NationStates Jolt Archive

I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine about time travel. At one point we decided that the outcome of a hypothetical time-traveling situation would depend on whether or not free will truly existed. I've never really considered the topic before, but now that I have, it seems to me that true free will cannot exist, and every choice you or I make is fundamentally deterministic.

Here is my reasoning:

Given that:
1. Choices are governed by brain activity
2. Brain activity is a biological process
3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws
4. The science of physics is deterministic on every level but the quantum level
5. The effects of quantum mechanics on brain activity are negligible

Therefore, our choices are deterministic.

This would mean that while we currently do not have the proper knowledge of physics to predict the choices an individual would make, it is possible to do so with absolute certainty.

I'm not a logician by any means, so I doubt that they form of my proof is perfect. But regardless, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on where it might be logically incorrect. The way I see it, there are at least three possible positions against it:

A. You believe that quantum mechanics do affect brain activity
B. You believe that there is another, yet undiscovered physical property that is nondeterministic and affects brain activity
C. You believe that brain activity is affected by a nondeterministic metaphysical property

Anyway, make your case.

Convince Me That Free Will Exists

I don't want to. :)

I don't want to. :)

Zing!

I agree with LG.
And no, you totally did not just read that.

The biggest problem with true determinism is the question of what determines things, and why. When we are not in control of our actions, the question of who is naturally follows; it seems both implausible and quite baseless to assume things are determined for the sake of being determined, with all of existence determined beforehand without any kind of motivation or purpose.

There's a lot more room for a supreme God behind the curtain when compared to a universe in which each individual is an observer capable of shaping an otherwise random state of affairs. Actually, either way you're going to run in to metaphysical questions that simply can't be answered with anything resembling certainty and it kind of becomes irrelevant. Given that free will seems not only to be the easier of the two options but also the way we perceive our actions, not to mention far more appealing from any vantage point, determinism is kind of pointless.

Not to mention, of course, it is both absurd and incorrect to assume quantum phenomena have no impact on greater events. Given the centrality of the observer in that field, it seems like all seemingly deterministic aspects of the universe hinge on our observation of them.

Convince me that free will exists.

Sorry, can't do that, because it doesn't. ;)

I don't think I'm smart enough to convince you, but I don't think I agree.

I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine about time travel. At one point we decided that the outcome of a hypothetical time-traveling situation would depend on whether or not free will truly existed. I've never really considered the topic before, but now that I have, it seems to me that true free will cannot exist, and every choice you or I make is fundamentally deterministic.

Here is my reasoning:

Given that:
1. Choices are governed by brain activity
2. Brain activity is a biological process
3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws
4. The science of physics is deterministic on every level but the quantum level
5. The effects of quantum mechanics on brain activity are negligible

Therefore, our choices are deterministic.

This would mean that while we currently do not have the proper knowledge of physics to predict the choices an individual would make, it is possible to do so with absolute certainty.

I'm not a logician by any means, so I doubt that they form of my proof is perfect. But regardless, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on where it might be logically incorrect. The way I see it, there are at least three possible positions against it:

A. You believe that quantum mechanics do affect brain activity
B. You believe that there is another, yet undiscovered physical property that is nondeterministic and affects brain activity
C. You believe that brain activity is affected by a nondeterministic metaphysical property

Anyway, make your case.

I highlighted items that are actually assumptions based on a lack of knowledge about the universe. Science is full of those. It's annoying, but it's what happens when you have things created by humans.

Honestly? Does it exist? Yes. However, I believe that most people perceive true free will as insanity. Typically because the person with it is so far outside the norm that most people cannot understand them. These people are typically outside of the influences that control the lives of most people.

Now, will I say that most people have free will? No. I won't even argue that humans are sentient. In fact, I would suggest our definition of sentience proves that we're not sentient yet. We're probably at a middle ground between animalistic intelligence and true sentience. For one thing, if we were truly sentient, I'm sure we could come up with a definition for the term that isn't humanocentric.

"Convince me that free will exists"

I don't choose to.

There are two courses of action before me: to attempt to prove that it exists, and to refuse to prove that it exists. That I have refused to prove free will exists means I must have at least SOME ability to choose between two possibilities... and the choice assumes at least some determination by the person.

"Convince me that free will exists"

I don't choose to.

:eek:

:D

I don't want to. :)

Because you don't want to. Because you didn't want to. Because you were not meant to. :D

"Convince me that free will exists"

I don't choose to.

There are two courses of action before me: to attempt to prove that it exists, and to refuse to prove that it exists. That I have refused to prove free will exists means I must have at least SOME ability to choose between two possibilities... and the choice assumes at least some determination by the person.

Let me note that you actually disproved your own argument. In trying to explain your choice, you end up attempting to explain that free choice does exist. Your felt need to explain, along with the argument your mind decided was logical, are both deterministic, as they are your ability to choose being controlled by other forces.

I can do this all day ^^

I can do this all day ^^

Then you must have a really shitty life.

4. The science of physics is deterministic on every level but the quantum level

prove this. because my evidence seems to suggest very powerfully that i have free will, and thus it seems that i could claim on the basis of that evidence that "the science of physics is deterministic at some scales but not at others. the argument that our perceived freedom is all an illusion was much more tempting before we found out that the world apparently just isn't entirely deterministic.

Because you don't want to. Because you didn't want to. Because you were not meant to. :D

My nature requires me to keep you guessing. :)

Edit: More specifically, I employ the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of Clowning. You can measure where I am, or what I'm going to do next, but never both. :)

My nature requires me to keep you guessing. :)

Which makes you oh so very predictable my chaotic neutral clown.

Then you must have a really shitty life.

Not really. People have lived for thousands of years with the idea that their lives are, in some way, determined. In fact, they've been very happy with it. And, realistically, most people don't have control over their lives anyway. They're always at the mercy of some outside power, whether it be a government, local militia, or even the weather. The fact that genetics have also been shown to have deterministic effects upon humans just adds to the case.

Now, really, what does it change about your life to learn you're not in control of it? Realistically, nothing. You were never in control anyway, so why should you let it bother you to have the illusion removed?

prove this. because my evidence seems to suggest very powerfully that i have free will, and thus it seems that i could claim on the basis of that evidence that "the science of physics is deterministic at some scales but not at others. the argument that our perceived freedom is all an illusion was much more tempting before we found out that the world apparently just isn't entirely deterministic.

For one thing, it's the basics of physics. The idea that a reaction will have the same result under the same exact conditions every time is the foundation of modern technology, covering everything from how computers work to nuclear physics.

For another, read all of his post and note what else he had to say about physics. Unfortunately, your entire argument is proved to be baseless when you read the whole post.

Which makes you oh so very predictable my chaotic neutral clown.

That's what all the others thought too. :)

Anything large enough to be seen is large enough to ruin any predictions, as trying to account for them is like trying to (say) determine what the largest country is in alternate earth #32767.

That's what all the others thought too. :)

So you claim, yet you accept my gifts. Or are they truly gifts? *cackles*

If free will doesn't exist, why can't I make up mind on whether I should take on your challenge to prove it does or just let it lie?

For one thing, it's the basics of physics.

no, it isn't

I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine about time travel. At one point we decided that the outcome of a hypothetical time-traveling situation would depend on whether or not free will truly existed. I've never really considered the topic before, but now that I have, it seems to me that true free will cannot exist, and every choice you or I make is fundamentally deterministic.

Here is my reasoning:

Given that:
1. Choices are governed by brain activity
2. Brain activity is a biological process
3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws
4. The science of physics is deterministic on every level but the quantum level
5. The effects of quantum mechanics on brain activity are negligible

Therefore, our choices are deterministic.

This would mean that while we currently do not have the proper knowledge of physics to predict the choices an individual would make, it is possible to do so with absolute certainty.

I'm not a logician by any means, so I doubt that they form of my proof is perfect. But regardless, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on where it might be logically incorrect. The way I see it, there are at least three possible positions against it:

A. You believe that quantum mechanics do affect brain activity
B. You believe that there is another, yet undiscovered physical property that is nondeterministic and affects brain activity
C. You believe that brain activity is affected by a nondeterministic metaphysical property

Anyway, make your case.

Actually, I made the A. argument some time ago when some guy was posting (in prayer form, hilariously enough) his idea of the flaws of determinism. Of course, whenever you get into questions about determinism quantum mechanics always seems to come up (which, now that I think about it, makes a hell of a lot of sense). There was a lot of interesting discussion.

I really don't care to repeat it. However, since I bothered to write this up, I might as well.

To be fair, I will offer a silly little (and almost assuredly fallacious) argument in favor of A. On a strictly common sense (AKA, anecdotal bullshit) level, a property that effects (affects? I give up on remembering which goes where) just about every single atom in your body, no matter how small, seems like it would be kind of significant when you add it all together. This becomes especially true when you consider the chain reactions that string together to form causality, what with the butterfly effect and all. Sure, it would be significant in the same way static on your TV is significant, but hey, it's still something.

Granted, this wouldn't ever really be free will in the strictest sense of the word, but if your consciousness is the result of your brain activity, then you could have a will. It would be a sort of randomized will, but since it is "yours", it could be identified as a pseudo free will. Still though, I can't in all honesty make the rest of this argument, since my idea of free will is one in which the will has control over itself, and thus is truly free from the bonds of a deterministic universe. If a free will isn't free to determine it's own disposition, then it just doesn't really seem to be "free".

This is all beyond my depth though, so feel free to ignore it, since I'm not really going to bother to defend it against any opposition. I'll just assume I'm wrong and be on my way. Incidentally, I remember someone chastising me for retreating in this very manner in that other discussion I was referring to earlier, except this time I have actually gotten pretentious enough to include it as a disclaimer. Oh well...

Oh, you wanted me to convince you? Hahaha, good luck with that.

Why bother if your not predisposed/hardwired to admit it.

I pretty much agree with Nietzsche on the concept of free will, and thus such an exercise would be pointless.

The illusion of free will is all that matters. Not if you actually have free will.

A different argument that free will doesn't exist, is that we are completely a product of our environment. The genes we have, plus the outside forces that act upon us, make us who we are. We have no control over that. Every action we take can go back to those 2 conditions. Genes + outside forces.

But the thing is, we ourselves don't know the future. Even though the reason I am typing this is because my genes are a certain way, I was raised a certain way (Lunatic Golfballs). Even my putting in something completely meaningless in my post was pre determined by my genes, education, background, etc, as I don't know what I am pre-determined to do, it is a satisfying illusion of free will.

Anything large enough to be seen is large enough to ruin any predictions, as trying to account for them is like trying to (say) determine what the largest country is in alternate earth #32767.

It's Bolivia. In 1476 A.D., a man by the name of William Chalender migrated there, carrying with him designs for an experimental gun he had come up with. The gun, as it turns out, was a primitive version of the gatling gun, not capable of firing as much but yet still superior to firearms of the time. Bolivia then became the leading military power, successfully invading and conquering most of Europe, Asia, and Africa before eventually sending people around the world. Unfortunately, they encountered the Incan Super-Empire, sparking what would be 200 years of cold war with the occasional active one as both empires rushed to try to outdo each other, causing the two to advance the entire world by leaps and bounds. The cold war came to an end when constant economic mistakes by the Incans caused their empire to break apart in a series of civil wars, which in turn led to a number of uprisings in Bolivia that eventually reduced that empire to only owning half of Europe. The World Peace Accord of 1709 ended much of the hostilities, giving Bolivia time to recover and eventually retake its position as the most powerful nation, which it still holds today with its importing of now-scarce materials from its colonies on the Moon and Mars.

There. Now, if we ever find a planet like that which matches up perfectly, then they are #32767.

no, it isn't

If this is the entirety of your argument, then I am forced to dismiss it as worthless and not even a true reply anyway. And I am also forced to ask how much of the post you read before responding.

I don't want to. :)

Owned.

A different argument that free will doesn't exist, is that we are completely a product of our environment. The genes we have, plus the outside forces that act upon us, make us who we are. We have no control over that. Every action we take can go back to those 2 conditions. Genes + outside forces.

Yeah, but there are plenty of examples of people that overcome both to completely change the direction of their lives, for better or for worse. I think there is a significant component of personal will that goes above and beyond both environment and genetics and ultimately dominates both.

I mean, I'd say I'm both genetically and environmentally disposed to have skills in analytical and quantitative thinking, which is why I'm studying accounting and enjoy it as my future career. However, I could switch my major to art or theater; it would not be something I'd want to do, and would probably be pretty challenging, but I could do it and could succeed if I put in sufficient effort.

Actually, now that I think about it, I think the OP is correct and we are all actually under the control of LG.

Yeah, but there are plenty of examples of people that overcome both to completely change the direction of their lives, for better or for worse. I think there is a significant component of personal will that goes above and beyond both environment and genetics and ultimately dominates both.

Are they able to do it because they truly can, or because there is some outside force which serves as an influence? In every case I've heard of where a person does that, there's always been an outside force, whether it be a friend, tutor, doctor, or even just something that acts as inspiration. And we still do not know, yet, exactly how much of the personality is genetically determined, so the possibility exists that even those who have none of those other influences may be doing it because of part of their genetics.

The biggest problem with true determinism is the question of what determines things, and why. When we are not in control of our actions, the question of who is naturally follows; it seems both implausible and quite baseless to assume things are determined for the sake of being determined, with all of existence determined beforehand without any kind of motivation or purpose.

There's a lot more room for a supreme God behind the curtain when compared to a universe in which each individual is an observer capable of shaping an otherwise random state of affairs. Actually, either way you're going to run in to metaphysical questions that simply can't be answered with anything resembling certainty and it kind of becomes irrelevant. Given that free will seems not only to be the easier of the two options but also the way we perceive our actions, not to mention far more appealing from any vantage point, determinism is kind of pointless.

Not to mention, of course, it is both absurd and incorrect to assume quantum phenomena have no impact on greater events. Given the centrality of the observer in that field, it seems like all seemingly deterministic aspects of the universe hinge on our observation of them.
This.

Yeah, but there are plenty of examples of people that overcome both to completely change the direction of their lives, for better or for worse. I think there is a significant component of personal will that goes above and beyond both environment and genetics and ultimately dominates both.

I mean, I'd say I'm both genetically and environmentally disposed to have skills in analytical and quantitative thinking, which is why I'm studying accounting and enjoy it as my future career. However, I could switch my major to art or theater; it would not be something I'd want to do, and would probably be pretty challenging, but I could do it and could succeed if I put in sufficient effort.

Ah, but could you really? The only way to know for sure would to be to take that path in life. It's always easy to say "yeah, I could do that" and do something else instead (thats why I'm a lazy procrastinator), but you don't really know that for sure until you do it.

Also, even if you put in a lot of effort to accomplish that goal, you could just get hit by a car and die before you finish.

You saying that you can do something if you really put your mind to it is about as accurate as me saying that's bullshit, and you can't. The only reasons people don't take that stance is because:

A. It makes you come off like a real asshole.

B. It's really depressing.

C. It's the kind of attitude that is self fulfilling, and makes you end up procrastinating and being lazy. Thus, these people have less success at acquiring mates (the asshole thing doesn't help either) and are slowly being driven to extinction.

RIP naysayers, you'll be gone soon enough.

Are they able to do it because they truly can, or because there is some outside force which serves as an influence? In every case I've heard of where a person does that, there's always been an outside force, whether it be a friend, tutor, doctor, or even just something that acts as inspiration. And we still do not know, yet, exactly how much of the personality is genetically determined, so the possibility exists that even those who have none of those other influences may be doing it because of part of their genetics.

True, but the point still stands that they did it even though genetics and environment were against them; that other person's effort was sufficient to help them override those powerful personal characteristics to achieve an end contrary to everything they had done before.

Of course, it's also true that most people that are drug addicts or whatever likely didn't inherit that genetically; there are drug addicts among the most educated professionals just as there are in the most addict-ridden slums. There are genes that make people more susceptible to addictive behavior, but that seems to strengthen rather than weaken the role of personal will in overcoming their genetic predisposition. I think to a degree, though, it's nonetheless somewhat irrelevant. Genes themselves are not conscious nor are they an automatic blueprint for a person; there is no guarantee that a given gene will ever be expressed, which greatly confounds the ability to do anything more than correlate genetics and behavior.

RIP naysayers, you'll be gone soon enough.

20,000 years of human history proves you wrong.

True, but the point still stands that they did it even though genetics and environment were against them; that other person's effort was sufficient to help them override those powerful personal characteristics to achieve an end contrary to everything they had done before.

Technically, that other person who helps is actually part of the environment. The environment isn't limited to nonliving influences. So, this would be part of the environment helping them. Once again, deterministic.

Of course, it's also true that most people that are drug addicts or whatever didn't inherit that genetically; there are genes that make people more susceptible to addictive behavior, but that seems to strengthen rather than weaken the role of personal will in overcoming their genetic predisposition. I think to a degree, though, it's still somewhat irrelevant. Genes themselves are not conscious nor are they an automatic blueprint for a person; there is no guarantee that a given gene will ever be expressed, which greatly confounds the ability to do anything more than correlate genetics and behavior.

I'm not a geneticist, but I know there are ways to check to see if a gene is expressed or not. So, really, the argument that genes are moot is not actually supported by genetic science.

20,000 years of human history proves you wrong.

Natural selection takes longer than that. I'm sure they'll will be weeded out eventually, I was using "soon enough" as a relative term, 20,000 years is nothing.

Also, it was a joke, in reality I am sure that there are a lot of people who have the hots for naysayers for some reason, and thus, they will remain.

Until a giant rock vaporises us all, of course.

Ah, but could you really? The only way to know for sure would to be to take that path in life. It's always easy to say "yeah, I could do that" and do something else instead (thats why I'm a lazy procrastinator), but you don't really know that for sure until you do it.

Also, even if you put in a lot of effort to accomplish that goal, you could just get hit by a car and die before you finish.

You saying that you can do something if you really put your mind to it is about as accurate as me saying that's bullshit, and you can't. The only reasons people don't take that stance is because:

A. It makes you come off like a real asshole.

B. It's really depressing.

C. It's the kind of attitude that is self fulfilling, and makes you end up procrastinating and being lazy. Thus, these people have less success at acquiring mates (the asshole thing doesn't help either) and are slowly being driven to extinction.

RIP naysayers, you'll be gone soon enough.

I always figured the saying "you can do anything you put your mind to" is one of the underlying themes in the entire history of human progress. After all, somebody had to override the naysayers and figure out how to control fire, or smelt iron, or build the first ships, or travel in to unknown lands and no doubt many of them were as hesitant about doing so as anyone leaving their comfort zone to pursue a new direction.

The attitude that fate controls things and that drastic personal change is impossible is the one that's more likely to go extinct. For all I know, maybe someday I will end up pursuing the fine arts, or sailing, or flying a plane...I know that I could do these things if I desired them, and it's the knowledge of that possibility that is the most appealing aspect of free will.

3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws

Explain this.

If this is the entirety of your argument, then I am forced to dismiss it as worthless and not even a true reply anyway. And I am also forced to ask how much of the post you read before responding.

the claim "everything in the universe behaves deterministically (above the quantum level, at least)" is neither a foundation nor a conclusion of physics. it takes a rather silly understanding of physics to think so. we not only do not have the evidence needed to support such a conclusion and know that there is probabilistic behavior at the macro level, but it flies in the face of the most powerful empirical evidence we have - direct experience of making choices. and given that it is already agreed that an apparently largely deterministic universe is, at base, a probabilistic rather than deterministic universe, we clearly do not have any fundamental tension between large swaths of the universe being (or, perhaps, appearing) deterministic and other parts of it not being so at all. anyone who thinks otherwise is just having a failure of imagination.

so given our evidence and the fact that we have no reason to think that free will is impossible, then it follows that believing we have free will is more reasonable than believing we don't. the only thing that motivated the "no free will" argument was a claim that the rules of the universe ruled it out - if the universe is deterministic, we could not have free will. but the universe is not deterministic. therefore we could have free will.

3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws

Explain this.

Explaining that would require explaining particle physics, quantum physics, chemistry, and about a half dozen other sciences as well. Biologists, even experts, are typically no where near educated enough for their field... but if they required proper education it would take 60 years to get a degree. And, no, I'm not exaggerating.

Technically, that other person who helps is actually part of the environment. The environment isn't limited to nonliving influences. So, this would be part of the environment helping them. Once again, deterministic.

Yeah, but that assumes they were already somehow predisposed to help that other person. Sometimes, it's something as simple as a chance meeting or a random, unpredictable occurrence that triggers that drastic transformation and in more than a few cases the people involved might in fact be unwilling to help and yet do so out of some other conviction.

Ultimately, the definition of "environment" becomes broad as to make it a tautology. Plus, once you factor in all of the random aspects of the environment, it gets a lot harder to truly justify any kind of true determinism; it might not be free will, but it sure as hell isn't determinism.

I'm not a geneticist, but I know there are ways to check to see if a gene is expressed or not. So, really, the argument that genes are moot is not actually supported by genetic science.

No, it's quite true that a given gene may or may not be expressed. That's why some people genetically predisposed to a given medical condition might never develop it. Genes are quite relevant, that's a given, but they aren't a predictive blueprint for the behavior of a person.

They can certainly tell you what that person is predisposed to, but there's no guarantee that they'll end up acting on those genetic markers. They might, or they might not.

3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws

Explain this.

Well, they can kind of be. However, as you reduce further they become increasingly abstract; there's a pretty strong holistic aspect of biology that makes reductionism somewhat less useful than in other sciences. If you reduce a biological process all the way down to, say, string theory, that reduction probably won't help you understand that biological process much better.

Ultimately, things fall apart (and the center does not hold, appropriately enough) once you reduce it all the way to the currently known levels of quantum physics and string theory, both of which are now demonstrably the non-deterministic basis for the deterministic theories that describe the behavior of middling objects. It's that reduction to non-determinism that torpedoes the whole argument; it certainly doesn't prove the existence of free will, but it rules out true determinism. So you're left with free will and, well, something else that doesn't fit either free will or determinism.

Explaining that would require explaining particle physics, quantum physics, chemistry, and about a half dozen other sciences as well. Biologists, even experts, are typically no where near educated enough for their field... but if they required proper education it would take 60 years to get a degree. And, no, I'm not exaggerating.
Then I simply declare this step #3 the flaw in the whole argument and encourage anyone to disprove me. :tongue:

3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws

Explain this.

the claim is presumably either that the biological processes are entirely explained by more basic laws or that there are no emergent properties or some such. there are a couple different ways people use the term in these contexts.

I always figured the saying "you can do anything you put your mind to" is one of the underlying themes in the entire history of human progress. After all, somebody had to override the naysayers and figure out how to control fire, or smelt iron, or build the first ships, or travel in to unknown lands and no doubt many of them were as hesitant about doing so as anyone leaving their comfort zone to pursue a new direction.

