd say that it doesn't matter is the universe is deterministic or not. In both cases, you have choices, and you have results from those choices. Whatever you pick, you could be choosing something determined by your past, or you could be choosing something altogether different. Either way, you are *choosing* it. So, IMO, you should choose with purpose, and the method of choice is of secondary concern.


BBhead: if a person punished is less likely to repeat the crime, couldn't it be that they decide that the punishment that they suffered was worse that their life without the fruits of whatever crime we are discussing, and therefore they *choose* not to repeat the crime? I'm not stating that a built in chemical/biological pathway is not used to make that choice, and I'm not precluding the idea that the choice doesn't occur in the conscious mind - it still seems like a choice to me. They could always repeat the crime, they choose not to, via whatever method.
Or do you define "choice" as something which must take place in the mind; a decision making prossess which must be activly engaged in by the person in question?


edit: proteus: I hope this was satisfactory! :) alot of hype to live up to. What all the above boils down to, RE: your question of how free will can exsist in a deterministic universe is the following:
If everything is determined, then your actions are already set. however, this does not preclude you from making choices. The choices you make are based on your hisory, are detemrined, but they are still things that you can consider, and select from a list of possible options. So while *free* in such a case would be questionable, *will* is not. Your will, however, would also be determined, so your choice will occur as expected.
you still get the enjoyment of deciding. Those who use determinism as an excuse to sit around and do nothing, because they can't change anything, are in fact, determined to so that (if determinism exsists). I don't feel happy when I sit around and do nothing, so I *decided* to be active, and do anything and everything. Without an omnicient awareness of what i'm "supposed" to do, I will decide that I will do what makes me and those around me feel good. And by making that choice, if determinism exsists, I have filled my determined role of being an active person. I decided to fill my role, and I decided what my role is, even though it may have been written in the tea leaves billions of years ago. I'm creating my determinism as I go.

No offense intended, but I don't have much faith in River-wind's theory. I have to suspect that the people saying that they are greatly looking forward to it are gently teasing, although I'm too new to the board to read such nuance with any accuracy at all.

So I'll just ramble about a tad and see what happens.

The language about "solving the uncertainty principle" strikes me as someone who has based a theory on a smattering of science headlines combined with some good pot. (Not that there is a damn thing wrong with theorizing on good pot: you just need to feed it more than buzzwords.)

I'm also a bit skeptical of a theory that comes from someone who places a dubious daily pre-waking "decision to live" within the domain of the will.

Having our decisions be based on some kind of quantum randomness, while throwing unpredicitablity into an otherwise seemingly deterministic universe, does little to provide a foundation for a meaningfully "free" will. Something more is needed (don't ask ME what!).

(Of course, if we do live in a deterministic universe, our "consciousness" is little more than an emergent property-based illusion, and there is no classically free will, then we may as well call the blindly cunning facade of a will that we possess "free," rather than save the label "free will" for a category of being that cannot exist here even in principle.)

Also adding to my skepticism, I wonder how we could tell the difference between true randomness, and patterns or deterministic events that are simply beyond our current, or even possible, abilities to identify. I don't see any possible way at the moment, but maybe someone has some thoughts on this.

All that said, it would kick ass if Tree-hugger, er, River-wind came up with an approach I have not considered. I'd be smiling from ear to ear as I ate my words and revised my reality model.

With bated breath, yet a skeptical eye, I wait.

:bugeye:


edit - added parentheses for clarity

Hmm, he posted as I did! Now I don't have to wait after all!

Edit: Having now read it, I'm (predicatbly?) more than just a little bit fuzzy on how the brain can "take hold of randomness" and craft it into a free will.

More input on this vital step please!

River-wind:

With respect to crime and punishment, what I was saying is that a lack of free will does not make punishment ineffective.

More generally, if you believe in the Big First Cause as the only determining factor in the universe - that is, the appearance of randomness is there because we are rendered unable to predict by a physical law, but there is still a fact of the matter about how things are, then free will is still an illusion even if it is the final conclusion of our investigations. Whether or not something can be accurately predicted in advance is only a symptom of its deterministic nature, not the root cause.

