Free Will?

[prkrruns]

I have come across this argument throughout my daily life several times and each time it has been very thought provocing I am excited to see what ideas ensue. I have an opinion but I would perfer to hear others and keep my voice fairly neutral.

[jbl1031]

That we order our thoughts and draw conclusions from environmental does not in any manner imply 'freedom.'

You are aware that saying "environmental" without context makes no sense?

Are you saying our brains just run through routines that are predetermined by...what?

Genetic adaptations.

Adapting to what...environment? Again context.

Or do you think neuron firing is totally random? Because if our thinking process is random then how do we arrive at the point we are at now... sitting at separate computers in different places and times and yet communicating.

Some of it may be, depending on which theory of quantum mechanics is true. But most of it is a response to environmental input.

Again, without context or reason. Of course you don't believe in reason so do you operate in an amoeba like state only responding to stimuli?

Of course if anything a physics explanation would involve a degree of indeterminacy because while overall quantum effects are too small to influence the majority of the brains neurons, a neuron close to firing can make a difference in individual quantum events whether it fires or not. And these effects will grow exponentially.

Whether they are determined or random, there is no room for free will by any meaningful definition of the word free.

And you base this on what? That is what you haven't really gotten to.

But complex systems, with the brain the most complex, have solutions not corresponding to deterministic thinking. In other words we are more than just biological computing machines or non-reasoning random number generators.

If quantum mechanics follows a model that is random, then we're a combination of both. If quantum mechanics is actually deterministic, then we are indeed little different than biological computing machines.[

Quantum Physics is deterministic only so long as the causal effects are undisturbed. But as I said before the mere possible firing of a neuron can create a situation that grows exponentially. Therefore determinist factors are always in flux. Hey you're the one who calls himself ChaosBoarders.

[ChaosBorders]

That we order our thoughts and draw conclusions from environmental does not in any manner imply 'freedom.'

You are aware that saying "environmental" without context makes no sense?

My apologies. I meant to say environmental inputs. (It seems getting distracted mid-sentence is a hazard of writing when around younger cousins).

Adapting to what...environment? Again context.

Evolutionary adaptations that result from varying causes which increase in relative frequency within a population due to their capacity to provide an advantage in inclusive reproductive fitness. Often these adaptations remain dormant until there is environmental input that activates them.

Again, without context or reason. Of course you don't believe in reason so do you operate in an amoeba like state only responding to stimuli?

That is inaccurate. I believe in reason, but reason does not imply freedom of choice in the least.

Of course if anything a physics explanation would involve a degree of indeterminacy because while overall quantum effects are too small to influence the majority of the brains neurons, a neuron close to firing can make a difference in individual quantum events whether it fires or not. And these effects will grow exponentially.

Whether they are determined or random, there is no room for free will by any meaningful definition of the word free.

And you base this on what? That is what you haven't really gotten to.

Quantum theory. If Copenhagen's interpretation is correct than there is randomness on a quantum level that ultimately influences physics on a non-quantum level, although on a non-quantum level over short periods of time things are still mostly deterministic in nature. If most of the other interpretations are correct then physics is most likely deterministic all the way down to the quantum level. Since the root cause of our decisions can be traced back to quantum mechanics, they are either fairly deterministic in the short term with some random influence that accumulates exponentially over time or they are completely deterministic. Either way though, where is there room for 'free' will?

Quantum Physics is deterministic only so long as the causal effects are undisturbed. But as I said before the mere possible firing of a neuron can create a situation that grows exponentially. Therefore determinist factors are always in flux. Hey you're the one who calls himself ChaosBoarders.

Are you going by Copenhagen's interpretation here?

[jbl1031]

That we order our thoughts and draw conclusions from environmental does not in any manner imply 'freedom.'

You are aware that saying "environmental" without context makes no sense?

My apologies. I meant to say environmental inputs. (It seems getting distracted mid-sentence is a hazard of writing when around younger cousins).

I know what you mean about having someone in the room with you. I posted something yesterday while three people were talking to me and around me and when I read it later I realized it made very little sense.
let me ask you, if you order your thoughts or draw a conclusion without free will why would you bother?