The attitude that fate controls things and that drastic personal change is impossible is the one that's more likely to go extinct. For all I know, maybe someday I will end up pursuing the fine arts, or sailing, or flying a plane...I know that I could do these things if I desired them, and it's the knowledge of that possibility that is the most appealing aspect of free will.

Oh, you're preaching to the choir here. I was just saying that it's not a guarantee, not that it's not the way to go. For every person that overcomes the naysayers there are quite a few who fuck up or die too early.

Take all those infant deaths. I mean, not really much they could do with their lives other than eat and shit for however long they ended up being alive, and rot afterwords. Lots of would be assassins tried to kill people really hard, and sometimes even the really good ones can't pull it off. Some people vow to climb everest, and, you know, die.

However, don't think that I am a naysayer. There are a lot of babies that don't die, lots of assassins that get their targets and quite a few people have climbed everest. I'm just saying that there is quite a bit of uncertainty in it all.

For example, I am going to put my mind to altering the laws of physics to make the sun stop working by turning off the process of fusion. Do you think I will succeed? Putting your mind to things is a great and successful ethic, but there are limits to what it can do.

I say try as hard as you can and hope for success, but I think it's naive to expect it.

the claim "everything in the universe behaves deterministically (above the quantum level, at least)" is neither a foundation nor a conclusion of physics. it takes a rather silly understanding of physics to think so. we not only do not have the evidence needed to support such a conclusion and know that there is probabilistic behavior at the macro level, but it flies in the face of the most powerful empirical evidence we have - direct experience of making choices. and given that it is already agreed that an apparently largely deterministic universe is, at base, a probabilistic rather than deterministic universe, we clearly do not have any fundamental tension between large swaths of the universe being (or, perhaps, appearing) deterministic and other parts of it not being so at all. anyone who thinks otherwise is just having a failure of imagination.

so given our evidence and the fact that we have no reason to think that free will is impossible, then it follows that believing we have free will is more reasonable than believing we don't. the only thing that motivated the "no free will" argument was a claim that the rules of the universe ruled it out - if the universe is deterministic, we could not have free will. but the universe is not deterministic. therefore we could have free will.

Which is nice, but a laughable understanding of physics. Let me explain first, before you respond to that comment.

Part of the problem is that, with physics, once you fully understand a part of it, you can accurate predict exactly what is going to happen every time if you have all of the data. And, typically, what we're finding is the items we don't have that much of an understanding of we do not understand because they involve physics we do not understand yet. In time, we will understand them.

Now, for example, let's say I have 4kg of TNT in laboratory conditions. You know all of the variables that are going to affect it when I light it. Using that and a proper knowledge of thermodynamics and chemistry, you could tell me exactly how much heat, energy, and force will be released by it as it burns. You'll also be able to tell me exactly how much material will be left behind when it's over and what states of existence the material will be in, whether it be gas or otherwise.

We also know, for example, how much energy will be released by a nuclear explosion, how much by an antimatter explosion, and several other reactions. Is all of this because we investigated each one? No. It's because of our understanding that each action and influence upon the object is what helps determine the outcome, which in turn has allowed us to come to know exactly what will happen in each instance if we are educated enough on it. Now, there is much of the universe we are not educated enough about. But, we are learning. And, once we know, we'll be able to eliminate a lot of the probablistic thought and replace it with deterministic, since we'll have enough information to tell exactly what is going to happen each time.

And that's why the universe is deterministic.

Well, they can kind of be. However, as you reduce further they become increasingly abstract; there's a pretty strong holistic aspect of biology that makes reductionism somewhat less useful than in other sciences. If you reduce a biological process all the way down to, say, string theory, that reduction probably won't help you understand that biological process much better.

Reduction is probably a misnomer anyways, since you're not reducing it so much as abstracting it.
I'd have said that biological processes are bound by and make use of physical laws. However, by reducing biological processes to the physical laws they are submitted to does not explain them to their full extend and the function those processes fulfill are disregarded.

Thing is, everything we observe in the universe obeys physical laws. There is nothing in the universe which acts against this set of physical laws. Whenever we have been able to determine whether something obeys physical laws or not, it has obeyed physical laws.

Since everything we observe in the universe obeys physical laws, for us to have this concept of free will, our brains would, in some way, have to not obey physical laws. So, we have all the evidence in the universe countering this argument, yet some people are still arrogant enough to believe that humans are somehow above the laws of physics.

I defer to Bartleby.

I would prefer not to.

Thanks, Bartleby.

Oh, you're preaching to the choir here. I was just saying that it's not a guarantee, not that it's not the way to go. For every person that overcomes the naysayers there are quite a few who fuck up or die too early.

Take all those infant deaths. I mean, not really much they could do with their lives other than eat and shit for however long they ended up being alive, and rot afterwords. Lots of would be assassins tried to kill people really hard, and sometimes even the really good ones can't pull it off. Some people vow to climb everest, and, you know, die.

However, don't think that I am a naysayer. There are a lot of babies that don't die, lots of assassins that get their targets and quite a few people have climbed everest. I'm just saying that there is quite a bit of uncertainty in it all.

For example, I am going to put my mind to altering the laws of physics to make the sun stop working by turning off the process of fusion. Do you think I will succeed? Putting your mind to things is a great and successful ethic, but there are limits to what it can do.

I say try as hard as you can and hope for success, but I think it's naive to expect it.

Well, yeah, there's always a healthy dose of realism that you need to take in to account when setting goals.

Ultimately, I think the point is that you can do anything humanly possible that you set your mind to, and if it's not humanly possible than you can work towards making it so. Chances are, some distant civilization will be able to alter the physical laws of the universe, but for now we're stuck with playing by the rules and working there step by step.

I'd have said that biological processes are bound by and make use of physical laws. However, by reducing biological processes to the physical laws they are submitted to does not explain them to their full extend and the function those processes fulfill are disregarded.

Reductionism is only useful when reduction makes the phenomenon easier to understand. You can probably reduce meteorology to string theory, but that sure as hell doesn't make predicting the weather any easier. There are always emergent processes that make reductionism an abstraction rather than a simplification.

the claim is presumably either that the biological processes are entirely explained by more basic laws or that there are no emergent properties or some such. there are a couple different ways people use the term in these contexts.
To draw a comparison, let's say that the physical laws are a set of colors and a canvas, and the biological function is applying said colors (laws of function) to the canvas (laws of boundary).

The act of drawing would then be the biological process. I don't really see how the set of possibilities (range of colors) and limitations (borders of canvas) says anything about the process of painting itself.

I mean, sure, there is only so much one can do - but whether I go Jackson Pollock or Monet or whatever, the physical laws are just the framework in which biological processes take place. They don't fully determine what is done, or could be done within said framework, no? Or do they?

(I hope I'm not being too abstruse)

Yeah, but that assumes they were already somehow predisposed to help that other person. Sometimes, it's something as simple as a chance meeting or a random, unpredictable occurrence that triggers that drastic transformation and in more than a few cases the people involved might in fact be unwilling to help and yet do so out of some other conviction.

Ultimately, the definition of "environment" becomes broad as to make it a tautology. Plus, once you factor in all of the random aspects of the environment, it gets a lot harder to truly justify any kind of true determinism; it might not be free will, but it sure as hell isn't determinism.

And yet, if you trace each part of the environment, you'll find determinism at the core of each. Often, what appears to be a chance encounter is in fact a result of a number of differing sets of deterministic events that combine together to create the illusion of chance. And the random elements themselves often are not random, but appear random due to a lack of information behind them.

No, it's quite true that a given gene may or may not be expressed. That's why some people genetically predisposed to a given medical condition might never develop it. Genes are quite relevant, that's a given, but they aren't a predictive blueprint for the behavior of a person.

They can certainly tell you what that person is predisposed to, but there's no guarantee that they'll end up acting on those genetic markers. They might, or they might not.

Meh. I do know there's a way to check whether or not genes are expressed, but I don't know enough on this field to take the argument farther.

Then I simply declare this step #3 the flaw in the whole argument and encourage anyone to disprove me. :tongue:

Simple: Life itself is the result of a combination of particle physics, chemistry, and all of those other sciences, each of which uses deterministic values at their core for determining what is going to happen.

Admittedly, physics uses a lot of probablistic, but that's because of a lack of information to transition the probablistic to deterministic.

Ultimately, things fall apart (and the center does not hold, appropriately enough) once you reduce it all the way to the currently known levels of quantum physics and string theory, both of which are now demonstrably the non-deterministic basis for the deterministic theories that describe the behavior of middling objects. It's that reduction to non-determinism that torpedoes the whole argument; it certainly doesn't prove the existence of free will, but it rules out true determinism. So you're left with free will and, well, something else that doesn't fit either free will or determinism.

Actually, you're wrong. What is proves is something science openly admits: It's an area in which we simply don't have enough information. It doesn't disprove determinism, but merely proves that what is deterministic is a lot more complicated than anyone thought. And, given the size and age of the universe, that makes sense. There's no way, logically, for anything deterministic to cover something this big and be understood in the pitiful amount of time humans have been studying it.

Ultimately, I think the point is that you can do anything humanly possible that you set your mind to, and if it's not humanly possible than you can work towards making it so. Chances are, some distant civilization will be able to alter the physical laws of the universe, but for now we're stuck with playing by the rules and working there step by step.

Interestingly, this could be argued to be said that you're backing off on your anti-determinism argument somewhat.

The problem might be the difference in perception between us. I view determinism as the idea that it's the combination of influences upon an event that determine the outcome. Having part of the universe be nondeterministic doesn't disprove that; if anything, all it proves is that there's an origin for the influences themselves, though at current we haven't actually found any evidence to prove such a thing exists beyond it simply being our own ignorance in play.

Well, yeah, there's always a healthy dose of realism that you need to take in to account when setting goals.

Ultimately, I think the point is that you can do anything humanly possible that you set your mind to, and if it's not humanly possible than you can work towards making it so. Chances are, some distant civilization will be able to alter the physical laws of the universe, but for now we're stuck with playing by the rules and working there step by step.

Oh yeah, I dream of the days when we are able to use the physical laws of the universe as a lump of clay that we can form to do our bidding, rather than restrict us. I like the idea of using a pocket universe of our creation for effectively infinite energy (which bypasses a lot of obstacles), or going into one of our design and being, essentially, gods. You know your a nerd when this is what you fantasize about, eh.

Reductionism is only useful when reduction makes the phenomenon easier to understand. You can probably reduce meteorology to string theory, but that sure as hell doesn't make predicting the weather any easier. There are always emergent processes that make reductionism an abstraction rather than a simplification.

Or, to put it more simply:

"The whole is greater than the sum of it's parts"

My take on the matter:

With our understanding of the physical laws of the universe, the activity of a singular atom in a vacuum can be determined beyond any possible dispute with an arbitrary level of calculating capacity and sufficient background data of observation upon which to make the calculation. With a greater capacity, the interactions between any two given atoms can be determined. With more processing power, three or more atoms interacting can be determined. Eventually the processing power needed to calculate the interactions on an atomic scale exceeds the current scope of modern technology, but the underlying premise remains that those interactions can be calculated.

As we go up the physical scale, the pattern repeats: A single molecule is predictable, as are a pair of molecules (although not as much,) and trillions of trillions of molecules are only predictable by means beyond our reach, but are predictable nonetheless. People, nations, planets, stars, galaxies, the rule cycles upward unto the highest order.

It should also be noted that while the movements of the base pieces are beyond our capacity to calculate, the macromovements of the composite entities are calculable. For example, while it's impossible for the typical human brain to comprehend the motion of every molecule in every human body on the planet, it is easy to calculate that someone is going to attempt to refute my analysis.

Fate is a reality, and prophecy lies not within cryptic riddles, but in hard math.

Which is nice, but a laughable understanding of physics. Let me explain first, before you respond to that comment.

Part of the problem is that, with physics, once you fully understand a part of it, you can accurate predict exactly what is going to happen every time if you have all of the data.

so tell me when this particular uranium atom will decay. or where this particular electron will be...now! you can't, not even in principle. all you can give me is the probability distribution. the world just ain't deterministic, though certain aspects of it approximate it.

TSince everything we observe in the universe obeys physical laws, for us to have this concept of free will, our brains would, in some way, have to not obey physical laws.

demonstrate this. prove that free will is fundamentally incompatible with the actual 'laws' of the universe.

so tell me when this particular uranium atom will decay. or where this particular electron will be...now! you can't, not even in principle. all you can give me is the probability distribution.

Which is a result of insufficient information and does not, in any way, actually contradict my argument.

But even if the whole world is deterministic, it is still incalculable, and therefore unpredictable.
And it is incalculable, because something that could calculate the next "step" in the history of the universe, would either have to be outside of it, or its calculation would influence the universe in a way that negates the results of the calculation itself.
So, even if free will does not exist theoretically, it practically does, because it is impossible to predict everything that is going to happen next, and since anything that happens can influence anything else, nothing can be predicted without a fair degree of uncertainty.
Hence, it is irrelevant whether free will exists or not.

But even if the whole world is deterministic, it is still incalculable, and therefore unpredictable.
And it is incalculable, because something that could calculate the next "step" in the history of the universe, would either have to be outside of it, or its calculation would influence the universe in a way that negates the results of the calculation itself.
So, even if free will does not exist theoretically, it practically does, because it is impossible to predict everything that is going to happen next, and since anything that happens can influence anything else, nothing can be predicted without a fair degree of uncertainty.
Hence, it is irrelevant whether free will exists or not.

Point, set, match.

Which is a result of insufficient information and does not, in any way, actually contradict my argument.

no, it is not. it is not a lack of information but a fundamental truth about the universe. (or at least that's what the bulk of physicists say). you could know everything there is to know about the universe - all of the true statements there are to be had - and you would still just be stuck with probability.

no, it is not. it is not a lack of information but a fundamental truth about the universe. (or at least that's what the bulk of physicists say). you could know everything there is to know about the universe - all of the true statements there are to be had - and you would still just be stuck with probability.

Prove it. But, wait, before you try, you can't. You're making predictions about the future, about what discoveries will be made. If you're proven right, then determinism is involved (due to the fact that prophesy itself is reliant upon a deterministic universe) and you have ended up actually being wrong. But, if you're proven wrong, then determinism wins anyway, since then we will be able to predict every aspect of the universe with 100% accuracy and determinism will exist.

You're running out of toes to shoot off.

20,000 years of human history proves you wrong.Are you choosing to believe in a concept of history?
Certainly there appears to be a good case for "history", but to some degree you are going on faith and belief there even is such a thing.

But even if the whole world is deterministic, it is still incalculable, and therefore unpredictable.
And it is incalculable, because something that could calculate the next "step" in the history of the universe, would either have to be outside of it, or its calculation would influence the universe in a way that negates the results of the calculation itself.
So, even if free will does not exist theoretically, it practically does, because it is impossible to predict everything that is going to happen next, and since anything that happens can influence anything else, nothing can be predicted without a fair degree of uncertainty.
Hence, it is irrelevant whether free will exists or not.

of course the reason we worry about free will has less to do with prediction and more to do with moral responsibility. after all, even indeterminate things are often quite predictable, as with radioactive decay. the point is that determinism and free will are claimed to be fundamentally incompatible (except by compatiblists, obviously).

Sorry, but the game has been over for quite some time.

Not quite. Most of those had been ignored by me because they did not bother going to quite the degree that Bokkiwokki had. In addition, Vetalia's comment on deities is irrelevant to the physics point, Kyronea's comment is just irrelevant for the point you're making, KoL is irrelevant because I'm using modern science and not old philosophy, and Fishutopia actually provides an argument for determinism and then repeats the basic point I made to Potarius, only in a different form.

Eliminating what Vetalia said, since the metaphysical is realistically irrelevant to the discussion anyway, then by your standards I won the discussion. Thanks for that.

Are you choosing to believe in a concept of history?
Certainly there appears to be a good case for "history", but to some degree you are going on faith and belief there even is such a thing.

This is, to a point, an irrelevant distraction to the point I was making.

Not quite. Most of those had been ignored by me because they did not bother going to quite the degree that Bokkiwokki had. In addition, Vetalia's comment on deities is irrelevant to the physics point, Kyronea's comment is just irrelevant for the point you're making, KoL is irrelevant because I'm using modern science and not old philosophy, and Fishutopia actually provides an argument for determinism and then repeats the basic point I made to Potarius, only in a different form.

Eliminating what Vetalia said, since the metaphysical is realistically irrelevant to the discussion anyway, then by your standards I won the discussion. Thanks for that.

Fine, whatever. I was trying to illustrate a different point, but it was silly anyway.

Fine, whatever. I was trying to illustrate a different point, but it was silly anyway.

Bah! You missed the inherent silliness in my reply. I need to use the smilies more...

I was recently having a conversation with a friend of mine about time travel. At one point we decided that the outcome of a hypothetical time-traveling situation would depend on whether or not free will truly existed. I've never really considered the topic before, but now that I have, it seems to me that true free will cannot exist, and every choice you or I make is fundamentally deterministic.

Here is my reasoning:

Given that:
1. Choices are governed by brain activity
2. Brain activity is a biological process
3. Biological processes can be reduced to physical laws
4. The science of physics is deterministic on every level but the quantum level
5. The effects of quantum mechanics on brain activity are negligible

Therefore, our choices are deterministic.

This would mean that while we currently do not have the proper knowledge of physics to predict the choices an individual would make, it is possible to do so with absolute certainty.

I'm not a logician by any means, so I doubt that they form of my proof is perfect. But regardless, I'd like to hear anyone's opinion on where it might be logically incorrect. The way I see it, there are at least three possible positions against it:

A. You believe that quantum mechanics do affect brain activity
B. You believe that there is another, yet undiscovered physical property that is nondeterministic and affects brain activity
C. You believe that brain activity is affected by a nondeterministic metaphysical property

Anyway, make your case.

Why?

Bah! You missed the inherent silliness in my reply. I need to use the smilies more...

I was actually going to point out that you seemed hostile at the end, but I didn't want to escalate what I perceived as anger. Sorry about the miscommunication, and yeah, smilies do tend to help with that. ;)

I was actually going to point out that you seemed hostile at the end, but I didn't want to escalate what I perceived as anger. Sorry about the miscommunication, and yeah, smilies do tend to help with that. ;)

Nah. I'm easy to tell when I'm getting annoyed. That's when I start asking you repeatedly to prove what you're saying. Ask a certain NS person about that.

Why?

Isn't it obvious?

Isn't it obvious?

I meant, why should I try to convince anyone? There is no substantive proof one way or the other.

so tell me when this particular uranium atom will decay. or where this particular electron will be...now! you can't, not even in principle. all you can give me is the probability distribution. the world just ain't deterministic, though certain aspects of it approximate it.

Which is a result of insufficient information and does not, in any way, actually contradict my argument.

Actually, while I believe in a deterministic universe, Free Soviets has a very valid point. As far as I understand it, the general consensus on quantum physics is that even with more information, we still cannot place certain subatomic particles at any specific location. The whole probability cloud is more than just a conceptual tool for understanding an electron's orbit around its nucleus; it is actually a cloud of probability that no increase in knowledge will change.

However, and this is actually an argument I saw posted here and found rather convincing, this does not deny a deterministic universe. Probability theory and all that fancy stuff that is beyond my education and field of study places limits upon a function. Particles exist within the wave function and are unable to escape it, so how is that not just another form of determinism? It is predictable and determined and necessary and perhaps even suggests that when a thing happens it happens because it could happen no other way. Maybe it should be called limited determinism, though, to give a compromise between the two stances. I don't know, but it's still fairly irrelevant to my next question to the OP and everyone else:

What is free will exactly? Everyone loves to argue whether it exists or not but no one seems to be able to give a satisfactory definition for it. The ability to choose? That's surely nonsense because a computer can choose. Perhaps it is the ability to act unpredictably, but, again, this seems nonsensical because then free will is just a product of asymmetrical information; this would lead one to believe that the stock market is often an entity exhibiting free will. Or maybe it is the ability to act contrary to one's desire, but this is sticky because obviously it isn't completely contrary to one's desire or one wouldn't have acted upon it, unless the subject is being forced to act in such a way but that seems completely and intuitively at odds with what people take free will to be.

So, rather than waste time discussing whether not free will exists, perhaps the OP should have begun with attempting to determine what free will is?

Actually, while I believe in a deterministic universe, Free Soviets has a very valid point. As far as I understand it, the general consensus on quantum physics is that even with more information, we still cannot place certain subatomic particles at any specific location. The whole probability cloud is more than just a conceptual tool for understanding an electron's orbit around its nucleus; it is actually a cloud of probability that no increase in knowledge will change.

That's because we don't actually understand how some of those particles move. Electrons, for example, can actually appear to be in two places at once. There's questions on if electrons are like photons, if they travel through time, or if we simply don't understand them. In any case, it's an issue with the fact it's physics we simply don't understand yet and cannot seem to figure out.

However, and this is actually an argument I saw posted here and found rather convincing, this does not deny a deterministic universe. Probability theory and all that fancy stuff that is beyond my education and field of study places limits upon a function. Particles exist within the wave function and are unable to escape it, so how is that not just another form of determinism? It is predictable and determined and necessary and perhaps even suggests that when a thing happens it happens because it could happen no other way. Maybe it should be called limited determinism, though, to give a compromise between the two stances. I don't know, but it's still fairly irrelevant to my next question to the OP and everyone else:

What is free will exactly? Everyone loves to argue whether it exists or not but no one seems to be able to give a satisfactory definition for it. The ability to choose? That's surely nonsense because a computer can choose. Perhaps it is the ability to act unpredictably, but, again, this seems nonsensical because then free will is just a product of asymmetrical information; this would lead one to believe that the stock market is often an entity exhibiting free will. Or maybe it is the ability to act contrary to one's desire, but this is sticky because obviously it isn't completely contrary to one's desire or one wouldn't have acted upon it, unless the subject is being forced to act in such a way but that seems completely and intuitively at odds with what people take free will to be.

So, rather than waste time discussing whether not free will exists, perhaps the OP should have begun with attempting to determine what free will is?

Go back to what I said about sentience on the first page. The problem might simply be that we're not smart enough to understand it yet.

That's because we don't actually understand how some of those particles move. Electrons, for example, can actually appear to be in two places at once. There's questions on if electrons are like photons, if they travel through time, or if we simply don't understand them. In any case, it's an issue with the fact it's physics we simply don't understand yet and cannot seem to figure out.



Go back to what I said about sentience on the first page. The problem might simply be that we're not smart enough to understand it yet.

What you are saying about those particles is not what most physicists seem to believe. Yes, there are questions still, but current thought on it is apparently contrary to what you're saying.