If, on the other hand, it is truly random, it's difficult to see how that suddenly falls under our control, unless it means that we are actually able to control the random aspects by the force of our will.

I largely agree with your first post - we seem to be in agreement on a number of things. My idea of what would be needed to provide for free will is even more conveluded and complex than the above. That fat post up there is only determining that randomness allows for the possibility of free will - by destroying a fully deterministic universe, you destroy determinism as a universal code.

As to the note about "deciding to live" in my original post- that comes ffrom a long history of suicidal tendancies in my childhood. For me, that choice of whether or not to live was much more pronounced. however, now that I am functional (no longer suicidal), I still see that as a choice one has. If you decide not to live, then all other normal action is no longer relevant. Eating, sleeping, walking, socialising is non-neccesary, as none of it falls into the catagory of being dead. So if you get out of bed and eat breakfast, it is because you have decided to live. In order to continue this state of life, yuo have to fuel your body, so you each. Most of the time, people don't think tothemselves "I need fuel to live, I want to live, so I eat", they think "mmm, hungery. food", but the result is the same. The choice was, however, made by the subconscious; in this case, more specifically, by natural instinct. The choice was still made.


An addition to the above in reguards to determinism and human thought- my feelings on human thought are based largely on depression study over the past 50 years. the presence or absence of chemicals in our mind plays a major, if not sole role in our decision making. By suplimenting the natural chemicals with ingestable drugs, such as Welbutrin, Ritalin, etc, you can not only change how a person feels emotionaly, but you can also alter the choice-making process. People become, in many way, different people when taking ADHD/depression medicaition. this shows to me that desicions are not made by a spiritual soul, but (at least 90%) by the physical and electro chemical state of the brain and the body it inhabits.
Not to mention that if you get somebody drugged up enough, they become completely unable to make choices at all. I would expect that any sort of spiritual exsistance to be uneffected by the physical presence of a certain chemical in the brain; so I determine that the brain makes decisions - it being a physical things, falls into the same deterministic state as all other matter and energy. (assuming determinism).
(this is a pre-emptive post to answer anyone who feels that you can't assume that choice could ever be deterministic because the soul makes the choices. I've had that argument before, and I don't see evidence for it. If a soul exsists, and it makes the desicions, it still appears to be working via the brain, which would appear to be determinsitc in a deterministic universe; Limiting reagent there is determinsm. Sorry for the slightly off toipic, just getting that out of the way.)

edit: ok, so the question seems to be as to the method from which the human mind can harness randomness to achieve free will.

It will take a while to explain my idea on that. I'll try and write something up tonight, but I'll start with this: the mind doesn't harness per say (I should have worded that section better), the mind is a result of it. The ability to choose comes from the fact that randomness and choice are possible. It;s a bit cyclical, so I really need to break it apart first.

Okay, let me get my opinion out here.

I believe that General Relativity has mangled people's minds with respect to what time is and how it works.

Time is a metaphor for the tendencies of things in one state to become things in another state. It is a form of thought that we developed because of its survival value.

The popular following of General Relativity, particularly with reference to time as "the 4th dimension", has given people an idea that the universe somehow simultaneously exists in the present, the future, and the past, and that this temporal structure contains the entire arrangement of all things that ever has been or ever will. When they speak of the future being "written", they believe this because they believe that it's already there and has real existence, and that a being unfettered by our physical laws could flit over to the future and examine what will happen, come back and tell us.

Given that there is no real reason to believe this that I've found, I am surprised that so many people have adopted such a relatively bankrupt view of the world, since it does not allow for the existence of choice, which I am not so eager to abandon. There are two reasons why I generally believe in choice, other than its apparent common sense.