Adapting to what...environment? Again context.

Evolutionary adaptations that result from varying causes which increase in relative frequency within a population due to their capacity to provide an advantage in inclusive reproductive fitness. Often these adaptations remain dormant until there is environmental input that activates them.

How does evolution counter free will. The physical adaptations you're referring to have no play on the decision making process.

Again, without context or reason. Of course you don't believe in reason so do you operate in an amoeba like state only responding to stimuli?

That is inaccurate. I believe in reason, but reason does not imply freedom of choice in the least.

How can you reason then... how can you make a choice? reasoning requires that we are able to make decisions and decisions can only be made if we are self aware enough. Self awareness requires free will.

Of course if anything a physics explanation would involve a degree of indeterminacy because while overall quantum effects are too small to influence the majority of the brains neurons, a neuron close to firing can make a difference in individual quantum events whether it fires or not. And these effects will grow exponentially.

Whether they are determined or random, there is no room for free will by any meaningful definition of the word free.

And you base this on what? That is what you haven't really gotten to.

Quantum theory. If Copenhagen's interpretation is correct than there is randomness on a quantum level that ultimately influences physics on a non-quantum level, although on a non-quantum level over short periods of time things are still mostly deterministic in nature. If most of the other interpretations are correct then physics is most likely deterministic all the way down to the quantum level. Since the root cause of our decisions can be traced back to quantum mechanics, they are either fairly deterministic in the short term with some random influence that accumulates exponentially over time or they are completely deterministic. Either way though, where is there room for 'free' will?

The word “random� or the term randomness can be defined in the context of Quantum Mechanics, as “there is no physical way to predict with certainty the outcome of an observation" This is the antithesis of determinacy. Indeterminacy of the fundamental physical laws reflects a deep fact about the nature of the Universe, it means it is not locked into a pattern of no escape and this means there is freedom on the deepest levels of creation. In order for there to be freedom there has to be free will. Other wise we are just paramecium in a very large petri dish.

Besides I repeat myself

Quantum Physics is deterministic only so long as the causal effects are undisturbed. But as I said before the mere possible firing of a neuron can create a situation that grows exponentially. Therefore determinist factors are always in flux. Hey you're the one who calls himself ChaosBoarders.

Are you going by Copenhagen's interpretation here?

Yes it is the Coppenhagen interpretation, from which most non M theory non string Quantum thinking comes .

[ChaosBorders]

let me ask you, if you order your thoughts or draw a conclusion without free will why would you bother?

Better question, how could I not? Of what relevance is free will to me ordering my thoughts and drawing conclusions?

How does evolution counter free will. The physical adaptations you're referring to have no play on the decision making process.

The brain is a physical construct. Neurons are physical constructs. These are as much physical adaptations as your hand is and they very much so play a part in the decision making process.

How can you reason then... how can you make a choice? reasoning requires that we are able to make decisions and decisions can only be made if we are self aware enough. Self awareness requires free will.

Non sequitur. How do you figure self-awareness requires free will? I receive information. My brain computes the information and depending upon a variety of factors it spits out a decision, which due to a variety of other factors I am also aware of. That does not mean the decision was in any way made 'freely,' at least not by any definition of free that isn't excessively watered down into what is basically an equivocation.

The word “random� or the term randomness can be defined in the context of Quantum Mechanics, as “there is no physical way to predict with certainty the outcome of an observation" This is the antithesis of determinacy.

Actually, that definition is not at all the opposite of determinism. Determinism is simply the concept that all events are determined causally by prior events. Just because we are not physically capable of predicting with certainty the outcome of an observation does not mean it is not causally determined by prior events.

To put it a different way, say you were given the ability to rewind time. If something is determined, no matter how many times you rewound time, the same thing would happen every single time because it was determined by the starting state that had resulted from past states. If something is random, then when you rewind time something different could happen when you hit the 'play' button.

