Freewill

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Freewill

Post #1

Post by Wootah »

Is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake?

Eating the cake seems to demonstrate action and so demonstrate free will but not eating the cake demonstrates free will more so because you are overcoming something you want to do.

Always doing what you want demonstrates less freewill than not doing what you want. IMO...
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Freewill

Post #2

Post by Wootah »

Think of the marshmallow test



Is eating the marshmallow showing more or less free will than not eating the marshmallow?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Freewill

Post #3

Post by Difflugia »

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:21 amThink of the marshmallow test

Is eating the marshmallow showing more or less free will than not eating the marshmallow?
No. The complexity of the behavior doesn't address whether or not it's deterministic. The test isn't how agonized the subject feels about the answer or how close he or she might be to choosing a different answer, but if with an identical starting state and identical inputs, the subject at least sometimes actually does something different such that the ending state is different. The problem with humans is that the starting state contains so many variables that it's essentially impossible to replicate the experiment with a starting state close enough to the previous trial to detect whether a change is deterministic or not.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Freewill

Post #4

Post by Miles »

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 7:04 am Is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake?
No.

Eating the cake seems to demonstrate action
And in as much as "eating" is a verb, it does indeed demonstrate action.

and so demonstrate free will
Why would mere action demonstrate free will? Does slipping and falling off a cliff demonstrate free will?

but not eating the cake demonstrates free will more so because you are overcoming something you want to do.
But what if you have no desire to eat cake? Does eating cake then win?

Always doing what you want demonstrates less freewill than not doing what you want. IMO...
Can't argue with one's opinion.

.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Freewill

Post #5

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to Wootah in post #1]

Determinism seems to me that under the same conditions the same cause has the same effect.

Billiard balls and all that.

Now a fire or chemical reaction is the same. A fire necessarily eats until all the food is gone ir it can't get to the food.

So why don't we eat and eat and why can we not eat even when hungry?

I think the not eating suggests either deterministic factors that changed the causal chain or free will.

The evidence of a fire not consuming (burning bush) or a person not eating is a door crack to the idea of free will.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Freewill

Post #6

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #3]

Apart from the no. No to what? I agree with the summary.

The thing is we know many truly deterministic systems and what we know is that they all eat. Ie: they all follow their causal chain, the same way everytime.

Are we really to throw away the idea of standard laboratory conditions and all science to say we don't know what but some other factor caused the experiment to be different?

Is it God of the gaps? Determinism is the god and we cannot accept anything contrary?
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Re: Freewill

Post #7

Post by Wootah »

[Replying to Miles in post #4]

Hence the purpose of debate to allow others to affect our opinion. The IMO was my way of trying to be more humble in offering the topic.

What I am arguing is that taking action can be as much if not even more so an example of no free will.

More plainly in determinism we know the billiard ball has no free will precisely because moment to moment it takes the next prescribed action.

We know some people have compulsory behaviours. I think it fair to say they are taking more actions but have less free will.
Proverbs 18:17 The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him.

Member Notes: viewtopic.php?t=33826

"Why is everyone so quick to reason God might be petty. Now that is creating God in our own image :)."

User avatar
Miles
Savant
Posts: 5179
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 434 times
Been thanked: 1614 times

Re: Freewill

Post #8

Post by Miles »

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:29 pm [Replying to Miles in post #4]

Hence the purpose of debate to allow others to affect our opinion. The IMO was my way of trying to be more humble in offering the topic.

What I am arguing is that taking action can be as much if not even more so an example of no free will.

More plainly in determinism we know the billiard ball has no free will precisely because moment to moment it takes the next prescribed action.

We know some people have compulsory behaviours. I think it fair to say they are taking more actions but have less free will.
Just to clarify, "Determinism is the philosophical idea that every event or state of affairs, including every human decision and action, is the inevitable and necessary consequence of antecedent states of affairs."

As for the free will vs determinism issue, here's something I wrote some years ago and previously posted on DC&R, which explains my position.

"Discussions about free will usually center around an affirmation and/or a denunciation of it. Typically, very interesting notions on both sides come out of such conversations, many well thought out, others not so much. Whatever the case, there's frequently been a problem with what is meant by "will" and free will," so much so that the issue can quickly become mired in misunderstanding. To avoid this I've found the following definitions to be pretty much on point and helpful.

Will The capacity to act decisively on one's desires.

Free will "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate."

For many people the notion of free will is important because without it would mean each of us is nothing more than an automaton; a "machine" that performs a function according to a predetermined set of instructions, which is anathema to the notion of personal freedom. If people lack freedom of choice how can they be blamed or praised for what they do? For Christians this has the added consequence of robbing the concept of sin/salvation of any meaning. So most people are loath to even entertain the idea of no free will. Free will is almost always regarded as a given, and often touted in religions---Christianity comes to mind here.

Any exception to free will is often regarded as an interfering constraint. "I am free to do this or that unless someone/thing comes along and prevents it. Of course this isn't what the issue of free will is about at all. Free will is about the idea that, aside from any external constraints, "I could have chosen to do differently if I wished." So I think another valid way way of looking at free will is just that: the ability to do differently if one wished. "I got a haircut yesterday, but I could just as well have chosen to have hot dog instead."

Those who most ardently disagree with this are hard determinists, people claiming that everything we do has a cause. And because everything we do is caused we could not have done differently---no, you could not have chosen to have a hot dog---therefore it's absurd to place blame or praise. A pretty drastic notion, and one rejected by almost everyone. So whatever else is said about the issue of free will ultimately it must come down to this very basic question: Are we free to do other than what we did or not? I say, No you were not. Free will is an illusion.