1) Human beings are capable of performing long series of nonsensical and avowedly pointless actions, which
- have no survival value
- have no relations to exterior patterns, and
- can be part of a chain of self-referential logic

What do you call an action designed to prove that you have free will? Let's say that you are sane, and have decided to demonstrate your free will by performing an action that has no value to your survival, is too consistent to be caused by the undirected physical forces of the world, and serves only as a demonstration of your free will.

You decide to go through the lyrics of "Ride the Lightning" by Metallica. Starting at the beginning, you roll a die, move that many letters forward through the written lyrics, form the resulting letter out of pickles, and check off the letter. When you get to the end, you will start again from the beginning. You will continue this series of actions until you have formed every letter in the entire song out of pickles. Your purpose in doing this is to prove that you have free will, and therefore the choice to be able to pursue this course of action to its distant, sour-smelling conclusion.

2) Living things are those things which have come about by chance that can avoid or withstand the buffeting of the universe indefinitely, where all other inanimate things are ground to dust and otherwise changed. Living things, therefore, are recognized partly by their ability to retain their pattern in the face of changing circumstances. Complex organisms become successful when they are able to manipulate their surroundings and force them into new patterns. When we reach the level of complexity that we see in human beings, their influence is far-reaching and leaves the world around them irrevocably changed. As such, I'm unsure why our agency is ascribed entirely to the Big First Cause, when it's not hard to imagine that things could have been otherwise. The fact that you can't go back and change things does not mean that they happened the only way that was possible.

River-wind, thanks for your not so concise reply.

If I understand you correctly, you're trying to make room for free
choices by appealing to true indeterminacy. If everything is tightly
packed in a causal network, then there's no room for genuine freedom.
I think you have argued successfully for that. What's more, we all
seem to agree on that very fact. But the original challenge was this.
Derive free choice as opposed to random outcomes from the fact that
there are random processes. Randomness is not the same as free choice.
Free choice, as one of the posters has remarked, is more than
randomness. An example is in order. The uranium atom emits alpha
particles in an unpredictable manner. If von Neumann was right, there
are not even hidden variables determining the process. Let's say
Neumann was right. Even then, the uranium atom does not exercise free
will when emitting an alpha particle, in spite of the fact that the
process behind the phenomenon is absolutely random. Pure randomness is
not sufficient for free choice. Now my question is this. How can you
derive human free will from randomness? By invoking genuine random
processes, you have made room for free will. But this is not enough.
That room will remain empty if you can't come up with a story as to
how those deep random processes result in free choices and free will.
Adding up randomness won't give you agents with free will, or so it
seems. Connecting random processes will give you more randomness, but
that is all.

There's an even more serious problem for your theory: randomness seems
to directly exclude free choice. Say you want to buy a car, and there
are two in front of you: one of them is blue the other is red. You
like both colours very much. So you decide to flip a coin, and if it
comes up heads you'll buy the blue car, but if it comes up tails
you'll buy the red one. It has come up heads, so you've bought the
blue one. Did you exercise your free will in choosing the blue one? I
don't think so. Exercising your free will ended when you decided to
flip the coin, and you have never chosen to buy the blue car (as
opposed to the red one). In fact, you suspended your free will and
invoked randomness precisely to avoid making a real decision. Do you
have any explanation based on the free-will-as-randomness theory how
this is possible?

Pickle exampple: however, in deciding to do something seemingly irrational, you may still be following a deterministic path. It may be that your feelings of frustration with the idea of determinism stems from a childhood and strictly checmial thing which drives your thought pattern toward a want for more freedom. The idea of not havign freedom is a potential barrier between you and a sense of real freedom, so you act to prove freedom to yourself. You then design the experiment based on previous exppirience, trying as hard as possible to be random by picking things which you know (pickles), but would normally not put in the situation you are planning to create (spelling words). Therefore your actions of spelling words in pickles to prove the exsistance of free choice was fully determined by your past and present situation, which were in turn caused by other surrounding events, and could be therefore, completely deterministic.

