Can a perfectly rational being have free will?
If an entity always makes the most rational choice, can it be said to have free will?
What does this imply for Deities?

If rationality is good, then is free will bad?

Can a perfectly rational being have free will?
If an entity always makes the most rational choice, can it be said to have free will?
What does this imply for Deities?

If rationality is good, then is free will bad?Does it take free will to form what is rational?

I see it like this, we make a "pattern" to follow, a principle, using our free will. After we've done this a few times we learn to recognize the feeling of it, and can make it automatically by imitating the feeling. Or the feeling will be invoked by the situation.

It's like riding a bike, first we had to do it consciously using free will to guide each action, now we've learnt to recognize the feeling of riding a bike, so we simply follow the feeling.

Since we are conscious of ourselves, we must be able to change what we are conscious of. Anything else would (to me) be self-contradictory.

If we didn't have free will, wouldn't we at times feel like we couldn't make a decision? Sure we can feel that we couldn't have chosen otherwize after we have chosen something, in remembrance. Before that happens, we have unlimited choices, but if we have too much freedom then we wouldn't know which way to go (then it would just be a flat surface of choices, and we wouldn't be able to see the differences).

If a creature allways makes the most rational choice then there is no need for free will, free will would then be a waste of energy. Though the illusion of it may still exist, for other reasons. Though if the illusion exists, then it must be a illusion of something that also exist.

Can a perfectly rational being have free will?
If an entity always makes the most rational choice, can it be said to have free will?
What does this imply for Deities?

If rationality is good, then is free will bad?

Good questions.

The answer essentially depends on when you call a being as "perfectly rational".

Let's say a perfectly rational being, when faced with a set of alternatives, always chooses the one that maximalizes his gain (in whatever terms, spiritual enlightment, bliss, dollars, whatever that's seen as "good" by the being). It seems if he wants to be a perfectly rational being, he has no real choice but to follow what the principles of rationality dictate to seek for the maximal utility. (BTW, is it rational to always follow rationality?)
What if there's a tie? Then he need to choose by doing something the outcome of which is not rational, say, flipping a coin. But it's not free will either.

Free-will is a myth.
What is the product of something is forever dependant on it and so un-free.
Rationality is dependant on sensual input and genetics it is also the product of a mind that is created by what we call the universe.
Everything human is the product of need and so dependant on it.

The mind it the ordering tool of chaos. That’s why we think linearly. You cannot remember what has not been ordered. This ordering is done by finding or inventing-depending on your point of view- of patterns in seemingly chaotic phenomena.
Free-will, if it is possible at all, is a goal to be reached for and earned not a gift given to all indiscriminately.

Free-will is a myth.
Oh come on, you're just determined to say so :D

What is the product of something is forever dependant on it and so un-free. Rationality is dependant on sensual input and genetics it is also the product of a mind that is created by what we call the universe.


If rationality is dependent on genetics, then genetics is not dependent on rationality. So, it's irrational. Then why do we call it "a science"? Strange...


The mind it the ordering tool of chaos.


Wy on earth would we need to "order" chaos? And whose tool is it?


That’s why we think linearly.


But we don't!


Free-will, if it is possible at all, is a goal to be reached for and earned not a gift given to all indiscriminately.

That's interesting. How do you think it possible to reach the goal of free will? I'm asking this seriously.

My atoms were determined not to close the "quote" tags correctly in the previous post. The universe was weaving its net toward that fatal accident form the Big Bang itself. I'm glad to have fulfilled the will of Fate again.

But with sciforums' tools I could change the past, correcting my mistake. That's free will, isn't it!

My atoms were determined not to close the "quote" tags correctly in the previous post. The universe was weaving its net toward that fatal accident form the Big Bang itself. I'm glad to have fulfilled the will of Fate again.I disagree. Many people seem to believe that the universe is playing itself out in a pre-determined, mechanistic manner. This isn't the case. Everything that happens in the universe is not the inevitable consequence of the initial conditions of the big bang.

Quantum physics shows us that many things are indeterminate: it is impossible to predict how some systems will behave even if one has all the information about them. They follow probability distributions, but they are not actually locked into one path in a deterministic clockwork fashion. This means that even if you started with another big bang that was identical to ours in every way, the universe that evolves from it could be very different.