We're not smart enough to understand what yet? I'm not asking whether or not we have free will, I'm trying to get down to what the hell free will actually is. You're going to have to argue really well and really hard to convince me that "we're just not smart enough" yet. In the case of free will, no one has ever really defined what the thing which existence is being argued about actually is.

So, again, what are we not smart enough to understand? And, if we're not smart enough to understand it, why do we have a word for it and are able to debate whether or not it is even possible for it to exist?

What you are saying about those particles is not what most physicists seem to believe. Yes, there are questions still, but current thought on it is apparently contrary to what you're saying.

From the way I understand it, a lot of the theories related to uncertainty in particles arose from the fact that scientists were unable to understand the particles. The theories themselves were intended to reflect the lack of understanding and serve as a baseline for further investigation. Instead, what was intended to be an "I don't know, let's investigate this" has become "this is the holy word on particles." It's not the only area of science where you can observe the transformation of theories into dogma, either. This happens from time to time, so the best thing to do is wait for the current generation of scientists to die out and be replaced by people more willing to explore. And, no, this is not the first time it's happened.

We're not smart enough to understand what yet? I'm not asking whether or not we have free will, I'm trying to get down to what the hell free will actually is. You're going to have to argue really well and really hard to convince me that "we're just not smart enough" yet. In the case of free will, no one has ever really defined what the thing which existence is being argued about actually is.

I don't have to argue a thing heavily. You're making my argument for me, for starters.

So, again, what are we not smart enough to understand? And, if we're not smart enough to understand it, why do we have a word for it and are able to debate whether or not it is even possible for it to exist?

Bwahaha! Okay, you really shouldn't have made this argument. There are several words in English, as well as other languages, that actually have no particular meaning at all. Or their meaning is extremely vague, sometimes with the definition of the word defining it as the belief in the concept of the word without going any farther. Let's grab a dictionary definition of it for fun.

Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
Date: 13th century
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Now, does either of those actually tell you any more than bothering to read the opening post would tell you? No. If anything, they tell you that the concept itself is nebulous.

What is free will? What truly determines free will? Can it be measured? Quanified? Explained? Proven?

The answer to all of those is "We don't know." The same actions that can be argued to be free will in action can also be argued to be the result of determinism. The same evidence used to argue free will in one discussion is used to argue against it in another. In this very thread you can observe that, with each side having their own interpretation of the same evidence and their own challenges to it.

So, what is it really? We don't know. It's proven to be impossible to describe with the language we have. The reason is that language is, in part, reflective of the understanding of the people using it. And since all we have is a nebulous concept at best, the best thing to realize is that the reason no definition was provided is because we don't understand it yet. And given how many centuries we've discussed it only to always end up right back where we started, I would say the conclusion is pretty obvious. We don't understand free will because it either exists or we're simply not yet smart enough to identify it.

Don't like it? Then prove me wrong. Provide a definition of free will and concept behind proving it that is within our current scientific understanding and which I couldn't rip apart. Good luck.

Again it depends on how you want to define the term 'free will'.

If free will is defined as simply choice, then we have free will.

Yes of course we may be restricted in choices. I for example can never choose to fly under my own power, I can though choose wether or not to leap off the cliff with feathers glued to my arms.

That choice is free for me to make in accordance with my will. I have free will.

Again it depends on how you want to define the term 'free will'.

If free will is defined as simply choice, then we have free will.

Yes of course we may be restricted in choices. I for example can never choose to fly under my own power, I can though choose wether or not to leap off the cliff with feathers glued to my arms.

That choice is free for me to make in accordance with my will. I have free will.

Would you jump off the cliff? Why did you make that choice?

If there are no outside factors, no instinctual factors, and no other influences than your personal will, then it's just you making the decision and, thus, free will. If there is any influence to make you not do it, then that's showing that it is something other than free will that controlled the choice... thus, determinism.

Would you jump off the cliff? Why did you make that choice?

If there are no outside factors, no instinctual factors, and no other influences than your personal will, then it's just you making the decision and, thus, free will. If there is any influence to make you not do it, then that's showing that it is something other than free will that controlled the choice... thus, determinism.

Nope I don't agree with that. Yes of course things are deterimined. I can't do anything that my body cannot physicaly do. That has been determined by my build, my enviroment, my species and lots of other things.

So of course my choices are limited, but I still have the freedom to make these choices, ultimatly with every action we do their comes a choices. I breath more or less automaticaly, I can if I so choose to, simply hold my breath.

Yes, yes, of course I can't hold my breath until I die, that is not in the scope of choices avaliable to me. I can still choose not to breath for a while. I still have that choice.

Free will is simply that, making choices, the freedom to choose. That our choices are limited does not mean that I have no choice.

Nope I don't agree with that. Yes of course things are deterimined. I can't do anything that my body cannot physicaly do. That has been determined by my build, my enviroment, my species and lots of other things.

So of course my choices are limited, but I still have the freedom to make these choices, ultimatly with every action we do their comes a choices. I breath more or less automaticaly, I can if I so choose to, simply hold my breath.

Yes, yes, of course I can't hold my breath until I die, that is not in the scope of choices avaliable to me. I can still choose not to breath for a while. I still have that choice.

Free will is simply that, making choices, the freedom to choose. That our choices are limited does not mean that I have no choice.

And all of this is, as an argument, irrelevant to the point I actually made. I notice you are dodging some of what I said.

Okay, let's get down to it. Why don't you hold your breath? I mean, just hold it until you lose conciousness every time you are awake. You have the freedom to do that. So, why don't you do it?

You can argue free will as much as you want, but as long as even the choices that are available to you have you choosing an outcome that's pretty much predetermined by other influences, then it's not truly free choice.

And all of this is, as an argument, irrelevant to the point I actually made. I notice you are dodging some of what I said.

Okay, let's get down to it. Why don't you hold your breath? I mean, just hold it until you lose conciousness every time you are awake. You have the freedom to do that. So, why don't you do it?

You can argue free will as much as you want, but as long as even the choices that are available to you have you choosing an outcome that's pretty much predetermined by other influences, then it's not truly free choice.

Rubbish I tell!:D

Stop mistaking freewill with nondeterminism. It isn't like that.

Please re-read my first post here, where I say 'Again that all depends on how you define the term 'free will'.


Now my defintion is simply that free will is the freedom to make choices. Do you then disagree with my definition?

As to your questions, I was not dodgeing, I didn't find it relevent to the point I was making, and as I cocvered that in my reply to you I didn't feel it nesacery to repeat my self.

However, coz you asked so nicely.

I don't hold my breath because I do not wish to fall unconciouse, that si not what my will desires, nor do I wish to die by leaping from a cliff with feathers glued to my arms.

Questions answered, now please answer me this.

How do my answers negate that fact that I have choices in all of these matters?

Rubbish I tell!:D

Stop mistaking freewill with nondeterminism. It isn't like that.

Please re-read my first post here, where I say 'Again that all depends on how you define the term 'free will'.

I've reread it multiple times. I still find my challenged relevant.

Now my defintion is simply that free will is the freedom to make choices. Do you then disagree with my definition?

In part, I do disagree with the definition... it's overly simplistic and implies computers have free will, despite the fact we know they do not. Unless you're comfortable with thinking that the device you're using to post with only works because it honestly chooses to.

As to your questions, I was not dodgeing, I didn't find it relevent to the point I was making, and as I cocvered that in my reply to you I didn't feel it nesacery to repeat my self.

However, coz you asked so nicely.

I don't hold my breath because I do not wish to fall unconciouse, that si not what my will desires, nor do I wish to die by leaping from a cliff with feathers glued to my arms.

Questions answered, now please answer me this.

How do my answers negate that fact that I have choices in all of these matters?

Simple: In both cases, you are letting something other than free will determine your choice for you. Passing out and falling down is a consequence, and you don't like that consequence, so the consequence itself pretty much determines that your choice will be not to do it. The other one comes with death, in which case survival instinct kicks in and you don't do it. And even if you don't count survival instinct, there's still the fact that there's a consequence and you're letting the consequence determine your decision.

Thus, not free will.

In part, I do disagree with the definition... it's overly simplistic and implies computers have free will, despite the fact we know they do not. Unless you're comfortable with thinking that the device you're using to post with only works because it honestly chooses to.

Heh overly simplistic, haha. I knew you where going to say that, as I generaly find that people tend to over complicate the thing.

How does it imply that computers have freewill.

Computers are not sentiant, they have, in fact, no will at all. Only sentiant things can be said to posses such a thing. How exactly did you get that then?



Simple: In both cases, you are letting something other than free will determine your choice for you. Passing out and falling down is a consequence, and you don't like that consequence, so the consequence itself pretty much determines that your choice will be not to do it. The other one comes with death, in which case survival instinct kicks in and you don't do it. And even if you don't count survival instinct, there's still the fact that there's a consequence and you're letting the consequence determine your decision.

Thus, not free will.
Okay all you are showing me here is that choices are predetermined. I have not disagreed with that, I have reapetedly said yes I know.

Now show me why if I can choose between lets say three differeant actions, that my I have not freely made my choice?

The essance of what I say is that I do not equate non-determination with free will, and thusly pre-determination does not mean I have no freewill.

I've gathered from most of the post on this topic that the primary answer is "we probably couldn't tell you because we lack the proper knowledge of the universe and the way the human mind works".
So, I'll just say that I like pie, and depart to my home in Alpha Centauri.

Heh overly simplistic, haha. I knew you where going to say that, as I generaly find that people tend to over complicate the thing.

How does it imply that computers have freewill.

Computers are not sentiant, they have, in fact, no will at all. Only sentiant things can be said to posses such a thing. How exactly did you get that then?

I see you're already adding onto the definition. You're proving my point for me with that.

The reason why it's overly simplistic is the idea of making decisions itself is not unique to humans or, for that matter, even to life. A cat makes a decision on whether or not to stretch out in the sun or play with a toy filled with catnip. A computer makes a decision, choosing which of its thousands of logic trees and electrical paths will be the one that gets flipped on or off at each point, in some cases being programmed to use the results of those to make choices in combat, mathematics, or other such things.

In all cases, the presence of making a choice is undeniable. Also undeniable is the fact that each choice made was pretty much predetermined by a number of factors, with the factors coming together to make it so that it is impossible for any other choice to have been made. Whether or not human observers are aware of every factor is irrelevant to the presence or absense of the actual factors themselves. Thus, the problem is that the human belief in free will based on making choices may just be the lack of enough data to find the determinism at the root of it. An argument I've already made enough times on here and which you can review at your leisure, of course.

Oh, define sentience without using humans as the source of the definition.

Okay all you are showing me here is that choices are predetermined. I have not disagreed with that, I have reapetedly said yes I know.

Now show me why if I can choose between lets say three differeant actions, that my I have not freely made my choice?

The essance of what I say is that I do not equate non-determination with free will, and thusly pre-determination does not mean I have no freewill.

You're contradicting yourself. If the choice you make is already pre-determined before you even make it, then how can you claim you freely made the choice? The answer is that you can't. The choice was made for you by the influences that were affecting the situation. All you are trying to do is rationalize your lack of choice in the matter into you having free choice, despite the fact that logically you do not.

As for why: Well, I'll leave that for you to puzzle out. It's your mind, after all.

You're contradicting yourself. If the choice you make is already pre-determined before you even make it, then how can you claim you freely made the choice? The answer is that you can't. The choice was made for you by the influences that were affecting the situation. All you are trying to do is rationalize your lack of choice in the matter into you having free choice, despite the fact that logically you do not.So, let's take myself for example, I'm presented with three choices. Choice one is somewhat good for me, choice two is not good for me, and choice three is positively harmful. You're saying that I would always choose choice one, because it's been determined by my own mind that that is what's best for me, yes? And no, I'm not being patronizing.

So, let's take myself for example, I'm presented with three choices. Choice one is somewhat good for me, choice two is not good for me, and choice three is positively harmful. You're saying that I would always choose choice one, because it's been determined by my own mind that that is what's best for me, yes? And no, I'm not being patronizing.

No. There are other factors involved as well, which help determine the decision. Depending on the combination of influences, you could easily end up with any of the three choices.

*robotically responds*
T-hats w-hat sh-e sai-d.

... it's overly simplistic and implies computers have free will, despite the fact we know they do not. Unless you're comfortable with thinking that the device you're using to post with only works because it honestly chooses to.
And what's wrong with that? I am entirely prepared to suppose that Computers are capable of having "free will" without going beyond the confines of being a deterministic machine.

I propose that what makes something "free" in choice is having the ability to alter its own programming to respond to any given environment. The machine called the human mind can reconfigure itself in response to arbitrary stimuli, even to the point of changing how it responds to such stimuli. By containing the ability to learn both procedure and metaprocedure, machine choice is now based on machine choice. Yes, my programming is what defines how I respond, but I can change this programming, and consequently, the one most responsible for how my programming is right now is me (after having been allowed to fumble through enough training to personalise myself from factory settings).

Now, you can argue (entirely correctly) that this is still deterministic, and its results can be predicted ahead of time by someone who knows the system well enough. But if I am the mechanism whereby my current programming has been put in place, then presumably I am the one responsible for my decisions. And if I am not in some way considered the arbiter of these decisions, then the concept of Self is ultimately meaningless!

So it's not too far fetched to assume that Free Will is just as possible for a computer as it is for a human. We just haven't done it right yet.

And what's wrong with that? I am entirely prepared to suppose that Computers are capable of having "free will" without going beyond the confines of being a deterministic machine.

I propose that what makes something "free" in choice is having the ability to alter its own programming to respond to any given environment. The machine called the human mind can reconfigure itself in response to arbitrary stimuli, even to the point of changing how it responds to such stimuli. By containing the ability to learn both procedure and metaprocedure, machine choice is now based on machine choice. Yes, my programming is what defines how I respond, but I can change this programming, and consequently, the one most responsible for how my programming is right now is me (after having been allowed to fumble through enough training to personalise myself from factory settings).

Now, you can argue (entirely correctly) that this is still deterministic, and its results can be predicted ahead of time by someone who knows the system well enough. But if I am the mechanism whereby my current programming has been put in place, then presumably I am the one responsible for my decisions. And if I am not in some way considered the arbiter of these decisions, then the concept of Self is ultimately meaningless!

So it's not too far fetched to assume that Free Will is just as possible for a computer as it is for a human. We just haven't done it right yet.

Your programming can also be changed by others, if they know what they are doing. I would say more, but this is a dangerous line of conversation.

In any case, meh. Interesting argument.

I'll be back later today to see if there's any more free will arguments to squash.

I've gathered from most of the post on this topic that the primary answer is "we probably couldn't tell you because we lack the proper knowledge of the universe and the way the human mind works".
So, I'll just say that I like pie, and depart to my home in Alpha Centauri.

Heheh no you don't understand you couldn't possibly 'like' pie. As 'like' conveys choice, you have no choice in the matter it is merely a determination of your biology that consuming pie releases feel good endorphines in your brain, thus giving you the illusion that you like pie.

I see you're already adding onto the definition. You're proving my point for me with that.

Nuh-uh! show me where I did that please?


The reason why it's overly simplistic is the idea of making decisions itself is not unique to humans or, for that matter, even to life. A cat makes a decision on whether or not to stretch out in the sun or play with a toy filled with catnip. A computer makes a decision, choosing which of its thousands of logic trees and electrical paths will be the one that gets flipped on or off at each point, in some cases being programmed to use the results of those to make choices in combat, mathematics, or other such things.

Nope wrong, a cat being a sentiant being can certianly make a choice, a computer can only do that which it was programed for and so makes no choice by itself.


In all cases, the presence of making a choice is undeniable.

That is almost correct, in most cases I'll agree with as the PC really cannot make a choice at all.


Also undeniable is the fact that each choice made was pretty much predetermined by a number of factors, with the factors coming together to make it so that it is impossible for any other choice to have been made.


Ahhahh and here is where you are going wrong. These choices are limited by factors, not pre-determined. If I have a choice of two sandwhiches, bacon or egg. This choice is limited by there being no peanut butter in the house.

I still have a free choice between bacon and egg though, if I choose bacon over egg, what exactly has pre-determined this choice?


Whether or not human observers are aware of every factor is irrelevant to the presence or absense of the actual factors themselves. Thus, the problem is that the human belief in free will based on making choices may just be the lack of enough data to find the determinism at the root of it. An argument I've already made enough times on here and which you can review at your leisure, of course.

While this of course just flies in the opposite direction of my defintion. So I'll ask why is it that my definition is wrong for you?


Oh, define sentience without using humans as the source of the definition.

Any being able to think. The cat in your example, for umm example.


You're contradicting yourself.

Where and how so?



All you are trying to do is rationalize your lack of choice in the matter into you having free choice, despite the fact that logically you do not.

As for why: Well, I'll leave that for you to puzzle out. It's your mind, after all.


Heh really, and I guess then that you must agree that in fact I am doing no such thing. For me to do so would impley that I had a choice in the matter.

Is my defense as you put it a choice that I am making, or is it pre-determined that I should do.

If your answer is the latter then I would have to ask whats the point then, if nobody has any choice whats the point?

Bwahaha! Okay, you really shouldn't have made this argument. There are several words in English, as well as other languages, that actually have no particular meaning at all. Or their meaning is extremely vague, sometimes with the definition of the word defining it as the belief in the concept of the word without going any farther. Let's grab a dictionary definition of it for fun.



Now, does either of those actually tell you any more than bothering to read the opening post would tell you? No. If anything, they tell you that the concept itself is nebulous.

What is free will? What truly determines free will? Can it be measured? Quanified? Explained? Proven?

The answer to all of those is "We don't know." The same actions that can be argued to be free will in action can also be argued to be the result of determinism. The same evidence used to argue free will in one discussion is used to argue against it in another. In this very thread you can observe that, with each side having their own interpretation of the same evidence and their own challenges to it.

So, what is it really? We don't know. It's proven to be impossible to describe with the language we have. The reason is that language is, in part, reflective of the understanding of the people using it. And since all we have is a nebulous concept at best, the best thing to realize is that the reason no definition was provided is because we don't understand it yet. And given how many centuries we've discussed it only to always end up right back where we started, I would say the conclusion is pretty obvious. We don't understand free will because it either exists or we're simply not yet smart enough to identify it.

Don't like it? Then prove me wrong. Provide a definition of free will and concept behind proving it that is within our current scientific understanding and which I couldn't rip apart. Good luck.

Actually, when terms are debated, they are usually strictly defined so that there is no wiggle room. Yes, they may begin as nebulous, but we strive to anchor them to a concrete definition so we know what we are debating.

What you seem to be referring to is general day-to-day semantics. That's useless for a proper debate. Science, law, philosophy, all these fields premise themselves upon actually defining what it is they are examining (well, a good majority of philosophy...I will grant that there are a number of areas where this isn't necessarily so). As such, providing a dictionary definition is silly when I have been contending that, as you say, there is no real definition of free will and so the debate is pointless until we can come to consensus.

But I will try and toss one out there, that most might not like. Free will is a purely heuristic concept. It is one of those "intuitive" things that only works because it symbolizes the complete concept of autonomous decision making. It could be said to be part of the folk-psychology that has proven so useless in matter of higher learning and knowledge. There is no such thing as free will, it is just an ingrained meme, at this point. No one will be able to provide a solid definition because it's about as definable as the color red or the feeling of a certain temperature, a purely personal heuristic we use to make our lives easier since our animal brain does not instinctively function in a logical fashion so we have evolved the capacity for shortcuts. Nothing more, nothing less.

... But I will try and toss one out there, that most might not like. Free will is a purely heuristic concept. It is one of those "intuitive" things that only works because it symbolizes the complete concept of autonomous decision making. It could be said to be part of the folk-psychology that has proven so useless in matter of higher learning and knowledge. There is no such thing as free will, it is just an ingrained meme, at this point. No one will be able to provide a solid definition because it's about as definable as the color red or the feeling of a certain temperature, a purely personal heuristic we use to make our lives easier since our animal brain does not instinctively function in a logical fashion so we have evolved the capacity for shortcuts. Nothing more, nothing less.
Do you think "the means to choose the means by which I choose" could be a reasonable definition?

Nuh-uh! show me where I did that please?

I hate it when my computer loses posts >.<

The first definition, you said only the ability to choose for the definition. Then, when I challenged it, you qualified it with sentience.

Nope wrong, a cat being a sentiant being can certianly make a choice, a computer can only do that which it was programed for and so makes no choice by itself.

The basic computer works through a series of on-off switches, through which electrical current passes when on or is blocked when off. The human brain works the same way. The average human can, with some effort, be programmed, typically using a technique combining mind-altering drugs and hypnotic suggestion. The typical computer can be programmed using what amounts to arcane language and playing around with its central programming.

Is there really any difference?

Ahhahh and here is where you are going wrong. These choices are limited by factors, not pre-determined. If I have a choice of two sandwhiches, bacon or egg. This choice is limited by there being no peanut butter in the house.

I still have a free choice between bacon and egg though, if I choose bacon over egg, what exactly has pre-determined this choice?

The limitation of factors to the point a choice is already determined before it could possibly be made is determinism. The illusion of choice is just that: Illusion. Your choice could not be any different than it is without one of the factors affecting it changing.

As for the sandwiches: I'd need to know you better.

While this of course just flies in the opposite direction of my defintion. So I'll ask why is it that my definition is wrong for you?

I already answered this one.

Any being able to think. The cat in your example, for umm example.

Are you so sure a cat can think? I made the assumption they can, but that doesn't mean my assumption is correct. I'll revisit this in a bit, so ignore it until I revisit it.

Where and how so?

Where you stated that pre-determinism and free will don't contradict. The core of my argument, up to this point, has been that they have to due to the essential elements inherent in each.

Heh really, and I guess then that you must agree that in fact I am doing no such thing. For me to do so would impley that I had a choice in the matter.

Is my defense as you put it a choice that I am making, or is it pre-determined that I should do.

If your answer is the latter then I would have to ask whats the point then, if nobody has any choice whats the point?

I would say it's pre-determined, through a combination of genetic effects and environmental effects. Thus, your defense of it is no more than a consequence of the events of your life up to this point, just as what you do from now on will be a consequence of those events. Cause and effect, at a massive scale.

As for the point: The point never changed. Do you honestly think whether or not free will or determinism controls your life actually makes a difference? Do you think it actually undermines anything you've felt, seen, or done up to this point? It doesn't. All it does is change the aspect of the universe behind why those have happened.

In any case, at the end of the day, you were meant to experience all of it, whether because of your free will or because it was already determined. It doesn't matter which is true, since the truth of neither changes the past or the future. They both are equally inconsequential, since the experiences you get you will get anyway and your reactions will be unchanged by the truth of either.