2)I'm not fully clear on your definition of living things. If this planet were gound into dust right now, we would be unable to survive. Our ability to live as things that are alive is fully dependant on non-living things - the sun, the air, the water, etc. Now if we tone down the example a bit, and just talk about environmental change such as a rainstorm vs a sunny day- smaller changes which fall into a set of extremes which life has evolved to survive, Then I would agree with you - life can be defined as an ability of a thing to shape its environment. We take matter and energy from our environment, and use it to build our own bodies. we are bending the presence of carbon and other atoms to form a structure which can sustain life as we know it.
However, cold-blooded organisms do not retain their own temperature pattern within a changing environment. They change to match their environment in that respect.
The scope of what you are looking at is very important when answering quesitons about the division of life vs non-life.

as to the GR and time thing - if determinism *does* exsist, then IMO all time is already determined. While it may or may not have "happened" yet is a different issue. If every moment exsists at once (we only expirience it one moment at a time, sequentially), then all things that will be already are. If time actually moves, and we are expiriencing it as it happens, things that will be already exsist in pattern - they may not yet be, but they *will* be. in this deterministic universe, it can be mapped, and it will happen.
If determinsm doesn't exsist, and randomness is a factor in how things work, then the issue of time gets more interesting, and important to the idea of free will. As the future cannot be mapped, the time cannot exist all at once, unless all possible time/occurance combinations exist at once (the multiverse theory). and we simply travel a path through the possibilities. Other wise (randomness exists and time does not all exsist at once) the time/space combination must be created with every instant. it exsists, and is a determining factor (to a certain extent) in what will come next.
When it comes to free will only the multiverse theory and the creation of space/time as we enter each new moment allow it. The two cases where randomness is not a part of the universe are already set such that no diviation from the set path is possible, even if you try to do something crazy to prove your freedom. Your proof is part of the path, and set from instant 1.

this isn't the post I promised earlier, I'm still working on that one.

edit: proteus: goodd questions. I'll be sure to address them in the following post. I have an answer for the second question, and it is the same as what I mentioned above- randomness isn't something that the brain uses for free will. Assuming that randomness exsists, and always has, life would be required to deal with it to survive. As such, randomness is an inherent part of our physical being, and would have effected our evolution such that conscious randomness may be part of our basic design; even if only as a function of counter-acting random events in our attempt to control our external environment. It could be that evolving in a universe with random occurances would allow for the possibility of a living thing to have the ability to exert free will. We may or may not exert free will as living beings, but randomness would allow for the possibilty via evolution. again, I'll get more into it in the post later.

It seems that you guys are expecting me to show that if randomness exists, free will *must* exsist. I most certainly cannot do that, as it can never be truely shown, without being able to travel through time as an outside obverser, that free will exsists at all. I think that randomness can allow for the possibility for free will, and almost requires it as a survival mechanism - something that a universe devoid of random action cannot provide. Important to remeber, though, is that in a universe where randomness exsists, determinism can exsist as well - the effectivness of using deterministic methods for predicting future events, however, will be drastically reduced as the effect of randomness increases.

This discourse is rather interesting,

Could free will be more a sense of free will than an actuality?
A way of testing this theory of randomness is to ask the question; If I put a piece of plain white paper in front of you can you truely mark it with a pencil in a truely random manner?
Another point worth noting is that we humans are very capable of being unpredictable in our behaviour. Some times we even deliberately try to be unpredictable. The only person aware of any predictability is the person concerned and not others.There fore predictable to the person doing it but not so to external witness. Maybe it is this perception of the unpredictability of others that gives us an understanding of free will.

This discourse is rather interesting,

Could free will be more a sense of free will than an actuality?
A way of testing this theory of randomness is to ask the question; If I put a piece of plain white paper in front of you can you truely mark it with a pencil in a truely random manner?
Another point worth noting is that we humans are very capable of being unpredictable in our behaviour. Some times we even deliberately try to be unpredictable. The only person aware of any predictability is the person concerned and not others.There fore predictable to the person doing it but not so to external witness. Maybe it is this perception of the unpredictability of others that gives us an understanding of free will.