I disagree. Many people seem to believe that the universe is playing itself out in a pre-determined, mechanistic manner. This isn't the case. Everything that happens in the universe is not the inevitable consequence of the initial conditions of the big bang.


I agree. I was being ironic. I do not believe in determinism.


Quantum physics shows us that many things are indeterminate: it is impossible to predict how some systems will behave even if one has all the information about them. They follow probability distributions, but they are not actually locked into one path in a deterministic clockwork fashion. This means that even if you started with another big bang that was identical to ours in every way, the universe that evolves from it could be very different.

Microphysical indeterminism can be compatible with macrophysical determinism, can it not? Isn't it a theoretical possibility that the law of large numbers will smooth those small fluctuations, and the behaviour of macrosized objects can appear as deterministic? But I accept your argument about Big Bang, of course, because at the very beginning the universe must have existed as so small a thing that quantum effects couldn't be ignored.

But that is a different question than free will. To get back to the topic of the thread, although determinism is related to predictability, it seems to me that predictability does not exclude free will necessarily. Why would it? Even if you can predict what I will do, it doesn't mean my choice was not free as long as I wasn't acting under external coercion. But physical laws, even if they were completely deterministic, wouldn't constitute such coercion. Rather, they set the rules by which to play but this of course doesn't mean that there is a Hand guiding the paths of particles. There are laws that the behaviour of particles won't disobey but the set of laws are not one more entity over and above the physical world, ruling it as monarchs do. The laws it obeys define what a thing is, and it is sort of an optical illusion to believe there are laws, on the one hand, and entities obeying them, on the other.

Free will is more related to rational choice, which is a different story.

If rationality is dependent on genetics, then genetics is not dependent on rationality. So, it's irrational. Then why do we call it "a science"? Strange...
Human prejudice.
Time/space also a priori prejudices based on how the mind perceives phenomena.

Wy on earth would we need to "order" chaos? And whose tool is it?
The brains tool. We need to order chaos because then knowledge is made possible and experience, both of which enhance survivability.
The brains primary function is survival and so it seeks out sensual clues and patters of predictability [logic] to construct strategies and to store experiences for later reference.

Life is simply animated matter seeking power.
Matter is an amalgamation of phenomena seeking power and in constant flux that are perceived as solid.
Power is the state of harmony, perfection, inalterability, self-sufficiency, freedom, being, as opposed to our current ceaseless becoming.
So life is animated matter using a new more efficient and quick method or strategy for achieving power.
Consciousness is matter that interprets and stores sensual information to give itself an advantage over other forms of matter, either animated or not.
Intelligence is the leftover intellectual power once the needs of the physical body are met. This leftover intellect is larger or smaller depending on individual starting intellects [genes] and how demanding the environment is on the individual [leisure]. In man this leftover intellect, due to his domination over his environment and the large amount of starting intellect, is so great that it now shapes and determines mans destiny.
This leftover intellect also turns inwards or outwards in search of self.

The solidity or fluidity of matter is determined by the rate of change it is under.
Since the mind can perceive things at a certain constant speed it perceives anything close to that speed as ephemeral and soft, all that flow slower or have a slower rate of flux as being more solid, all that flow faster are not even perceived or are perceived as whisps of smoke in the wind.
So metal is felt to be more solid and strong, as compared to wood or flesh or air or water let’s say, because its rate of flux is much slower than what is immediately perceptible by our brains through sensual interpretations and in comparison to these other phenomena's rates of flux.
Solidity is a comparison of change.

But we don't!
Linear in the sense that we only remember the past, which has been ordered and not the future which has yet to be ordered. We live life in one direction even if we exist through all instances of time and space.

That's interesting. How do you think it possible to reach the goal of free will? I'm asking this seriously.
Free-will can only be earned by breaking free from all that binds us to our limitations and our nature. It is this excess of intellect, I spoke of before, that searches for self and meaning and purpose in the unknown that has the best chance of recognizing the boundaries of its existence and then breaking free or working around them.
This, self-realization is perhaps not meant for a creature as primitive as us,if it is possible at all, but some distant descendant may be the benefactor of our efforts today and throughout our becoming as a species.

