Free will?

[AlanPartr]

Does free will exist?
according to Newton the universe is deterministic, and therefore free will does not fit into this. But since the advent of quantum physics, the universe is not said to be entirely deterministic, is there now room for free will? some physicists believe that the wave function of matter/light collapses when a living thing is conscious of it, could this be a sign of free will?

[loseyourname]

Doesn't the randomness of non-determined events rule out will? Free maybe, but I don't see how you can fit conscious volition into this.

I think you're better off looking to feedback loops and non-linear causality if you're trying to find free will. Ask Canute about this.

[honestrosewater]

I think you will have to look higher up (or is it lower down? bah) the food chain if you want to find scientific guidance on this problem; at least- biology, better- the cognitive sciences.

Of course, there is another way to attack the problem. If anywhere, where would freewill exist? Can this freewill be limited in any way?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

Or... if you would like a more direct answer- yes, it exists, and I have already told you this 73 times, now eat your pickles ;)

[mikesvenson]

just thought of this the other day also:

Controling the future = free will
Predicting the future doesnt nessecarily mean you can control the future(or have free will).
But controling the future (free will) means you can predict the future.
This is when A = B, but B doesnt always = A. Is this what they call duality?

example:
If i dream about a logically unforeseeable event in the future, it means that maybe i can avoid it, or maybe i cant. This has happened to me, and I didnt see it coming at all, but it came anyway. Could i have avoided it?, maybe, maybe not.
B = A?, yes AND no???

If i dream up a painting, and then choose to paint it, then thats my free will to control the future.
A = B YES!

[honestrosewater]

Where are all these Floridians coming from? Er, I mean, what is attracting so many of them to this forum? Strange.

Anyway, the point is that an apple may not have any choice about the path it takes from the branch to the ground. But people are more complex than apples. One has to consider the emergent properties of the different levels of complexity. Physics is not the place to look for answers about human or animal "free will". If you want to learn about animals, study animals.

mikesvenson makes the good point that people have the ability to look "before and after", remembering the past and imagining the future.
People may be bound by physical laws, but their role does not need to be passive, like the apple. People can adjust their will to the laws and the laws to their will.

I don't think a completely free will is desirable. For instance, I try to be reasonable and logical which adds more laws for me to follow. I am not completely free in my decisions or actions. But to say I am therefore a slave would be a jump, because I can recognize the difference between a slave and an employee. I remain here voluntarily and retain the option to quit.
Of course, things don't have to be so dramatic; I can also choose what to eat for dinner or to what occupation I will devote my energies.
Free will doesn't have to be all or nothing.

Happy thoughts
Rachel

[mikesvenson]

your right,
of course, if i freely choose to jump off a biulding, i may not freely choose to not hit the ground, since i am bound by the physical laws of gravity, which is well beyond my everyday experiance of free-will. The question that comes to mind for me is, is free-will just a comfortable idea?, is the future predetermined? I think that free-will is a real thing to some extent. I think free-will is the voice of the soul (hopefully), and not just a complex self-aware human computer. I wonder if free-will is strong enough to defy the physical laws.

[honestrosewater]

is free-will just a comfortable idea?, is the future predetermined? I think that free-will is a real thing to some extent. I think free-will is the voice of the soul (hopefully), and not just a complex self-aware human computer. I wonder if free-will is strong enough to defy the physical laws.

Do you mean that we could have Superhero abilities if we *really* wanted to? In our imagination, sure. But in reality, I think if it were possible, it would be happening.

Do you mean "real" as in a physical or supernatural?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

[Dissident Dan]

"Free will" is acausal and therefore impossible. Everything is equal-and-opposite cause-and-effect, or else you get something from nothing.

[honestrosewater]

"Free will" is acausal and therefore impossible. Everything is equal-and-opposite cause-and-effect, or else you get something from nothing.

Well, if you say so then it must be true :rolleyes: Would you care to explain?

[THANOS]

I don't have "free will" and my death is predeterimed. But i am freely willing to reach my goals before that happens. :biggrin:

[mikesvenson]

Do you mean that we could have Superhero abilities if we *really* wanted to? In our imagination, sure. But in reality, I think if it were possible, it would be happening.

Do you mean "real" as in a physical or supernatural?

Happy thoughts
Rachel

(superhuman powers)i think i might be possible for a more advanced thinking human which does not exist yet. and if not, then at least possible in an afterlife free will is more flexible.(maybe)

[mikesvenson]

I don't have "free will" and my death is predeterimed. But i am freely willing to reach my goals before that happens. :biggrin:

you are so right!
my personal motto is : "i have plenty of time, but none to waste"

[loseyourname]

Well, if you say so then it must be true :rolleyes: Would you care to explain?

He's saying that all events have causes, and this includes mental events. With this being the case, a chain of cause and effect is traceable (at least in principle) for anything back to the interaction of atoms and molecules that are completely bounded by the laws of physics. If this is not the case for mental events, then at some point we must reach an event that had no cause. However, I've already demonstrated that a contracausal event, though free, is not willed.

[Rick Sobie]

People often believe that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, and they also that the universe is made up of positive and negative, good and bad, black and white.

But of course it is not.

What is the opposite of a tree branch?

Is there an opposite of a cloud?

We assume that physics has taken us to the very edge of creation to a fraction of a second after the big bang. And we include inflation theory along with that.

Yet of course inflation theory is just something we made up, and which does not in any way shape or form conform to such things as the equivalence
principal. That is to say that the laws of physics were different then because we say so, and in saying so, it makes our theory work. We made it up.

If there was no free will, you could not move.

If you are extending the free will concept beyond such things as having sufficient free will to move your own arm, to being able to or having the capacity to make a choice, then you decide what you will have for dinner do you not?

Going backwards then, to the atomic level, do thoughts cause atoms to move? Move your hand.

Do atoms cause thoughts?

Many believe that consciousness arises out of the complex nueral network in your brain. Many are convinced of this. The same people who are convinced that inflationary theory is fact and not speculation.

So what was the latest proof for the big bang? Background radiation of the expected temperature? Since then, hasn't Hubble determined the universe is much older than previously thought?

Since then are not galaxies heading in all directions including towards us, as opposed to only away from some percieved center?

If you look for _any temperature in the background radiation do you think you will find it, when the scale is in fact infinite?

Does free will exist? Yes it does. Not completely, because we do not bring ourselves into existence. But once here, we get to choose what to have for dinner, and what to read.

[Evo]

I have free will. My thoughts and actions are not predetermined.

For example: I'm driving and a person cuts in front of me. I have choices.

1) I can run into them.

2) I can hit my brakes and avoid hitting them.

3) I can pull into another lane and avoid them.

It is free will that let's me choose.

Even if there is not enough time to avoid the collision, I had the free will to attempt to avoid it. Just because you can't always avoid something doesn't mean you don't have free will. Free will is the desire to change the outcome.

The future is not predetermied. We have free will to choose how to respond to previous actions.

We always have options. They may not always be the options we want, but it is up to us to decide what happens next.

[mikesvenson]

so then we don't really have 'free will', but certain options of 'will' dependant on preceding circumstances?

[honestrosewater]

Rick said almost the same thing I was going to say. You cannot explain the motions of the atoms in an organism without examining organisms. It isn't that life *breaks* the physical rules, but it adds more rules to them. Sure, people are bound by physical rules- so what? A rock and a person may be made of atoms, but if you look *only* at the atoms, you will be completely baffled by their behavior. People cannot be explained with only physics; I have already said this. You have to look at the higher levels and their emergent properties- properties which do not exist at a lower level. Supernatural things do not have to enter the picture.
There is still something which needs to be resolved; if every action has a cause, how can our actions be "free"?
A question could get this started in the right direction: If yesterday you thought you had freewill, but tonight you discovered that all of your actions are predetermined, what would be different tomorrow? How would you decide what to have for breakfast?

[honestrosewater]

Er, maybe that question is not enough. How about this: what would happen in a person's brain without the person's conscious participation?
If I believed that my life was out of my hands, and I just sat back, would a lower level kick into gear and move my body, drive me to work, fix my dinner, and write this post? Um, no. So even looking at the human brain- in however much detail- will not suffice, because the person's subjective thoughts must be considered.
Science has not advanced to the point of identifying a person's conscious thoughts by looking at their brain. Even if this does happen, it doesn't change freewill because it doesn't destroy the subjective experience. When I say that I choose to do something, I am perfectly correct. I am the thing that wants, thinks, and chooses. I am the thing that decides what to eat for dinner. I am the thing writing this post. And scientific knowledge cannot change that.
BTW I do want to know everything about myself, and I hope that science advances as far as it can. But the discovery of how something works doesn't change how it works.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

[Evo]

Free will to me means that I have a choice in how I respond to something, nothing more.

Obviously what others have done and what has already happened create the situation I need to respond to, but the outcome has not already been determined. I decide what happens next. But I cannot control what happens as a result of my decision.

The fact that we have free will means that every decision we make can cause another decision to be made. Life is dynamic, it is an ever changing scenario. Every time we make a decision it causes another decision to be made, but they are random.

Free will doesn't mean you can control anything, it just means that you decide (in your instance) what happens next. The outcome of your decision can be completely different from what you expected, it is all random. I choose option A, which presents you with options 1-5, you choose 2 which presents another person with options 1-3 ands so on and so on.

This is how life works. We make decisions that can affect others, who in turn have to make decisions that can affect others... But nothing is "predetermined", everything changes with every decision.