By the definition of 'random' you've given, there is no way for us to tell what would happen, but that doesn't mean something different actually could have happened. By a more complete definition of random, not only can we not tell what would happen in the future until we arrive at that point, something different actually could have happened in the past.

Indeterminacy of the fundamental physical laws reflects a deep fact about the nature of the Universe, it means it is not locked into a pattern of no escape and this means there is freedom on the deepest levels of creation.

If there is actually indeterminacy, yes it would indicate we are not locked into a fixed pattern. It would also be indicative that we are instead following along an arbitrarily random path.

In order for there to be freedom there has to be free will. Other wise we are just paramecium in a very large petri dish.

Or characters in a very well written book. I do not see how free will is an option. The choices seem to be that either our wills are determined or are ultimately the result of arbitrary randomness. I suppose you could call randomness 'free' in a sense, but I don't see how that would actually be a good thing.

Yes it is the Coppenhagen interpretation, from which most non M theory non string Quantum thinking comes .

Admittedly it's been half a year and perhaps I should check again when I have more time, but last time I was reading on the subject physicists in the field were pretty evenly split between Copenhagen's and others such as Multi-Worlds Interpretation (most of the alternatives being deterministic in nature). Unless there has been some massive breakthroughs within the last few months of which I am unaware, the question of whether quantum mechanics is random or determined is not even remotely settled.

[horiturk]

we have no choice but to have free will

[ChaosBorders]

we have no choice but to have free will

More accurately we have no choice but to act as if our will is free.

[jbl1031]

let me ask you, if you order your thoughts or draw a conclusion without free will why would you bother?

Better question, how could I not? Of what relevance is free will to me ordering my thoughts and drawing conclusions?

Interesting choice of word there, relevance.

How does evolution counter free will. The physical adaptations you're referring to have no play on the decision making process.

The brain is a physical construct. Neurons are physical constructs. These are as much physical adaptations as your hand is and they very much so play a part in the decision making process.

So you're saying that nothing lies outside the construct of the brain? It is just a meat computer?

How can you reason then... how can you make a choice? reasoning requires that we are able to make decisions and decisions can only be made if we are self aware enough. Self awareness requires free will.

Non sequitur. How do you figure self-awareness requires free will? I receive information. My brain computes the information and depending upon a variety of factors it spits out a decision, which due to a variety of other factors I am also aware of. That does not mean the decision was in any way made 'freely,' at least not by any definition of free that isn't excessively watered down into what is basically an equivocation.

Doesn't it? Self awareness allows you to know at least some of the inputs that you are absorbing and to discriminate between those inputs. If you can not discriminate you are in the position of the old "garbage in, garbage out."

The word “random� or the term randomness can be defined in the context of Quantum Mechanics, as “there is no physical way to predict with certainty the outcome of an observation" This is the antithesis of determinacy.

Actually, that definition is not at all the opposite of determinism. Determinism is simply the concept that all events are determined causally by prior events. Just because we are not physically capable of predicting with certainty the outcome of an observation does not mean it is not causally determined by prior events.

To put it a different way, say you were given the ability to rewind time. If something is determined, no matter how many times you rewound time, the same thing would happen every single time because it was determined by the starting state that had resulted from past states. If something is random, then when you rewind time something different could happen when you hit the 'play' button.

By the definition of 'random' you've given, there is no way for us to tell what would happen, but that doesn't mean something different actually could have happened. By a more complete definition of random, not only can we not tell what would happen in the future until we arrive at that point, something different actually could have happened in the past.

Random is the unknown factors that operate continuously on all systems. Causality will continue along until something operates on it. There are no complex systems that are immune to this effect. We can not predict an outcome with certainty when we have no way of knowing the full range of causal effects. From this stand point we can only experience randomness determination can not be certain. The very act that might alter an outcome might in it's turn be acted upon and so forth.

As to your time travel scenario, what we don't know about time travel would fill a dry lake bed, including whether or not we would be aware of changes. But one thing is certain, if we travel back into time our mere presence would be a time altering event. Another random introduction into a causality stream.

Indeterminacy of the fundamental physical laws reflects a deep fact about the nature of the Universe, it means it is not locked into a pattern of no escape and this means there is freedom on the deepest levels of creation.