I suggest that a thermostat is perfectly rational, unless it is broken...

Rationality of a system is defined by inputs to that system.

However, the truth is simple. We have total free will, in that we can do what we want too. Have you ever experianced the absence of free will?

Ok, I've experianced sleep-paralyzis (or whatever it is spelled) and I couldn't move my limbs. That was a loss of free will, though it wasn't, cause I still had the will to move my limbs, I just couldn't do it!

So we have free will and free actions. Free will we have. Free actions may be restrained because of physical limitations (for example, I have a will to fly (don't we all) but I can't and thus haven't the free action to do so).

Reflexes aren't free actions either, but we could have a will not to have reflexes, and even while the reflex is happening we can ponder about it, watch it happen, and if we are fast enough even stop it (which would then be free action).

The will, is, and will allways be, totally FREE (at least to us, though a alien watching from outside may think otherwise). Actions may be free or they may not be, depending on the situation.

Bourdin's Ass - sometimes we have a choice between two indiscernably different outcomes. Perhaps this is what free will is for.

If a coin can make an arbitrary decision between heads and tails, it's hardly an indication of free will.

If a coin can make an arbitrary decision between heads and tails, it's hardly an indication of free will.If the coin could manipulate the "the room of uncertainty" then it would be a indication of free will, but if the coin isn't aware of it then it wouldn't be. Cause then it wouldn't be a will at all. Though if someone with awareness could manipulate the room of uncertainty of the coin so that it turns up head or tail, then it would be the free will of the one with awareness. I guess, since no one controls the room of uncertainty of the coin and the coin itself is unaware of it, then the room doesn't belong to the coin but to whoever wants to control it. Though, God might have a word or two to say about it.

For an entity to be "wilful" means that it makes decisions determined by criteria that reflect its desire for particular outcomes - otherwise such decisions would not be expressions of "will", but of arbitrary (or random) "whim".

But this desire for particular outcomes is itself determined by factors that predate the exercise of will - (for example, a hungry person may wilfully search for food, but didn't wilfully decide to be hungry. Or a person may decide, "marriage doesn't suit me, so I'll stay single" - but he didn't wilfully "choose" a personality that's unsuited to marriage).

Thus if you genuinely believe in "will", it's very hard to believe in "free will", if that's taken to mean either a complete absense of decision-making criteria, or an absence of criteria that are not themselves products of the individual's will. Human beings are wilful, therefore the decisions they make are not "free" in the sense of being random - but at the same time, they are necessarily subject to vast numbers of determining factors over which we have little or no control.

Cyperium, you are assuming that a loss of free will would be consciously recognisable as a loss of control. However, if you were pre-determined to be unaware of your lack of free will, slavery would feel as free as anything else.

You perception may not allow you to notice free will if it exsisted. or vise versa. you, not being an outside observer, are limited in your perception of the situation.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32338&page=1&pp=20
I proposed that free will can only exist if true randomness exists in the universe - life, though evolution, would form free will in order to cope with randomness.
This, however, left me with a question. Is the chemical makeup of your brain (largley deterministic part of you) identical to thought? or does the chemical makeup simply the construct which allows for thought to occur?

If the answer is the latter, thenit would be much easier for free will to exist, even in a rational mind.

Cyperium, you are assuming that a loss of free will would be consciously recognisable as a loss of control. However, if you were pre-determined to be unaware of your lack of free will, slavery would feel as free as anything else.I think there's a dilemma here. I don't think that you can be unaware of the lack of free will (if you are aware of yourself). I also don't think that you can have free will without awareness. They sorta go hand in hand, in my oppinion. Maybe because I have that distinct feeling that I can possibly change anything that I am aware of.

You perception may not allow you to notice free will if it exsisted. or vise versa. you, not being an outside observer, are limited in your perception of the situation.The thing is, that I don't think that the soul is fooled that easily. I think there must be some truth for awareness to even exist (and for free will to exist), just because one thing must be after another. Free will requires awareness (it's hard to touch what you don't see, you can't have free will about something you aren't aware of). Though I think (to my oppinion) it would be possible for awareness to exist without free will (see but don't touch effect) but I don't think we would feel real if it was that way - the soul would feel like there is something missing (like "I'm not yet at reality").