Also, I should note that this discussion should have no effect upon you. Even if I'm right, it doesn't matter. All you do is walk away with a slightly better understanding of the universe. And even if I'm wrong, you still walk away with a slightly better understanding, since you walk away with the viewpoint of someone who has argued in favor of determinism.

Besides, ask yourself this: Does the person behind the screenname Forensatha actually believe all of this, or are they just arguing this for the pleasure and experience of arguing it? I'll let you come to your own conclusion, whether it be because you choose to or were pre-determined to do so.

Actually, when terms are debated, they are usually strictly defined so that there is no wiggle room. Yes, they may begin as nebulous, but we strive to anchor them to a concrete definition so we know what we are debating.

What you seem to be referring to is general day-to-day semantics. That's useless for a proper debate. Science, law, philosophy, all these fields premise themselves upon actually defining what it is they are examining (well, a good majority of philosophy...I will grant that there are a number of areas where this isn't necessarily so). As such, providing a dictionary definition is silly when I have been contending that, as you say, there is no real definition of free will and so the debate is pointless until we can come to consensus.

But I will try and toss one out there, that most might not like. Free will is a purely heuristic concept. It is one of those "intuitive" things that only works because it symbolizes the complete concept of autonomous decision making. It could be said to be part of the folk-psychology that has proven so useless in matter of higher learning and knowledge. There is no such thing as free will, it is just an ingrained meme, at this point. No one will be able to provide a solid definition because it's about as definable as the color red or the feeling of a certain temperature, a purely personal heuristic we use to make our lives easier since our animal brain does not instinctively function in a logical fashion so we have evolved the capacity for shortcuts. Nothing more, nothing less.

I'll come back to you in a bit. Have to get to class.

I think the bottom line of the free-will debate is this question: does everything in the universe follow rules? If everything *does* follow rules, then you can establish a causual connection that leads further and further back in time to the Big Bang and beyond (whatever the fuck THAT means). Futhermore, hypothetically, knowing the state of the universe, motion/velocity of atoms, and applicable rules, it seems possible to know the future as well. Science seems to indicate that things follow rules, or laws, or whatever term you deem necessary. Even quantum physics follow rules; the probabilistic outcomes of quantum physics seems to me to be nothing more than lack of knowledge and understanding.

Therefore, one would have to establish that the universe or any of it's constituent parts does not follow rules in order to dimiss determinism. Good luck with that. :P

5. The effects of quantum mechanics on brain activity are negligible
The flaw is right here. The brain is deliberately set up to magnify small differences (the opposite of a digital computer, in which all small differences that do not cross a wide threshold between a "1" state and a "0" state are made to have absolutely no further effect). The "microtubule" is a long-chain molecule which is sheathed so as to shield it from external electromagnetic fields, so that it can flip its state based solely on a single electron's free (that is, quantum-indeterminate) decision to jump/not-jump, and a neuron can fire/not-fire based on what a microtubule does, which can lead to a cascade of neurons firing, and ultimately to you doing/not-doing something for no physical cause.

The flaw is right here. The brain is deliberately set up to magnify small differences (the opposite of a digital computer, in which all small differences that do not cross a wide threshold between a "1" state and a "0" state are made to have absolutely no further effect). The "microtubule" is a long-chain molecule which is sheathed so as to shield it from external electromagnetic fields, so that it can flip its state based solely on a single electron's free (that is, quantum-indeterminate) decision to jump/not-jump, and a neuron can fire/not-fire based on what a microtubule does, which can lead to a cascade of neurons firing, and ultimately to you doing/not-doing something for no physical cause.

This is probably the coolest thing about brain chemistry. IIRC, the firing of an individual neuron is essentially random. But when taken as an aggregate it's been suggested that the system might be deterministic. I think there's even a line of research into applying Statistical Mechanics methods to how the brain functions.

[snip]
Anyway, make your case.
why did you post this?

The flaw is right here. The brain is deliberately set up to magnify small differences (the opposite of a digital computer, in which all small differences that do not cross a wide threshold between a "1" state and a "0" state are made to have absolutely no further effect). The "microtubule" is a long-chain molecule which is sheathed so as to shield it from external electromagnetic fields, so that it can flip its state based solely on a single electron's free (that is, quantum-indeterminate) decision to jump/not-jump, and a neuron can fire/not-fire based on what a microtubule does, which can lead to a cascade of neurons firing, and ultimately to you doing/not-doing something for no physical cause.

Actually this is totally irellevant, having things not obeying physical laws doesn't give you free will, it gives you indeterminism. In other words, it makes things random, which is even worse than having no free will.

Anyhow short answer to the original question:
metaphysical freedom = does not exist
Social freedom = exists but useless
positive liberty = Usefull, i want more.

I choose not to convince you of anything. There... free will.

I'd convince you that free will exists... but I don't really feel like it. ;)

ugh anyone who says "I'd do it but i don't feel like it" or "I decided not to" don't understand the argument and should just be quiet.

ugh anyone who says "I'd do it but i don't feel like it" or "I decided not to" don't understand the argument and should just be quiet.

except they are excercising their free will in their answers... ;)

ugh anyone who says "I'd do it but i don't feel like it" or "I decided not to" don't understand the argument and should just be quiet.

Or perhaps we just don't feel like making an argument... :p

Thats not excercising free will... thats the whole damn point. You had reasons for doing that, thus its deterministic, thus it wasn't free will!

Thats not excercising free will... thats the whole damn point. You had reasons for doing that, thus its deterministic, thus it wasn't free will!

Calm down - I don't feel like fighting with you... :D

*Take the hint - we're joking. ;) *

Thats not excercising free will... thats the whole damn point. You had reasons for doing that, thus its deterministic, thus it wasn't free will!

yes it is.

the other option? "Ok, I did it because you asked me to?" that doesn't demonstrate free will.

tell us what form of "excercise of free will" will you accept and I'll show you why it won't prove free will.

I choose not to convince you of anything. There... free will.

Sorry, but that argument doesn't fly. It's like drawing a picture of a unicorn and saying "Look here, unicorns exist." Just because you say something or think something doesn't mean reality backs it up. You're not even scratching the surface, you're ignoring the whole argument/discussion completely. Try to remain an impartial third-party and discuss *why* you believe in free will. *shrug*

ugh i'm just annoyed, i've had to put up with people making arguments like that in my philosophy class today. Total waste of time :(

Actually this is totally irellevant, having things not obeying physical laws doesn't give you free will, it gives you indeterminism. In other words, it makes things random, which is even worse than having no free will.
All that "random" means here is that the quantum outcomes are "uncorrelated" with the spatiotemporal distributions of the physical particles (that is, possessing perfect information about the distribution in space-time, even if that were possible, would not tell you the answer).

It does not mean that there is NO cause why you do what you do. It means that, if there is a cause, it is not to be found in physics. The electron jumps because: YOU DECIDE THAT IT WILL.

yes it is.

the other option? "Ok, I did it because you asked me to?" that doesn't demonstrate free will.

tell us what form of "excercise of free will" will you accept and I'll show you why it won't prove free will.

Excercsing free will in a metaphysical sense. Anyone can have social freedom but its a worthless freedom - "You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want".

All that "random" means here is that the quantum outcomes are "uncorrelated" with the spatiotemporal distributions of the physical particles (that is, possessing perfect information about the distribution in space-time, even if that were possible, would not tell you the answer).

It does not mean that there is NO cause why you do what you do. It means that, if there is a cause, it is not to be found in physics. The electron jumps because: YOU DECIDE THAT IT WILL.

So you are suggesting that something non-physical can affect something physical? And that every human is inhabited by some non-physical being that gives us choice?

ugh anyone who says "I'd do it but i don't feel like it" or "I decided not to" don't understand the argument and should just be quiet.

nah, it's more like the "here is a hand" of the free will debate

So you are suggesting that something non-physical can affect something physical?

are attitudes physical?

B. You believe that there is another, yet undiscovered physical property that is nondeterministic and affects brain activity
C. You believe that brain activity is affected by a nondeterministic metaphysical property

Somewhere in between these two.

You've made an excellent case (though far from a "proof") that in understanding human decision-making from a scientific, "objective" perspective, as an observer analyzing other human beings, determinism makes sense and free will does not. But you have not dealt with the fact that in understanding our own decision-making subjectively, as decision-makers, free will makes sense and determinism does not. We do not sit back and let the causal chain play out; we actually decide, and in making decisions we do not treat factors that would be causally decisive as volitionally decisive. (The fact that a certain chemical reaction is occurring in our brains does not strike us a good reason to do anything.)

This is a fundamental tension in the way human beings perceive the world. We have no basis to discard either perspective, though they are incompatible.

Edit: It helps to recall also that science cannot explain subjectivity generally. We cannot "see" other people's consciousness. There is a part of the human experience that we cannot get at through external perception, and free will (which, after all, is an internal matter of causation and responsibility) may be a part of that.

are attitudes physical?

And the exercising of free will is an attitude.

are attitudes physical?

Attitudes are the mental appearance of a physical property. One's attitude towards anything is entirely dependant on the chemicals in ones brain, not the other way round.

Attitudes are the mental appearance of a physical property. One's attitude towards anything is entirely dependant on the chemicals in ones brain, not the other way round.

Emotions... Yes, these can be explained by simply attributing that some chemical imbalance in the brain explains why you feel depressed and what not. But there´s more than chemical reactions to emotions.

ugh i'm just annoyed, i've had to put up with people making arguments like that in my philosophy class today. Total waste of time :(
I hear ya. but that doesn't make the argument used worthless. it just means you can't come up with a suitable response.

Excercsing free will in a metaphysical sense. such as...

Anyone can have social freedom but its a worthless freedom - "You can do what you want, but you can't want what you want".yet where is it in the argument about not wanting what one wants?

Emotions... Yes, these can be explained by simply attributing that some chemical imbalance in the brain explains why you feel depressed and what not. But there´s more than chemical reactions to emotions.

We have no evidence to show that there is more to emotions than chemical reactions, we might believe that there is, but that doesn't make it true.

I hear ya. but that doesn't make the argument used worthless. it just means you can't come up with a suitable response.

It means that they are using something based on determinism to try and disprove it. Anyone movement or physical act of any sort on the human-level is determined by the laws of nature and the motion's of the atoms in the universe. Check out LaPlaces demon for a good example - a super computer that can tell you exactly where and how every atom in the universe is currently, surely with the laws of nature, it can also tell you where those atoms will be in 10 seconds, or 100 seconds, or even N seconds in the future.

such as...

metaphysical freedom = having choices.
Showing any choice is fine.

yet where is it in the argument about not wanting what one wants?
Well social freedom is being able to do what you want, but if those desires are not your own in the first place, then how are you free in that sense? If i hypnotised someone into wanting to molest small children, and they did it, does that make them free? Of course not, the same applies for us all now, we just don't realise we are being hypnotised.

We have no evidence to show that there is more to emotions than chemical reactions, we might believe that there is, but that doesn't make it true.

Cold-heartedly trying to describe emotions... empirical facts. That´s not all humanity is. I refuse to take it that way.

It means that they are using something based on determinism to try and disprove it. Anyone movement or physical act of any sort on the human-level is determined by the laws of nature and the motion's of the atoms in the universe. Check out LaPlaces demon for a good example - a super computer that can tell you exactly where and how every atom in the universe is currently, surely with the laws of nature, it can also tell you where those atoms will be in 10 seconds, or 100 seconds, or even N seconds in the future. yet by saying 'I Dunno why i did that' in opposed to having a reason for doing it only proves that free will is NOT inherent. by choosing to say I don't want to means they are choosing.

so...
metaphysical freedom = having choices.
Showing any choice is fine. they showed their choices.

Well social freedom is being able to do what you want, but if those desires are not your own in the first place, then how are you free in that sense? If i hypnotised someone into wanting to molest small children, and they did it, does that make them free? Of course not, the same applies for us all now, we just don't realise we are being hypnotised.
because they choose to follow their desires.

we have desires we choose not to act upon as well as those we choose to act upon. the choice to follow those desires is just that, a choice.

Cold-heartedly trying to describe emotions... empirical facts. That´s not all humanity is. I refuse to take it that way.

Then you subscribe to a matter of faith and personal dogma. Very well.

yet by saying 'I Dunno why i did that' in opposed to having a reason for doing it only proves that free will is NOT inherent. by choosing to say I don't want to means they are choosing.

so...
they showed their choices.


because they choose to follow their desires.

we have desires we choose not to act upon as well as those we choose to act upon. the choice to follow those desires is just that, a choice.

ugh you really don't get it. None of that shows choice. It shows the apperance of choice. If i run that same situation over again 1000 times, they will pick the same thing everytime because they were always going to make that 'choice'.

ugh you really don't get it. None of that shows choice. It shows the apperance of choice. If i run that same situation over again 1000 times, they will pick the same thing everytime because they were always going to make that 'choice'.

You can't prove if there is free will. Neither can I. We cannot prove something that is outside the laws of the universe. So let's just leave it at that.

You can't prove if there is free will. Neither can I. We cannot prove something that is outside the laws of the universe. So let's just leave it at that.

If it exists within the universe how can it be excempt from universal laws?

If it exists within the universe how can it be excempt from universal laws?

I mean it is something that is beyond human understanding - thus it is beyond our laws of the universe.

ugh you really don't get it. None of that shows choice. It shows the apperance of choice. If i run that same situation over again 1000 times, they will pick the same thing everytime because they were always going to make that 'choice'.

what situation?

"why don't you jump off a cliff" situation?

as you described metaphysical freedom = having choices, then even the appearance of a choice is metaphysical freedom.

following one's desires? everyone has desires they want to follow yet choose not to.

I encounter an attractive girl. my desire is to have sex with her. I can choose to follow my desire by either forcing her to have sex with me, dating her in the hopes she will have sex with me, or I can choose to not to follow my desire and not make the attempt and let the encounter go. free will in action.

Check out LaPlaces demon for a good example - a super computer that can tell you exactly where and how every atom in the universe is currently, surely with the laws of nature, it can also tell you where those atoms will be in 10 seconds, or 100 seconds, or even N seconds in the future.
That, precisely, is what we now know is NOT true.

So you are suggesting that something non-physical can affect something physical? And that every human is inhabited by some non-physical being that gives us choice?
The laws of physics do not determine what the physical things do; they only prescribe a range of possible options. How is it decided which of those options is actualized? Perhaps there is no cause at all; but if there is a cause, obviously it is non-physical.

Actually, while I believe in a deterministic universe, Free Soviets has a very valid point. As far as I understand it, the general consensus on quantum physics is that even with more information, we still cannot place certain subatomic particles at any specific location. The whole probability cloud is more than just a conceptual tool for understanding an electron's orbit around its nucleus; it is actually a cloud of probability that no increase in knowledge will change.

However, and this is actually an argument I saw posted here and found rather convincing, this does not deny a deterministic universe. Probability theory and all that fancy stuff that is beyond my education and field of study places limits upon a function. Particles exist within the wave function and are unable to escape it, so how is that not just another form of determinism? It is predictable and determined and necessary and perhaps even suggests that when a thing happens it happens because it could happen no other way. Maybe it should be called limited determinism, though, to give a compromise between the two stances. I don't know

well it depends on how we are defining 'determinism', i suppose. if we mean by that something like the idea that every event is necessitated by the conjunction of all (relevant?) prior events/states of affairs and the laws of nature, i don't think so. for example, take the decay of a particular radioactive atom at a particular time. this event is (apparently) not caused by prior states; it isn't necessary. in fact, we'd need to have some really weird stuff - stuff that seems to flatly contradict other things that appear to be true about the universe - to try to make the time at which a particular decay event happens necessary.

What is free will exactly? Everyone loves to argue whether it exists or not but no one seems to be able to give a satisfactory definition for it. The ability to choose? That's surely nonsense because a computer can choose. Perhaps it is the ability to act unpredictably, but, again, this seems nonsensical because then free will is just a product of asymmetrical information; this would lead one to believe that the stock market is often an entity exhibiting free will. Or maybe it is the ability to act contrary to one's desire, but this is sticky because obviously it isn't completely contrary to one's desire or one wouldn't have acted upon it, unless the subject is being forced to act in such a way but that seems completely and intuitively at odds with what people take free will to be.

So, rather than waste time discussing whether not free will exists, perhaps the OP should have begun with attempting to determine what free will is?

as a starting point, i like to go with the ability certain agents have to have done otherwise and that the actual deciding between possibilities is causally relevant.

what situation?

"why don't you jump off a cliff" situation?

as you described metaphysical freedom = having choices, then even the appearance of a choice is metaphysical freedom.

following one's desires? everyone has desires they want to follow yet choose not to.

I encounter an attractive girl. my desire is to have sex with her. I can choose to follow my desire by either forcing her to have sex with me, dating her in the hopes she will have sex with me, or I can choose to not to follow my desire and not make the attempt and let the encounter go. free will in action.

appearance of something and something actually being true are totally different!

And as for the attractive girl, there will be reasons why you choose a certain path, and behind those reasons more reasons, down and down to the botton of the causal chain. so its not choice at all, its just a long list of reasons.

Attitudes are the mental appearance of a physical property. One's attitude towards anything is entirely dependant on the chemicals in ones brain, not the other way round.

but the attitudes are not the chemicals, and it is the attitudes that affect the physical world rather than the chemicals directly. if the chemicals didn't cause the attitudes, the full range of physical effects we currently see would not occur.

appearance of something and something actually being true are totally different! you're the one talking metaphysical.

And as for the attractive girl, there will be reasons why you choose a certain path, and behind those reasons more reasons, down and down to the botton of the causal chain. so its not choice at all, its just a long list of reasons.
and reasons help one make the choices we make.

Just like considering the consequences of your choices helps you make choices.

It's called 'weighing your options'. ;)

Actually, when terms are debated, they are usually strictly defined so that there is no wiggle room. Yes, they may begin as nebulous, but we strive to anchor them to a concrete definition so we know what we are debating.

Which would be nice if we had. But, part of the problem is that these terms are, by common human concept, nebulous at best. Defining them does not change that.

What you seem to be referring to is general day-to-day semantics. That's useless for a proper debate. Science, law, philosophy, all these fields premise themselves upon actually defining what it is they are examining (well, a good majority of philosophy...I will grant that there are a number of areas where this isn't necessarily so). As such, providing a dictionary definition is silly when I have been contending that, as you say, there is no real definition of free will and so the debate is pointless until we can come to consensus.

Note that I used the dictionary definition to add to my argument that the term itself is nebulous. As such, I would think that the lack of definition in the common terms would expedite your attempts at producing a definition, given a basis to work from on what's not working.

But I will try and toss one out there, that most might not like. Free will is a purely heuristic concept. It is one of those "intuitive" things that only works because it symbolizes the complete concept of autonomous decision making. It could be said to be part of the folk-psychology that has proven so useless in matter of higher learning and knowledge. There is no such thing as free will, it is just an ingrained meme, at this point. No one will be able to provide a solid definition because it's about as definable as the color red or the feeling of a certain temperature, a purely personal heuristic we use to make our lives easier since our animal brain does not instinctively function in a logical fashion so we have evolved the capacity for shortcuts. Nothing more, nothing less.

This was part of my point.

you're the one talking metaphysical.


and reasons help one make the choices we make.

Just like considering the consequences of your choices helps you make choices.

It's called 'weighing your options'. ;)

I'm using the actual philosophical definitions of the words. Metaphysical freedom is having choices, social freedom is doing what you want, and positive liberty is freedom from negative attributes. There could all be called "freedom" but then who knows what definition anyone is on about.

I'm using the actual philosophical definitions of the words. Metaphysical freedom is having choices, social freedom is doing what you want, and positive liberty is freedom from negative attributes. There could all be called "freedom" but then who knows what definition anyone is on about.

I think you´re complicating yourself for the sake of complicating yourself.:tongue:

I think you´re complicating yourself for the sake of complicating yourself.:tongue:

Erm yeah whatever. Have you not noticed that half of these type of threads runs down into "this defintion" vs "that definition". If i'm being precise i'm avoiding posts like the one two above yours that is busy talking about definitions not the stuff that actually counts!

Erm yeah whatever. Have you not noticed that half of these type of threads runs down into "this defintion" vs "that definition". If i'm being precise i'm avoiding posts like the one two above yours that is busy talking about definitions not the stuff that actually counts!

Calm down... it's only an internet forum. :rolleyes:

Calm down... it's only an internet forum. :rolleyes:

wow so i'm not making a joke so immediately i'm angry? ugh i give up. bye all.

Erm yeah whatever. Have you not noticed that half of these type of threads runs down into "this defintion" vs "that definition". If i'm being precise i'm avoiding posts like the one two above yours that is busy talking about definitions not the stuff that actually counts!

If you don't believe that the definitions of the terms are relevant, then please do not post anything about it. That way, you don't whine about actions others are supposedly taking when the actual conversation reveals they are not taking it at all.

wow so i'm not making a joke so immediately i'm angry? ugh i give up. bye all.

Wow this guys got a real short temper. :D

Erm yeah whatever. Have you not noticed that half of these type of threads runs down into "this defintion" vs "that definition". If i'm being precise i'm avoiding posts like the one two above yours that is busy talking about definitions not the stuff that actually counts!

You can be as precise as you wish, the problem here strives in the fact that you´re not taking what others are telling you of the existence of free will as serious. But we need to take you seriously.

And then, to top it off, you show the temper of a 5 year old who´s mum has denied him candy. If you can´t truly have a constructive argument in a forum, abstain from it.

And then, to top it off, you show the temper of a 5 year old who´s mum has denied him candy. If you can´t truly have a constructive argument in a forum, abstain from it.

I'm going to have to save that one for the WA forum sometime.

Thats not excercising free will... thats the whole damn point. You had reasons for doing that, thus its deterministic, thus it wasn't free will!
The question is, does determinism necessarily contradict self-determinism? That is, if my system is implicitly predictable, is it impossible for my agency to be involved in deciding its result?

I don't think so. In fact, I think self-determinism only makes sense if we acknowledge that the system we use in our decision-making process adheres strictly to defined rules. What makes Will "free" is that such rules can be changed and defined by the individual. If no such rules could be made, I could only ever act in a mechanical and inflexible manner, and consequently, my existence as Self would be purely a function of my physical composition.

The question is, does determinism necessarily contradict self-determinism? That is, if my system is implicitly predictable, is it impossible for my agency to be involved in deciding its result?

Hmm... Given my own argument, I am left with a strange dichotomy on this one. I'll answer it in a bit.

I don't think so. In fact, I think self-determinism only makes sense if we acknowledge that the system we use in our decision-making process adheres strictly to defined rules. What makes Will "free" is that such rules can be changed and defined by the individual. If no such rules could be made, I could only ever act in a mechanical and inflexible manner, and consequently, my existence as Self would be purely a function of my physical composition.

