Is Free Will Merely an Illusion Shaped by Genetics and Environment?

[LogicalAtheist]

My claim still stands. Anything in reality can be proven. I think the burden of proof lies on you. Not me. It's not too much of a scientifically controversial claim. Perhaps philosophers will argue, but surely they won't use an ounce of logic in it.

 

[Adam]

Someone I know says he believes that we are entirely nature and nurture, no free will, and that he is therefore nothing more than a biological automaton. I doubt very much he believes it, but he says it. Why does he say this? Because nature and nurture have been proven, and free will has not. The obvious logical hole in this reasoning is: does this mean we were not influenced by nature at all before the discovery of DNA? Or were we not influenced at all by our environment before the formalised field of psychology? In other words, discovery of the mechanism for something is not the condition required for that thing to exist. This does not prove the existence of free will, however; it merely rules out that sort of half-formed "logic".

Another person I know claims that we can't rationally say free will exists until we know the cause and the mechanism by which it functions. We can observe the effects of gravity and make calculations describing how its effects operate, but as far as I know there is not yet any definitive explanation of a cause or mechanism for it. Thus, by this chap's reasoning, free will and gravity are equally valid or invalid, so tie yourselves down because we're all about to drift away. Obviously this half-logic does not hold water either.

When it comes down to it, the evidence we believe is electrical signals interpreted by the brain. Common consensus conveyed to us through more such signals shows us that the evidence seems correct. And it all relies on us trusting in those electrical signals. Yes, unfortunately, there is trust, or faith, involved even in empirical science. It is the first stage from which all acceptance of any "reality" is formed; that we trust our perceptions, that we are really receiving data from outside our own minds. In short, we make a decision, to be solopsistic or to trust that the world beyond our mind really exists and that the signals coming in are real. If the latter, then we accept that those signals from other people, from our own senses, from experiments and such are valid, at least within the limits of our abilities and knowledge so far.

But free will? Well, people occasionally ascrifice themselves for other people, or for political causes or religions or such. It's quite a stretch to explain away such acts in terms of preserving one's genes for the future. Life generally wants to live. It's also quite a stretch to explain it in terms of environmental factors alone, especially in cultures which actively discourage suicide and such. Why would you pick up an apple to eat for a snack instead of a carrot? Why the chair you're on and not the one next to it? Is there any signal from outside, or any DNA sequence, which makes you do one or the other?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Adam
The obvious logical hole in this reasoning is: does this mean we were not influenced by nature at all before the discovery of DNA? Or were we not influenced at all by our environment before the formalised field of psychology?

Not only is this not obvious, or a hole, it has nothing to do with the argument in your friends logic. I was reading what you said, about your friend. And then when you said this, i thought I had switched windows to another topic. The two had nothing to do with each other. It's a weird psychological event when ones words instantly become something else.

 

[Adam]

One was an analogy for the other. Follow:

No evidence yet for free will -> free will does not exist.

No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not exist and we have never been influenced by it.

DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet before their discovery, we were made of such, influenced by such.

Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell evidence for free will. But that does not rule out the existence of free will.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
My claim still stands. Anything in reality can be proven.

So, you refuse to justify and provide
proof to your own claims ?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I think the burden of proof lies on you. Not me.

How so ? You're the one who made a certain claim.
I made no assumptions, I think.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's not too much of a scientifically
controversial claim.

First of all, you're in the philosophy forum
and those were philosophical issues you
discussed. Second, I couldn't care less about
what type of claim it is - you made it, but
you provided no proof. Could've claimed anything
else like God or flying pink ellephants. All
I'm asking for is an explanation for this claim.

Originally posted by Adam
Someone I know says he believes that we are
entirely nature and nurture, no free will,
and that he is therefore nothing more than
a biological automaton. I doubt very much he
believes it, but he says it. Why does he say this?

Because that's what observation = science says.
Everything else is baseless assumptions.
The assumptions supported by observation are
probabalisticly likely. The rest is incomprehensible
(probably - because I can't prove it, though who
know maybe I can, but that does not seem possible
at the moment, although it may be ... ),
just like flying pink ellephants.

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[Adam]

Because that's what observation = science says.
Everything else is baseless assumptions.