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32338&page=1&pp=20
I proposed that free will can only exist if true randomness exists in the universe - life, though evolution, would form free will in order to cope with randomness.
This, however, left me with a question. Is the chemical makeup of your brain (largley deterministic part of you) identical to thought? or does the chemical makeup simply the construct which allows for thought to occur?

If the answer is the latter, thenit would be much easier for free will to exist, even in a rational mind.I think it is the latter. The brain is the tool we wouldn't know what to do without it, we would just say random things...wait a minute here...

hm. Unfortunatly, I've been considering brain/body systems for a while, leaving the soul aspect until last, so I can't argue with your points. Given the exhistance of a self-defining soul that is partially seperate from the physical body throws all of my theories for the expected loop.

I've always wondered this (seemingly off topic, but it applies):
There is a theory that if the universe were to big crunch at some point, then time would go backwards as the universe changed it's direction. I've heard people comment about "seeing everything undo itself" or "expiriencing your live over again in reverse," etc. But, IMO, if the world and the universe is going backwards, then so is your brain. You wouldn't know things were going backwards, because your perception would be aware of the past and present - the future, for you, is still ahead; even though the universe is rewinding, you wouldn't be able to tell. At any given instant, your awarness would be based only on what you had previously expirienced, which would eb the past yet to come (again).
However, if ther is a soul which would still exist in a linear time frame, uneffected by the change in time flow of the universe, then yeah, I guess you'd see everything backwards...

What is your opinion on that? do you think we'd be able to tell if time were backing up?

hm. Unfortunatly, I've been considering brain/body systems for a while, leaving the soul aspect until last, so I can't argue with your points. Given the exhistance of a self-defining soul that is partially seperate from the physical body throws all of my theories for the expected loop.

I've always wondered this (seemingly off topic, but it applies):
There is a theory that if the universe were to big crunch at some point, then time would go backwards as the universe changed it's direction. I've heard people comment about "seeing everything undo itself" or "expiriencing your live over again in reverse," etc. But, IMO, if the world and the universe is going backwards, then so is your brain. You wouldn't know things were going backwards, because your perception would be aware of the past and present - the future, for you, is still ahead; even though the universe is rewinding, you wouldn't be able to tell. At any given instant, your awarness would be based only on what you had previously expirienced, which would eb the past yet to come (again).
However, if ther is a soul which would still exist in a linear time frame, uneffected by the change in time flow of the universe, then yeah, I guess you'd see everything backwards...

What is your opinion on that? do you think we'd be able to tell if time were backing up?That was an interesting concept.

I think time is situations, so if time went backwards then everything wouldn't have to be exactly as it were in the past, only the original "situation" is presented for you. You won't start to walk backwards or something weird like that, the world wouldn't change (and the atoms wouldn't spin backwards), you would feel a large shift within you - as it is your soul that turns, not time.

Time doesn't move. We walk.

So I think we would go through the same situations as we did in the past, when time changes. You would still be free to do whatever freedom there is in the situation.



This idea, is ("only") a belief, though I suspect (and have a feeling) that we knew about this as we were children.

Another thing that I think is interesting, is the idea that we ARE our life.

Can a perfectly rational being have free will?

Cool question. I'd say no but add that no organic being can be perfectly rational. Emotions are irrational in nature no? Of course it could be that there are organic beings with no emotions somewhere, but I'd imagine they would have had to evolve beyond them rather than never have gone through them, as I think for instance humans are so successful as a species largely due to their emotions (as they help on persist in time, remember their enemies/dangers and their friends/pleasures).

If an entity always makes the most rational choice, can it be said to have free will?

You have taken away free will by establishing their course of action before they have a chance to choose.

Of course it is probably worth it to discuss whose impression of rationality you're referring to. "rationality" is value dependent, and value is IMO, inherently subjective.

What does this imply for Deities?

Hehe. I think deities are a retarded conjecture because for the most part to define one worth defining is to put it automatically beyond your comprehension and thusly render it irrelevant (since how can you understand what you can't understand).