If there is actually indeterminacy, yes it would indicate we are not locked into a fixed pattern. It would also be indicative that we are instead following along an arbitrarily random path.

And this is bad? This freedom as opposed to automation.

In order for there to be freedom there has to be free will. Other wise we are just paramecium in a very large petri dish.

Or characters in a very well written book. I do not see how free will is an option. The choices seem to be that either our wills are determined or are ultimately the result of arbitrary randomness. I suppose you could call randomness 'free' in a sense, but I don't see how that would actually be a good thing.

We live our lives as improve not as scripted. I fail to see this as a bad thing.

Yes it is the Coppenhagen interpretation, from which most non M theory non string Quantum thinking comes .

Admittedly it's been half a year and perhaps I should check again when I have more time, but last time I was reading on the subject physicists in the field were pretty evenly split between Copenhagen's and others such as Multi-Worlds Interpretation (most of the alternatives being deterministic in nature). Unless there has been some massive breakthroughs within the last few months of which I am unaware, the question of whether quantum mechanics is random or determined is not even remotely settled.

The Copenhagen interpretation, the last I read, is still preferred among working physicists. Many theoretical scientist have gravitated to M theory and the like, as Nicholas Beale said it remains the favorite of atheist and science fiction writers.

[Filthy Tugboat]

let me ask you, if you order your thoughts or draw a conclusion without free will why would you bother?

Better question, how could I not? Of what relevance is free will to me ordering my thoughts and drawing conclusions?

Interesting choice of word there, relevance.

His comment is showing you that your comment did not impact the possibility of free will. If we don't have free will then we don't have a choice in whether or not we bother.

How does evolution counter free will. The physical adaptations you're referring to have no play on the decision making process.

The brain is a physical construct. Neurons are physical constructs. These are as much physical adaptations as your hand is and they very much so play a part in the decision making process.

So you're saying that nothing lies outside the construct of the brain? It is just a meat computer?

Are you suggesting there is something more then the physical mind? Given thoughts originate from the brain as does our ability to solve problems and perform activities and comprehend emotions, what else do you propose lies outside of the brain in decision making?

How can you reason then... how can you make a choice? reasoning requires that we are able to make decisions and decisions can only be made if we are self aware enough. Self awareness requires free will.

Non sequitur. How do you figure self-awareness requires free will? I receive information. My brain computes the information and depending upon a variety of factors it spits out a decision, which due to a variety of other factors I am also aware of. That does not mean the decision was in any way made 'freely,' at least not by any definition of free that isn't excessively watered down into what is basically an equivocation.

Doesn't it? Self awareness allows you to know at least some of the inputs that you are absorbing and to discriminate between those inputs. If you can not discriminate you are in the position of the old "garbage in, garbage out."

Yes, how does this impact on the presence of free will?

The word “random� or the term randomness can be defined in the context of Quantum Mechanics, as “there is no physical way to predict with certainty the outcome of an observation" This is the antithesis of determinacy.

Actually, that definition is not at all the opposite of determinism. Determinism is simply the concept that all events are determined causally by prior events. Just because we are not physically capable of predicting with certainty the outcome of an observation does not mean it is not causally determined by prior events.

To put it a different way, say you were given the ability to rewind time. If something is determined, no matter how many times you rewound time, the same thing would happen every single time because it was determined by the starting state that had resulted from past states. If something is random, then when you rewind time something different could happen when you hit the 'play' button.

By the definition of 'random' you've given, there is no way for us to tell what would happen, but that doesn't mean something different actually could have happened. By a more complete definition of random, not only can we not tell what would happen in the future until we arrive at that point, something different actually could have happened in the past.

Random is the unknown factors that operate continuously on all systems. Causality will continue along until something operates on it. There are no complex systems that are immune to this effect. We can not predict an outcome with certainty when we have no way of knowing the full range of causal effects. From this stand point we can only experience randomness determination can not be certain. The very act that might alter an outcome might in it's turn be acted upon and so forth.