Except that yourself is a combination of your physical combination, mental tendencies, and experience. I would argue that it is those things which combine to produce who you are. Thus, any question of free will is removed automatically by the mere fact that who you are is determined by a series of factors, which contribute to other factors to control your decisions.

If you don't believe that the definitions of the terms are relevant, then please do not post anything about it. That way, you don't whine about actions others are supposedly taking when the actual conversation reveals they are not taking it at all.

Read my other posts... the ones that are stating which definition i am using. I'm saying that definitions are very important, its other people who are saying they aren't.

You can be as precise as you wish, the problem here strives in the fact that you´re not taking what others are telling you of the existence of free will as serious. But we need to take you seriously.

And then, to top it off, you show the temper of a 5 year old who´s mum has denied him candy. If you can´t truly have a constructive argument in a forum, abstain from it.

Thats because you can't have scientific proof for free will! As soon as you start trying to be scientific you start using determinism against itself, which is impossible. People are just repeating the same old drivel over and over which proofs nothing and tells us nothing.

And yeah... 5 year old. Sure. Its not my fault if people are idiots and i feel the urge to point that out to them.

Only the idiot believes his intellectual opponents are all idiots.

The question is, does determinism necessarily contradict self-determinism? That is, if my system is implicitly predictable, is it impossible for my agency to be involved in deciding its result?

I don't think so. In fact, I think self-determinism only makes sense if we acknowledge that the system we use in our decision-making process adheres strictly to defined rules. What makes Will "free" is that such rules can be changed and defined by the individual. If no such rules could be made, I could only ever act in a mechanical and inflexible manner, and consequently, my existence as Self would be purely a function of my physical composition.

The question here is can we change our rules? If i ask you to change you opinion on something, can you do it yourself right now? No you can't, you might be able to start acting differently, and you may change it gradually over time, but beliefs and desires don't have an on/off switch, we don't have as much control over them as we think.

Only the idiot believes his intellectual opponents are all idiots.

Does that qualifiy me as an idiot? No, i never said everyone was, just some of them :p

And yeah... 5 year old. Sure. Its not my fault if people are idiots and i feel the urge to point that out to them.

Considering other people idiots and that you´re -Holier than thou- does not help your argument. Trust me, I learned that the hard way. So, settle down, listen and only when you do that, others will listen to you.

Considering other people idiots and that you´re ¨Holier than thou¨ does not help your argument. Trust me, I learn that the hard way. So, settle down, listen and only when you do that, others will listen to you.

You think people actually listen on here anyway? No-on ever changes their mind on here, they just come to hit their point home a lot to make themselves feel better. The "holier than thou" attitude in this thread stems from the fact that no-one, EVER, has come up with a reasonable reason to believe that free will exists.

You think people actually listen on here anyway? No-on ever changes their mind on here, they just come to hit their point home a lot to make themselves feel better. The "holier than thou" attitude in this thread stems from the fact that no-one, EVER, has come up with a reasonable reason to believe that free will exists.

My my, it's like trying to argue with a Christian. Impossible. :p

My my, it's like trying to argue with a Christian. Impossible. :p

Show the argument, and i'll happily revoke my statement. Now you wouldn't get that from a christian.

Show the argument, and i'll happily revoke my statement. Now you wouldn't get that from a christian.

I would, but I can't be bothered. I'm not a fan of hot debate - I prefer the light kind. :p

Besides, I have no idea. Trying to figure out free will makes my head hurt. Mankind was not supposed to understand such things.

You think people actually listen on here anyway? No-on ever changes their mind on here, they just come to hit their point home a lot to make themselves feel better. The "holier than thou" attitude in this thread stems from the fact that no-one, EVER, has come up with a reasonable reason to believe that free will exists.

Then perhaps you need to put your stock in other venues if NSG is not to your liking.

No one in here, in the time I´ve been a part of NSG, has taken that approach. And yes, many people in here do listen. Even if we do like to hit our points home, many do listen, many do ponder. You´re taking us here for idiots, and we´re not idiots.

As for evidence, and you´re acting like Saint Thomas here, seeing is believing, there´s one fact that can prove, perhaps not to your liking, the existence of free will. God made us with it, right? And I´m not a religious person, but that I do believe. God made us free to choose. That, alone, to me, explains the existence of free will.

Then perhaps you need to put your stock in other venues if NSG is not to your liking.

No one in here, in the time I´ve been a part of NSG, has taken that approach. And yes, many people in here do listen. Even if we do like to hit our points home, many do listen, many do ponder. You´re taking us here for idiots, and we´re not idiots.

As for evidence, and you´re acting like Saint Thomas here, seeing is believing, there´s one fact that can prove, perhaps not to your liking, the existence of free will. God made us with it, right? And I´m not a religious person, but that I do believe. God made us free to choose. That, alone, to me, explains the existence of free will.

I'm assuming you believe in a Theistic God - omnipotent and all that stuff. On that assumption, can God not see the future? If he can see the future, he can tell exactly what decision we will make at every point in our life, so in terms of the ability to choose between two seperate paths, we are actually not free, as our path is already known by God.

Not that a theistic God is on very stable ground anyway, but thats an entirely different discussion for another thread.

I'm assuming you believe in a Theistic God - omnipotent and all that stuff. On that assumption, can God not see the future? If he can see the future, he can tell exactly what decision we will make at every point in our life, so in terms of the ability to choose between two seperate paths, we are actually not free, as our path is already known by God.

Not that a theistic God is on very stable ground anyway, but thats an entirely different discussion for another thread.

It may be known by God (Whoever he or she is), but it is not known by us, is it? That´s why we´re free to choose. Because we don´t know what may happen, wether we adhere to a certain doctrine or not.

I'm using the actual philosophical definitions of the words. Metaphysical freedom is having choices, social freedom is doing what you want, and positive liberty is freedom from negative attributes. There could all be called "freedom" but then who knows what definition anyone is on about.

note: having choices. not having actual choices, nor having non-illusionary choices. ;)

let's get away from the "definition of..." argument and get down to making some actual choices.

challange: think of 5 different ways to get to/from school/work and use any 3 of them next week. the only stipulation is that you cannot use the method/route you normally use outside those two days you choose not to use an alternate method/route.

here you can choose your route as well as method and even the order to impliment them.

the results would be minimal, so reasons why you can't would be negligable. it's open ended, so you are making all the decisions as well as carrying them out.

Go ahead and make your choices.

no-one, EVER, has come up with a reasonable reason to believe that free will exists.

i personally experience freedom of both action and will. my sense that i could have done otherwise and that my decision at least partially causally originated with me is immediate, direct, and personally undeniable. your job is to provide an argument which demonstrates that this experience is some sort of illusion. 'cause the ones we've seen don't seem to be doing the trick. the best they've gotten is that it is possible that we don't really have free will, if the universe is such that free will is impossible. but nobody has actually demonstrated that impossibility.

The "holier than thou" attitude in this thread stems from the fact that no-one, EVER, has come up with a reasonable reason to believe that free will exists.... to YOUR satisfaction. :p

Hmm... Given my own argument, I am left with a strange dichotomy on this one. I'll answer it in a bit.
Looking forward to it.

Except that yourself is a combination of your physical combination, mental tendencies, and experience. I would argue that it is those things which combine to produce who you are...
That's possible, but what if those three things, rather than being distinct aspects of selfhood, are a result of different ways of looking at a single thing?

I haven't taken much time to think this through, and there's almost certainly a nicer way to address it, but one approach to demonstrating this to be the case would be to say "Given the states of any of those features, can I derive the others?". And that's not immediately falsifiable. There might, theoretically, be a function that directly maps the way I think with the way my brain is wired up, and one which maps the way I'm wired up with what stimuli I've been exposed to, though I suspect that the attempt to find such a function in either case would ultimately be a waste of time.

Right now, of course, this is pure guesswork. But if composition, thought and experience are just three different ways of looking at Selfhood rather than three distinct contributors to it, could I not be justified in saying that the active nature of me as a system can't be so easily overlooked?

The question here is can we change our rules? If i ask you to change you opinion on something, can you do it yourself right now? No you can't, you might be able to start acting differently, and you may change it gradually over time, but beliefs and desires don't have an on/off switch, we don't have as much control over them as we think.
If you can convince me I'm wrong, I can, at least to some extent. What's more, if you can convince me about it, I can even change the way I think about the way I think. The fact that I think you need to convince me to do it is arguably not that important, either, since for me, "convincing" is a largely arbitrary concept too, similarly open to change once the "factory settings" of biology have been tweaked.

I can't completely rewire myself, true (at least, not without cataclysmic system failure; if I stop breathing, pretty soon there won't be a "myself" to rewire), but I'm not arguing here that we have absolutely free will - simply that we have free will to some (possibly entirely trivial) degree.

No-on ever changes their mind on here
That's not true. It is rare, but I have seen it happen.

That's not true. It is rare, but I have seen it happen.

I've been convinced that I was wrong on a number of occasions. It's just a case of how stubborn you are.

I've been convinced that I was wrong on a number of occasions. It's just a case of how stubborn you are.

So have I, in a number of occasions.

I've been convinced that I was wrong on a number of occasions. It's just a case of how stubborn you are.

I, on the other hand, am always right. Even when I'm wrong.

So have I, in a number of occasions.

Yeah, like that time you called me a pretentious, pedantic, pseudo-intellectual attention whore who probably has to pay for sex.

You later were forced to admit that this was a gross oversimplification.

I, on the other hand, am always right. Even when I'm wrong.

*grabs Bel by the left ear*
Get yo bum outta here.

Yeah, like that time you called me a pretentious, pedantic, pseudo-intellectual attention whore who probably has to pay for sex.

You later were forced to admit that this was a gross oversimplification.

Ehem, well, you see Hammie-kun, with you, everything´s an oversimplification. I also discovered that that time we were in Rangoon.

*grabs Bel by the left ear*
Get yo bum outta here.

No. I am clearly right. If you read my post very carefully and factor in what you know about my politics you will spot my pun.

No. I am clearly right. If you read my post very carefully and factor in what you know about my politics you will spot my pun.

You´re right in one aspect, I will grant you, you´re always wrong. That being said, get yo bum outta here!:mad:

You´re right in one aspect, I will grant you, you´re always wrong. That being said, get yo bum outta here!:mad:

Make me. I recomend bribery.

Plus I'm proving the existenceof free will by not doing as nat tells me.

Make me. I recomend bribery.

Plus I'm proving the existenceof free will by not doing as nat tells me.

*pats Bel in the back*
I´ll show you boobies if you go away...

And by this I´m proving that free will also exists.:tongue:

*pats Bel in the back*
I´ll show you boobies if you go away...

And by this I´m proving that free will also exists.:tongue:

What that I have the free will to be more perverted than stuborn?

*complies and gets out digital camera*

Isn't the making of this thread in the first place showing free will? :confused:
As is me responding to it. Go over simplification!

note: having choices. not having actual choices, nor having non-illusionary choices. ;)

let's get away from the "definition of..." argument and get down to making some actual choices.

challange: think of 5 different ways to get to/from school/work and use any 3 of them next week. the only stipulation is that you cannot use the method/route you normally use outside those two days you choose not to use an alternate method/route.

here you can choose your route as well as method and even the order to impliment them.

the results would be minimal, so reasons why you can't would be negligable. it's open ended, so you are making all the decisions as well as carrying them out.

Go ahead and make your choices.

Note: I just got back into this thread, so I don't know what point you are actually making. I am just using your post as context on which to build a statement, so we may very well be trying to say the same thing.

That's all well and good, but I don't see how it's relevant. If, tomorrow, I use a certain method to travel from one point to another, I have made a choice.

This, however, does nothing to prove free will beyond a subjective level. The choice I made was indeed a choice, but what was it based on?

I can not go back and make that decision again differently, so that is history. Because we are familiar with this concept we accept that what happened in the past is done with (for the most part, with time travel being the exception). We are not, however, familiar with the future following the same rules, because it is outside of our common experience.

So, let me provide an example to make it more palatable.

If I were to go back (quantum leap style), and if I had the exact same experiences and everything about me was exactly the same, what would compel me to make a different choice?

I wouldn't have any memory of making the choice, my mood would be the same and my thoughts would be the same. In effect, it would be like watching a movie. I can rewind, fast forward, and so on, but I can't change the end of the movie with my remote. All that I can do is watch it play out at different speeds. If I decided on a coin flip, since everything is the same, it would end with the same result. If I just decided based on a random thought, then I would have that same thought. If I made the decision based on logic and reason then I would use the same reasoning.

Why would I choose something else? What force would be behind this change?

Until you can answer that, you do nothing for the argument of free will that isn't entirely superficial and arbitrary. If our choices are caused by things outside of themselves, then they are not really free choices at all, just a part of the chain reaction that is causality.

Because of a lack of information, everyone effectively has free will, but that isn't a new idea, not even in this thread. I don't think it really needs to be rehashed any more either, so I won't go off on that tangent.

I would like to note though, that I don't actually support this line of reasoning. I have already stated that I like the idea of quantum brain static as a potential initiator for free will (although not a free will in it's entirety). I also like the idea that the universe isn't merely guided by physical laws, but a mostly invisible layer of mathematical (not spiritual, mind you) ones as well, which leads to emergent functions having a a sort of romantic mysticism to them that may or may not include free will.

These, however, are just ideas and don't really have any empirical support, which is why I chose to play the devils advocate here. My main point with this argument is just to show the difference between the feeling of choice and what a free will truly entails, at least under my definitions. This seems to be a big barrier in the discussion here, so I figured I would try to tackle it.

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not really making an argument for or against free will, just a statement about the semantics of it all. I really don't want to get into the actual meat of this argument on either side as I think it is not winnable, and I dislike loosing (I consider stalemates a loss as well) an argument when I put such an intellectual investment in it.

That's possible, but what if those three things, rather than being distinct aspects of selfhood, are a result of different ways of looking at a single thing?

I haven't taken much time to think this through, and there's almost certainly a nicer way to address it, but one approach to demonstrating this to be the case would be to say "Given the states of any of those features, can I derive the others?". And that's not immediately falsifiable. There might, theoretically, be a function that directly maps the way I think with the way my brain is wired up, and one which maps the way I'm wired up with what stimuli I've been exposed to, though I suspect that the attempt to find such a function in either case would ultimately be a waste of time.

Right now, of course, this is pure guesswork. But if composition, thought and experience are just three different ways of looking at Selfhood rather than three distinct contributors to it, could I not be justified in saying that the active nature of me as a system can't be so easily overlooked?

You have an interesting basis for an argument here. I'd like to see it fully developed to see where it takes you. Maybe you could submit it as a paper someday. If anything, I'd like to see a full discussion on where you're headed with this.

I am forced to admit that you are justified in arguing that position. The stated premise behind it is logical and supportable. The idea that items traditionally held as contributors are in fact lenses for how one can perceive self, then it can be argued that determinism does exist, but it is determinism created by the will of the person and not determinism created by factors coming together to create an event and its outcomes. In which case, you turn determinism itself into a force of free will and create a scenario where every bit of proof for determinism could also be proof of free will.

Honestly, I'm even more curious about where that would be taken now.

You have an interesting basis for an argument here. I'd like to see it fully developed to see where it takes you. Maybe you could submit it as a paper someday. If anything, I'd like to see a full discussion on where you're headed with this.

I am forced to admit that you are justified in arguing that position. The stated premise behind it is logical and supportable. The idea that items traditionally held as contributors are in fact lenses for how one can perceive self, then it can be argued that determinism does exist, but it is determinism created by the will of the person and not determinism created by factors coming together to create an event and its outcomes. In which case, you turn determinism itself into a force of free will and create a scenario where every bit of proof for determinism could also be proof of free will.

Honestly, I'm even more curious about where that would be taken now.

To be clear, is Kamsaki-Myu saying that free will could plausibly exist in the connections between the different factors that cause you to make a decision?

Like, multiple selves existing on top of one another, and the connections between those selves that end up creating the choice being the agent of free will, but a free will that is created by an emergent process derived from deterministic processes?

Forgive me if I'm being ignorant, I just find this line of reasoning beyond my depth.

I see a lot of floating references to quantum mechanics here.

Quantum particles (or equivalently waves) exist only as probability distributions, as has been mentioned, and so it is meaningless to actually talk about it's "position" or other characteristics without measurement. The only deterministic thing you can really say about it is its expectation value, id est IF you repeat the same measurement enough times you'll get an average that is said value.

Unfortunately, the act of measurement interacts with the particle and you're not subsequently measuring the same state of particle. The uncertainty principle simply says if you measure one of the pairs of parameters to higher accuracy (position vs. velocity, time vs. energy, et cetera), that interaction screws up the other parameter worse.

Say you want position, so you shine light on it and check for a reflection. You can only tell up to the accuracy of a single wavelength where it is, and the reflection transfers energy to the particle and it speeds away. The less the wavelength, the higher the energy in the photon (and thus possibly transferred) and the worse the scatter of the particle's new velocity. And don't even talk about not measuring it, since now you know nothing.

The universe (as physicists still think it is) is deterministic only up to the evolution of the distributions (that are the particles) - they've been found to follow Schroedinger's equation. Look at the case of radioactive decay: you know if you *average* across the entire lump of uranium you'd get really close to an exponential number of decays per time, but you'd never be able to predict when one single atom decides to go pop.

Mist: you're talking about the past, since you've assumed knowledge of your choice (you're "looking back" at what you've said you've chosen). I hope nobody seriously decides to argue that free will exists in history (well, except for history book writers, but they're doing it now). Actually if you completely rewind time back to the moment of your choice and press play, things (under current physics) CAN change.

Your cognizance after that moment consists of measuring things, say looking at the uranium decay random number generator. Nothing in physics itself guarantees the exact same number of decays on an independent measurement (you rewound time), only the same distribution. You might see a different number and from then on choose differently based on the truly unpredictable (single measurement) decays.

Also, full determinism (exactly knowing the future states of particles given even complete knowledge of current states) violates the third law of thermodynamics. Microscopic entropy is -k_B ln Z, where Z is the number of states of particles that can give rise to the macroscopic observation (say 30 degrees temperature). Since you exactly know the future states, the number of states... is 1. Entropy is identically zero, and all processes should just cease. Or you could just say knowing all current states is impossible, and determinism is unprovable, since the hypothesis is never satisfied.

I'm just going to take the position that the statement "free will exists" is undecidable, it should well be equivalent to the Halting problem anyways. Yes, I'm arguing it is impossible to show free will exists, and impossible to show that free will does *not* exist. Inb4 tl;dr, now both sides can flame :p

Note: I just got back into this thread, so I don't know what point you are actually making. I am just using your post as context on which to build a statement, so we may very well be trying to say the same thing. no prob. let's review your post then. ;)

That's all well and good, but I don't see how it's relevant. If, tomorrow, I use a certain method to travel from one point to another, I have made a choice.

This, however, does nothing to prove free will beyond a subjective level. The choice I made was indeed a choice, but what was it based on? yet it does prove free will. you plan 5 different routes/methods and then you choose three to be used any of the 5 or 7 days of work/school.

note that the OP and all the other "is there free will" questioners don't differenciate the level of free will, but whether or not it exists.

I can not go back and make that decision again differently, so that is history. Because we are familiar with this concept we accept that what happened in the past is done with (for the most part, with time travel being the exception). We are not, however, familiar with the future following the same rules, because it is outside of our common experience.exactly. thus we can only speculate on the future. such as will walking through the ghettos get me mugged or worse?

So, let me provide an example to make it more palatable.

If I were to go back (quantum leap style), and if I had the exact same experiences and everything about me was exactly the same, what would compel me to make a different choice?

I wouldn't have any memory of making the choice, my mood would be the same and my thoughts would be the same. In effect, it would be like watching a movie. I can rewind, fast forward, and so on, but I can't change the end of the movie with my remote. All that I can do is watch it play out at different speeds. If I decided on a coin flip, since everything is the same, it would end with the same result. If I just decided based on a random thought, then I would have that same thought. If I made the decision based on logic and reason then I would use the same reasoning. with everything being equal, chances are you would make the same choice because the values never changed.

what makes your example non-palatable :tongue: is that all the values are the same. so the choice would be the same since the process used would yeald the same results. now if you went back in time and you remembered the choices you made but your mood was different, would you make the same choice?

Why would I choose something else? What force would be behind this change? free will.

Until you can answer that, you do nothing for the argument of free will that isn't entirely superficial and arbitrary. If our choices are caused by things outside of themselves, then they are not really free choices at all, just a part of the chain reaction that is causality. you're mistaking free will with random occurance. everyone has to make choices. all that has happened and all that is percived to happen will be taken into the decision making account. anyone who doesn't is just making a random choice and is choosing to do so. why do people take drugs that are proven to be harmful to their mind and body? do they choose to value the high more than the health?

why would one person murder another? steal? each action comes down to a choice. some percieve that they had no choice while others refuse to see any other choice. that doesn't negate free will.

Because of a lack of information, everyone effectively has free will, but that isn't a new idea, not even in this thread. I don't think it really needs to be rehashed any more either, so I won't go off on that tangent. actually, lack of information results in random choice.

These, however, are just ideas and don't really have any empirical support, which is why I chose to play the devils advocate here. My main point with this argument is just to show the difference between the feeling of choice and what a free will truly entails, at least under my definitions. This seems to be a big barrier in the discussion here, so I figured I would try to tackle it. your definition of Free will is ignorance. a random choice with no thought process involved. an elaborate version of "Ignorance is bliss".

Just to be absolutely clear, I am not really making an argument for or against free will, just a statement about the semantics of it all. I really don't want to get into the actual meat of this argument on either side as I think it is not winnable, and I dislike loosing (I consider stalemates a loss as well) an argument when I put such an intellectual investment in it.
and you chose to play devil's advocate and you chose to interject yourself into my argument without reading what the argument was, and you chose to make your stance on definitions when I said 'let's avoid the definition argument"...

now did you freely choose to make this post or was this a random occurance bred from a lack of information? :D;)

Mist: you're talking about the past, since you've assumed knowledge of your choice (you're "looking back" at what you've said you've chosen). I hope nobody seriously decides to argue that free will exists in history (well, except for history book writers, but they're doing it now). Actually if you completely rewind time back to the moment of your choice and press play, things (under current physics) CAN change.


Oh, I know they can change, which is why I disagree with my own argument. I was arguing on a strictly hypothetical, not physical, framework. I was just trying to point out the difference between "choice" and "free will", with my main distinction being in the "free" part.

I was doing this, for the most part, to address all of the people who keep saying "I choose not to take your challenge, therefore I have free will". I see this as a dismissive oversimplification of the real premise of the argument, if not an outright distortion of it. I wanted to shut those people up, so I created that little hypothetical scenario for that specific purpose.