If rationality is good, then is free will bad?

I think both are good, but that is a subjective value assertion - as is any assertion regarding good or bad.

if we have no free will, then EVERYTHING must be TOTALLY controlled, nothing could do this, therefore i dont believe in a certain destiny. Also, its a very short step from Total destiny to utter Anarchy, so even if Destiny does exist, we all owe it to the world tp pretend it doesnt.

But as science now proves, we don't really know much about the "absolute particle" or as Einstein would say "vibring strings of energy", but we know that they don't act in a predetermind process. Therefor even in materia we can't really find determination either.

When did science prove that the universe works under chaotic laws, pure chance? If such a thing is proved, than science has just made itself useless...

This purely rational human is impossible. To be able to take into account everything, that might affect reasoning one has to take into account every single particle of matter and packet of energy. And to be able to do that one has to have at least one neuron per particle/energy in the universe... since neurons consist of particles themselves... this is impossible.

However, the lack of free will doesn't have to be consious. If every tiniest movement and interaction of force is based on certain rules (if causality exists) then everything will happen according to the paths set (in the big bang, the beginning of time... whatever, why couldn't they have always existed? For infinity?). Therefor one cannot alter any decisionmaking and everything one thinks of or does is already predetermined.

But what about chaos? Couldn't this affect the world so that free will was possible? The universe doesn't care what we can and what we can't explain. Things happen according to rules (not made by scientists, they don't include propabilities, no chance, no astrology). Also the total amount of energy in the world is constant. Affecting causal relationships chaoticly would require some magical pouch of hidden energy randomly occuring in the universe. If this were so... the amount of energy in the world wouldn't be constant... so no chaos. Sorry. And no free will either.

LoL what worries me about you most is your way to taking part of one perspective and come to an conclusion.
If energy was letters my dear, do you understand that you could make infitly combination of words? How can say that something is determined then when you don't even know the meaning of the first letter, A.
A is our world as we see it. Our theories about B, that could be about time travel etc. gives an idea about how much there is really left and we can never grap. That would give you an idea about how much we really know about laws. We know only about our own law, the combination of A. Our thoughts about god, about creation, about the existence, we still are on A, and still A is something infinit for us. For example if god does exist, then you and your laws doesn't matter, energy can be used in any way, removed in anyway or converted in any way.
That is the case with god.
Than we have other stuff, pantheist, budhists...all of the included in A, all of them possiblities.
From what can you make your conclusion?
If there was something I liked about Nietchze was his thoughts about puting people into groups and cathegories.
We and our knowledge are too unlogical to be cathegorized under "laws" or "systems".
That's why dear, never come to a conclusion with phylosophy, as Bertrand Russel said, it's not for the goals or the conclusions you study phylosophy, but for expanding your view about what "possibility" really is.

So you're saying that if god exists the world is purely chaotic and even god itself cannot alter it? God does play dice? Even if god could have free will to make decisions on altering the world, that would require something chaotic in the inner workings of the god itself and thus resulting in the whole universe itself being chaotic. If there is a god it's actions are also predetermined.

The thing I don't understand is how the world could work without working by some rules? Would you care to explain this to me?

Another thing is that you cannot overrun the whole field of science and logic just by saying god. I could make a similar argument and say that "if god exists then a miracle would happen and everything would be predetermined". But I don't have thousands of years of organized fanatical stupidity to back up my statement, so no one would take me seriously. The point is that if you say something you have to back it up somehow. And no, saying hocus pocus doesn't do the trick.

You're saying that our bank of knowledge (you would call it A, the enigmatic letter I cannot comprehend) is everything we know and is infinite. Why is it infinite? How could it be infinite? (actually for A to be infinite would require an infinite amount of matter for data storage... which is impossible). You are also forgetting that A holds much more than "knowledge" about god and creation. It also holds powerful logical tools for judging the relation of A and B. They're just waiting for you to use them.

From what can I make my conclusion?

My first assumption is that the world works in causal relationships.
My second assumption is that the amount of energy doesn't change.
=>The starting point of the causal relationships determines everything.

"You cannot make an argument true just by inserting it in quotes and adding a name at the end of it" -Me

"That is True." -Einstein