Unpredictability is indeed related to our conviction that there is free will. But it's not enough. Haphazard behaviour doesn't create agents with free will.

What is missing from this discussion is a distinction between events, on one hand, and actions, on the other. Those who want to derive free will from e.g. random physical events confine themselves to the realm of events and try to reduce actions to physical events. As free will is inseparable from performing actions that are done by agents, which in turn is inseparable from rationality, whoever whishes to solve the problem of free will through such reduction has to solve the problem of agenthood and rationality, too.

Another distinction that is also missing is that between cause and reason. Events can cause each other and an event is explained by giving its causes. "Why did that lightning happen?" "Because electricity gradually built up in the clouds and when it reached a limit, the air couldn't insulate the two poles anymore and the electric potential collapsed through a huge spark. "The explanation gives causes in the case of events. But when we ask a question about even such a profane action that opening a window, "Why did you open the window?", the answer is not causal: "Because the room was too hot and I thought maybe opening the window would cool down the air a bit." Actions are explained by reasons (interactions between intentions and beliefs) and not causes. When you explain an action through its causes you actually explain the event related to the action not the action itself. Actions are parasitic on events but there's a considerable gap between them.

As I have mentioned before and feel the need to again, at all times we as humans have a choice whether we play the game of life (causality, reaction etc) or not. This is the fundamental aspect of free will. to decide to not live or be part of the chain of events so to speak. By having the ability of saying no to existance we have an ability to be masters of our lives.
I feel this simple choice to go on or not to is what makes the difference between determinism and true freedom. Becasue we always have that option.
"To be or not to be" is the question and answer together.

What is missing from this discussion is a distinction between events, on one hand, and actions, on the other ... Another distinction that is also missing is that between cause and reason.

I think these distinctions have been left out quite sensibly; we wouldn't want to fall into question begging.

It is quite plausible that we are being totally duped by our "common-sense" perceptions that we do indeed make reasoned decisions, and act freely. If this is even a possibility, then we cannot simply accept, going into the discussion, that these are real distinctions at all; doing so simply assumes the conclusion that you favor.


As I have mentioned before and feel the need to again, at all times we as humans have a choice whether we play the game of life (causality, reaction etc) or not. This is the fundamental aspect of free will. to decide to not live or be part of the chain of events so to speak. By having the ability of saying no to existance we have an ability to be masters of our lives.
I feel this simple choice to go on or not to is what makes the difference between determinism and true freedom. Becasue we always have that option.
"To be or not to be" is the question and answer together.

The choice between suicide and continued living is just as up for debate here as the choice that a horny caveman makes between blondes and brunettes. Just because it seems profound and fundamental to you does not in any way mean that this choice, apart from all others, is free from a deterministic interpretation.

---

As a semi-unrelated aside, I think all would-be philosophers who wish to ponder human nature would be well advised to seriously read up on evolutionary biology, and not just the dusty old Bibles of Western philosophy. For obvious reasons, it's a much more useful framework for making sense out of the data. Stop treating human minds as something mystical to be sussed out with navel-gazing, and remember that our "minds" are biological computers formed by natural selection, sitting in the skulls of apes that live in complex social groups.

Ooga booga.

I think these distinctions have been left out quite sensibly; we wouldn't want to fall into question begging.


I don't think so. We start from our everyday experience and the concept of "action" for example is an essential part of it. Hmm... Science might "prove" that there is no such thing, just as physics has "proved" that there are no colours, only electromagnetic waves of varying levels of energy. You forget that science works through abstraction and idealization and completely relies on using instruments to measure (basically physical) quantities. You wouldn't seriously say you can't see colours just because modern physics does not use the concept? Oh yes, there are psychophysical laws like Fechner's but they relate two domains, the psychological and the physical, and don't collapse them into one. Do you want to explain away what science is not interested in or is incapable to explain because of its methodology? (I'm sure you don't believe science has no methodological biases.)