I know I have been redundant in my explanation, but I am hoping by doing so I have made myself clear. :confused:

[honestrosewater]

Evo, I think I understand, but I don't think the decisions are completely random, in fact they *could* be completely mechanistic and predetermined. I agree that it's *you* who decides, and this is exactly why it doesn't matter *how* you decide. The decision is still yours, and if you stop making decisions, then no decisions will be made.
(There is the sneaky caveat that even not making decisions is a decision- it's sneaky and wrong. Rocks do not make decisions therefore they make decisions? No. Only the initial decison to quit making decisons is a decision, and afterwards, you are like a rock in the decision department.)
Freewill is not a property of atoms, chemicals, or logic. Though it can have them as its basis, it is something more- an emergent property. Freewill is a property of decision-makers, of choosers. If a person chooses, they have freewill, by virtue of their choice. There is nothing mystical or supernatural about it. It is as natural as sex. Sex is not a property of atoms, chemicals, or logic either. It is a property of sex-havers, of love-makers. And despite what some men claim, there is nothing supernatural about it. :biggrin:

Evo, if I misunderstood how you meant random, sorry, please correct me if I need it.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

[Rick Sobie]

I agree with you Evo, and you as well Rachel.

Depending on how you measure free will, you can look at the situation and say that people are free to choose.

At the same time you can say that perhaps free will is an illusion.
Occams razor would say that free will exists.

However, from the point of view "Does God play dice with the universe?"
Stephen Hawking would say that we will never know because of what goes on inside a black hole, which is hidden.

From a nuts and bolts perspective, cause and effect, does the fact that
there is a cause, remove the free will aspect of action? Animated free thinking organisms appear to have some control over their destiny.

If there are two choices, which are in all related respects equal, what then?

[Dissident Dan]

Well, if you say so then it must be true :rolleyes: Would you care to explain?

Well, free will is acausal, because if an event is caused, then it is predetermined by other events. I take it that this contradicts what is meant by the term "free will."

All things that occur are contrained by equal and opposite, if conservation is to be intact. You take some here, but you give it there. There is net change int he quantity (such as momentum) of zero. If you take away equal and opposite, the net change in the quantity is no zero, and therefore you have something from nothing.

[honestrosewater]

That reminds me of some story (not a true story) about a donkey that found itself equidistant from two water troughs, equal in all respects, and stood there, unable to make a choice, until it died. So-and-so's donkey, it's called IIRC. If this ever actually happened, I'd be amazed.
The fact that people are faced with decisions to which they do not have an immediate solution casts doubt on the mechanistic, reductionist view. There is a definite decision-making process. I go through the process on a regular basis. And it is this process which must be examined before concluding whether or not people actually determine their future.
In my view, the subjective aspect of this process *is* freewill. Whether or not the outcome of the process is predetermined doesn't change the general way the process works. Nor does it obliterate the process. Freewill remains as long as it is used.
That said, knowledge of how the process works can have a specific effect, as follows. A person who believes their future is already determined may decide there's no point in taking the time and effort to make careful decisions and so may live willy-nilly. (I like that word :biggrin: )They may resent being held responsible for their actions. Someone else may feel an extreme amount of pressure in making decisons, believing they are wholly and soley responsible. They may feel pride or guilt over a decison. And so on.
Some decisions are mostly random, like which pair of socks to pull from the drawer. Some others depend mostly on moods, like what music you feel like listening to tonight. Because of their highly subjective aspect, they present a hairy problem to an objective observer, and it is very difficult to lay out a decision-making process for these two types. This problem has yet to be fully resolved.
But in cases where the decison depends almost exclusively on reason, the process can be easily communicated. And these decisions are usually predetermined, in the following way. Given a problem and set of options, there is a *best* option. The best option is determined as soon as the problem is fully set down. And, in this case, the decison-making process is really just discovery; figuring out which option is the best. For example, deciding on which college to attend.
However, the setting down of the problem includes determining a goal. The goal is what allows the ordering or prioritizing of the options. The goal (or goals) determines the worst, best, and every option in between. In the case of college, cost, location, instructor quality, and social life will assume a certain priority or value and become a set of goals. Granted, there can be restrictions on what kind of goals can be set; money and time are common restrictions. But that is only a part of the process.
For this type of decision to be taken as predetermined, the setting of goals and assigning of values must be shown to be predetermined. That is no simple task, and it has yet to be accomplished.
So anyone who says people's decisions are predetermined either has a big secret or a lot of gall.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

[honestrosewater]

Well, free will is acausal, because if an event is caused, then it is predetermined by other events. I take it that this contradicts what is meant by the term "free will."

Then we are using two different definitions of freewill. For my definition, see above.

All things that occur are contrained by equal and opposite, if conservation is to be intact. You take some here, but you give it there. There is net change int he quantity (such as momentum) of zero. If you take away equal and opposite, the net change in the quantity is no zero, and therefore you have something from nothing.

Yes, I understand the concept, but I have never heard of conservation laws being applied to consciousness. How do you assign a quantity to abstract thought or subjective experience? How do you measure them? How do they have opposites?
What is the justification for thinking that everything in the physical world can be fully described by physics? If that is true, someone should tell all the other scientists and philosophers they're wasting their time.

If I misunderstood and your intention is to show that subjective experiences are connected to physical phenomena in such a way that the rules governing the physical apply to the abstract in the same way, then great. The challenge is twofold. First, the connections must be found. That is, the connection between the subjective and objective aspects of, say, a person imagining their mother's face, smelling a rose, reading the word "rose", etc.
Second, the nature of the connections must be explained. That is, if they are the same for all people, if they change throughout one's life, if they are coincidental/opportunistic or if there is a stronger determination, etc.
Only after this has been done can you justly apply physics to thoughts. And it still does not nullify the role of the subjective experiencer, the thing that wants, reasons, remembers, expects, and chooses. The thing that has freewill may arise from and depend upon physical processes, but it is nonetheless a thing in its own right.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

[Dissident Dan]

Our thoughts are brain processses. These processes invovle the transfer of momentum. If these momenta transfers are not the predetermined result of prior states, then conservation is violated. Therefore, the momenta transfers must be the predetermined results of prior states, according to the laws of physics. If these momenta transfers are predetermined, then one's thoughts are predetermined.

[Rick Sobie]

I may be mistaken but the idea of cause and effect and the laws of conservation of momentum etc are a product of Newtonian thought and as such are somewhat outdated.

For instance Newton would have been surprised to hear about 0 point energy, or the Kassimir Effect or any of the totally off the wall effects included in the Hutchison Effect. (http://www.americanantigravity.com/hutchison.html)

In fact, if the moon goes around the earth, why doesn't it spin if momentum is conserved? The drag on the moon due to earths gravitation should cause it to spin on its center of mass/gravity. (Silly comments regarding the moon having a berry center aside.)

Tidal Locking is a nice name for an observed phenomena, but like so many other terms, it is just a science term with no underlying basis which could be seen to agree with the Law of conservation of Momentum or the Equivalence Principal. Perhaps it has free will and chooses not to spin?

If it had 'legs' it might up and walk away.

[Nicomachus]

Well I haven't read much of this thread Rick Sobie, but as far as "causality" you are correct it is poppycock, but a habit.
*Nico

[honestrosewater]

Well, we should expect the physical laws, whatever they are, to not be violated. Of course, if they are, then the laws will be changed accordingly. Anyway, this is not the problem. The problem is that the conservation argument is looking at the nervous system as a system of particles. It is a system of particles, but a neuron has properties which particles lack. And a system of neurons has properties which a system of particles lack. Furthermore, a functioning system of neurons has properties which a nonfunctioning one lacks. Ignoring these additional properties is like treating an open system as an isolated system or ignoring the magnetic properties of a magnet and treating it as a mere rock. Classical Mechanics is inadequate when examining electromagnetic phenomena. And physics is inadequate when examining nervous systems.
There is more going on than physics can explain. That doesn't mean physical laws are violated. It means that you must expand your view and consider the causes and effects contributed by these additional properties. Otherwise, physical laws can seem to be violated or seem to hold, when such is not the case.
I am not arguing that cause and effect connections do not apply to thoughts. In fact, I have already admitted some such connections. I am arguing that no one yet knows how all the cause and effect connections tie together. If you have new information, then share. If not, then one of our arguments is flawed.
BTW just to be clear, the before and after connection is not the same as the cause and effect connection.
Happy thoughts
Rachel

[mikesvenson]

the before and after connection is not the same as the cause and effect connection.



What is the difference?

[Wolf]

Now that i have said that i can continue.

Some religion and people have the beleive that your whole life is planed out before you even came to be.(destiny which is your life or a path that must be followed and in fate you end to your path)

In the example evo said before with the car cutting in front of her they woulf say that that was destiny and that whatever actions she took was planed out for her to take and that she had no free will.

A very very strange beleive system really i have encontered monks that beleive in this system and i had a long conversation with them.

When i asked them "what if i was ofered white or brown bread and i chose white was that destiny" and i was told yes i then asked well"What if i took the brown bread and not the white" i was then told "then to take the brown bread was you destiny"

You see there beleive works on that no matter what you do and any action you take was part of your destiny and the end of that destiny is your fate.

I then after a while of pondering asked them "I f everything you do i planned out before you then what is the point to living?" to which they replied"To live your destiny" :confused:

[Wolf]

I beleive in the modified cause and efect theory.

It works like this.

Everyone has a purpose for doing something if there was no purpose than why whould you do it??

So cause=purpose and the efect is what you do as a reaction to the cause(or purpose).

An example of this could be a young boy wishes to become the best foot ball player he can be.So he begins training everyday to become the best football player.

The purpose of his training is to meet his wish and the purpose causes him to train and the training is the efect of the cause /purpose

Cause and efect modified.