Oh, I know they can change, which is why I disagree with my own argument. I was arguing on a strictly hypothetical, not physical, framework. I was just trying to point out the difference between "choice" and "free will", with my main distinction being in the "free" part.

I was doing this, for the most part, to address all of the people who keep saying "I choose not to take your challenge, therefore I have free will". I see this as a dismissive oversimplification of the real premise of the argument, if not an outright distortion of it. I wanted to shut those people up, so I created that little hypothetical scenario for that specific purpose.

except the "I choose not to take your challenge, therefore I have free will" argument is in response to "why don't you prove your free will by jumping off a cliff/other dangerous activity that will result in harm or death."

my challenge opens the door to life altering experiences without the perception of danger. ;)

and you chose to play devil's advocate and you chose to interject yourself into my argument without reading what the argument was, and you chose to make your stance on definitions when I said 'let's avoid the definition argument"...

now did you freely choose to make this post or was this a random occurance bred from a lack of information? :D;)

Well, see, I wasn't actually arguing with you or about anything you were actually saying. I know, that makes me deliberately obtuse, and the fact that you included "lets avoid the definition argument" makes that even more apparent, I just thought that your post provided a good platform for me to make my statement. I was just being lazy, I couldn't think of a way to introduce what I was saying in any other way. Sorry about that.

I was not making an argument for or against free will, I was merely stating what I thought the difference between choice and free will is. You may define these things differently, and thats what I wanted to point out. Where you would say free will, I would say "no, choice". I think proving that you can make a choice is not sufficient to prove that free will exists. If you disagree then I think our perspectives are irreconcilable.

except the "I choose not to take your challenge, therefore I have free will" argument is in response to "why don't you prove your free will by jumping off a cliff/other dangerous activity that will result in harm or death."

my challenge opens the door to life altering experiences without the perception of danger. ;)

See, I wasn't even aware of that. I'm sorry for this, but I was in this thread earlier and it would be damn near impossible for me to catch up without just jumping in somewhere because this thread has been moving pretty quickly. I should have just avoided quoting anybody, but I have trouble composing anything without a starting point.

Also, for the reasons I stated earlier, I think your challenge to be irrelevant to what I consider to be the real point of the discussion, due to the distinction I make between choice and free will that others don't seem to be making.

See, I wasn't even aware of that. I'm sorry for this, but I was in this thread earlier and it would be damn near impossible for me to catch up without just jumping in somewhere because this thread has been moving pretty quickly. I should have just avoided quoting anybody, but I have trouble composing anything without a starting point.

Also, for the reasons I stated earlier, I think your challenge to be irrelevant to what I consider to be the real point of the discussion.

no problem, after all, you did state you were jumping in. ;)

and do you believe that Free will can only exist within ignorance?

no problem, after all, you did state you were jumping in. ;)

and do you believe that Free will can only exist within ignorance?

Well, maybe. Rather I would say it exists within possible ignorance. If it is possible to know (knowing, in this case, being defined as the ability to know something enough to predict it with certainty), than it is set in stone, if it is not, then free will may exist somewhere in those gaps.

Since I hold the opinion that quantum mechanics creates plenty of gaps (things you can not be absolutely certain about), I think free will may be in there somewhere. Other areas with that kind of physically defined uncertainty would also apply.

Edit: Also, to clarify, my definition of free will is:

If under the exact same circumstances, would something change based upon the agent of choice?

If the answer to that question is yes, then whatever that yes refers to would be free will. If the agent of choice is just a result of variables rather than a variable in and of itself I don't think it qualifies as free will.

So you claim, yet you accept my gifts. Or are they truly gifts? *cackles*

ANd all the traps you found so easily around your house smoke screen the one you didn't find. *giggles with wicked glee*

Well, maybe. Rather I would say it exists within possible ignorance. If it is possible to know (knowing, in this case, being defined as the ability to know something enough to predict it with certainty), than it is set in stone, if it is not, then free will may exist somewhere in those gaps.
ah, so then changing one's route/method to travel to work/school does not have a predictable with certainty result thus a proper test of free will. ;)

also, to predict with any form of certainty requires knowledge. thus you are saying your definition of free will is a choice baised on ignorance.

ah, so then changing one's route/method to travel to work/school does not have a predictable with certainty result thus a proper test of free will. ;)

also, to predict with any form of certainty requires knowledge. thus you are saying your definition of free will is a choice baised on ignorance.

I am saying that, but I am saying that it goes beyond knowledge into possible knowledge as well. Not knowing something doesn't create free will in my eyes, it being impossible to know creates the chance of free will.

It is based on absolute ignorance, not simple old fashioned ignorance.

Edit: For example, just because you don't know that an animal is stalking you from the bushes doesn't mean it isn't, but if it is impossible to know then it means that it may not be. Or it may be. However, if it is possible to know, then it is either stalking you or not, now matter your ability to find out one way or the other. Just because you can't figure out weather it is stalking you or not doesn't change the reality of the situation, it only changes if no one can know due to a law of the universe getting in the way.

It's all very specific, see.

Edit again: Also, this only applies to absolute, objective free will. This does not apply to effective free will, which is a necessary pragmatic construct created from ignorance about the future being applied to the concept of choice.

There, thats about as clear as I can get.

There is no free will. Only LG's will.

Anyway, make your case.

No.
Done.

It doesn't exist. Welcome to the Grid.

if i were to convince you of anything, i would be robbing you of it, so instead, you're perfectly free to pretend it does not to your heart's content.

The basic computer works through a series of on-off switches, through which electrical current passes when on or is blocked when off. The human brain works the same way. The average human can, with some effort, be programmed, typically using a technique combining mind-altering drugs and hypnotic suggestion. The typical computer can be programmed using what amounts to arcane language and playing around with its central programming.

Is there really any difference?

I'm well aware of how a computer works, working in the industry as I do. No the brain does not work like this, go ask Bottle if you want more knowledge, it is funny though how computer/brain anolgise are always made.

The real differance of course is the computer is unable to think for itself, it can only do what it is told to do.


The limitation of factors to the point a choice is already determined before it could possibly be made is determinism. The illusion of choice is just that: Illusion. Your choice could not be any different than it is without one of the factors affecting it changing.

No I disagree. As I have contiunaly said yes I agree that choices are limited by many factors, but as with the sandwhiches, can you provide just one reasonable explaination as to why I may choose bacon over egg, one day and the very next day swap that choice around?

Remembering all the while your words above.


I already answered this one

No I don't belive you have, at least we have not thrased it out to such a stage that we can now put it behind us.



Are you so sure a cat can think? I made the assumption they can, but that doesn't mean my assumption is correct. I'll revisit this in a bit, so ignore it until I revisit it.

Of course they can.



Where you stated that pre-determinism and free will don't contradict. The core of my argument, up to this point, has been that they have to due to the essential elements inherent in each.

Thats not an example of me contradicting myself more than it is an example of me disagreeing with you.

Lets just drop the pre for a while though and call it determinism, as I certianly do not agree that such a thing as pre-deterimism exists when we are discussing freewill.



I would say it's pre-determined, through a combination of genetic effects and environmental effects. Thus, your defense of it is no more than a consequence of the events of your life up to this point, just as what you do from now on will be a consequence of those events. Cause and effect, at a massive scale.

Okay but by this do you mean to suggest that we have no control ourselves over any of these enviromental effects, if as you suggest that all of our desicions are pre-determined then you must belive that we have no control over any aspect of our lives?


As for the point: The point never changed. Do you honestly think whether or not free will or determinism controls your life actually makes a difference? Do you think it actually undermines anything you've felt, seen, or done up to this point?

Why yes of course I do. I left school back in 84 with poor exam results, I met, fell in love married and become a farther at quite an early age, and worked as a butcher.

A hard job with long hours and little pay. My circumstances forced me to educate myself and find better employment, I did this, not because some random workings of the universe led me to my wife, made me have children, and better my circumstances so as to provide for my family, but because I made these decsisions all the way down the path of living my life.

I didn't have to marry my wife I choose to, I didn't have to have kids both me and my wife choose when, and how many. I just can't see any way that this has somehow been determined, pre or no pre, all of this is a direct result of clearcut desicions made in accordance with my will.


In any case, at the end of the day, you were meant to experience all of it, whether because of your free will or because it was already determined.

This quite frankly is just so much rubbish. How do you know what I am meant to experiance? How can you know? How do you know that what you know is correct?

It all sounds like some form of lifes philosophy that you have reached via hard questing, questioning, thinking, decideing...... ohh but wait we don't have the power to decide, sorry scrap that line of reasoning, umm did I say reasoning, sorry again. :D


Also, I should note that this discussion should have no effect upon you. Even if I'm right, it doesn't matter. All you do is walk away with a slightly better understanding of the universe. And even if I'm wrong, you still walk away with a slightly better understanding, since you walk away with the viewpoint of someone who has argued in favor of determinism.

Besides, ask yourself this: Does the person behind the screenname Forensatha actually believe all of this, or are they just arguing this for the pleasure and experience of arguing it? I'll let you come to your own conclusion, whether it be because you choose to or were pre-determined to do so.



I'll come back to you in a bit. Have to get to class.

Heh but all the things I choose to indugle in have some effect on me, how can you feel otherwise with a belife in pre-deterimination and cause and effect?

Ohh have fun in class.

Convince Me That Free Will ExistsI would but it has been pre-determined you will not believe me.

The primary response to this thread is "I don't want to" which is both witty in its reply and entirely correct at debunking your belief free will does not exist. I however will focus on your belief that there is negligible quantum activity in our brains. I draw you to the fact that Quantum activity is random and very difficult if not impossible to predict, by its very nature we must assume that quantum activity is everywhere and affects all things. Whether your belief stems from size or a flawed belief that the biological is immune to the non biological I do not know but the fact of the matter is even if we could measure the quantum activity of your brain, our results would be superfluous as Schrodinger's cat has taught us that if we observe we disturb and therefore cannot observe the quantum activity of the brain without possibly causing it to temporarily disappear or change state during our observation.

The primary response to this thread is "I don't want to" which is both witty in its reply and entirely correct at debunking your belief free will does not exist. I however will focus on your belief that there is negligible quantum activity in our brains. I draw you to the fact that Quantum activity is random and very difficult if not impossible to predict, by its very nature we must assume that quantum activity is everywhere and affects all things. Whether your belief stems from size or a flawed belief that the biological is immune to the non biological I do not know but the fact of the matter is even if we could measure the quantum activity of your brain, our results would be superfluous as Schrodinger's cat has taught us that if we observe we disturb and therefore cannot observe the quantum activity of the brain without possibly causing it to temporarily disappear or change state during our observation.

That silly unliving kitten doesn't help with the central problem of this dilemma. Also, the primary response is neither witty nor does it debunk anything.

I am saying that, but I am saying that it goes beyond knowledge into possible knowledge as well. Not knowing something doesn't create free will in my eyes, it being impossible to know creates the chance of free will. here you're trying to narrow your definition of free will down to impossibility.

not knowing something and being impossible to know something starts at the same point. NOT KNOWING. the only difference is that once the choice is made, the chooser then gains knowledge through experience of the choice thus rendering (by your definition) Free Will an impossiblity.

One can gain knowledge though experience only. you are only redefining 'free will' until it becomes impossible.

hence your stand is that Free Will can only exist in ingnorance.

It is based on absolute ignorance, not simple old fashioned ignorance.ignornace is ignorance. absolute or old fashioned.

Edit: For example, just because you don't know that an animal is stalking you from the bushes doesn't mean it isn't, but if it is impossible to know then it means that it may not be. Or it may be. However, if it is possible to know, then it is either stalking you or not, now matter your ability to find out one way or the other. Just because you can't figure out weather it is stalking you or not doesn't change the reality of the situation, it only changes if no one can know due to a law of the universe getting in the way. ah. but if you think an animal is stalking you, you can freely choose to 1) ignore the feeling 2) act upon that feeling. and each choice will open up a new set of choices of which you can freely choose from. choices made freely.

what you are still describing is random, uncontrolled movement. choices (an exercise in free will) comes from both internal and external stimuli.

It's all very specific, see. Too specific to the point of stupidity. you keep narrowing it down till you get to the one specific point at the expence of everything else.

Edit again: Also, this only applies to absolute, objective free will. This does not apply to effective free will, which is a necessary pragmatic construct created from ignorance about the future being applied to the concept of choice. here again you're trying to change the focus of the OP. the OP doesn't talk about 'absolute/objective free will, nor does the OP talk about speculative/subjective free will. the op talks about FREE WILL in general. thus your arguing only the absolute or subjective is immaterial while any form of free will can be proven or even theorized.

The primary response to this thread is "I don't want to" which is both witty in its reply and entirely correct at debunking your belief free will does not exist. I however will focus on your belief that there is negligible quantum activity in our brains. I draw you to the fact that Quantum activity is random and very difficult if not impossible to predict, by its very nature we must assume that quantum activity is everywhere and affects all things. Whether your belief stems from size or a flawed belief that the biological is immune to the non biological I do not know but the fact of the matter is even if we could measure the quantum activity of your brain, our results would be superfluous as Schrodinger's cat has taught us that if we observe we disturb and therefore cannot observe the quantum activity of the brain without possibly causing it to temporarily disappear or change state during our observation.

If we are to accept that quantum activity is random, then all this does in partially disprove the theory of determinism, it does not however prove anything about free-will. If something is random, by definition you have no control over it, so in that sense randomness is just like determinism, both offer us no control over who or what we are.

The only option is for the randomness of quantum activity to be dependant upon our mind/will choosing when it is to occur, however as how been shown in various studies, when a movement/act is commited by a human, there is activity in the un-conscious part of the brain before anything happens in the conscious part of the brain. So the action comes before the choice, not the other way around.

I'm well aware of how a computer works, working in the industry as I do. No the brain does not work like this, go ask Bottle if you want more knowledge, it is funny though how computer/brain anolgise are always made.

The real differance of course is the computer is unable to think for itself, it can only do what it is told to do.


If determinism is true, then the above also applies to humans. However merely stating that humans can think for themselves does not mean that they can, it just means they have the appearance of thinking for themselves. We are in-fact just extremely complicated machines with an extremely high number of variables and bizarre programming.


No I disagree. As I have contiunaly said yes I agree that choices are limited by many factors, but as with the sandwhiches, can you provide just one reasonable explaination as to why I may choose bacon over egg, one day and the very next day swap that choice around?

Remembering all the while your words above.

Well considering its (virtually) impossible to know how your brain works, its very hard to give an exact explanation, however just because we as humans can't do it, doesn't mean that it isn't possible.


Lets just drop the pre for a while though and call it determinism, as I certianly do not agree that such a thing as pre-deterimism exists when we are discussing freewill.


So you disagreeing with it automatically means it must be wrong and we can drop it? You can't have determinism without having pre-determinism anyway, the pre prefix is actually unessecary.


Okay but by this do you mean to suggest that we have no control ourselves over any of these enviromental effects, if as you suggest that all of our desicions are pre-determined then you must belive that we have no control over any aspect of our lives?


Well essentially, if you ignore hard determinism (everything is out of our control), and instead go for a softer form such an environmental and genetic effects, then yes the vast majority, if not all things are out of our control. Your gender, height, skin colour, eye colour, physical ability and intelligence are all based mainly on genes. Your morals, religion, and beliefs are based mainly on your parents. Your social skills and ability to learn and based mainly on your teachers and your friends. Your interests and hobbies are based on what you were introduced to as children.

Even as adults, humans as a race are still extremely impressionable, we are bombarded with advertising and we do things based on what others tell us to do.


Why yes of course I do. I left school back in 84 with poor exam results, I met, fell in love married and become a farther at quite an early age, and worked as a butcher.

A hard job with long hours and little pay. My circumstances forced me to educate myself and find better employment, I did this, not because some random workings of the universe led me to my wife, made me have children, and better my circumstances so as to provide for my family, but because I made these decsisions all the way down the path of living my life.

I didn't have to marry my wife I choose to, I didn't have to have kids both me and my wife choose when, and how many. I just can't see any way that this has somehow been determined, pre or no pre, all of this is a direct result of clearcut desicions made in accordance with my will.



It all still happened in exactly the same way though didn't it? Even those who believe in determinism still look twice when they cross the road, they still 'feel' like they are the ones making the decisions. No-one can predict the future, and as such determinism makes absoloutely no difference to our lives unless we let it.


This quite frankly is just so much rubbish. How do you know what I am meant to experiance? How can you know? How do you know that what you know is correct?

It all sounds like some form of lifes philosophy that you have reached via hard questing, questioning, thinking, decideing...... ohh but wait we don't have the power to decide, sorry scrap that line of reasoning, umm did I say reasoning, sorry again. :D


You can know what you are meant to experiance if determinism holds true, and apart from feelings and thoughts of free-will, i've yet to see anyone demonstrate a way of actually producing quantifiable free will.

How does determinism disrupt reason? It removes any option of choice, but it still leaves everything else. Logic and reason still apply.



Heh but all the things I choose to indugle in have some effect on me, how can you feel otherwise with a belife in pre-deterimination and cause and effect?

Ohh have fun in class.

Not believing in cause and effect means you think everything is random, which is just plain crazy. Anyone can see not everything is random, otherwise well, you'd see a lot of people acting like monkeys and trees, as my philosophy teacher once described it.

And feelings are made from chemicals in the brain, i still experience exactly the same as you, but in the back of my mind i may realise that this was always going to happen. It doesn't change anything.

I'm well aware of how a computer works, working in the industry as I do. No the brain does not work like this, go ask Bottle if you want more knowledge, it is funny though how computer/brain anolgise are always made.

The real differance of course is the computer is unable to think for itself, it can only do what it is told to do.

So four years of biology, with accompanying tests on the nervous system, were wrong? Methinks not.

If you stop and study the brain, you'll find I have stated nothing nonfactual about it. At the core level, a brain and a computer work the same. If it is intended to go along that path, the neuron fires or the computer flips a switch and allows the electricity to travel. If not, no switch is flipped and no neuron fires. The storage of information, through imprinting, is quite the same in the principle of what it does.

The difference is that the brain is a lot more complex and is capable of changing its shape, depending on the information stored and what areas get exercised.

No I disagree. As I have contiunaly said yes I agree that choices are limited by many factors, but as with the sandwhiches, can you provide just one reasonable explaination as to why I may choose bacon over egg, one day and the very next day swap that choice around?

Remembering all the while your words above.

A reasonable one? The combination of experiences and genetic quirks combine together to create the illusion that you are choosing between them, with the factors themselves shifting in a minute way between the two events that causes your choice to shift from the bacon to the egg.

No I don't belive you have, at least we have not thrased it out to such a stage that we can now put it behind us.

Go back and read it again. My clarity in some answers will be limited by the question directed at me. If you are not satisfied with the answer given, then rephrase the question to ask it in a way that focuses more on what you're not clear about.

Of course they can.

Assumption.

Thats not an example of me contradicting myself more than it is an example of me disagreeing with you.

Lets just drop the pre for a while though and call it determinism, as I certianly do not agree that such a thing as pre-deterimism exists when we are discussing freewill.

That still does not deal with the inherent contradiction of what you said.

Okay but by this do you mean to suggest that we have no control ourselves over any of these enviromental effects, if as you suggest that all of our desicions are pre-determined then you must belive that we have no control over any aspect of our lives?

Correct. And so are the consequences of what happens as well. It may not be fair, but there's no law of nature that says it has to be. Nature is full of interactions that are inherently unfair to one thing or another.

Why yes of course I do. I left school back in 84 with poor exam results, I met, fell in love married and become a farther at quite an early age, and worked as a butcher.

A hard job with long hours and little pay. My circumstances forced me to educate myself and find better employment, I did this, not because some random workings of the universe led me to my wife, made me have children, and better my circumstances so as to provide for my family, but because I made these decsisions all the way down the path of living my life.

I didn't have to marry my wife I choose to, I didn't have to have kids both me and my wife choose when, and how many. I just can't see any way that this has somehow been determined, pre or no pre, all of this is a direct result of clearcut desicions made in accordance with my will.

And the irony is, you honestly believe that, despite the evidence in your own statement that it's not true.

What was the set of factors that led to you leaving school? Poor grades. What was the set of factors that led to your falling in love? A combination of pheramones, biology, instincts, and sociological preconceptions that mixed together to create a need for emotional attachment on that level. What were the factors that led you to self-education? Long hours, little pay, a wife, and children. And what factors led to a better job? The same ones as led to the education, but also with the added benefit of that education.

Interestingly, for someone who believes so much in free will, you openly blame events and forces outside of your free will for the decisions you made. How can it be free will that you left school when you blame it on your poor grades? How can it be free will that you self-educated and got a better job when you openly blame it on the job you had previously? After all, if it truly is free will, then all of those items are entirely your fault, since they're entirely your decision.

And, besides, you have yet to provide any evidence that it actually makes a difference if I'm right or not. And you never will.

This quite frankly is just so much rubbish. How do you know what I am meant to experiance? How can you know? How do you know that what you know is correct?

It all sounds like some form of lifes philosophy that you have reached via hard questing, questioning, thinking, decideing...... ohh but wait we don't have the power to decide, sorry scrap that line of reasoning, umm did I say reasoning, sorry again. :D

With the idea that your life is utterly determined, it ultimately means everything is out of your control. In effect, you're just along for the ride. And, sometimes, you get your head whacked by low-hanging overpasses. Thus, it is because of the factors that influence your life that you are meant to experience what you have. That fact also does not change at any point in your life, making it so that the prediction that your future is what you are meant to experience is more a statement of the inevitable truth of the matter.

And, no, not a life philosophy. More like an observation of the universe from a more mathematical viewpoint and the interesting ideas that have resulted from that observation.

Heh but all the things I choose to indugle in have some effect on me, how can you feel otherwise with a belife in pre-deterimination and cause and effect?

Ohh have fun in class.

Does stepping on a butterfly change your entire life? Or does it cause you to have to clean off your shoe? Even in determinism, some things have no appreciable effect.

I can't convince you of free will, it's not real.
Well, everything that happens has a reaction and is a reaction to something else, or the universe would be a chaotic mess of random occurences. Every reaction happens acording to the set laws of the universe, even if we do not know them, or the universe would be a chaotic mess of random occurences. Therefore, if my reasoning is correct, either the universe is a chaotic mess of random occurences, or everything is predetermined.

Also as far as we know time is a dimension, therefore it's only different to the other dimensions in our perception. Which means the universe is already there as a multidimentional object, you can't change it's dimensions if your part of it. If an object running from one end of a cube to another percives length differently to width and depth but has no concept of time, it cannot change how it is layed out through the cube.