As a semi-unrelated aside, I think all would-be philosophers who wish to ponder human nature would be well advised to seriously read up on evolutionary biology, and not just the dusty old Bibles of Western philosophy.


I can only agree with you here. I mean, with what you actually say, not with what you imply; that is that the tradition of Western philosophy is worthless. Taking your implied advice would be just throwing away one set of books in favour of another set. Hey... one-sidedness is not profession-related!


For obvious reasons, it's a much more useful framework for making sense out of the data. Stop treating human minds as something mystical to be sussed out with navel-gazing, and remember that our "minds" are biological computers formed by natural selection, sitting in the skulls of apes that live in complex social groups.


Yes, yes. The mind as a machine. An attractive idea indeed! Is it a computer?
What kind of computer do you have in... "mind"? A Turing machine perhaps? Or PDP? Or something else? Which type, please?

The word "computer" seems to be a "magic word" in cognitive scientists' circles. Still, nobody has been able to say clearly in what sense is the mind a computer. Computers have theoretical limits (see Turing's, Church's and Gödel's results in algorithm theory and logic) which the mind doesn't seem to have. Computers are theoretically limited by the notion of "effective procedure". That is why "intuition" is not and cannot be a concept of theoretical computer science. Still, you have intuition, as we all do. And I could again refer to colours which have no computational equivalent. I'm not saying by this that the mind is mystical or "magical". I'm only saying that the computer metaphor you seem to believe to be the plain truth is not the plain truth. You have the right to simplify things but that is not the way real science (should) work.

To river-wind:

I read your theory, and I like it!

I also like your idea of taking hold of randomness, cause that is what we do, we put our soul in things, we identify with something to understand it. Taking hold of randomness wouldn't be identifying with it though, it would be looking at it from the "outside", viewing all possibilities (letting them come, making room for them) and then from your feeling of which is the right one pick it.

Imagine that you have a ring that has a certain size (not a ring that you can put on a finger, but a large circle), the ring is fixed with space, if you make the ring smaller then space get's more compact and if you make the ring bigger then everything that makes space hold apart would be moved from eachother and it would merge something between each part (imagine it with a buzzing sound) the possibilities holding space together. Each "something" would be brightly shining, since it is the energy itself.

This won't be understood (at least I have a hard time imagine it will). But think of it like this: What would happen if we could rip apart space? What would be beneath? Would the ripped out part create another mini-universe folded upon itself?

I don't think so. We start from our everyday experience and the concept of "action" for example is an essential part of it.

Hmm. I submit that many, if not most or even all, of our "common sense intuitions" that we don't feel the need to question are, in reality, among the most questionable beliefs that we hold. Starting with the data of "everyday experience" is great, but I question building a theory of free will upon our unsupported, instinctive/intuitive interpretations of this data.

Yes, we know that we "do things," and we know that it usually seems as though we freely choose to do them. However, in the context of this discussion, I think it's reasonable and necessary to ask that we honestly examine/consider the possibility that our belief that "the 'things that we do' are the results of our own free choices" is as illusionary (if also as understandable, and as useful) as a child's belief in God.

Again; to uncritically accept the distinctions between "actions" and "events," and between "cause" and "reason" while searching for free will, as you propose, is to assume our conclusion. This of course is question-begging, the philosopher's bane.



You forget that science works through abstraction and idealization and completely relies on using instruments to measure (basically physical) quantities.


I'm not sure where all this science-based argumentation came from, as I based my disagreement with you on entirely on Philosophy's idear that "Question Begging" is a logical fallacy; I did not tell you that I looked in my electron microscope and did not see any free will. However, I will strongly suggest that you add some Philosophy of Science to your brain's diet, and enjoy the results. Your conception of the way science operates seems to be, with truly no insult intended, exceedingly cartoonish.



I can only agree with you here. I mean, with what you actually say, not with what you imply; that is that the tradition of Western philosophy is worthless.