Please if anyone see's any problems or flaw in this logic please bring it up i would apreciate the discusion about it.

[Dissident Dan]

I don't think that you can equate cause with purpose. The word "purpose" indicates that some conscious being, whether oneself or another, has and intention. An epileptic person does not have the intention of having a seizure, but has a seizure nonetheless.

[honestrosewater]

What is the difference?

1) You are sitting in your livingroom. 2) A plane flies over your house and 3) drops a bomb. As the bomb is falling, 4) you sneeze. 5) The bomb hits and 6) you're incinerated.
If you don't make a distinction between before-after and cause-effect, then you must conclude that the bomb caused you to sneeze, and your sneeze caused the bomb to explode.

Or a man wins the lottery. His mom tries to claim the prize for herself because if she hadn't given birth to the son, he never could have won. The store clerk tries to claim the prize for selling him the ticket. The lottery ball machine operator tries to claim the prize for pushing the buttons, etc.

[mikesvenson]

Or a man wins the lottery. His mom tries to claim the prize for herself because if she hadn't given birth to the son, he never could have won. The store clerk tries to claim the prize for selling him the ticket. The lottery ball machine operator tries to claim the prize for pushing the buttons, etc.


Oh man, this is were those sticky American lawsuits come from. :eek:

[Wolf]

that sounds like my mom...................... :eek: the sad part is she wold argue that has she has done it before................

[Wolf]

i fail to see why you could not have cause = to purpose a cause creates reaction as thus does purpose read thease 2 statements "what was the cause for that?" and "what was the purpose of that?" in both phrases the question you are asking why did you do that

[honestrosewater]

Wolf,
But not *all* causes are purposeful. I don't think anyone was denying that *some* causes are purposeful.
And "all purposes are causes" doesn't mean "all causes are purposes". The two are related, but not equal :)

[Wolf]

now that you put it in those words i understand you are saying that a majority may very well be the same thiong just nopt all non?

[sciart]

Please read the book << The Emporer's New Mind >>

Freewill is Relative Concept.
Anything is be Determined or Randomness(Quantium Field).

[kcballer21]

Freewill is a fairytale concept. I remember how dissapointed I was when I came to the conclusion that the universe must be determined. They way I see it, the only instance in which there can be free will is if there is a higher power such as a god that can interfere with the determined universe. (yet that god may just be part of a broader causality net) Otherwise dissident dan's explaination seems to be the most logical. That being said, free will as an illusion can be just as satisfying as if it were true in nature. The fact is this; we will never be able to calculate all the interactions that make up our determined universe, so it will appear that we are making choices. Good enough for me. :smile:

[merak]

Freewill is a fairytale concept. I remember how dissapointed I was when I came to the conclusion that the universe must be determined. They way I see it, the only instance in which there can be free will is if there is a higher power such as a god that can interfere with the determined universe. (yet that god may just be part of a broader causality net) Otherwise dissident dan's explaination seems to be the most logical. That being said, free will as an illusion can be just as satisfying as if it were true in nature. The fact is this; we will never be able to calculate all the interactions that make up our determined universe, so it will appear that we are making choices. Good enough for me. :smile:

well said..good enough for me to!

[bola]

And also, how would a non deterministic universe actually work?
If one thing didnt lead to another, wouldn't there be chaos?
Would some parts be non deterministic while others not? I don't see how that would work..
I think in some ways all universe HAVE to be deterministic, or else it would be completely different and chaotic.
So in that regard it may appear that the no determinism is actually happening on high levels. With low levels being quantum mechanics for example.
In the high levels, where our consciousness is, we're not able to see all the interactions that make up the determined results, like kcballer said, so it is kind of non deterministic from that view.

Maybe if we disregard the size of objects in the universe, like the difference between a quark and a tree, determinism and non determinism can co exist together, because we will never know what level is the lowest, and which is the highest, and which of these control eachother.

That was just a random thought though, didn't think it through.

[mikesvenson]

but a good thought at that, free flowing input. We may never really know the truth, since we are imperfect.

If we can know the truth, then we can know the future, even of our own thoughts.

That would certainly upset alot of people. It would crush many ideas about the purpose of life.

[olde drunk]

i believe that the physical universe is only deterministic in that it must obey the rules of physicality. freewill, however, allows us to decide which events we wish to activate within these rules.

on the spritual (non-physica) level we probably have more freedom, but it too has rules or guidelines. within these rules we can expand what seems like chaos into meaningful adventures.

it seems that all levels of the universe operate within certian parameters. perhaps what happens in the non-physical is as different as what happens at the quantum level compared to 3D reality.

why must we impose all rules across all levels of reality???

love&peace,
olde drunk

[selfAdjoint]

i believe that the physical universe is only deterministic in that it must obey the rules of physicality. freewill, however, allows us to decide which events we wish to activate within these rules.

Since we are in the universe and a part of it, if we are free to decide which events to activate, then right there, the universe is not only deterministic.

Of course you have a get-out in the word physical. If you think human choice is not physical, then you have a loophole. But I think human everything is physical, there's no objective evidence otherwise.

[dschouten]

A thought just occurred to me...

Lack of free will implies a lack of personal responsibility.

Pay attention. If we can argue against free will, then in the same breath we must condemn any concepts of morality, since any and all action is simply determined. If action is only determined (and not chosen) then condemning the choices (stating their 'wrongness') is moot.

So I should be able to kill all of you and you'd have nothing to say about it (that is, whether I am wrong in doing so). After all, the longevity of your life and the conditions of its passing are already determined. Or are they? Reply.

[kcballer21]

A thought just occurred to me...

Lack of free will implies a lack of personal responsibility.

Pay attention. If we can argue against free will, then in the same breath we must condemn any concepts of morality, since any and all action is simply determined. If action is only determined (and not chosen) then condemning the choices (stating their 'wrongness') is moot.

So I should be able to kill all of you and you'd have nothing to say about it (that is, whether I am wrong in doing so). After all, the longevity of your life and the conditions of its passing are already determined. Or are they? Reply.

That's the question. Let's just clear up the notion that 'determined' refers to the physical nature of the universe and not to some higher power who planned all this out for us. As for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope.
I say that the universe is determined but I 'feel' like I am making choices, and for all intensive purposes that 'feeling' is real. That is why ethics continues to be important. Is it immoral if you kill me? Yes. Why? Because on our level of limited perception choices are still real, even if they are not real on a level which we could (probably) never comprehend.

[selfAdjoint]

We have a legal system that is built around the concept of personal responsibility. I think it is important not to push too far in seeking to justify this system with abstract philosophy. If literal free will is abandoned, and the legal system is not somehow insulated from that result, chaos could result. What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

I personally have a lot of trouble with literal free will. I could see a deterministic universe where everything is predictable, or a random universe where nothing is predictable, but not a universe that makes a big exception for human free will, being deterministic EXCEPT when we excercise our wills.

[dschouten]

That's the question. Let's just clear up the notion that 'determined' refers to the physical nature of the universe and not to some higher power who planned all this out for us.
Who cares what factors play the determining role. Everything is determined and that's all we need to 'know' (although I would argue that this isn't knowledge, but a clever fallacy).
As for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope.
Who cares how slippery the slope is? If its the only slope we have - taking that we have no free will, of course - then you have to take what you get and ski down it. To simply shy away from the consequences of a statement without renegging the statement is capricious and shilly-shally.

This is precisely why the argument that we have no free will is so absurd.

I say that the universe is determined but I 'feel' like I am making choices, and for all intensive purposes that 'feeling' is real. That is why ethics continues to be important. Is it immoral if you kill me? Yes. Why? Because on our level of limited perception choices are still real, even if they are not real on a level which we could (probably) never comprehend.
Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that our choices are determined, but we'll never know that they are, hence our 'limited perception'.

But wait! You've just said they are determined! So now I know that they are determined, when in fact this knowledge is beyond my comprehension. I'm dying in a recursive logical loop! Woe is me.

[dschouten]

We have a legal system that is built around the concept of personal responsibility. I think it is important not to push too far in seeking to justify this system with abstract philosophy. If literal free will is abandoned, and the legal system is not somehow insulated from that result, chaos could result. What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?

I personally have a lot of trouble with literal free will. I could see a deterministic universe where everything is predictable, or a random universe where nothing is predictable, but not a universe that makes a big exception for human free will, being deterministic EXCEPT when we excercise our wills.
Maybe we'll just have to accept that the universe is comprised of more than chance stellar explosions. Once this (obvious) notion is granted, free will is suddenly less strange.

[selfAdjoint]

Nobody has to concede anything where no evidence is presented. Your "more" may be obvious to you, but not to tohers.

[dschouten]

Right then. I can't FORCE you to believe anything, but when you incredulously exclaim that you cannot accept free will, even though there are serious flaws in refusing to do so, then it is perfectly acceptable for one such as myself to point you towards a solution to your conundrum. Clearly, you are in state of limbo here, and adamantly refusing any intuition or advice from others on the grounds that you prefer not to discuss their implications is not a wise course of action.

Seriously man, think about it. Don't just talk - think. Ponder. Is there any alternative?

[hitssquad]

What if juries came to believe that we're all just robots and nobody is responsible?Retributive justice might end, and all crime might end with it.

We do not hold our cars and computers responsible for their actions, so we manage their programming in such a way that their actions minimally harm us.

[selfAdjoint]

I actually believe in this, I just wonder if it could ever be implemented. I think the only reason to imprison anybody is because they have a "design defect" which makes them dangerous. And prison should not be a deliberately dismal, cruel, or dangerous place, since that obviously doesn't work, either in preventing or in reforming.

And there is absolutely no justification for capital punishment.