It is unknown exactly how much control over us nature and nurture have. Is it 50%/50%? Or 45/55? Or 40/40/ and 20% free will? This is unknown. Assuming that there is no percentage governed by free will is akin to assuming, upon the establishment of formal schools of psychology, that we are not governed or influenced in any way by genetics.

 

[drag]

Greetings Adam !

Originally posted by Adam
It is unknown exactly how much control over us
nature and nurture have. Is it 50%/50%? Or 45/55?
Or 40/40/ and 20% free will? This is unknown.

Indeed, very complex.

Originally posted by Adam
Assuming that there is no percentage governed by
free will is akin to assuming, upon the establishment
of formal schools of psychology, that we are not
governed or influenced in any way by genetics.

I don't know about psychology, but assuming there
is no percentage governed by free will is
a simple result of the likely fact that we
seemingly do not obseve free will. If we had
some evidence from observation which indicated
that free-will is likely - we may then consider
the percentage.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Adam
One was an analogy for the other. Follow:

No evidence yet for free will -> free will does not exist.

No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not exist and we have never been influenced by it.

DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet before their discovery, we were made of such, influenced by such.

Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell evidence for free will. But that does not rule out the existence of free will.

Excellent reasoning Adam, but I got your point the first time you made it. Maybe a certain person here didn't get it because HE ISN'T LISTENING.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Well, your statements are clear, however they are inapplicable, and therefore false in their conclusions. You're using some kind of philosophical paradoxical idea. But this has no basis in reality.

Thanks .

To say free will is present is to say that all of the agents of causation (we know of at any particular time) that indeed could be used to "predict" a given event (however hard it is doesn't matter, merely that it is possible) are not the complete list of agents of causation.

And it is the same to postulate that our futures are predestined, as it requires that there be a "predestinator".

If we use the scientific method to study such agents known at a given time, using of course a vary simple subject of atoms or perhaps something smaller.

And we do indeed continuously predict the outcome, would you agree that it's looking favorable at least, that our agents are all that is at causation?

Now I ask you. in our world of atoms, and things lesser than that ONLY...

Does not a chemical reaction always produce the predicted results, when done correctly?

When done correctly, does Newton's laws (or equal laws more paplicable to all in the universe) always predict outcomes?

Do all the other laws and accepted theories indeed produce predictable laws so much to the extent at which we have the knowledge to do so currently, and please without nitpicking details.

Sure, this is all true, but I'm not talking about the subatomic world. In turn, I ask you this: In the subatomic world, is there such a thing as consciousness? If not, then you have two choices: 1) abandon the idea that all of reality can be explained by a reductionist approach, or 2) find consciousness in the subatomic world.

My point being ultimately. You're using a pradoxical language statement. But in the world it has no application.

I didn't use a paradoxical (self-contradictory) statement, at any point in any of these posts.

One more point: With all due respect, shouldn't you address my argument directly, instead of side-stepping it with one of your own?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag


Mentat, sometimes you talk too much...

I know.

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Because given the understanding that QM and GR disagree, it's therefore (at its current state) not a very reliable concept is it?

From that, I choose to say that neither of them could produce such a result as to say "randomness exists". Sure they could produce a number value which could be correct up to some point. But to prove the falsitiy or truth to a claim, I won't accept that from a theory that science agress has some flaw in its compatibility.

...

I do not accept the claim that randomness is existant. Despite the fact that my theory I have yet to post here states that in fact the entire course of the "universe" is indeed predetermined (and no one has yet to show me my error) I don't find that grim.

The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.

1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.

If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?

Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.

Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.

If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.

Actually, this just proves that the subatomic world is nondeterministic, doesn't it? What if larger objects are predestined/determined? I mean, I know that the Uncertainty Principle would apply to them also, but that doesn't mean that it applies to their conscious choices (except as a limiting factor).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.

1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.

If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?

Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.

Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?

Just out of curiosity, how does SR contradict determinism?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

DrChinese - You completely and totally missed the entire concept behind what I said. Everything you said I overlooked is the very things I was pointing out.

In fact, your argument is identical to mine. Somehow you managed to not understand a word I said.

By the way bub, QM and GR are not at all supported by experimentation without exception.