And then, if you want to go into biology, there's nature and nurture. If only your genes and your environment effect your behaviour then thats just a set of conditioned responses, not free will. Some pepole hold that there is a third, unknown variable, but even that must come from somwhere.

In short, I can't think of a single rational reason for beleiving in free will. However, you will probably live your life with the asumption you do have choices. Mostly because you don't have a choice in the matter.

here you're trying to narrow your definition of free will down to impossibility.

not knowing something and being impossible to know something starts at the same point. NOT KNOWING. the only difference is that once the choice is made, the chooser then gains knowledge through experience of the choice thus rendering (by your definition) Free Will an impossiblity.

One can gain knowledge though experience only. you are only redefining 'free will' until it becomes impossible.

hence your stand is that Free Will can only exist in ingnorance.

First of all, I am not trying to narrow down free will into an impossibility, since that would invalidate my own arguments for free will. I am a proponent of free will, I think (or rather, hope) it exists, why would I argue that it's impossible then? I am merely arguing that it would be impossible under certain circumstances, and I am describing those circumstances.

Also, I'm not really following your logic here:

"One can gain knowledge though experience only. you are only redefining 'free will' until it becomes impossible.

hence your stand is that Free Will can only exist in ignorance."

I say free will is impossible, therefore it can only exist in ignorance? If I say it can exist in ignorance how can it be impossible? Do you define ignorance as impossibility? I just don't see how you're getting from point A to point B here. Please elaborate.

Also, I am not trying to narrow down the concept into an impossibility, I am just trying to narrow down the concept so that people understand my idea of free will as a possibility within the laws of physics, rather than just a logical concept. I thought that the op was primarily referring to this kind of conversation, so I figured that clarifying wouldn't be a problem (I was, apparently, mistaken).

Oh, and one more thing, although not knowing something and it being impossible to know have the same starting point, they finish in very different places. I will describe how this distinction is important below. You said "the only difference", well, that's simply not true. I wasn't even talking about what you seem to be going on about, and something being impossible to know, in my mind, makes free will a possibility, not an impossibility. As I will describe below, if you can know (Not if you do know, but that would apply as well. Like, in addition to, since they are different things.) exactly how something will happen, then it will happen in that way, thus, something has to be impossible to know for free will to exist (physically, that is the definition I am using for now, I will explain why later, so please bear with me).

ignornace is ignorance. absolute or old fashioned.

This is incorrect.

We can predict the movement of planets, stars and galaxies, correct? (rhetorical) We can do this because we know their current position, speed and direction. Lets say, hypothetically, that the current consensus on quantum mechanics is wrong, and that it is possible to predict exactly where a particle will be at any given time in the future.

Now, lets say we can do that with every single particle in the universe (I know that's a leap, but I am demonstrating here, not arguing). If our actions are determined by reactions between these particles, we could predict the reactions and be effectively omniscient.

Now, back to the single particle:

If you can predict it, weather or not you actually go through the process of actually doing so, then it will be in that place at that time. There is no way around it, determinism. However, as it stands with most scientists now, it is impossible to know anything more than the probability of a particle being at a certain place at a certain time because you can't understand multiple variables at once. You can know one variable, and a probability distribution (I think, someone with more knowledge than I might want to correct me here). That is a probabilistic universe, and it is my opinion that within that type of universe that free will is possible.

Ignorance is not knowing something, but if a certain particle will be in a certain place at a certain time, it doesn't matter if I don't know, it will be there. If this is true than every single thing I type here has been predetermined by the positions of these particles making up my body, mind, experiences and disposition (with experiences and disposition being a part of my mind that is imprinted by other particles that create stimuli). It doesn't matter if I, personally, can't calculate this, reality is reality. Even when our ancestors didn't know why the sun would rise and set, do you think that it didn't happen in the way that we understand it now? (rhetorical) They didn't know, ignorance, but that didn't make the sun magically follow different rules.

Physics doesn't change based on our knowledge of it. The only thing that even gets close to this (to my knowledge) is quantum mechanics. This is because, in quantum mechanics, simple observation effects reality. Because of this, there are certain things that would be impossible to know, because knowing them would change the outcome. This is absolute ignorance, and there is a damn significant distinction there. That distinction being that the universe does start to follow different rules when you are ignorant (or, more accurately, knowledgeable, since that's when the rules actually change) about things on the quantum scale.

To be clear and simple, absolute ignorance is when knowledge actually changes the rules, rather than just not knowing the rules.

ah. but if you think an animal is stalking you, you can freely choose to 1) ignore the feeling 2) act upon that feeling. and each choice will open up a new set of choices of which you can freely choose from. choices made freely.

But what if everything you do is simply determined by your brain chemistry (which includes external stimuli, since that changes how your brain is wired and acts as a catalyst for reactions)? In this case, you did make a choice, but in the grand scheme of things you would have made that choice no matter what. That isn't freely making choices. Just because you feel like you are making a free choice doesn't mean that you actually are.

what you are still describing is random, uncontrolled movement. choices (an exercise in free will) comes from both internal and external stimuli.

I'm not sure if the entirety what I am describing is random movement (I suppose the quantum mechanics stuff covers that, though), but I agree that choices come from both internal and external stimuli. I disagree that choices are an exercise of free will for the reasons I keep repeating.

I am saying that "you" are not a closed system. You are inherently connected to the outside world. I am saying that if it is possible to calculate those stimuli and exactly how those stimuli would affect your brain chemistry (knowing the precise future actions of every particle that is connected to you in any way) then I would be able to know exactly what choices you will make with the proper tools. If that is true then free will couldn't possibly exist, however, that isn't true, so it can. That is the essence of my argument in that respect.

Furthermore, quantum brain static in and of itself doesn't prove free will in the traditional sense. If you took the perspective that you are your brain, then that kind of random static would look similar to free will, but it would be more of a random, static induced, will (without the "free" aspect). Still, I am saying that if there is more to it than that, like some kind of emergent behavior (or something, I am beyond my depth at this point) that comes from the quantum static, free will in the traditional sense may exist. If you want to know more about my ideas on quantum brain static, look at my earlier posts in this thread. I first came up with the idea waaaaaay back when (although I am sure I'm not the first to think of it), and if the thread is still around (I doubt it is), then you could look at that to see some minor discussion about it (as well as my being chastised for being a wimp).

Too specific to the point of stupidity. you keep narrowing it down till you get to the one specific point at the expence of everything else.

I thought I gave many valid reasons as to why the specific distinctions are important to the argument I am trying to make. I wanted to do this so I could argue precisely and address what I see as two "forks in the road" in this argument. I intended to address the other fork later, or at least get it out of the way for now to minimize confusion. You are free to think this is stupid, but I don't.

here again you're trying to change the focus of the OP. the OP doesn't talk about 'absolute/objective free will, nor does the OP talk about speculative/subjective free will. the op talks about FREE WILL in general. thus your arguing only the absolute or subjective is immaterial while any form of free will can be proven or even theorized.

Well, I was trying to change the general focus of the op to what I perceived (it was simply my interpretation) to be the intended direction of the op (free will within the laws of physics). That is why I tried to narrow the focus, to limit confusion and tackle things in a "one point at a time" organized manner. This may very well be a flaw in how I argue, but it is something that is hardwired into how I think.

I do apologize if my disposition makes me difficult, but I can't really argue about a general concept without explicitly defining every aspect of that concept. To me, that feels like using a chainsaw when you need a scalpel. I just really hate it when people end up getting on different wavelengths and wasting energy misunderstanding what either one of them is talking about, rather than actually addressing the same points at the same time.

I am not saying that your point of interest is irrelevant (well, that is what I said, but I didn't mean it in precisely that manner), I am saying that your point of interest is irrelevant to mine, and that many people seem to be confusing the two. Furthermore, I was implying that I didn't give two shits about your point of interest, and I can see how that would make me come off as dismissive and insensitive. I just thought that's what a lot of people were doing with my point of interest (not necessarily you, as I said I wasn't directly addressing you at first), so I responded that way. I apologize for that.

I consider objective free will my point of interest, and I do not believe that effective free will proves objective free will. That is why I separated them. I agree with any point arguing for the necessity of effective free will in our day to day lives, but I disagree with anyone who thinks that kind of argument is enough to prove free will in its entirety for the reasons I argued for (and redundantly repeated, I'm sure) earlier.

I do beg to differ with you that both forms of free will can be proven, perhaps that they can both be proven within a logical framework, but I consider "proven" to apply only to things that empirical evidence supports (and even then, there is a level of uncertainty). Furthermore, I don't even think that my idea can be proven (to my standard of proof), at least not at this time, as I am merely arguing for the possibility of free will, not if it actually exists.

Now, I am sure you, being an eager and worthy opponent, will take on this monster of a post. So, I feel I should inform you that I think I have invested an unhealthy amount of time and thought on this subject, and to be frank, I need a break. I will try to respond as best I can, but it may not be for some time, as composing tl,dr essays gets my mind all bent out of shape. I don't want to come off like I'm abandoning my point, and therefore conceding, but when you get to the point that you pray to all that is holy that someone doesn't respond to you, a break needs to be taken. I know, I am a lazy bastard, but I am perfectly willing to own up to that.

A reasonable one? The combination of experiences and genetic quirks combine together to create the illusion that you are choosing between them, with the factors themselves shifting in a minute way between the two events that causes your choice to shift from the bacon to the egg.

In other words you do not know. So even though you don't know you have placed your faith in you being correct. *shrug* fair doo's.

Interestingly, for someone who believes so much in free will, you openly blame events and forces outside of your free will for the decisions you made. How can it be free will that you left school when you blame it on your poor grades? How can it be free will that you self-educated and got a better job when you openly blame it on the job you had previously? After all, if it truly is free will, then all of those items are entirely your fault, since they're entirely your decision.


No you misunderstand me. I left school because my schooling was finished, I left with bad exam grades because of my dyslexica, for which I got no help whilst at school. I don't blame anything for my choices, I only highlight what I have been saying about choice being limited by many factors.

Circumstances forced me to get a better job to enable me to look after my family, I could have chossen to stay in the same lowpaid backbreaking job, I decided that I didn't want my family to grow up in the sort of povety that doing so would mean.

I decided to quit, I decided to go to collage to learn about IT, I decided which jobs to apply for, and I decided which job to take of the ones that where offered to me.

That life forced me into making these sorst of desicions does not indecate that I made no choices.


And, besides, you have yet to provide any evidence that it actually makes a difference if I'm right or not. And you never will.

Then surly the reverse is also true for you.

But of course it makes a differance, if I was not the kind of many that I am, a relaisation that I have no control over my life may cause me to to simply end it.



With the idea that your life is utterly determined, it ultimately means everything is out of your control. In effect, you're just along for the ride. And, sometimes, you get your head whacked by low-hanging overpasses. Thus, it is because of the factors that influence your life that you are meant to experience what you have. That fact also does not change at any point in your life, making it so that the prediction that your future is what you are meant to experience is more a statement of the inevitable truth of the matter.

Hah prove it.

In other words you do not know. So even though you don't know you have placed your faith in you being correct. *shrug* fair doo's.

Believe it or not, but you're not saying anything there I hadn't already said before you made the challenge.

Since I'm in a good mood, I'll go ahead and repeat myself: I'd need to know you a lot more than I do in order to understand what factors influence your life to cause you to make that decision.

No you misunderstand me. I left school because my schooling was finished, I left with bad exam grades because of my dyslexica, for which I got no help whilst at school. I don't blame anything for my choices, I only highlight what I have been saying about choice being limited by many factors.

Circumstances forced me to get a better job to enable me to look after my family, I could have chossen to stay in the same lowpaid backbreaking job, I decided that I didn't want my family to grow up in the sort of povety that doing so would mean.

I decided to quit, I decided to go to collage to learn about IT, I decided which jobs to apply for, and I decided which job to take of the ones that where offered to me.

That life forced me into making these sorst of desicions does not indecate that I made no choices.

And, once again, you contradict yourself. If you don't blame anything, then how could dyslexia truly be at fault? How could you have been forced by circumstances to do anything? How can you say you are blaming nothing when you outright state "that life forced me" in your post?

If it is entirely free will, then your bad grades are entirely your fault. Not the fault of dyslexia. Not the fault of a lack of help. Your fault for not making enough of an effort. And if factors are limiting it, then congrats. You've got at least some determinism involved. Which means it's not pure free will, which in turn makes it not just your choice that you did anything.

The answer is simple: You can because of the factors that have determined you will have free will and be unconcious of just how much blaming for your circumstances you do.

Then surly the reverse is also true for you.

But of course it makes a differance, if I was not the kind of many that I am, a relaisation that I have no control over my life may cause me to to simply end it.

Here's the thing: It doesn't make a difference for me. My life will turn out exactly as it has already been determined to turn out. Thus, in a way, I don't have to worry as much... but that, once again, is the factors that influence the situation combining together to determine my emotional response.

Oh, and what makes you think you have a choice in the case of suicide if everything is determined? Keep in mind when I say everything, I mean everything. That includes your emotional states and whatever prevents you from up and killing yourself. Unfortunately, the only way you could possibly even attempt to prove me wrong on that is a method that we both know you won't do. In fact, I know you'll reject it outright.

Hah prove it.

What do you think I've been doing?

And, once again, you contradict yourself. If you don't blame anything, then how could dyslexia truly be at fault? How could you have been forced by circumstances to do anything? How can you say you are blaming nothing when you outright state "that life forced me" in your post?

And once again you misunderstand me. I have agreed that my choices are limited by many factors. My dyslexcia limits me, I don't attach blame to it, it is just a part of me and my life, in essanse I have found ways to work past it.

Circumstances have made me make certian choices, I don't blame these circumstances only acknolwdge that because of that happening, I had to make some choice or other.

You can read lines like 'life forced me..' as contradiction, or you can read it as it was intended, a normal pattern of speach to indicate that my choicces have been limited by many factors.


If it is entirely free will, then your bad grades are entirely your fault. Not the fault of dyslexia. Not the fault of a lack of help. Your fault for not making enough of an effort. And if factors are limiting it, then congrats. You've got at least some determinism involved. Which means it's not pure free will, which in turn makes it not just your choice that you did anything.

Rubbish. Because some parts of life are beyond your own control, this now means that all is? My dyslexcia is something that I have no choice in, it is a genetic thing that I got from my dad and have passed down to both of my own boys.

My getting no help at school(I was diganoised a few weeks before leaving) was again beyond my control, but I certianly have control over the methoeds and little mind tricks that I employ to make sure that it does not bother me as much as it used to. Again I have a choice in this. I can if I so choose to stop all of the methoeds I use to cope with my dyslexcia, that would be like stepping backwards in time for me so I choose not to do that, but I am still free to make that choice.

I have also choosen to make sure that both of my boys get all of the help they need.



What do you think I've been doing?

Well basicly you have just been saying nuh-uh, over and over and over again.

Freewill is simple enough to proove you know, you can do so right now, I have a simple experiment for you, if you are willing?

And once again you misunderstand me. I have agreed that my choices are limited by many factors. My dyslexcia limits me, I don't attach blame to it, it is just a part of me and my life, in essanse I have found ways to work past it.

Circumstances have made me make certian choices, I don't blame these circumstances only acknolwdge that because of that happening, I had to make some choice or other.

You can read lines like 'life forced me..' as contradiction, or you can read it as it was intended, a normal pattern of speach to indicate that my choicces have been limited by many factors.

If you don't attach blame to it, then why did you state it as being at fault for your bad grades? The reason you attach fault is because, at some level, you do blame it... and probably resent some of the limitations it put on you in your life. Perfectly normal human reactions, and perfectly normal to bury them deep.

And, yes, I do still see you as blaming them. Maybe not conciously, but the blame is still there. You're too meticulous in certain phrasings and examinations of what's been said for it to not have been at least subconcious blame; otherwise, you would have phrased it differently and not even thought about the fact you were doing it.

Rubbish. Because some parts of life are beyond your own control, this now means that all is? My dyslexcia is something that I have no choice in, it is a genetic thing that I got from my dad and have passed down to both of my own boys.

My getting no help at school(I was diganoised a few weeks before leaving) was again beyond my control, but I certianly have control over the methoeds and little mind tricks that I employ to make sure that it does not bother me as much as it used to. Again I have a choice in this. I can if I so choose to stop all of the methoeds I use to cope with my dyslexcia, that would be like stepping backwards in time for me so I choose not to do that, but I am still free to make that choice.

I have also choosen to make sure that both of my boys get all of the help they need.

You're too busy looking at the forest to see the trees with this reply. That particular instance you're arguing against was pointing out that the limitations themselves force you into certain decisions. It wasn't a full argument for determinism, but one that suggests that even your free will involved at least a part of determinism. Which you then go on to argue in favor of, while trying to maintain a free will argument.

Well basicly you have just been saying nuh-uh, over and over and over again.

Freewill is simple enough to proove you know, you can do so right now, I have a simple experiment for you, if you are willing?

The only way you could prove free will right now is to roll a die. If you get an even number, you then take your own life. If you get an odd number, you do not. And it must be a life video feed so that all can watch the experiment to see if you are truly willing to go through with it.

And, even then, you already know what I'll say. Think about it.

Anything less: I could argue as not free will. The point is, right now, I'm not even trying that hard. Mainly because you've giving me so little to oppose and pushing too much evidence into my hands. Even you admit that your choices are influenced by outside factors. The only difference is that you're arguing for free will tempered by determinism and I'm arguing that the factors influencing it eliminate free will entirely. Either way, you fail to argue against determinism.

You see, the argument over whether or not there was determinism overriding free will was over the moment you posted that short life story. It's just a question of how much free will remains to have any influence at all.

If you don't attach blame to it, then why did you state it as being at fault for your bad grades? The reason you attach fault is because, at some level, you do blame it... and probably resent some of the limitations it put on you in your life. Perfectly normal human reactions, and perfectly normal to bury them deep.

Bah rubbish again. It astounds me that you don't know me enought to pas comemnt othe sandwhich dilema, yet you know intematly enough to not only call me a liar, but you know the core of my very psyche.

Not that it has anything to do with the current discussion, but let me make it clear to you.

I have suffered with my specific form of learning dificulty for the whole of my life, it will alwyas be there and there is nowt that I can do to make it go away. I'm 40 years old now, I have come to terms with this a very, very long time ago. What good would come of my blameing my poor education on my dyslexcia? Nothing, it just is what it is, don't mistake my acceptance and knowledge of my self, with me aportioning blame, and please, you either know me or you don't. You have clearly shown you don't, so don't pretend that you do.


And, yes, I do still see you as blaming them. Maybe not conciously, but the blame is still there. You're too meticulous in certain phrasings and examinations of what's been said for it to not have been at least subconcious blame; otherwise, you would have phrased it differently and not even thought about the fact you were doing it.

Bwahaha. I started a thread a while back about about the very thingsI have to do, about some of the methoeds that I use and some of the little mind tricks that I employ to deal with my dyslexcia. The fact that you read things into my 'turn of phrase' that simply are not there is unsuppriseing, but belive me, I don't lie about these things,I have enough intlectual honesty not to feel that need, and I will always, and I mean always say so when I have been shown to be wrong.



You're too busy looking at the forest to see the trees with this reply. That particular instance you're arguing against was pointing out that the limitations themselves force you into certain decisions. It wasn't a full argument for determinism, but one that suggests that even your free will involved at least a part of determinism. Which you then go on to argue in favor of, while trying to maintain a free will argument.

You know I really don't know how many more ways I can say this to you. I don't deny that our choices are limited by many factors. Yes of course the choices we have have been determined, but we still get to make these choices. Going back to the very start, you'll remember I said 'free will' is simply the ability to choose, you have not yet explained why this is wrong.



The only way you could prove free will right now is to roll a die. If you get an even number, you then take your own life. If you get an odd number, you do not. And it must be a life video feed so that all can watch the experiment to see if you are truly willing to go through with it.

And, even then, you already know what I'll say. Think about it.

Anything less: I could argue as not free will. The point is, right now, I'm not even trying that hard. Mainly because you've giving me so little to oppose and pushing too much evidence into my hands. Even you admit that your choices are influenced by outside factors. The only difference is that you're arguing for free will tempered by determinism and I'm arguing that the factors influencing it eliminate free will entirely. Either way, you fail to argue against determinism.

There are two things I glean from this rely, the first being no you are not willing. The second, why is death the only thing that you would except?

My experiment in fact does deal with making a choice that you would not ordenerily want to make.



You see, the argument over whether or not there was determinism overriding free will was over the moment you posted that short life story. It's just a question of how much free will remains to have any influence at all.

Yeah you keep on saying things like that, with no proof of anykind yet.

Heh it's like we are a couple of kids argueing in the sweet shop, 'army and Navy' sez I 'nuhuh, I want peanut brittle' sez you.

Now come make a choice show me your evidance, lets stop this dance, unless of course you can't coz that is not what is determined for you!:rolleyes:

After all, if it truly is free will, then all of those items are entirely your fault, since they're entirely your decision.

what sort of crazy notion of free will is this? nobody proposes that you have direct control over the circumstances that form the context of a choice at the time of that choice. and even if some of those circumstances are the result of your previous choices (as they almost certainly are), not all of them are - we are all always constrained by gravity, for example. no matter how much i will it, i cannot just float away (but note that i actually can will it, i just cannot enact that willing).

I wish I could become an orange.

I wish I could become an orange.

And I wish I could peel you. :D

And I wish I could peel you. :D

As long as you don't bench-press me!

As long as you don't bench-press me!

Bench press and Orange? It'd make me smell.

This exchange is definitely more illuminating than this whole "existentialist cage fight winner stays on" thing.

However, I feel obliged to anticipate hijacking accusations, therefore I contend that you have just proved free will doesn't exist. And all you needed was an orange, a bench, and a sense of smell.

This exchange is definitely more illuminating than this whole "existentialist cage fight winner stays on" thing.

However, I feel obliged to anticipate hijacking accusations, therefore I contend that you have just proved free will doesn't exist. And all you needed was an orange, a bench, and a sense of smell.

I like potatoes.

I like potatoes.

Whiffle.

Whiffle.

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

:fluffle::fluffle::fluffle:

:gas:

:gas:

:hail::hail::hail:

:hail::hail::hail:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/obscene/eck06.gif

Ok enough of that.

sorry, but this is one LOOOOOONG reply. ;)


First of all, I am not trying to narrow down free will into an impossibility, since that would invalidate my own arguments for free will. I am a proponent of free will, I think (or rather, hope) it exists, why would I argue that it's impossible then? I am merely arguing that it would be impossible under certain circumstances, and I am describing those circumstances.


Post 183
This, however, does nothing to prove free will beyond a subjective level. The choice I made was indeed a choice, but what was it based on?