[kcballer21]

dschouten: Who cares what factors play the determining role. Everything is determined and that's all we need to 'know' (although I would argue that this isn't knowledge, but a clever fallacy).

I concede that a deterministic universe may be a clever fallacy. i don't 'know' the universe is determined, it is my opinion based on the information I have reviewed. The difference is I base my claim on something that is scientifically plausible (I'll borrow Dissident Dan's quote "Our thoughts are brain processes. These processes involve the transfer of momentum. If these momenta transfers are not the predetermined result of prior states, then conservation is violated. Therefore, the momenta transfers must be the predetermined results of prior states, according to the laws of physics. If these momenta transfers are predetermined, then one's thoughts are predetermined.") I once thought that free will was saved by the uncertainties of quantum mechanics, but then was convinced that the end result of any quantum occurrence could just be another variable in what ends up as determined.

Who cares how slippery the slope is? If its the only slope we have - taking that we have no free will, of course - then you have to take what you get and ski down it. To simply shy away from the consequences of a statement without renegging the statement is capricious and shilly-shally.

I said the consequences of a determined universe are not the loss of moral standards, how is that shying away?.. it is in direct contrast with what you said. For me the question is not whether the universe is determined, the question is how is it that we feel we have 'free will' if it doesn't exist?

Let me get this straight. What you are saying is that our choices are determined, but we'll never know that they are, hence our 'limited perception'. But wait! You've just said they are determined! So now I know that they are determined, when in fact this knowledge is beyond my comprehension. I'm dying in a recursive logical loop! Woe is me.

No, I said we do 'know' (given that all things are based in causality) that the universe is determined. What we don't know is how to calculate all interactions that ultimately lead to our brain making a 'choice'. Therefore free will is an illusion and a convincing one at that, you think you have it. Intuition may have the best of you. Also the fact that you ‘know’ something exist does not mean it is within your comprehension. Can you comprehend infinity? We can conceive of a universe with 11 space-time dimensions but can you comprehend it?

[dschouten]

I concede that a deterministic universe may be a clever fallacy. i don't 'know' the universe is determined, it is my opinion based on the information I have reviewed. The difference is I base my claim on something that is scientifically plausible (I'll borrow Dissident Dan's quote "Our thoughts are brain processes. These processes involve the transfer of momentum. If these momenta transfers are not the predetermined result of prior states, then conservation is violated. Therefore, the momenta transfers must be the predetermined results of prior states, according to the laws of physics. If these momenta transfers are predetermined, then one's thoughts are predetermined.") I once thought that free will was saved by the uncertainties of quantum mechanics, but then was convinced that the end result of any quantum occurrence could just be another variable in what ends up as determined.

This is an intrinsically classical picture, inherently modernist, and thus quite 'debunkable'. There is no modern physical law which asserts that, given some ensemble of particles with a given momentum and position, one can extrapolate forwards or backwards and determine the particles' positions and momenta for all time. To apply conservation laws in an argument favoring determinism, you would have to apply such a rule (which is known not to exist) and so I leave it to you (or Dissident Dan) to derive and proove one. A brief study in quantum statistical mechanics should illuminate your mind sufficiently in this regard.

I said the consequences of a determined universe are not the loss of moral standards, how is that shying away?.. it is in direct contrast with what you said. For me the question is not whether the universe is determined, the question is how is it that we feel we have 'free will' if it doesn't exist?
No. What you said was "as for the suggestion that the absence of free will implies that morality is 'moot', that could be a slippery slope". Either you misspoke, or upon reminder of some sound argument you shifted your original claims to avoid being caught spending time in a 'clever fallacy'.


No, I said we do 'know' (given that all things are based in causality) that the universe is determined. What we don't know is how to calculate all interactions that ultimately lead to our brain making a 'choice'. Therefore free will is an illusion and a convincing one at that, you think you have it. Intuition may have the best of you. Also the fact that you ‘know’ something exist does not mean it is within your comprehension. Can you comprehend infinity? We can conceive of a universe with 11 space-time dimensions but can you comprehend it?
You've missed my point. Neglecting our comprehension of determinism, there exists a simple dichotomy: either we know that what we are doing is predetermined or we don't.
Allow me to provide an (albeit lame) example: I don't need a PhD in physical chemistry to know that fire is hot when I touch it - I only need to burn my hand once. Similarly, I don't need to understand a completely predetermined universe (as if such a thing existed) to 'know' that everything I do is predetermined. Regardless of the clever ruses we invoke to convince ourselves of our own free will, if I 'knew' that it wasn't free will, then THAT'S ALL I NEED TO KNOW.
Therefore, armed with this new 'knowledge' I can have the following conversation with myself, and anyone who would care to listen:
ME: "Is it immoral if you kill me?"
ME: "No."
ME: "Why not?"
ME: "Because on our level of limited perception choices are known not to be real, even if they seem to be real on a level which we can comprehend."

[dschouten]

And there is absolutely no justification for capital punishment.
Who needs to justify that which is predetermined?

[kcballer21]

dschouten,
Before I go any further with this I would like to know how you qualify your stance that there is such a thing as free will? (That is, before I spend the next 2 years studying quantum mechanics statistical analysis, what's your argument?) From what you said it seems like the only reason free-will must be true is because otherwise we would all for some reason start killing each other. Perhaps your 'simple dichotomy' isn't so simple.

Let me state that I am not biased toward a deterministic universe, in fact if there is any bias it is for free-will. That is part of my hesitation to accept free-will, it seems so fundamental on a human level that it makes me question the reality of it. It seems that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the distance between our intuition and reality grows greater.

(I brace for the onslaught)

[dschouten]

Before I go any further with this I would like to know how you qualify your stance that there is such a thing as free will? (That is, before I spend the next 2 years studying quantum mechanics statistical analysis, what's your argument?) From what you said it seems like the only reason free-will must be true is because otherwise we would all for some reason start killing each other. Perhaps your 'simple dichotomy' isn't so simple.

Not really. What I said (or indeed, meant to say) was that the insolubility of free will within our generally accepted framework of morality is untenable. We have to drop one or the other. In my (limited) experience, whenever the most obvious truths such as the injustice of murder are juxtaposed against theories which implicate alternatives to these truths, proponents of the theories often make lousy excuses to prop them (that is, their theories) back up. I don't accept this escapism. If you are going to really assert that we have no free will than you must assert that there is no moral standard (or even a loose moral standard). That's NOT to say that if we had no free will then we would all kill each other. It IS to say that if we had no free will, we could never argue against killing each other.

Let me state that I am not biased toward a deterministic universe, in fact if there is any bias it is for free-will. That is part of my hesitation to accept free-will, it seems so fundamental on a human level that it makes me question the reality of it. It seems that the more advanced our knowledge becomes, the distance between our intuition and reality grows greater.
Just take whatever empirical data is at your fingertips and decide (inductively) with what you have. If you are waiting for some physical proof for or against free will, I would offer the advice 'don't hold your breath'.

(I brace for the onslaught)
:smile: It wasn't that bad. I try to keep my virtual tongue on a short leash. :smile:

[dschouten]

Now for the proof of free will: I decided to write this.

The end.

[kcballer21]

Now for the proof of free will: I decided to write this.

How about everything that happened before this quote made its existence inevitable. Although you haven't changed my mind I admit that the proof for or against free will probably is beyond reach, we might as well be arguing about the existence of God.

[dschouten]

How about everything that happened before this quote made its existence inevitable.
And what about those happenings? This is recursion ad infinitum, forever a prior event without end (beginning)!
Although you haven't changed my mind I admit that the proof for or against free will probably is beyond reach, we might as well be arguing about the existence of God.
Yet, if we can find obvious contradictions with the one, we can de facto accept the other (since the decision is binary).

[Stephen Mooney]

Everything is determined, including our actions, however this does not mean that we are able to clearly identify all the determinants.

Choice is a product of ignorance. As we will never know everything, will we always have a degree of ignorance and hence choice.

[selfAdjoint]

Perfectly true. This is the basis of "compatibilism". Even though we may be predestined, we cannot know what we are predestined to decide or do, so we can treat the future as free to choose without contradicting ourselves.

[dschouten]

Perfectly true. This is the basis of "compatibilism". Even though we may be predestined, we cannot know what we are predestined to decide or do, so we can treat the future as free to choose without contradicting ourselves.
For crying out loud, read the whole forum - or the past few posts at least - before you start blathering on, repeating what has already been dealt with.

[kernelpenguin]

For crying out loud, read the whole forum - or the past few posts at least - before you start blathering on, repeating what has already been dealt with.

Now if you combined knowledge of different fields, you'd actually see that the point you are trying to argue is not the correct one. To really understand the emergent behaviour of neural networks, (which animals basically are) go read up on them.

A wide array of both laughable and nonsensical examples were presented in this thread that support the notion of free will, but it does not exist. Allow me to attempt to prove it.

You talk about choice. That presented with situation A, you can choose between reactions B1, B2, B3, etc. And that this choice is made consciously, so this proves that there is free will. It doesn't. The choice you end up making is predetermined by your past experiences or, lacking that, your 'gut instinct', which is all about taking the past experiences that you have in any related field and using them as the input in the decision making process.