Nope, didn't mean to imply that at all, sorry if I did!

Western philosophy has all kinds of uses, and has been and continues to be a fabulously useful tool for me. Hell, it underpins all of science, although you seem to think that they are totally separate realms and methods of inquiry. Philosophy gives us powerful mind tools; I was only suggesting that we provide ourselves with the best data science can provide about our species, evolution, brains, etc. in the effort to understand what makes us tick.

If we want to know our minds, we must examine them as brains, and brains should be considered as physical things that arose due to natural selection.

Do you think that monkeys have free will? How about little furry rats and such? Bugs? Where, how, and why, in the transition from deterministic pre-human animal to "rational man," did "free will" arise? At what point did a line of simple animals, without any meaningful free will, transform beyond a mere convincing illusion of free agency, and develop truly free wills? How? Why?


Personally, I don't think we ever did.



Yes, yes. The mind as a machine. An attractive idea indeed! Is it a computer?
What kind of computer do you have in... "mind"? A Turing machine perhaps? Or PDP? Or something else? Which type, please?


Hrm. I called them "biological computers" simply to note that they are physical, non-mystical, evolution-crafted organs, which, without going way into it, are defined largely by their ability to "compute." You're tilting your lance at a strawman of your own making again, kind sir.

(Funny thing is, I think that the strawman that you set up to knock down could actually knock your arguments apart and kick your position's ass, if anyone cared to argue its case. That intuition and color stuff utterly fails to meaningfully distinguish the human brain from a highly complex computer, but that's a whole other discussion that can/should be set aside for now.)

Hmm. I submit that many, if not most or even all, of our "common sense intuitions" that we don't feel the need to question are, in reality, among the most questionable beliefs that we hold. Starting with the data of "everyday experience" is great, but I question building a theory of free will upon our unsupported, instinctive/intuitive interpretations of this data.

Yes, we know that we "do things," and we know that it usually seems as though we freely choose to do them. However, in the context of this discussion, I think it's reasonable and necessary to ask that we honestly examine/consider the possibility that our belief that "the 'things that we do' are the results of our own free choices" is as illusionary (if also as understandable, and as useful) as a child's belief in God.


Or like colours? :) But seriously: We agree that there's a possibility that free will doesn't exist. What I wrote was a conceptual point, the need to distinguish between various concepts (event, action, cause and reason), which does not imply any decision as to the matter of free will. They are part of the vocabulary, not the theory! What you're suggesting is that we should mutilate our vocabulary (you yourself wrote that those notions are to be omitted from the discussion) but the only reason you've brought is that they are everyday concepts and as such are not necessarily reliable. By the way, if we accept your advice, not even "cause" and "event" remains. They are not a bit clearer concepts than the other two. Does anybody have a clear idea what an "event" is?

Could you please define "event" or "cause"?


I'm not sure where all this science-based argumentation came from, as I based my disagreement with you on entirely on Philosophy's idear that "Question Begging" is a logical fallacy; I did not tell you that I looked in my electron microscope and did not see any free will.


I'm afraid we misunderstand each other. I was talking about introducing certain concepts and about the disposition of natural science to eliminate certain things from its ontology. That's all. I mean that's how science comes into the picture; and of course it was also a reaction to your kind advice to read biology books instead of the "dusty old Bibles of Western philosophy".


However, I will strongly suggest that you add some Philosophy of Science to your brain's diet, and enjoy the results. Your conception of the way science operates seems to be, with truly no insult intended, exceedingly cartoonish.


I always bow down before men of learning and true knowledge. I'll go back to university to take some more Carnap and Kuhn, I promise! :D


Nope, didn't mean to imply that at all, sorry if I did!


You wrote: "[...] read up on evolutionary biology, and not just the dusty old Bibles of Western philosophy." Obviously, these words don't imply any contempt... But this is an unimportant issue, let's forget about it.