By there very nature they make up for each others incorrect answers. Perhaps you should learn more about them before speaking on them.

You say: "Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. "

Which is exactly what you have done, and opposite of what I have done.

You dare to say that QM and GR always give right answers, when indeed both of them give different answers to the same problem? It's logically impossible

Again I suggest you study them a bit further.

Originally posted by DrChinese
The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.

1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.

If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?

Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.

Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

LA, are you avoiding from continuing our discussion
about your claim that everything can be
proved/disproved ?

Originally posted by Adam
One was an analogy for the other. Follow:

No evidence yet for free will -> free will does
not exist.

No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not
exist and we have never been influenced by it.

DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet
before their discovery, we were made of such,
influenced by such.

Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell
evidence for free will. But that does not rule
out the existence of free will.

Indeed, nothing rules out anything.
However, since it's existence is apparently not
proved there is no reason to making any use of it.
There is no reason to assigning any "percentage
of consciousness" to it or using it as part
of other theories, the same way that I wouldn't
use a mathematical equation unless I knew it
makes sense - valid within math(which is different
because math is an abstract system but nevertheless
applicable for the example I wanted to provide here).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

LogicalAtheist, the determinism in our universe is prohibited by mathematics. Turns out that every object in out universe is a wave. For a wave a position and momentum are mathematically entangled (by their definition) properties - they are Fourier images of each other. For Fourier entangled values their spreads are inversely proportional (product of spread of momentum with spread of position is constant).

Thus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, thus mathematical undeterminism of objects in universe - just because they happen to be waves.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You're concept is on the Biological level, sound.

I do believe that I have created a theory that, on the level of physics, proves not only that their is no free will, but the greater claim is that the entire course of EVERYTHING in a given universe (as a closed system) is absolutely predetermined.

I have never shared this theory with anyone. Partly because I didn't have anyone to talk about it with, and partly (without sounding insane) because I feel it's something someone might steal from me.

If there are any physics gurus here, I wish to talk about it safely. Any offers?

Anyhow - based on the evidence you have provided, and on my professional knowledge of Biology, I would say define free will. And then I'll tell you if we have it! But I mostly agree with you.

Don't be affraid of your idea being "stolen". The very idea is rather old, and was put forward by Laplace, it goes under the name of determinism.
Determinism is exactly like that. It states that when we would theoretically have the knowledge about all things (all material objects, all forces) we could then in principle know the entire future of the material world.

Modern physics have left this idea, because of new physics phenomena, that radically eliminate the possibility of total determinism.

 

[The Opiner]

Alexander,

I can accept that "ultimately" everything is waves. But, don't these waves follow some system of physical laws. Heck, doesn't everything?! I don't care much if we have to describe them in terms of probability functions or whatever. If they follow physical laws then cannot waves be said to be "determined". Why does Determinism fail here? What in the universe could possibly cause something to happen withour a preceeding cause? This stuff is either way above me or way below me. :)

 

[Alexander]

Determinism fails with waves for strictly mathematical reason: a wave has certain mathematical relationship between position and momentum which follows from: a). definition of position of wave b). definition of momentum of wave. Fourier entanglement of wavelength spread dk with position spread dL for a wave (dk x dL = 1) follows from a) and b) mathematically.

Basicly, position and momentum (as well as energy and time) are mathematical inverse mirror images of each other. Thus you can't have "sharper" one without "blurring" the other.

By other words, spread of momentum (call it a) and spread of position (call it b) for a wave is simply one and the same thing, but expressed by inverse quantities: a=1/b.

Thus the uncertainty principle: ab=1

 

[The Opiner]

Thanks Alexander for trying (once again) to explain this to me. Like I said in a previous post, I just don't follow the math and I don't find it convincing in itself (although I accept the criticism that this is because I am ignorant here). I can follow arguments in words, though. So is there any way to answer my specific questions, as stated, in words? Maybe they are inappropriate questions somehow.

 

[axe]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Let me start here... There are two known variables which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics, the other being enviroment...

it does not matter the proportion of each. the only thing that matters is that they are unchangebable by the person under the influence of these two variables...

I agree with Adam. The fallacy begins...at the beginning.