Here's an example. You go to the store to buy the latest a CD. You notice just as you are handing off your cash that the CD case has a rather bad scratch on it. Do you buy it? Is this free will? It isn't. Should you decide to go ahead and buy it, there are various factors that have all contributed to this decision. And the following list is by no means complete:

+ The scratch on the case isn't that bad. (To this, your knowledge of the actual technology behind it contributes, since you know that a scratch on the case won't mess up the quality of the songs.)
+ You don't want to look like a fool complaining over a scratch. (Which itself is rooted in past social experiences.)
+ You don't want to trouble the lady at the checkout over something as small as that. (Quite possibly rooted in your sexual behaviour, feeling of smallness.)
+ The case holds no value to you since you'll just rip the songs and listen to them on your computer or portable mp3/ogg player. (You do not view the whole package as valuable, just the actual content.)
+ You have the exact same jewel CD case at home that you've found no use for and can easily replace the scratched one. (Practicality and convenience -- doing this would be less burdening for you than asking for another copy.)

And should you not buy it, here's another list of ideas and feelings which will have contributed to that decision:

+ You want the whole package to be perfect, no exceptions. (This could be rooted in upbringing or the feeling of always needing the best.)
+ You collect CDs like this and would like them to be in mint condition.
+ The scratch bothers you. (It might be that someone scratched a swastika on there.)
+ The scratch looks bad. In fact, it looks so bad that the case might actually break apart should moderate amounts of pressure be applied to it.

No, there is no free will. The whole world is a big domino effect in motion. The key to the whole thing is threshold. You see, our past experiences contribute to our decision-making process. The decisions we make are optimal based on different calculations and priorities. Complex algorithms are at work, which change dynamically all the time as they gather more input, more experiences.

For example, you buy a shiny ring from a gypsy, which turns out to be fake. Since the hit your wallet and your pride took, you feel pretty bad about the whole ordeal and you decide that you should not buy anything from a gypsy ever again. Was it free will? No, because the decision was based on negative first-hand experience. Now, if you think something along the lines of "well, but I'm not a racist because racists are bad, because the word 'racist' carries negative connotations and I'm going to buy things from gypsies just to show that there is free will and/or that I'm not a bad racist" then, well, that's just fooling yourself. That was not free will, that was a decision based on various input. The following factors most likely contributed to the whole thing:

+ Negative feedback from the gypsy. Negative first-hand experiences.
+ The possibility of not being cheated again as often.
+ Historical or second/third-hand experience. You might have heard that gypsies cheat people.
+ The implied racism of not wanting to buy anything from them again.
+ The possibility of being considered a racist within your community.
+ The negative effects of being considered a racist within your community.
+ The possibility of not telling anyone that you don't deal with gypsies should you decide not to, since being considered a racist is a negative thing and has negative effects on your well-being.

And to that you can probably add various less likely factors such as:

+ The free will issue. You decide to do the less likely thing, because you believe that it proves you have free will. I will try to touch upon this later.
+ If someone you know very well and admire is a gypsy, you are likely to think that the gypsy you admire is the rule and the gypsy that cheated you is the exception.
+ You might yourself be a gypsy.

Now, about free will. Doing what you consider less likely is not a sign of free will. It is purely a case of considering the abstract notion of free will and then trying to prove it, because you believe that doing something chaotic will prove that you do have free will and it is that belief which contributes to the decision-making process. That belief might be rooted in anything. Indeed, I might just close this browser window without hitting 'Submit Reply', because It might prove that I have free will. It is a decision that holds less weight, in my mind, but it is nonetheless a possible and plausible outcome of writing this reply. But I won't do it, because I value the peer review of my thought process. And in the way of the great Centauri freethinker Telis Elaris (Babylon 5 reference, sorry), I will reason why that is.

If I post everything I've written, it will be good. Why?
Because other people will be enlightened and because my thoughts will get peer review. Why?
Because I feel that the posts so far in this thread were made mostly by people who don't have the slightest idea of what free will is or isn't. And because I want my thoughts to be reviewed and criticized. Why?
Because I think most posts lack understanding. And because I feel that I will benefit from the peer review of my ideas and notions. Why?
Because the ideas presented in the previous posts can be proven to be wrong through reasoning based on facts. And because I have read Eric S. Raymond's "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" and I once wrote a large essay on applying the Open Source model to human thought and the benefits that would yield.

The human mind is a neural network. Each cell, or node, taking input from various other nodes, doing some simplistic operation on the input and sending the output to other nodes. Unlike in the von Neumann machine under your table, the nodes in a neural network work in parallel. (Yes, I know that today's CPUs execute many instructions in parallel as well. Don't get semantical on me. I'm majoring in compsci.) This gives a neural network massive computing power. Neural networks can either be evolved or trained. Or both. The original setup of a human mind is the product of evolution. It is hardwired to act on certain impulses in a certain way, simply because it resulted in survival and the passing on of genes. Everything since then is training via input, which reshapes the nodes and makes them act differently based on the feedback received.

The illusion of free will is created because we do not and can not comprehend the whole system in the context of the input.

Everything might not be predetermined on the quantum level. Does it mean that human thoughts create some quantum effects and are not part of the universe? Most likely, the answer is no.

The brain is a machine that receives input and produces output based on rules which are shaped according to input and according to feedback created by previous output. Nothing more, nothing less. Everything else is just an illusion.

[Wolf]

here is an argument about free will
Some one makes you so angry you want to hit them badly it is a burning desire in your soul even every part of your exsistence wants to hit this person.
But you dont hit them since you have control on your actions.
However you still WANT to hit then your enire being wants to but yet you do not.
There is no force stronger then emotion if there was ever a force that would conrtol your actions and limit your "free will" it would be emotion, look at some people in love .
They would do things that make no rational sense but to them in love it makes ense so ,love has completely destroyed there free will the same aplies to anger,rage any emotion really but yet even then you have will. note you must have a lot of will but yet it can be done.

Maybe there is as it was so posted "higher beings like gods" acting as a stimulis to control you, like emotion can but those are stimuli you can control your reaction to them but not the stimuli itself so there is free will to act but not control the urges that make you want to act.
Just a thought

[kernelpenguin]

Wolf, go back and read my post just above yours.

And here's an analysis of your example.

Someone did something bad to you. Suppose your brother fell in love with your girlfriend and then took off with her. You have just met your brother for the first time in years and your life has been awful since your girlfriend left with him. You desire to punish him in some way and the fastest way to do it would be to hit him.

This is where your brain steps in. You have a major choice to make: to hit him or not to hit him?

Your brain then, usually on a subconscious level weighs these choices.

The arguments for hitting your brother:

+ He stole something that was yours.
+ He did a bad thing to you.
+ The release of tension that the hit would give you would be most beneficial. (Justice, a kind of balance, even, would be served, in your mind.)

The arguments against hitting your brother:

+ Maybe she is happier? (Non-egoistical instinct, herding instinct, survival of the species, not of the individual.)
+ He is your brother, after all. (You grew up with him and have a special bond with him -- survival of the family, of genes that are similar to yours. The same instinct responsible for people hiring their relatives.)
+ Maybe you're a weak fighter and he would certainly overpower you in combat. (Self-doubt, self-awareness, self-analysis, analysis of your brother.)
+ The society/community would not approve of you hitting him. (Social consciousness, social thinking.)

Anger is your instinct. It is pretty much hardwired. Something of yours was taken and you want it back or you want an equal thing back. (Punching him would be "justice" for you.) Anger and the need for justice was hardwired into your ancestors via the process of natural selection -- a key factor to evolution.

Here's a simplistic example of how an emotion such as anger is rooted in cold reasoning. Suppose your ancestor was a caveman called Ogg. Suppose he had a few spears in his cave. If someone came and took one of the spears away, the loss wouldn't be that bad, since Ogg would still have a few spears left and he could still hunt. If someone were to take all spears away, Ogg wouldn't be able to hunt animals and would get hungry -- that's negative feedback. (And the loss of just one spear would also be negative feedback. More on that in another post, if you insist. In a hurry now.) Ogg would then reason that he is hungry, because he can't hunt animals. And he can't hunt animals because his spears are gone. And his spears are gone because someone took them, so someone is responsible for his hunger. That is basic logic.

If Ogg was hardwired in such a way that he wouldn't mind anyone taking his spears -- if he was hardwired to be without the need for justice or simply, anger -- then he would simply die. Quite possibly without passing on his genes.

In reality, the first laws were centered around the very same thing. If someone came and took your spears, you had the right to go and take his spears or lacking that, you could go and take something equivalent. Along with specialization and the need to trade, this contributed to the rise of the value system and eventually money.

These laws were enforced for the good of the community -- if the world is regulated through laws, it is more peaceful. Better chance of survival. Survival of the community.

The human mind is a mixture of logic, (the understanding of causality) hardwired emotions and cold calculation based on various input. The whole notion of "free will" is absurd.

Indeed, I would argue that if there was a God in this world (and I'm not religious), then even he in his might would not have free will. He would also be a machine that takes input, processes it and gives output. His input would be the whole world and his output would be his decisions to do something about it.

If God existed and if he was to put some idea into your mind, that idea would be input received from God. It would be "guidance" for you and your brain, the machine that weighs different inputs, would then assign a value of importance to it. Based on that value and an analysis of different possible outcomes based on past experiences, your brain reaches a decision. Again, this would not be "free will" -- just the product of a neural network that takes different inputs, uses logic to determine the values of different outputs and then chooses the best course of action.

The thing that has given rise to the absurd notion of "free will" is just one simple fact: you can never be consciously aware of all the input.

[Philocrat]

Freedom = a state of non-relativity

Free will = beyond causal and relational laws

But no free acting agent, that neither deviates nor is intervened with on its causal pathway, can derive at nothingness.

[Wolf]

if you dont beleive that there is any free will the one is the purpose to living???


"A mam with a life that cannot act in his own desire is a man who has nothing to live for"

[JD]

Is it possible that free will can exist and not exist simultaneously?

[Wolf]

you proved my point better than i did let me explain.

Basing you curent present actions off your past is a perfect example of free will because you are consiencly (spelled that wrong sorry) chosing to think.