Western philosophy has all kinds of uses, and has been and continues to be a fabulously useful tool for me. Hell, it underpins all of science, although you seem to think that they are totally separate realms and methods of inquiry.


Well, you're a bit mistaken if you think I see them as two "totally separate realms".


Philosophy gives us powerful mind tools; I was only suggesting that we provide ourselves with the best data science can provide about our species, evolution, brains, etc. in the effort to understand what makes us tick.


The relationship between brain and mind is beyond my reach, really. How can the mind influence the physical processes in the brain, or in the body in general? I do not think that it is done by magic (I wrote this in my previous post too).


If we want to know our minds, we must examine them as brains, and brains should be considered as physical things that arose due to natural selection.


If we want to know what some software like Windows XP does, is it a good way to take the computer apart? What will you learn from the experiment? What will you learn about Windows XP from examining closely your computer's transformator? The pixels that make up the screen? Why are you so damned certain that this is the way to the desired solution?


Do you think that monkeys have free will? How about little furry rats and such? Bugs? Where, how, and why, in the transition from deterministic pre-human animal to "rational man," did "free will" arise? At what point did a line of simple animals, without any meaningful free will, transform beyond a mere convincing illusion of free agency, and develop truly free wills? How? Why?

Personally, I don't think we ever did.


Do you think you are alive? How about bacteria? Virus? Where, how and why, in the transition from dead matter to living organisms, did life arise? At what point did a series of organic molecules, without any life, transform beyond a mere convincing illusion of self-reproduction and metabolism, and develop true life? How? Why?

Personally, I do think we somehow did.


Hrm. I called them "biological computers" simply to note that they are physical, non-mystical, evolution-crafted organs, which, without going way into it, are defined largely by their ability to "compute." You're tilting your lance at a strawman of your own making again, kind sir.


My professor, if it is only meant to be a metaphor, then I wholeheartedly concur.


(Funny thing is, I think that the strawman that you set up to knock down could actually knock your arguments apart and kick your position's ass, if anyone cared to argue its case. That intuition and color stuff utterly fails to meaningfully distinguish the human brain from a highly complex computer, but that's a whole other discussion that can/should be set aside for now.)

???

Too long. I've written up the post, and it's available here:

http://homepage.mac.com/river_wind/Personal33.html

I have some interesting questions for you guys having really thought this thing through- is thought a symptom of biology, or is biology simply the structure which allows for thought? I hadn't considered that part of it before, and it lead to some fun follow-up ideas.

If thought is a fully biological thing - a memory exsists simply because there is a neuron designed to emcode for that memory - then free will is nearly impossible, it seems. While still possible in a random uiniverse (flexability inherent for dealing with randomness presenting itself in the form of conscious awareness), it would be a bit more complicated.

what do you guys think?


edit: I like the topic of reason vs cause, as well. A good distinction to make. If thoughts are not causational biology, but are "free", then reasons for things would be the logical choices we make to warrent certain actions. Cause would be a more direct deterministic approach removing freedom from the equation - thought in a fully deterministic world could be considered "caused", and it could also be considered a cause of future events - no reasoning involved, just a step in a causational process.

edit: ok, post works now.

free will like the uncertainty principle..

as soon as you measure it,, it decoheres into determinism..

Since posting this thread I have come to an understanding of free will.

Firstly free will is like a pencil that you try to balance on it's point, it is constantly teetering.

Secondly, Free will is determined by our reaction to pressures from within and applied as randomly as possible to the outside world.

For example one of our most sensitive faculties is our sense of sight.

We look where we want to, no one other than ourselves determines what we look at.

Until you experience a state where by you feel compelled to look at something. Then one could say that free will is impringed upon.

If you are not able to stop looking at something and you feel unable to resist then your ability to select freely ( at random if you wish ) at what you look at is limited.

A person addicted to women for instance has great difficulty not looking and if he consideres this to be a problem then he is aware of his addiction thus he is aware that he has lost to a degree his freewill in regards to women.