Here's how I see it. (significantly condensed)

There are only two ways actions take place; completely at random, or caused. By "completely" at random I mean utterly at random, not an action which, for some reason, we do not or cannot determine a cause. This excludes things such as the "random" roll of dice. Dice land as they do because of the laws of physics, and although we may not be able to identify and calculate how dice land it doesn't mean that the end result is not caused. This is the most common notion of "random" events: those we are unable to predict and appear to come about by pure chance. The only place where true randomness, an absolutely uncaused event, has been suggested to occur is at the quantum level, which has no effect on superatomic events, those at which we operate. And I don't think anyone would suggest that's how we operate anyway, completely or even partially randomly: what we do is for absolutely no reason whatsoever. So that leaves non-randomness as the operative agent of our actions and thoughts. We do this or that because. . . . And the "cause" in "because" is telling. It signals a deterministic operation at work. What we do is determined by something. Were it not, what we do would be absolutely random in nature: for absolutely no reason at all. But as all of us claim from time to time, we do have reasons for what we do. And these reasons are the causes that easily negate randomness.

So, because what we do obviously has a cause, could we have done differently? Not unless at least one of the causal events leading up to the Doing in question had been different. If I end up at home after going for a walk it would be impossible to end up at my neighbor's house if I took the exact same route. Of course I could take a different route and still wind up at home, but I would still be in the same position of not ending up at my neighbor's. To do that there would have had to be a different set of circumstances (causes) at work. But there weren't so I had no option but to wind up at home. The previous chain of cause/effects inexorably determined where I ended up. So to is it with what we do. We do what we do because all the relevant preceding cause/effect events inexorably led up to that very act and no other. We HAD to do what we did. There was no freedom to do any differently.

What does this all mean then? It means that we can never do anything differently than what we are caused to do. Our life is solely determined by previous causal events, including intervening outside events (also causes), and nothing else. Even our wishing to think we could have done otherwise is a mental event that was determined by all the cause/effect events that led up to it. We think as we do because. . . . And that "because" can never be any different than what it was. We have no ability to do anything other than what we're caused to do. In effect then, free will does not exist, nor does choosing, selecting, opting, etc..

This means that praise and blame come out as pretty hollow concepts. As I mentioned, if you cannot do other than what you did why should you be blamed or praised for them? To do so would be like blaming or praising a rock for where it lies. It had no "choice" in the matter.

Of course we can still claim to have free will if we define the term as simply being free of external constraints, but that's not really addressing free will, and why free will exists as an issue. The free will issue exists because people claim "I could have done differently if I had wished." Problem is, of course, they didn't wish differently because . . . .

This, then, is my argument--considerably shortened to keep it brief---against free will as it stands in opposition to determinism.
.

User avatar
Mithrae
Prodigy
Posts: 4304
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:33 am
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 100 times
Been thanked: 190 times

Re: Freewill

Post #9

Post by Mithrae »

Miles wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 6:13 pm There are only two ways actions take place; completely at random, or caused.
Seems to me we can conceptualize at least five models under which events might occur:
A- Complete randomness (a coin toss is just as likely to land on its edge, or turn into a chicken, or destroy the planet)
B- Deterministic (any outcome that occurs was always a certainty)
C- Probability distribution (some outcomes are more likely, but not certain)
D- Choice/'free will' (outcomes are chosen by a thinking agent)
E- Erratic (some outcomes are determined, some may be probabilistic, some may be random, some may be chosen)

A and B are the absolutist options; the ones which would require the most exacting conditions to be true, and therefore arguably the most unlikely.
Last edited by Mithrae on Mon Mar 20, 2023 10:19 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3017
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3247 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Freewill

Post #10

Post by Difflugia »

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:23 pmApart from the no. No to what?
No to "is free will demonstrated in eating the cake or not eating the cake." I didn't realize you meant the "or" to be exclusive. In that case, my answer is "neither."

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:23 pmThe thing is we know many truly deterministic systems
Implying that you somehow know that human beings are not "truly deterministic?" Other than adding the word "truly" as an emoional appeal, you've offered no evidence for that.

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:23 pmand what we know is that they all eat. Ie: they all follow their causal chain, the same way everytime.
The key is "causal chain." Humans are complicated enough that it may be difficult to the point of practical impossibility to replicate the starting conditions for an experimental trial. One of the starting conditions, for example, may be how many times the experiment has been replicated on a particular subject. Humans learn in a very complex way that isn't fully understood. In the modern parlance of artificial intelligence, a person's "training data" is literally every detail of every moment since their birth or perhaps earlier. Adding an experimental trial updates the set of trained data and alters the experimental setup. The philosophical question is whether we have free will or are "merely" so complex that we only appear to. It remains a philosophical question specifically because we have yet to be sure of distinguishing the two.

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:23 pmAre we really to throw away the idea of standard laboratory conditions and all science to say we don't know what but some other factor caused the experiment to be different?
The fact that you've asked that question the way you have means that you don't know what it means. The inability to sufficiently control for a particular variable doesn't mean that a scientist worthy of the label would pretend that they have done so. Bluff and bravado are a part of religion, not science.

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:23 pmIs it God of the gaps?
I hadn't thought of it before, but yes, I think the argument you're making for free will is exactly a "god of the gaps" argument. Behavioral psychology has made great strides in identifying ways of influencing human beings that are effective, often without the knowledge of the subjects themselves. The fact that punishment and reward are effective is an argument against free will, as is the fact that marketing is a multibillion dollar industry. As we get more proficient at identifying human behavior patterns, free will has fewer and fewer places to hide, not unlike a creationist's god.

Wootah wrote: Mon Mar 20, 2023 5:23 pmDeterminism is the god and we cannot accept anything contrary?
Ah. I see you have it backward. My mistake. :D
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Post Reply