If you had no free will than you would have just acted there would have been no thoght because free will is the ABILITY TO THINK AND ACT FOR YOURSELF THINKING ABOUT YOUR PAST BEFORE ACTING AND THEN ACTING IS FREE WILL.

Another example folowing your bases that still proves free will.

You said that when you thinkl about the past it is hardwired to your brain to do so true enough.

And because i is hardwired to your you have no free will because you had to think that is what i have gotten from your post hope i am right because here is my point.

Let's say your right on that ok well you can still have free will i have no clue if your a martial artist or not so i will explain this all.

Before fighting you meditate in martial arts and if done properly you stop thinking while sparing no thought reaches your mind so then how do you argue that that is NOT FREE WILL

[nevagil]

Is it possible that free will can exist and not exist simultaneously?

Sort of, sure. I have limited free will when I chose to affect certain things, but many things I cannot alter at all, like saturn's gravity two centuries from now.

[kernelpenguin]

Please, Wolf, arrange your thoughts into a coherent form before replying. Your post makes very little sense.

In any case, you're wrong.

Basing you curent present actions off your past is a perfect example of free will because you are consiencly (spelled that wrong sorry) chosing to think.

Basing my actions off the past means that whatever decision making processes go on in my brain, they also draw on analogy and past experience. I'll assume you've never done much programming, so I'll give you a small example of this in action in a non-sentient system.

Suppose you had a firewall on your computer to protect you from intruders. Suppose the firewall had a rule where it, upon detecting a portscan, blocks all access for that IP for one minute. The decision making process of that program goes something like this:
(By IP I mean "Internet Protocol Address", a unique 32bit (IPv4) name given to every computer on the Internet.)

1. It has a system for detecting a portscan from some IP. (This usually consists of a simple "if more than n ports are accessed from the same IP in m minutes, then label that IP a portscanner" algorithm.)
2. When it detects a portscan, the IP is added to a list (memory) and a counter is assigned to it which starts off at, say, 60. Every second a timer fires and decreases the counter on each IP in the list. When a counter reaches 0, the IP is removed from that list.
3. When a packet is received from some IP, that IP is checked against the list (memory) to see if the IP is banned or not. (Is "memorized" or not -- is there past experience telling us that that IP is "bad" or not.)
4. If the IP is in the list, the packet is discarded. Optionally, the counter on that specific IP in the memory could be increased.

So there you have it. A non-sentient algorithm which draws on "past experience" without actually "thinking". Evolution has, no doubt, built something like this, but much more complex into us as well.

free will is the ABILITY TO THINK AND ACT FOR YOURSELF THINKING ABOUT YOUR PAST BEFORE ACTING AND THEN ACTING IS FREE WILL.

Well, first you have to define what you mean by "thinking". If logical reasoning that also draws upon the past and analyses possible futures and probabilities is what you call "thinking", then that process can also be hardwired into your brain. In fact, I'd say "thinking" is just a decision making process and nothing more. It is a "sentient algorithm", where sentience emerges because due to the nature of the medium, it can never be aware of all the inputs. Thus it will deduct that somehow it is in control and the notion of "I" is just a step away from that.

Let's say your right on that ok well you can still have free will i have no clue if your a martial artist or not so i will explain this all.

Before fighting you meditate in martial arts and if done properly you stop thinking while sparing no thought reaches your mind so then how do you argue that that is NOT FREE WILL

That is quite possibly the worst argument I've heard for free will.

Anyway, let me explain. The reason you meditate in martial arts is to kick your brain into "automatic mode" by separating the "conscious" (that might be a misleading term, so consider it a "biofeedback system" from where the notion of "I" arises due to the fact that it can't be aware of all the input in the context of output and feedback) part of your mind from the decision making process. It can be aware of the input, it can be aware of the output, but it does not have to be, because actions and reactions are determined by the decision making process.

Why do you think you have to perform the same move hundreds of times while in training? It is to make sure the "brain pattern" of that move is etched into your brain and can be easily used as input by your brain's decision making process without the consciousness having to analyse the aspects of your situation, the possible moves it can make and the steps needed to make those moves.

Suppose you learn a kick that is most effective if your opponent is blocking his face, but not his stomach. If you had not performed the same move in training hundreds of times, analysing it every step of the way, then when presented with a situation where you should use it, you're likely to start a logical process of "thoughts" that go something like this:
1. He is blocking his face, so hitting there would not yield much result.
2. Hitting him in the balls isn't nice.
3. His stomach, sides and legs are open to attack.
4. The stomach looks most promising due to his stance.
5. I'd have to crouch to punch him in the stomach and that could put my head in jeopardy.
6. The other parts of my body that I can hit him with are my feet.
7. I should hit him with my right foot while making sure that I don't fall over by keeping balance with my left one.
8. I should aim for the solar plexus.
9. I should bring my foot about and then extend it for the final kick.
10. I will now execute the kick while mentally tracking both the foot and my balance.
11. I will let out an intimidating scream.
12. "Ki-yaaai!"

This, of course, will result in a slow fight and you're likely to get your *** kicked while you're considering what to do.

Martial arts is about pattern recognition. Every kick, punch, block, throw, whatever is a pattern. Each pattern has an anti-pattern used for countering that particular kick, punch, block, throw, whatever. When you train, these patterns are etched into your mind. This is where "meditation" comes into play.

Prior to fighting your opponent, you focus. The point is to suppress your "consciousness" and to let the decision making process be largely replaced by a pattern recognition process. So what the process comes down to is something like this:
1. Your opponent is doing pattern x.
2. That pattern has anti-patterns y and z.
3. Y is more useful, so execute that.

It might be that your opponent wanted you to believe that y was more useful when his variation of x would have been best countered by z. (Deception can also be built into a pattern, so that didn't have to be conscious deception.) When you're a martial arts expert, you start recognising such patterns as well and you create more definitions for them in your brain. So the same fight would come down to:
1. Your opponent is doing pattern x3.
2. That pattern has an anti-pattern z4, execute.

So, martial arts is basically pattern recognition. Which is ironic, because this is pretty much the only field where neural networks are used in mainstreamish programming -- the most primitive use for a neural network. Experimental character recognition systems, for example, use trained neural networks. The other more common use is for playing games like chess or tic-tac-toe, although they're more useful for games that have infinite possible moves like go, whereas, for example, in tic-tac-toe, all possible moves can be drawn as a small tree of 9! (362880) nodes with values for all possible states.

So there we have it, ladies and gentlemen. There is no free will. The "I" you feel so strongly about is just a product of a mind that is only partially aware of all the input, output and feedback. In order for it to logically (causally) get the output and feedback from input, it has to go through several "leaps of faith", which make it seem as if there was some "magic" going on -- namely "free will".

[phoenixthoth]

Does free will exist?
according to Newton the universe is deterministic, and therefore free will does not fit into this. But since the advent of quantum physics, the universe is not said to be entirely deterministic, is there now room for free will? some physicists believe that the wave function of matter/light collapses when a living thing is conscious of it, could this be a sign of free will?

If we did not have free will, it would be impossible to predict ANY future events*. This is absurd. Therefore, we have free will.


*The argument for this is posted under the thread "destiny." Say there are two doors and I will either pick one or neither, giving me three choices. Suppose that I don't have free will. I can't even predict my own choice because if I could predict my own supposed choice, then I could just make a different choice, violating the no free will assumption. I can't know in advance which door I will pick; this is absurd.

Science has nothing to do with whether we have free will. The unproven assumption in science is that everything we have observed thus far is what we will always observe. So even if we have observed a deterministic universe, and we don't seem to anyway in all cases, that doesn't prove that we will always observe a deterministic universe.

[kcballer21]

If we did not have free will, it would be impossible to predict ANY future events*. This is absurd. Therefore, we have free will.

I think the problem most people have with determinism is the scale on which it is played out. Yes, you can 'choose' between door one and door two. But take a step back and look at what led to that decision. Now take another step back, and another, and another, etc...........

The events that you speak of are future events only because we haven't conciously experienced them yet. In classical physics everything is determined. That has been improved upon,... in special relativity for anything moving at the speed of light time is non-existent, everything just is. Then comes quantum mechanics. In QM you can substitute classic particle trajectories with wavefunctions, and the same deterministic principle holds. The one hope that free will has (as far as physics is concerned) is whether or not human observation has something to do with a quantum wavefunction collapsing into an observable state. I suppose this is possible but I am not going to leap at it just because I want free will to exist (which I do).

Anyway if you are going to talk about events and our influence over them, you might want to look at the bigger picture. It may seem that you have control over the outcomes of certain events, but the only event that matters (the universe) seems to be indifferent to what you or I think.

[phoenixthoth]

In classical physics everything is determined.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --A. Einstein.

How does the mathematical model of something being deterministic prove that what we are observing is deterministic?

My major problem with science is the assumption that what has been observed up to this point is what we would observe anywhere in the universe at any time. In short, the use of inductive reasoning. What constitutes proof is vastly different for you and me and I have yet to see what to me would constitute a proof of no free will. As you may know, under the thread "destiny", I believe that we have limited free will; not no free will and not total free will.

[kcballer21]

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --A. Einstein.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."--A. Einstein

"For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent."--A. Einstein

Fortunately the greatest genius ever still has his faults as with this statement, "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." and the refutation of the EPR paradox by John Bell.

I did not know that was you stance (limited freewill) but I still believe the limited aspect of freewill is a left over of some human yearning for control. Do you believe this because it pains you to think we have no control. Intuition won't allow many of us to even consider this idea. My distrust of intuition is one of the reasons my opinion is what it is.