If I were to go back (quantum leap style), and if I had the exact same experiences and everything about me was exactly the same, what would compel me to make a different choice?

I wouldn't have any memory of making the choice, my mood would be the same and my thoughts would be the same. In effect, it would be like watching a movie. I can rewind, fast forward, and so on, but I can't change the end of the movie with my remote. All that I can do is watch it play out at different speeds. If I decided on a coin flip, since everything is the same, it would end with the same result. If I just decided based on a random thought, then I would have that same thought. If I made the decision based on logic and reason then I would use the same reasoning.

Why would I choose something else? What force would be behind this change?

Until you can answer that, you do nothing for the argument of free will that isn't entirely superficial and arbitrary. If our choices are caused by things outside of themselves, then they are not really free choices at all, just a part of the chain reaction that is causality.

Because of a lack of information, everyone effectively has free will, but that isn't a new idea, not even in this thread. I don't think it really needs to be rehashed any more either, so I won't go off on that tangent.

I would like to note though, that I don't actually support this line of reasoning. I have already stated that I like the idea of quantum brain static as a potential initiator for free will (although not a free will in it's entirety). I also like the idea that the universe isn't merely guided by physical laws, but a mostly invisible layer of mathematical (not spiritual, mind you) ones as well, which leads to emergent functions having a a sort of romantic mysticism to them that may or may not include free will.

These, however, are just ideas and don't really have any empirical support, which is why I chose to play the devils advocate here. My main point with this argument is just to show the difference between the feeling of choice and what a free will truly entails, at least under my definitions. This seems to be a big barrier in the discussion here, so I figured I would try to tackle it.

Note: your premise is that the ability to choose is NOT an indicator of free will. infact the ability to choose "are caused by things outside of themselves, then they are not really free choices at all, just a part of the chain reaction that is causality" and thus NOT 'free will', even tho what you described runs contrary to the definition of Free Will.

free will
–noun
1. free and independent choice; voluntary decision: You took on the responsibility of your own free will.
2. Philosophy. the doctrine that the conduct of human beings expresses personal choice and is not simply determined by physical or divine forces.


free will
n.
The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.


free will

The ability to choose, think, and act voluntarily. For many philosophers, to believe in free will is to believe that human beings can be the authors of their own actions and to reject the idea that human actions are determined by external conditions or fate. (See determinism, fatalism, and predestination.)


Also, I'm not really following your logic here:

"One can gain knowledge though experience only. you are only redefining 'free will' until it becomes impossible.

hence your stand is that Free Will can only exist in ignorance."

I say free will is impossible, therefore it can only exist in ignorance? If I say it can exist in ignorance how can it be impossible? Do you define ignorance as impossibility? I just don't see how you're getting from point A to point B here. Please elaborate. lets follow your posts then.

(edited to show you indicating that free will can only exist in ignorance.) my notes in RED

Post 183
If I were to go back (quantum leap style), and if I had the exact same experiences and everything about me was [I]exactly the same, what would compel me to make a different choice?

I wouldn't have any memory of making the choice, my mood would be the same and my thoughts would be the same. In effect, it would be like watching a movie. I can rewind, fast forward, and so on, but I can't change the end of the movie with my remote. All that I can do is watch it play out at different speeds. If I decided on a coin flip, since everything is the same, it would end with the same result. If I just decided based on a random thought, then I would have that same thought. If I made the decision based on logic and reason then I would use the same reasoning.

Why would I choose something else? What force would be behind this change?

Until you can answer that, you do nothing for the argument of free will that isn't entirely superficial and arbitrary. If our choices are caused by things outside of themselves, then they are not really free choices at all, just a part of the chain reaction that is causality.

here you say any form of curiosity, any form of inquiry of "let's go down here this time" anything that could influence our choices negates free will. "If our Choices are caused by things outside of themselves" in your own words

Because of a lack of information, everyone effectively has free will, but that isn't a new idea, not even in this thread. I don't think it really needs to be rehashed any more either, so I won't go off on that tangent. here is your first indicator of 'Free will only exists in ignorance.

after I ask if Free will only exists in ignorance, your reply is...
Post 193
Well, maybe. Rather I would say it exists within possible ignorance. If it is possible to know (knowing, in this case, being defined as the ability to know something enough to predict it with certainty), than it is set in stone, if it is not, then free will may exist somewhere in those gaps.

"knowing enough to predict it with certainty" any form of knowledge will allow a person to predict the outcome with certainty. A child who learns that screaming gets his way will predict that throwing tantrums would result in him getting what he wants. wether or not that prediction comes true is not certain but the prediction can be made with certainty. hence your argument here is that any form of thought put into that choice negates free will.


Since I hold the opinion that quantum mechanics creates plenty of gaps (things you can not be absolutely certain about), I think free will may be in there somewhere. Other areas with that kind of physically defined uncertainty would also apply.

Edit: Also, to clarify, my definition of free will is:

If under the exact same circumstances, would something change based upon the agent of choice?

If the answer to that question is yes, then whatever that yes refers to would be free will. If the agent of choice is just a result of variables rather than a variable in and of itself I don't think it qualifies as free will.
and here you indicate free will can only exist as a random event. since you keep insisting that 'everything has to be exactly the same would the same choice be made. note that you already said nothing outside the choice can be an influence for it to be free will, thus it's not any form of informed choice.

Post 196
I am saying that, but I am saying that it goes beyond knowledge into possible knowledge as well. Not knowing something doesn't create free will in my eyes, it being impossible to know creates the chance of free will. here is another admitting that free will can only exists in ignorance.

It is based on absolute ignorance, not simple old fashioned ignorance.yet another admission.

Edit: For example, just because you don't know that an animal is stalking you from the bushes doesn't mean it isn't, but if it is impossible to know then it means that it may not be. Or it may be. However, if it is possible to know, then it is either stalking you or not, now matter your ability to find out one way or the other. Just because you can't figure out weather it is stalking you or not doesn't change the reality of the situation, it only changes if no one can know due to a law of the universe getting in the way.

It's all very specific, see.

Edit again: Also, this only applies to absolute, objective free will. This does not apply to effective free will, which is a necessary pragmatic construct created from ignorance about the future being applied to the concept of choice. now here you again try to narrow the definition of Free will into Subjective and Objective and note how you changed from 'Predicting the outcome with certainty' to ignorance of the future being applied to the concept. smooth... almost missed that one. ;)

There, thats about as clear as I can get.

Also, I am not trying to narrow down the concept into an impossibility, I am just trying to narrow down the concept so that people understand my idea of free will as a possibility within the laws of physics, rather than just a logical concept. I thought that the op was primarily referring to this kind of conversation, so I figured that clarifying wouldn't be a problem (I was, apparently, mistaken). that's fine, but to say that free will only exisits without any form of interferrance is wrong.

This is incorrect.

We can predict the movement of planets, stars and galaxies, correct? (rhetorical) We can do this because we know their current position, speed and direction. Lets say, hypothetically, that the current consensus on quantum mechanics is wrong, and that it is possible to predict exactly where a particle will be at any given time in the future.

Now, lets say we can do that with every single particle in the universe (I know that's a leap, but I am demonstrating here, not arguing). If our actions are determined by reactions between these particles, we could predict the reactions and be effectively omniscient.

Now, back to the single particle:

If you can predict it, weather or not you actually go through the process of actually doing so, then it will be in that place at that time. There is no way around it, determinism. However, as it stands with most scientists now, it is impossible to know anything more than the probability of a particle being at a certain place at a certain time because you can't understand multiple variables at once. You can know one variable, and a probability distribution (I think, someone with more knowledge than I might want to correct me here). That is a probabilistic universe, and it is my opinion that within that type of universe that free will is possible.
so free will, a concept that cannot exsist within anything that has desires, no outside nor internal influence, cannot make any choices... only exists within a particle?

yet it's within those probablitities that predictions can be made with some degree of certainty and thus contradicts your post 193

Well, maybe. Rather I would say it exists within possible ignorance. If it is possible to know (knowing, in this case, being defined as the ability to know something enough to predict it with certainty), than it is set in stone, if it is not, then free will may exist somewhere in those gaps.

remember, predicting with certainty is not a correct or accurate prediction.

Ignorance is not knowing something, but if a certain particle will be in a certain place at a certain time, it doesn't matter if I don't know, it will be there. If this is true than every single thing I type here has been predetermined by the positions of these particles making up my body, mind, experiences and disposition (with experiences and disposition being a part of my mind that is imprinted by other particles that create stimuli). It doesn't matter if I, personally, can't calculate this, reality is reality. Even when our ancestors didn't know why the sun would rise and set, do you think that it didn't happen in the way that we understand it now? (rhetorical) They didn't know, ignorance, but that didn't make the sun magically follow different rules. from particles to humongus gasous fusion reactors. so far, your arguments for or against free will is by using objects that have no "will". at least the OP was using physics and quantum mechanics in relationship with those that have 'will'.

Physics doesn't change based on our knowledge of it. The only thing that even gets close to this (to my knowledge) is quantum mechanics. This is because, in quantum mechanics, simple observation effects reality. Because of this, there are certain things that would be impossible to know, because knowing them would change the outcome. This is absolute ignorance, and there is a damn significant distinction there. That distinction being that the universe does start to follow different rules when you are ignorant (or, more accurately, knowledgeable, since that's when the rules actually change) about things on the quantum scale.

To be clear and simple, absolute ignorance is when knowledge actually changes the rules, rather than just not knowing the rules.
except your arguments for your ideas are all on objects that so far, have not been proven to have 'will'. thus to me, you are now pointing to a metorite fragment and using that to argue the existance of unicorns.

But what if everything you do is simply determined by your brain chemistry (which includes external stimuli, since that changes how your brain is wired and acts as a catalyst for reactions)? In this case, you did make a choice, but in the grand scheme of things you would have made that choice no matter what. That isn't freely making choices. Just because you feel like you are making a free choice doesn't mean that you actually are. making a choice is weighing options, placing value on predicted outcomes, and even placing value on the choices themselves. to make a choice without doing so would just be a random event born in ignorance.

hence again you argue Free will can only exist in ignorance.


I'm not sure if the entirety what I am describing is random movement (I suppose the quantum mechanics stuff covers that, though), but I agree that choices come from both internal and external stimuli. I disagree that choices are an exercise of free will for the reasons I keep repeating. you are describing random movement. worse, you are describing random movement without any stimuli. an impossiblity as far as I know.

and according to the Definitions of Free Will I gave earlier... Choices are an exercise of free will.

I am saying that "you" are not a closed system. You are inherently connected to the outside world. I am saying that if it is possible to calculate those stimuli and exactly how those stimuli would affect your brain chemistry (knowing the precise future actions of every particle that is connected to you in any way) then I would be able to know exactly what choices you will make with the proper tools. If that is true then free will couldn't possibly exist, however, that isn't true, so it can. That is the essence of my argument in that respect. however because "WE" are not indiviually a closed system, you are arguing that 'Free Will' cannot exist because we are constantly encountering stimuli.

Furthermore, quantum brain static in and of itself doesn't prove free will in the traditional sense. If you took the perspective that you are your brain, then that kind of random static would look similar to free will, but it would be more of a random, static induced, will (without the "free" aspect). Still, I am saying that if there is more to it than that, like some kind of emergent behavior (or something, I am beyond my depth at this point) that comes from the quantum static, free will in the traditional sense may exist. If you want to know more about my ideas on quantum brain static, look at my earlier posts in this thread. I first came up with the idea waaaaaay back when (although I am sure I'm not the first to think of it), and if the thread is still around (I doubt it is), then you could look at that to see some minor discussion about it (as well as my being chastised for being a wimp). yet if there is some kind of emergent behavior, that would be a form of stimuli and per your arguments, a negation of 'free will.'

I thought I gave many valid reasons as to why the specific distinctions are important to the argument I am trying to make. I wanted to do this so I could argue precisely and address what I see as two "forks in the road" in this argument. I intended to address the other fork later, or at least get it out of the way for now to minimize confusion. You are free to think this is stupid, but I don't. I don't think it's stupid.

yet the picture you're painting that is 'Free Will' is neither free nor any evidence of 'Will.'

Well, I was trying to change the general focus of the op to what I perceived (it was simply my interpretation) to be the intended direction of the op (free will within the laws of physics). That is why I tried to narrow the focus, to limit confusion and tackle things in a "one point at a time" organized manner. This may very well be a flaw in how I argue, but it is something that is hardwired into how I think. I thought you were narrowing the field (so to speak). :p

that's fine to narrow it down and take it point by point. but since the main focuses of the op are Free Will and quantum mechanics, trying to remove all stimuli and thus all 'will' is rather self defeating... in my opinion.

I do apologize if my disposition makes me difficult, but I can't really argue about a general concept without explicitly defining every aspect of that concept. To me, that feels like using a chainsaw when you need a scalpel. I just really hate it when people end up getting on different wavelengths and wasting energy misunderstanding what either one of them is talking about, rather than actually addressing the same points at the same time. which is why I ask questions and explinations.

"are you saying that Free Will can only exist in ignorance?" was my trying to grasp your concept of free will without any stimuli. After all, do you agree that Free Will can only exist in objects and creatures that have a 'will'?

I am not saying that your point of interest is irrelevant (well, that is what I said, but I didn't mean it in precisely that manner), I am saying that your point of interest is irrelevant to mine, and that many people seem to be confusing the two. Furthermore, I was implying that I didn't give two shits about your point of interest, and I can see how that would make me come off as dismissive and insensitive. I just thought that's what a lot of people were doing with my point of interest (not necessarily you, as I said I wasn't directly addressing you at first), so I responded that way. I apologize for that. forgive me if you got the impression that i thought you thought my points irrelevant. I never thought that. nor do I think your points are irrelevant... if I did, we wouldn't be having this conversation. ;)

I consider objective free will my point of interest, and I do not believe that effective free will proves objective free will. That is why I separated them. I agree with any point arguing for the necessity of effective free will in our day to day lives, but I disagree with anyone who thinks that kind of argument is enough to prove free will in its entirety for the reasons I argued for (and redundantly repeated, I'm sure) earlier. then we're back to the Definition game..

what is your definiton for
Free will?
Objective Free Will?
Subjective Free Will?
Effective Free Will?


I do beg to differ with you that both forms of free will can be proven, perhaps that they can both be proven within a logical framework, but I consider "proven" to apply only to things that empirical evidence supports (and even then, there is a level of uncertainty). Furthermore, I don't even think that my idea can be proven (to my standard of proof), at least not at this time, as I am merely arguing for the possibility of free will, not if it actually exists. careful of that stance. that means you have to take the evidence from both sides and weigh them equally with each other. not just the side you want to believe.

and even then, you are putting faith in the observations and interpretations of others.

Now, I am sure you, being an eager and worthy opponent, will take on this monster of a post. So, I feel I should inform you that I think I have invested an unhealthy amount of time and thought on this subject, and to be frank, I need a break. I will try to respond as best I can, but it may not be for some time, as composing tl,dr essays gets my mind all bent out of shape. I don't want to come off like I'm abandoning my point, and therefore conceding, but when you get to the point that you pray to all that is holy that someone doesn't respond to you, a break needs to be taken. I know, I am a lazy bastard, but I am perfectly willing to own up to that. it was an intersting point (and post) and if you are keen on your ideas of 'free will' it should be explored, examined and tested. that's how people advance their theories and ideas. can you imagine the state the world would be in if ideas were not examined? :p

[blah blah blah]

Unfortunately, the thread's been a bit hijacked. And, at this point, attempting to post a serious argument after reading what's been posted kinda is pointless.

Ignorance is not knowing something, but if a certain particle will be in a certain place at a certain time, it doesn't matter if I don't know, it will be there. If this is true than every single thing I type here has been predetermined by the positions of these particles making up my body, mind, experiences and disposition (with experiences and disposition being a part of my mind that is imprinted by other particles that create stimuli). It doesn't matter if I, personally, can't calculate this, reality is reality.
Quantum mechanics is a little stronger than "you can't know what the exact positions are"; it is, "particles don't HAVE exact positions."
Furthermore, quantum brain static in and of itself doesn't prove free will in the traditional sense. If you took the perspective that you are your brain, then that kind of random static would look similar to free will, but it would be more of a random, static induced, will (without the "free" aspect).
The technical meaning of "random" here is identical to the meaning of "free": it is independent of the physical distribution of the particles.

Unfortunately, the thread's been a bit hijacked. And, at this point, attempting to post a serious argument after reading what's been posted kinda is pointless.

Meh I don't mind if you choose to throw in the towel!:D

I believe that the microscopic working of the brain is deterministic, but that doesn't oppose free will.

Free will is a macroscopic concept, and a macroscopic concept follows different rules than the microscopic world.

Whole concepts like "temperature", "pressure", "viscosity", "friction force" and even "solid/liquid/gas" just have no meaning at the tiniest microscopic level (electrons/protons or even quarks), and still they are perfectly valid concepts at macroscopic level.

The same applies in computer science too, for example, "method", "object", "exception", "dynamic library", "process", ... have no meaning if you look at a computer at the microscopic scale of electrons in a semiconductor, but it does at macroscopic level.

EDIT: yes, there are quantum effects too, but I don't think they matter much at macroscopic scale, the number of electrons in a single synapse is so high that you'll have expectancy.

I believe that the microscopic working of the brain is deterministic
Then you believe incorrectly.
EDIT: yes, there are quantum effects too, but I don't think they matter much at macroscopic scale, the number of electrons in a single synapse is so high that you'll have expectancy.
That's not so. The neurons have structures which allow for a single electron's freely jumping or not jumping to make the difference in whether the neuron fires or does not fire. That is, the brain intentionally magnifies microscopic events so that they can have macroscopic consequences. This is the opposite of how a digital computer operates (every microscopic fluctuation which does not cross the large gap between "1" and "0" states is wiped out, not allowed to have any further consequences).

Alright, this may seem a much too simple response to such an elaborate one, but I don't see the need to address every point here. Let's just say I concede all points.

yet if there is some kind of emergent behavior, that would be a form of stimuli and per your arguments, a negation of 'free will.'

The only thing I seek to clarify (although not argue for, with the conceding and all) is this, I never said that all stimuli negated free will. In fact I was saying that all stimuli except the quantum BS I was on about negated free will. I was saying that this stimuli was the exception because of it's strange nature. So, in short, my entire argument rested on this stimuli being the only one that didn't negate free will, as all the others did. Furthermore, it only had an effect on one of my very limited and specific definitions of "free will". I am sure there is some problem with this concept as well. Like I have said, it is beyond my depth, so I won't bother to defend it further.

I have always been good at making myself appear to know far more than I do (except when I'm talking to someone who actually knows what they're talking about). Not on purpose, mind you, it's just because I come up with an idea a second, and most of these ideas are based on an inaccurate understanding of the concept I had the idea about (since I have the idea before I fully understand the concept, if I understand the concept at all). This made me quite the effective little liar and bullshitter as a child, but it is a disservice to me now, primarily because I place far too much value in my ideas despite that fact that they have none.

Combine this with my intellectual laziness (or just laziness in general) and stubbornness and you have my moronic know it all personality (which, along with my aggression, emotional instability and defensiveness, contributes to my lack of friends). I should have learned not to open my mouth some time ago, I think, as it only leads to embarrassment. My place is not among those who actually know what they are talking about, and since my intellect isn't keen enough to keep up, it never will be. I apologize for my entrance into the conversation when it is clearly not where I belong.

To be perfectly honest, I can't even fathom your arguments, the reason being that we are working from two different dictionaries (and levels of intellect). This is a common problem with me, as my mind works with concepts outside of language, so I just pick the most convenient word that I know to describe them. When someone responds to my arguments, I often get confused as I have a complete and utter inability to convey or receive context efficiently. That is why, as you may have noticed, I make my arguments redundantly and repetitively, causing them to become tangled up and incomprehensible in the process (ironic, considering my goal is clarity).

Let's just say that with pretty much every word that I know, I assign my own meaning (which should explain a lot), which effectively means I speak a different language whenever I start to pull out the big words. I even have meanings that have no word attached to them in my head, as I can't effectively connect them with any word (probably due to my limited understanding of language in general). All together, this means my understanding (and application) of even basic concepts is flawed in yet another way.

Anyway, since I am conceding, just assume I agree with you about everything. I think I have gathered enough from what you are saying to realize that you can make a far better case for my ideas and concepts than I. The fact that I have planted any seeds of thought in anyone's head is enough for me to be satisfied. Either there are beneficial concepts that will grow in a mind far more keen than my own, or there is no merit to anything I said, in which case my fractured excuses for thoughts will die. It's Win Win, which is a note I do like to end on as frequently as possible.

it was an intersting point (and post) and if you are keen on your ideas of 'free will' it should be explored, examined and tested. that's how people advance their theories and ideas. can you imagine the state the world would be in if ideas were not examined?

Well, laziness does not, in full, describe my motives for trying to avoid discussion for awhile. However, I would feel uncomfortable talking about my reasons so publicly. Let's just say that it isn't healthy for me to get involved in conversations (or anything, for that matter) that stimulates my mind and peaks my interest. Yes, I am aware that sounds counter intuitive, but I have my reasons, and they are good reasons.

To understand free will or destiny you must first ask yourself this:
What is the Matrix?

my mind works with concepts outside of language

how?

No i will not convince you that free will exist because i choose not to.

I apologize in advance for not reading the responses before my own.

I've thought about this before and come to this conclusion:

In theory, free will DOES NOT exist.
In practice, free will DOES exist.

The explanation is that no one can escape causality, but someone can always choose to act in a chaotic or unpredictable way simply to prove to himself or others that it can be done, essentially negating causality for all intents and purposes.

The technical meaning of "random" here is identical to the meaning of "free": it is independent of the physical distribution of the particles.

But not dependent on volitional choice. Not dependent, indeed, on anything.

That is not freedom. That is chaos.

But not dependent on volitional choice. Not dependent, indeed, on anything.
It is not dependent on the spatiotemporal distribution of material particles.
That is not at all the same as saying it is not dependent on "anything". It only says that whatever the cause is (if there is a cause), physics can't tell you what it is. I choose to believe that quantum events come out the way that they do because they *choose* to come out that way, and physicists cannot contradict me.

I apologize in advance for not reading the responses before my own.

I've thought about this before and come to this conclusion:

In theory, free will DOES NOT exist.
In practice, free will DOES exist.
I'd reverse those.

Absolutely speaking a machine/entity capable of perfect prediction will break when asked a question about the future the asker can change by his, her or its behaviour.

In practice, people often act quite predictably. :tongue:

edit:
Naturally, entity could in theory know about future it has no power or will to change.

I choose to believe that quantum events come out the way that they do because they *choose* to come out that way, and physicists cannot contradict me.

Well, that's a shame. It's not like they don't have anything better to do...