We've gone from
1) there are two known variables that influence a person's behaviour
to
2) these two variables are unchangeable by the person under the influence of these two variables

The suppressed premise inherent in 2) is that there are ONLY two variables that influence a person's behaviour. This is a huge (perhaps infinite - but don't like throwing that word around) leap from premise 1.

And LogicalAtheists attempt at rescuing this argument is equally fallacious:

"Adam - He's not making any assumption. He displayed the two known factors in behavior. Free-Will is not a known factor, mainly because it doesn't exist at all."

To say that something is not a known factor is completely different from saying that "it doesn't exist at all". The fact of the matter is that what we know ABOUT the two variables we began with, that is, the extent to which we can operationalise and measure them, grossly underdetermines actual human behaviour. So to conclude that free will is "deductively ruled out" by this knowledge is a gross overstatement.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

The Opiner, are you familiar with the
theory of Quantum Mechanics ?
If you familiarize yourself with this theory
it will help you understand why classical
determinism is no longer considered a valid
concept.

Axe, welcome to PF !
btw, I fully agree with you.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by axe

. . . To say that something is not a known factor is completely different from saying that "it doesn't exist at all". The fact of the matter is that what we know ABOUT the two variables we began with, that is, the extent to which we can operationalise and measure them, grossly underdetermines actual human behaviour. So to conclude that free will is "deductively ruled out" by this knowledge is a gross overstatement.

Good points.

In terms of a deduction, the evidence doesn't support ruling out other possible factors yet. We know genetics influences some things, and we know environment influences, but we cannot conclusively connect genetics and environment to every human trait.

For example, how will we account for creativity or courage or will? Mozart is writing music at age four . . . locate the gene, or prove sufficient environmental influence. A jetliner crashes in an icey river; a middle-aged man, out of shape, nearly frozen insists a young woman go ahead of him into the rescue helicopter and then drowns himself . . . locate the gene, or prove sufficient environmental influence. Someone is a drug addict, petty thief, and lazy and aimless bum. One day he decides to change and so gets into college and finishes, and goes on to become a decent human being. What genetic and environmental factors can be proven to account for his will power to change?

So the problem is that all human traits cannot be proven to be caused by genetics and environment, and therefore a deductive proof is impossible. Plus, as Zero pointed out, it does at least appear (to many anyway) that humans have free will. Since genetics and environment cannot account for everything at this time, free will deserves consideration for a place in any model of human consciousness.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.

If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.

Originally posted by Mentat
Actually, this just proves that the subatomic world is nondeterministic, doesn't it? What if larger objects are predestined/determined? I mean, I know that the Uncertainty Principle would apply to them also, but that doesn't mean that it applies to their conscious choices (except as a limiting factor).

I'd appreciate a response, please.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'd appreciate a response, please.

Just a SWAG... I don't think he really knows
what "conscious choice" means, niether do I.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd appreciate a response, please.

Sorry!

No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...

However, the type of nondeterminism, I believe, guarantees nondeterminism in the macroscopic world (though it may be very rare to see it occur)

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by The Opiner
So is there any way to answer my specific questions, as stated, in words?

Simply speaking, a wave train (= bunch of oscillations) does not have exact position.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sorry!

No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...

True in statistical sense. Basicly, math says that uncertainty or spread of parameters in the system of N "wavicles" is proportional to sqrt(N) (notice here - not to N, because some uncertanties may by chance have opposite sign, and some positive sign).

And because the system have N particles, then RELATIVE uncertainty (= per particle) is sqrt(N)/N=1/sqrt(N) and becomes smaller and smaller as N increases.

Say, one molecule of nitrogen (=air) has spread of kinetic energy of order of 50-80% from average, but 100 molecules - sqrt(100) = 10 times less - only 5-8%, and the energy of million molecules is only 0.05-0.08% spread.

Thus temperature of a million molecules (=average kinetic energy per molecule) can be mathematically defined down to about 0.1 % (and not much better).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sorry!

No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...

However, the type of nondeterminism, I believe, guarantees nondeterminism in the macroscopic world (though it may be very rare to see it occur)

Yes, it does guarantee that ones condition is non-determined, but what if it's undetermined nature was pre-determined? Also, what about conscious choices?