[phoenixthoth]

The reason why I believe what I believe is irrelevant. My arguments stand on their own. I secretly believe that we don't have free will but shh don't tell anyone. It's just not for the reasons a scientist might suggest. My brain tells me that we have limited free will but my intuiton tells me that we don't have free will.

[kernelpenguin]

Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.

I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.

Imagine that the brain functions this way:
[input: sensory input, past experiences, instincts] -> [decision making process] -> [output: decisions, actions]

This is a greatly simplified view of the brain and it leaves out two essential components. One is the "logic" department, which calculates causality based on what it knows. (I have an urge to write a really big rant with examples here, but it seems that noone has even bothered reading my last 3 huge posts in this thread, which show that there is no free will, so I'll keep this short)

The logic department is used by the decision making process to choose the most valuable outcome.

The other is the "I" department. The thing that makes it unique is that it's like a tiny copy of the decision making part and acts as a sort of fail-safe. It is aware of some of the input, some of the output and it has its own logic unit, which is used to see if the output was caused by the decisions made or how the input could have caused the output. It basically sits there and analyses the work of the decision making process without being fully aware of all the input and while taking into account the feedback that decisions have generated. (Thus optimizing the decision making process for the future.)

The "I" department offers "second guesses" -- thoughts like "what if I had instead chosen action X -- would it have been more beneficial to me?" and "the current input is Y and logic would dictate that Y is usually followed by Z, so the future must hold Z." And, of course, the "I" department can synthesize input to the decision making process -- things like "Z should come in the future, do THIS to prepare for it."

Whether the world is fully deterministic or not is VERY irrelevant when it comes to "free will". The truth is that your brain is simply an organic machine. The notion of "free will" is absurd, since it only emerges from a set of logical processes that are tied to each other and that are trying to predict the future by reflecting on past events and experiences.

The key to understanding it all is to "dissect" your brain -- a simple neural network wired in complicated ways -- and to step back and to look at all the input that might have caused some decision to be made. Step on the metalevel and look down.

Coming back to "non-deterministic free will"... So what if it was proven that the universe is not deterministic and that there are "random" quantum effects? What then? How the hell do you suppose that proves you have free will? The ONLY thing it does is offer a random element to the decision making process. It does not wire your mind to some "cosmic pool of free will for sentient beings". Hell, "randomized algorithms" are used in computing, even. Mostly for NP-* problems like the travelling salesman one. They can be very effective.

[phoenixthoth]

Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.

I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.
The human brain (note, brain, not mind) is comparable to a computer. A computer has no free will. Therefore, we don't have free will. Is that your argument?

Whether the world is fully deterministic or not is VERY irrelevant when it comes to "free will". The truth is that your brain is simply an organic machine. The notion of "free will" is absurd, since it only emerges from a set of logical processes that are tied to each other and that are trying to predict the future by reflecting on past events and experiences.
I'm not sure I understand this: Free will emerges from a set of logical processes or thought emerges from a set of logical processes? If this is the case, can you write down what those logical processes are?

The key to understanding it all is to "dissect" your brain -- a simple neural network wired in complicated ways -- and to step back and to look at all the input that might have caused some decision to be made. Step on the metalevel and look down.
That the brain operates like neural networks seems plausible but has not been proven. The brain is not fully understood so when you step on the metalevel and look down, you see a dense fog.

Coming back to "non-deterministic free will"... So what if it was proven that the universe is not deterministic and that there are "random" quantum effects? What then? How the hell do you suppose that proves you have free will? The ONLY thing it does is offer a random element to the decision making process. It does not wire your mind to some "cosmic pool of free will for sentient beings". Hell, "randomized algorithms" are used in computing, even. Mostly for NP-* problems like the travelling salesman one. They can be very effective.
I don't think random behavior at the quantum level suggests that we have free will; so I agree with that. I don't think science can decide either way whether we have free will. By the way, no computer on earth thus far has ever used a random algorithm; they are just using chaotic but 100% deterministic functions that upon iteration simulate randomness. That's neither here nor there though as as you said, it has nothing to do with free will.

[Dovekie]

some physicists believe that the wave function of matter/light collapses when a living thing is conscious of it, could this be a sign of free will?

I'm not sure I exactly understand your meaning in that sentence, do you care to explain? how does the collapse of matter/light determine the presence of free will?

I don't think free will is something that can be studied or captured by observation and experimentation. It's effects cannot be identified by the means of something else. Free will is what we believe to be "choice". People have "free will" as long as they believe and recognise that what they are doing, and what happens in their life is determined only by the choices that they make, rather than depending on some higher spiritual/universal force. Free will is more a conceptual idea within a person rather than a thing that possibly may/or not exist. How are we to determine whether free will actually exists or not? It cannot be tested, or calculated with formulae. I think Fate and Free Will exist in a state of harmony, where our ability to choose what we want to do determines the outcome of our fate. That is, Fate is actually dependent of Free Will.

[kernelpenguin]

The human brain (note, brain, not mind) is comparable to a computer. A computer has no free will. Therefore, we don't have free will. Is that your argument?

That's pretty much my argument.

I'm not sure I understand this: Free will emerges from a set of logical processes or thought emerges from a set of logical processes? If this is the case, can you write down what those logical processes are?

Thought emerges from these logical processes. "Free will" is a notion which arises because a logical process cannot be aware of the inputs of any other logical process.

Consider the following model of the brain. There is one central logic process, which takes input from the senses and from instincts, then processes these and looks for the most beneficial solution and then reaches a "decision", which manifests itself as output. Meanwhile there are other similar logic processes, that have access to some of the input (not all) and can see some of the output (decisions). These also look at feedback to previous decisions in the input and then try to optimize the decision making process accordingly. (Learning from your past.)

(Um, yes, that sounds a bit incoherent... I'm rather tired right now and my previous posts in this thread have explained this idea already.)

That the brain operates like neural networks seems plausible but has not been proven. The brain is not fully understood so when you step on the metalevel and look down, you see a dense fog.

Well, I have a challenge for you. Can you define free will and come up with an example of free will, that could not be explained as several logic processes working in your brain?

Something original besides the lame old "I am faced with two doors, I choose to open the left one, but then go and open the right one, thus I have free will" crap would be nice. Things like that are just mind-numbingly boring.

I don't think random behavior at the quantum level suggests that we have free will; so I agree with that. I don't think science can decide either way whether we have free will. By the way, no computer on earth thus far has ever used a random algorithm; they are just using chaotic but 100% deterministic functions that upon iteration simulate randomness. That's neither here nor there though as as you said, it has nothing to do with free will.

Good point. Although, I'd like to point out that the level at which these "random" numbers are generated is outside the scope of the program which needs them. What I mean is that an "intelligent" program could do all kinds of analysis on the "random" numbers, but if these "random" numbers are generated properly (hardware interrupts, electric noise, keypresses, some algorithms, scrambled disk I/O, etc) then they will be truly random to the program and it would take an outside observer operating on a "higher level" to know that these numbers really are not random.

In the same sense that we could observe "random" quantum effects and consider them to be completely random, while in reality they could be created by some deterministic mechanism that follows laws we cannot comprehend.

[kcballer21]

kernelpenguin
Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.

I think I understand your reasoning, but wouldn't the human mind and computer be subject to fundamental physical laws?

[olde drunk]

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."--A. Einstein

"For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent."--A. Einstein

Fortunately the greatest genius ever still has his faults as with this statement, "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." and the refutation of the EPR paradox by John Bell.

I did not know that was you stance (limited freewill) but I still believe the limited aspect of freewill is a left over of some human yearning for control. Do you believe this because it pains you to think we have no control. Intuition won't allow many of us to even consider this idea. My distrust of intuition is one of the reasons my opinion is what it is.
now, what if both ideas are correct??

i submit that ALL probable futures exist as potential and are valid. from that perspective you can argue that an event or future is predetermined.

i am saying that we have the freedom of choice to select that probable future or event that we wish to 'experience'. yes, they are all out there, but which do you want to physicalize?

again, the present is a product of a selected past and an expected future.

love&peace,
olde drunk

[phoenixthoth]

That's pretty much my argument.
I understand that reasoning but I just disagree. We have on one hand observables and on the other a mathematical model. In this case, the brain and neural networks. I just don't buy into the idea that every single property that mathematical model has must also be possessed by the observable.

Thought emerges from these logical processes. "Free will" is a notion which arises because a logical process cannot be aware of the inputs of any other logical process.
I suspect that you might be right but I think that's an unproven hypothesis. Just my opinion.

Consider the following model of the brain. There is one central logic process, which takes input from the senses and from instincts, then processes these and looks for the most beneficial solution and then reaches a "decision", which manifests itself as output. Meanwhile there are other similar logic processes, that have access to some of the input (not all) and can see some of the output (decisions). These also look at feedback to previous decisions in the input and then try to optimize the decision making process accordingly. (Learning from your past.)
Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.


Well, I have a challenge for you. Can you define free will and come up with an example of free will, that could not be explained as several logic processes working in your brain?
There is strong determinism, in which everything is predetermined, weak predeterminsim, in which some things are predetermined, and no determinsim, in which no things are predetermined. I would define free will as either of the cases besides strong predeterminsim. I think that we can't be in strong predetermination (ie no free will) because of the following. If everything is predetermined, then I can't predict any act that I'm about to do for if I could, then I could change what I'm about to do, going against predetermination. I phrase it better under my thread "destiny," which has a similar theme. (Sorry if that didn't make any sense--I'm drunk right now :surprise: )

Something original besides the lame old "I am faced with two doors, I choose to open the left one, but then go and open the right one, thus I have free will" crap would be nice. Things like that are just mind-numbingly boring.
The idea is that if I have no free will, then I CANNOT know what door I'm going to choose which is absurd. Boring or not, lame or not, you cannot refute it by calling it lame and boring.

