Free Will -Redux

[Callace]

Could you explain the middle option to me now lol.

If our being is wholly material -the genetic material that birthed us and the environmental/material forces that shaped us- then Free Will exists within that model, within nature. In other words, Free Will is a material of nature.

[Callace]

I still have some hope that we are not entirely deterministic.

I admit there is something about the empty space around your post and the aesthetic of your avatar, when combined with that sentence made me go,

"DAaaaaaawwww!"

[Aeluron Lightsong]

By asking this question, you already have free will.

[Callace]

By asking this question, you already have free will.

A computer can do the same. What does that indicate?

[Aeluron Lightsong]

A computer can do the same. What does that indicate?

That a computer can be programmed to answer certain things? That's not an indication that there is no free will.

[Underverse]

That a computer can be programmed to answer certain things? That's not an indication that there is no free will.

There isn't really anything to suggest that there is free will. On the other hand, there are things to suggest we don't - those being physical laws.

[schwarzkopf]

We have free will, or at least the illusion of it to the extent that it may as well be free will.

How do I know - because 'if' you could prove the lack of free will, one could simply decide to do differently to that which has been proven - destroying any destined outcome immediately.

Having said that - the number of choices one has to pick from become limited by how many resources you have (e.g. money, friends etc), to the point that when someone has nothing then their free will is eroded by lack of choices.

[Callace]

That a computer can be programmed to answer certain things? That's not an indication that there is no free will.

No, but a computer that can be programmed to ask questions, and asks the question on its own merit (already a reality) is a pretty good indication that simply asking the question doesn't prove anything.

[Drekker17]

I don't believe in nonsense like fate. None of our futures are determined already through god or nature or anything else.

[Velaniz]

We had another thread where there was a lengthy discussion the subject too. I personally believe there objectively isn't such a thing as free will.

The fact that the number of variables that go into determining outcomes is such a huge amount, and the way they interact with each other is so inconceivably complex, and that the number of possibilities that could or could not be is also nigh infinite, all work together to cast the glorious illusion of free will over our limited, subjective minds, an illusion so potent that it would be ridiculous for us to consider it one insofar as to apply the fact in our day to day lives. Life itself, or whatever else you would call it that defines the essence that is you, is too immensely subjective an experience that we should be fretting over what some objective truths might be.

[Callace]

We had another thread where there was a lengthy discussion the subject too. I personally believe there objectively isn't such a thing as free will.

The fact that the number of variables that go into determining outcomes is such a huge amount, and the way they interact with each other is so inconceivably complex, and that the number of possibilities that could or could not be is also nigh infinite, all work together to cast the glorious illusion of free will over our limited, subjective minds, an illusion so potent that it would be ridiculous for us to consider it one insofar as to apply the fact in our day to day lives. Life itself, or whatever else you would call it that defines the essence that is you, is too immensely subjective an experience that we should be fretting over what some objective truths might be.

I'm honestly not a fan of subjectivity, but I agree with the numerous (as opposed to innumerable) complexities.

[Adam Jensen]

Well I don't believe in predeterminism. There is no "fate" or "destiny" or any force leading us to some sort of end game, nor do I believe that someone or something controls every single movement we make.

But I do believe our free will is still limited by our personalities and instinct. If we're to repeat the same decision twice with the same at-the-moment knowledge and perspective, we're going to make the same decision twice. The illusion of free will exists because our decisions are influenced by so many factors that we don't see.

[Simulacrum]

You'd literally need incomprehensible magic to get free will, which is a leap only someone who has totally abandoned all attempt at rationality would make.

So most people.

Well I don't believe in predeterminism. There is no "fate" or "destiny" or any force leading us to some sort of end game, nor do I believe that someone or something controls every single movement we make.

But I do believe our free will is still limited by our personalities and instinct. If we're to repeat the same decision twice with the same at-the-moment knowledge and perspective, we're going to make the same decision twice. The illusion of free will exists because our decisions are influenced by so many factors that we don't see.

So you "don't believe that someone or something controls every single movement we make", then you turn around and assert that you believe exactly that... do you even understand what the things you say mean?

[Deleted]

There is no "set future", no fate, no God or other puppet master. Events happen and progress according to mathematical and physical laws. Human beings are bound by those laws, just as everything else is, and thus the choice, or at least the probability of the choice a person makes could be calculated, if the formula was known.

The fact that the probability of a choice is known doesn't make free will any less of a reality. Also, you can change those odds yourself; for example, if the chance that you'd choose A was 70% and choosing B would be 30%, knowing those odds, even roughly, would allow you to consciously make the unlikely choice. Hence, free will.

[Deleted]

I believe in free will because certain events are just too random to be scripted.

I believe free will exists, and it's random.

As i see it, DNA and environment limit our responses to a certain situation to a few choices, and give a statistical weight to each choice. With those weights, the decision of which choice to take is basically random.

Take this situation, typical flight or fight scenario: you are face to face with a person with ill intent with a knife, and you have another. Your education, and your genes give you a strong bias towards fighting, like 90%, and only 10% of flight. Still, at the moment of truth, the decision is random, and even if you are much more predisposed towards fighting, you might end up fleeing.

No deep reasoning, no purpouse, philosophical absolute freedom: free will is random choice.

That's how i see it anyway. If i am not wrong, this is exactly how it happens for the rest of animals. The problem is that at a conscious level, our self-awareness makes us different than most animals, so it might not be this way for us.

Hopefully we will know more when we begin to understand consciousness.

[moppanda]

If everything in the universe is preordain then there is no free will, everything is just happening according to the plan. Including the neuron interactions in our brains that allow us to have this discussion right now, creating the illusion of free will.

[Kalyyn]

I would say the existence of free will depends on your definition of free will. Your choices of action will always be limited by your scope of reality, effected by previous events in your life. Inevitably, you will make a choice which seems optimal to you. "What if I throw myself off a bridge just to disprove this?" you might ask. Well, you'd still be making an optimal choice. In this scenario, you deemed proving me wrong more important than continuing to live. So you made a choice which you were pre-dispositioned to make.

The brain is a biological processor. Every processor returns a set output for specific inputs. Therefore, while your actions may not be set in stone by some greater power, they would be completely predictable if you had a powerful enough computer and enough information about the person you are predicting for.

"But then people can't be held accountable for their actions!" you rebut. Well, let's think for a moment. Have you ever had a machine not work the way it's supposed to? Well it wasn't the machine's fault! It had a set output it could give with specific inputs, even if that output was wrong. But we don't just let the machine continue acting incorrectly just because the machine can't be blamed, do we? No, we either fix the machine or destroy it. Humans are the same way. If they are broken, we either fix them, or barring that, destroy them.

[Velaniz]

"But then people can't be held accountable for their actions!" you rebut. Well, let's think for a moment. Have you ever had a machine not work the way it's supposed to? Well it wasn't the machine's fault! It had a set output it could give with specific inputs, even if that output was wrong. But we don't just let the machine continue acting incorrectly just because the machine can't be blamed, do we? No, we either fix the machine or destroy it. Humans are the same way. If they are broken, we either fix them, or barring that, destroy them.

You can hold them responsible on account of the illusion of free will we see, and in the subjective capacities of our mind, construe for the actual thing. The job of objective judgement on that sort of scale needn't fall on us.

Even if that wasn't the case, not holding anyone responsible is something that goes both ways. If a criminal can't be held responsible for his transgressions, neither can the rest of society who punish him so as to see to justice being met, and assuring deterrence against similiar transgressions by others.

[Deleted]

The brain is a biological processor. Every processor returns a set output for specific inputs. Therefore, while your actions may not be set in stone by some greater power, they would be completely predictable if you had a powerful enough computer and enough information about the person you are predicting for.

While the behaviour of the brain is like that of a computing machine, that doesn't mean that the results have to be univocally defined. Maybe (and this is just an example of what might happen) the brain can decide to start two contradictory decisions with different weights assigned. The final decision would be taken by a purely stochastic process.

After all, unlike computer, our neurones do not work as transistors that are either in the cutoff or in the saturation modes, so they do not work through binary logics. Fuzzy logics was born precisely trying to imitate a bit what biological brains do.

[Velaniz]

I believe free will exists, and it's random.

As i see it, DNA and environment limit our responses to a certain situation to a few choices, and give a statistical weight to each choice. With those weights, the decision of which choice to take is basically random.

Take this situation, typical flight or fight scenario: you are face to face with a person with ill intent with a knife, and you have another. Your education, and your genes give you a strong bias towards fighting, like 90%, and only 10% of flight. Still, at the moment of truth, the decision is random, and even if you are much more predisposed towards fighting, you might end up fleeing.

No deep reasoning, no purpouse, philosophical absolute freedom: free will is random choice.

That's how i see it anyway. If i am not wrong, this is exactly how it happens for the rest of animals. The problem is that at a conscious level, our self-awareness makes us different than most animals, so it might not be this way for us.

Hopefully we will know more when we begin to understand consciousness.

Randomness, despite the fact that it would challenge determinism, doesn't of itself guarantee free will. That's because free will isn't necessarily just a lack of determinism. It's important to emphasise the definition of free will - correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe we're referring to an organism's capacity for complete and total control over its decision-making facilities, yes? Then it stands to reason that if said randomness were something out of that organism's control, then it wouldn't be a case of demonstrable free will at all.

In short, it is possible that free will doesn't exist because of sheer determinism, the concept of which is entirely in stark contrast to what free will means, or because we have no power over the randomness that has a hand in determining our circumstances. Free will doesn't exist just because determinism doesn't.