As to your time travel scenario, what we don't know about time travel would fill a dry lake bed, including whether or not we would be aware of changes. But one thing is certain, if we travel back into time our mere presence would be a time altering event. Another random introduction into a causality stream.

What random forces are you suggesting exist?

Indeterminacy of the fundamental physical laws reflects a deep fact about the nature of the Universe, it means it is not locked into a pattern of no escape and this means there is freedom on the deepest levels of creation.

If there is actually indeterminacy, yes it would indicate we are not locked into a fixed pattern. It would also be indicative that we are instead following along an arbitrarily random path.

And this is bad? This freedom as opposed to automation.

It's neither bad nor good. Neither option has any moral implications or positive/negative benefits. Or at least none that i am aware of.

In order for there to be freedom there has to be free will. Other wise we are just paramecium in a very large petri dish.

Or characters in a very well written book. I do not see how free will is an option. The choices seem to be that either our wills are determined or are ultimately the result of arbitrary randomness. I suppose you could call randomness 'free' in a sense, but I don't see how that would actually be a good thing.

We live our lives as improve not as scripted. I fail to see this as a bad thing.

How do you know they aren't scripted?

[jbl1031]

let me ask you, if you order your thoughts or draw a conclusion without free will why would you bother?

Better question, how could I not? Of what relevance is free will to me ordering my thoughts and drawing conclusions?

Interesting choice of word there, relevance.

His comment is showing you that your comment did not impact the possibility of free will. If we don't have free will then we don't have a choice in whether or not we bother.

This becomes a semantics game. Just "I said you said."
Plus I was thinking of relevance as it is used in computer thinking.

How does evolution counter free will. The physical adaptations you're referring to have no play on the decision making process.

The brain is a physical construct. Neurons are physical constructs. These are as much physical adaptations as your hand is and they very much so play a part in the decision making process.

So you're saying that nothing lies outside the construct of the brain? It is just a meat computer?

Are you suggesting there is something more then the physical mind? Given thoughts originate from the brain as does our ability to solve problems and perform activities and comprehend emotions, what else do you propose lies outside of the brain in decision making?

A soul, something that puts us somewhat above a calculator

How can you reason then... how can you make a choice? reasoning requires that we are able to make decisions and decisions can only be made if we are self aware enough. Self awareness requires free will.

Non sequitur. How do you figure self-awareness requires free will? I receive information. My brain computes the information and depending upon a variety of factors it spits out a decision, which due to a variety of other factors I am also aware of. That does not mean the decision was in any way made 'freely,' at least not by any definition of free that isn't excessively watered down into what is basically an equivocation.

Doesn't it? Self awareness allows you to know at least some of the inputs that you are absorbing and to discriminate between those inputs. If you can not discriminate you are in the position of the old "garbage in, garbage out."

Yes, how does this impact on the presence of free will?

Without some type of freedom of thought how are we to discriminate?

The word “random� or the term randomness can be defined in the context of Quantum Mechanics, as “there is no physical way to predict with certainty the outcome of an observation" This is the antithesis of determinacy.

Actually, that definition is not at all the opposite of determinism. Determinism is simply the concept that all events are determined causally by prior events. Just because we are not physically capable of predicting with certainty the outcome of an observation does not mean it is not causally determined by prior events.

To put it a different way, say you were given the ability to rewind time. If something is determined, no matter how many times you rewound time, the same thing would happen every single time because it was determined by the starting state that had resulted from past states. If something is random, then when you rewind time something different could happen when you hit the 'play' button.

By the definition of 'random' you've given, there is no way for us to tell what would happen, but that doesn't mean something different actually could have happened. By a more complete definition of random, not only can we not tell what would happen in the future until we arrive at that point, something different actually could have happened in the past.

Random is the unknown factors that operate continuously on all systems. Causality will continue along until something operates on it. There are no complex systems that are immune to this effect. We can not predict an outcome with certainty when we have no way of knowing the full range of causal effects. From this stand point we can only experience randomness determination can not be certain. The very act that might alter an outcome might in it's turn be acted upon and so forth.

As to your time travel scenario, what we don't know about time travel would fill a dry lake bed, including whether or not we would be aware of changes. But one thing is certain, if we travel back into time our mere presence would be a time altering event. Another random introduction into a causality stream.

What random forces are you suggesting exist?

Any complex system is prey to events outside its current causality chain. From the point of view of the system that would be a random force.

Indeterminacy of the fundamental physical laws reflects a deep fact about the nature of the Universe, it means it is not locked into a pattern of no escape and this means there is freedom on the deepest levels of creation.

If there is actually indeterminacy, yes it would indicate we are not locked into a fixed pattern. It would also be indicative that we are instead following along an arbitrarily random path.

And this is bad? This freedom as opposed to automation.

It's neither bad nor good. Neither option has any moral implications or positive/negative benefits. Or at least none that i am aware of.

A thing does not need a moral value assigned to it in order for it to be a bad thing. Earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and on and on are not morally bad they are just bad.
I would rather know that I can decide for myself, by weighing facts and by making educated guesses, the things I want to believe.

In order for there to be freedom there has to be free will. Other wise we are just paramecium in a very large petri dish.

Or characters in a very well written book. I do not see how free will is an option. The choices seem to be that either our wills are determined or are ultimately the result of arbitrary randomness. I suppose you could call randomness 'free' in a sense, but I don't see how that would actually be a good thing.

We live our lives as improve not as scripted. I fail to see this as a bad thing.

How do you know they aren't scripted?

Because I can chose to know.

[Filthy Tugboat]

Are you suggesting there is something more then the physical mind? Given thoughts originate from the brain as does our ability to solve problems and perform activities and comprehend emotions, what else do you propose lies outside of the brain in decision making?

A soul, something that puts us somewhat above a calculator

What is a soul? What does it do? How do we know it exists? What does it look like?

Doesn't it? Self awareness allows you to know at least some of the inputs that you are absorbing and to discriminate between those inputs. If you can not discriminate you are in the position of the old "garbage in, garbage out."

Yes, how does this impact on the presence of free will?

Without some type of freedom of thought how are we to discriminate?

How are we not? We're not suggesting lack of free will means nothing happens, we're saying a lack of free will makes us characters in a book. Powerless to diverge from the path set for us.

Random is the unknown factors that operate continuously on all systems. Causality will continue along until something operates on it. There are no complex systems that are immune to this effect. We can not predict an outcome with certainty when we have no way of knowing the full range of causal effects. From this stand point we can only experience randomness determination can not be certain. The very act that might alter an outcome might in it's turn be acted upon and so forth.

As to your time travel scenario, what we don't know about time travel would fill a dry lake bed, including whether or not we would be aware of changes. But one thing is certain, if we travel back into time our mere presence would be a time altering event. Another random introduction into a causality stream.

What random forces are you suggesting exist?

Any complex system is prey to events outside its current causality chain. From the point of view of the system that would be a random force.

So now you're suggesting an existence outside of the universe that acts upon the universe? Do you have any supporting evidence for this or are you just guessing? Also, your post looks like you're suggesting that the point of view determines what is random which doesn't make much sense.

And this is bad? This freedom as opposed to automation.

It's neither bad nor good. Neither option has any moral implications or positive/negative benefits. Or at least none that i am aware of.

A thing does not need a moral value assigned to it in order for it to be a bad thing. Earthquakes, floods, tornadoes, and on and on are not morally bad they are just bad.
I would rather know that I can decide for myself, by weighing facts and by making educated guesses, the things I want to believe.

I didn't only mention moral effects, I also said 'positive/negative benefits'. That was like 3 words afterwards as well, how did you miss that? Your preferences do not effect reality, I don't care what you 'would rather know', it has no bearing on our discussion.

We live our lives as improve not as scripted. I fail to see this as a bad thing.

How do you know they aren't scripted?

Because I can chose to know.

Since when can you choose to know something? I don't even think you can choose your beliefs let alone choose what you 'know'. Knowledge implies truth, you saying you can choose what is true is false.