In the same sense that we could observe "random" quantum effects and consider them to be completely random, while in reality they could be created by some deterministic mechanism that follows laws we cannot comprehend.
I totally agree.

[kernelpenguin]

I understand that reasoning but I just disagree. We have on one hand observables and on the other a mathematical model. In this case, the brain and neural networks. I just don't buy into the idea that every single property that mathematical model has must also be possessed by the observable.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the brain, whether it's an exact copy of a mathematical neural network or not (I'd say it's not), acts like a machine, or to be more exact, like a network of machines all debugging eachother. If you have a single machine like this with a simple 'neural network' (if you will), you end up with simple behaviour. For example, primitive creatures that swim towards light and don't do much more. But if the brain acts as a self-balancing network of processes where each process mirrors, in a sense, others and tries to optimize others for the survival of the person, intelligent behaviour emerges.

I postulate that intelligent behaviour can emerge from any self-modifying system that is sophisticated enough.

And my model of the brain is just one such possible model of a system from where intelligent behaviour will emerge.

Now, if you look at the brain from outside, you see 'intelligence' and 'free will'. If you look at different neurons, you see them getting input, processing that and putting out output. My model of the brain just shows one possible (and highly likely) model of how 'intelligent behaviour' and the notion of 'free will' can emerge from such a deterministic system.

I suspect that you might be right but I think that's an unproven hypothesis. Just my opinion.

It is, at best, a good model that could be applied to AI research, but Hofstadter already proposed a similar system in his book "Godel, Escher, Bach -- An Eternal Golden Braid" which he described as consciousness, which mirrors itself and the world around it. My theory of the brain derives largely from that.

Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.

I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean? That consciousness is located outside the brain?

There is strong determinism, in which everything is predetermined, weak predeterminsim, in which some things are predetermined, and no determinsim, in which no things are predetermined. I would define free will as either of the cases besides strong predeterminsim. I think that we can't be in strong predetermination (ie no free will) because of the following. If everything is predetermined, then I can't predict any act that I'm about to do for if I could, then I could change what I'm about to do, going against predetermination. I phrase it better under my thread "destiny," which has a similar theme. (Sorry if that didn't make any sense--I'm drunk right now :surprise: )

I think I have, in this very same thread, debunked a version of the above 'proof' at least three times. Let this be the fourth, then :P

You have two doors.
You have three choices: open left, open right, don't open either.
You choose to open the left one.
You consciously choose to ignore the left one and go for the right one.
You open the right one.
Hence, free will.

That last step is a leap of faith. What exactly is a 'conscious choice' anyway? There was a thought in your head saying 'I must prove that I have free will and I will do this by choosing the one the door that I don't want to enter'. Indeed, we have two inputs.

One input to your decision making process is a past decision saying 'I will open the left one' and the other input is 'if I have free will, I should be able to open the right one instead.' In your mind, the second input would hold more weight, so you go for the right one instead.

Now, how did you come to choose the right one eventually? Simple. Something affected you. Something in your past contributed to you choosing the right one. You might have chosen the left one at first because of the human instinct to feel that 'left is safer' (there are studies on this) or because you liked the door more, but you ended up going for the right one, because the thing that made you choose the right one had more weight in your mind.

Choices are reached based on input. Input does not have to be context-sensitive. Hell, even your childhood could contribute to which door you choose.

The idea is that if I have no free will, then I CANNOT know what door I'm going to choose which is absurd. Boring or not, lame or not, you cannot refute it by calling it lame and boring.

I've refuted such examples in three... wait... four posts already. And those have been point-by-point refutations based on logical reasoning.

[phoenixthoth]

So are you then saying that the brain is like a complicated machine, machines don't have free will, and therefore the brain does not have free will?


Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.
I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean? That consciousness is located outside the brain?
That's not what I'm saying although it may be true anyway. I can see that you're armed with Occam's Razor, ready to cut away at any 'consciousness is located outside the brain' statements. And of course Occam's Razor is a perfect tool that is always correct. Irrelevant because I'm not asserting at this time that consciousness is outside the brain. Just saying that the brain need not possess every property of a model for the brain, whether the model be a neural network or a complicated machine. The principle property that I doubt transfers from the model back to the observable [brain] is lack of free will.



I think I have, in this very same thread, debunked a version of the above 'proof' at least three times. Let this be the fourth, then :P

You have two doors.
You have three choices: open left, open right, don't open either.
You choose to open the left one.
You consciously choose to ignore the left one and go for the right one.
You open the right one.
Hence, free will.
No that's not the argument; this is a straw man characterization of my proof. The kernel of the proof lies in one's flat out inability to know which door one is about to choose for if one did know what was going to happen in 3 seconds, one would have no reason not to change the supposed future. The argument is based on the absurdity of not being able to know which door one is about to choose.

[kernelpenguin]

So are you then saying that the brain is like a complicated machine, machines don't have free will, and therefore the brain does not have free will?

Yes, I'm saying that the brain is a complicated, self-modifying, but deterministic machine.

No that's not the argument; this is a straw man characterization of my proof. The kernel of the proof lies in one's flat out inability to know which door one is about to choose for if one did know what was going to happen in 3 seconds, one would have no reason not to change the supposed future. The argument is based on the absurdity of not being able to know which door one is about to choose.

Do you consciously know everything that goes on inside your head? No.
Do you consciously know everything that affects your decision making? No.

If you do "change your decision", then how do you know it wasn't "meant to be"? In the sense that, how do you know that your brain was not working up to this moment, this new choice on an unconscious level? Once you become consciously aware of your decision, you can also do the opposite, but choosing that very same opposite is STILL something that is decided in your brain.

But since we don't know exactly what is going on in our brains and everything might just be predetermined with no randomness in the universe, we might just as well go around telling ourselves that there is free will even though the notion of 'free will' itself is pretty absurd.

[phoenixthoth]

Yes, I'm saying that the brain is a complicated, self-modifying, but deterministic machine.
How do you know that one essential property of the model, a complicated deterministic machine, namely that it is deterministic, transfers over to the brain? IOW, since the model is deterministic therefore the brain is deterministic?

Do you consciously know everything that goes on inside your head? No.
Do you consciously know everything that affects your decision making? No.

If you do "change your decision", then how do you know it wasn't "meant to be"? In the sense that, how do you know that your brain was not working up to this moment, this new choice on an unconscious level? Once you become consciously aware of your decision, you can also do the opposite, but choosing that very same opposite is STILL something that is decided in your brain.
How do you know it was "meant to be?" That's right, it's because what we use to model the brain is deterministic; still doesn't convince me that the brain itself is necessarily deterministic.

All I'm saying is that if we have no free will then that entails that we can not know what door we're about to pick. If you can accept that, then there's no problem with no free will. I myself cannot accept that and I view it as absurd.

But since we don't know exactly what is going on in our brains and everything might just be predetermined with no randomness in the universe, we might just as well go around telling ourselves that there is free will even though the notion of 'free will' itself is pretty absurd.

If we don't know what's going on in our brains, how can you possibly claim it must be a deterministic process?

[Wolf]

Does A machine have emotion or something other that it's normal programing afecting it's ations?This force is NOT CAUSED BY ANY EXTERNAL FORCE WHATESOEVER as in the force in question must be completly inside the machine the anwser is no a machine does NOT have anything like emotion therfore you arguing the "Brain is like a machine" is invalid A MACHINE DOES NOT HAVE EMOTION OR ANYTHING SIMILAR THE BRAIN DOES, LARGE DIFERENCE

[michelle s]

What if fate exists and everything that has been made on this earth (be it trees, humans, birds, wasps) has a set purpose in life, and everything anyone or anything does or takes part in is premeditated?
Imagine sitting in the middle of the field. You pick one blade of grass. That was the blade of grass' destiny to be picked by you. Why? because thats how they want it.
What if we are all just like characters in a play, following the script, the stage directions, everything the director tells you to do.
What if you have no choice in the matter?
What if you can not be in control of your own life?
Everthing any one or anything does however large or small sets off a domino effect.
If fate exists then it may not be concentrating on running your life, but the greater meaning to the world.
What is the greater meaning?
Why are we here if we have no control over what we do?
Why are we here if it is already done?
If fate exists does this mean we are in a loop?
could we be living the same destiny over and over?
Or do they update the program make a few changes to get the outcome they want?
What is it they want?
Who are they?
God?

[InfPerf000]

"fate" is simply a matter of geometry, speed and forces.
It does not exist

[bola]

michelle, i believe we are here because nature is figuring things out.
once again i divide into objective and subjective..

the scientific world is nothing but a means to an end, and the end being giving us the illusion of free will.

the solution to free will lies in quantum mechanics i believe.
if it so happens to be that the quantum world is truly undeterministic, it owuld have huge impact on how chemistry and biology would work.
so if it was undeterministic, we couldnt foresee who would do what.

[michelle s]

Yes, we only have the illusion of choice. it keeps us happy and makes us think that we have a chance to change our future.

[Zantra]

ahhh yes.. another one of THOSE posts. Doesn't anyone ever get tired of these?

It's a stalemate, as it's been proven time and time again. For every point that can be presented to support the case, a counterpoint can be made for the other side. If determinism is true, then free will is a carefully constructed illusion. If free will is true, you cannot prove that you would have made a different choice, given that all events are known. Blah blah blah...

sorry, this is like the 20th thread I've seen in 2 years.

However, if free will were true, I'd will there not to be another one of these threads again :tongue2: