Free Will -Redux

[Kalyyn]

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.

Well yes, a brain is quite a bit more complex than a binary machine. However, for true free will, it has to be able to make decisions in spite of, or with a complete lack of inputs. Which I don't believe a brain can do, because it would violate causality.

[Seegtease]

The interesting thing about the first one is that if we could prove it to be true, nobody would be accountable for their actions. There would be no reason to seek vengeance for someone who did a wrongdoing against you, because it was not something they had any control over, only their DNA and environment. All punishment would be pointless. The only thing you could do is try to alter their environment to change their direction.

Which is interesting as well, because if you can make a decision to alter their environment, then that's a choice you made. But if that choice you made was also a result of your environment, then someone else caused your environment to lead you to that outcome. You keep following this train of thought and eventually, SOMEONE had to have free will. Someone had to setup the DNA and environment of their own will. Determinism is a very weird thing.

[Dezerte]

Had this thread not too long ago; to make a long story short:

I'm a soft-determnist/compatibilist, which means it's possible that free will can exist but I believe it doesn't because the evidence is not in it's favor. This quote from the wiki fits my perspective

The Compatibilist believes that a person always makes the only truly possible decision that they could have.

[Deleted]

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.

Well yes, a brain is quite a bit more complex than a binary machine. However, for true free will, it has to be able to make decisions in spite of, or with a complete lack of inputs. Which I don't believe a brain can do, because it would violate causality.

Oh, then according to what you call free will, i don't believe in free will, neither on determinism.

I'm fine with that. I have just grown used over the years to consider this kind probabilistic process as free will, but it's a personal conception of mine. It just kind of seems obvious that free will then can only be something supernatural, which i don't believe in. It is even hard to imagine how that "supernatural" free will would work... causing thousands of micro-miracles per second to control the electronic circuits of the brain?

[Arrowstormen]

Most people can't handle the question about having a free will or not without being depressive about it. It's like half full or half empty.

Your "free will" is bound by your will, which is formed from your life and experience.

[Powerogue]

National Philosophy month is upon us, and long ago, I created a poll on the subject of Free Will. I have learned much in the interim, so now I submit to you, a refined and redefined poll, with the most Fair and BalancedTM options that pop into my gob.

Are our choices dictated by our environment and heredity? Does Free Will exist? Is it not special? Is it supernatural?



I'll start off with a rather radical quote.

B.F. Skinner, the behaviorist, famously asserted,

They are certainly effected by our environment and heredity. If we dug deep enough, we could eventually completely predict a given human being's reactions under given stimuli. It is nonetheless their decision and will, predictable or otherwise.

so...
exist? yes
special? no
supernatural? no

[Extrakt]

During one of my first classes Introduction to Psychology it was said. There is no free will. Which I agree with.

[Arrowstormen]

During one of my first classes Introduction to Psychology it was said. There is no free will. Which I agree with.

Psychology is based around the idea that you can read people and predict them, I wouldn't but all my bits on it's philosophies concerning will and how free it is.


What factors do you have to be free from to have a free will, anyway?

[napalm007]

Let's suppose that I have a deck of shuffled cards. I quickly look at the top card without showing it to you, and then I put it back to the top of the deck. What is the top card? Even though I know what the top card is, and you know that I know what the top card is, you're still forced to assume that the top card can be any card. Since you can't directly observe the card, the closest approximation that you can make is a probability. For me, the top card is definite. For you, it's a superimposition of all the different possibilities (since you can't rule any possibility out). The uncertainty is what causes probability and the appearance that the event is random. Since I know what the top card is, there is no uncertainty for me. So, I don't observe probability or the randomness associated with it.

Just because something appears to be random, doesn't mean that it is. The reason free will feels so free is because of the sheer amount of uncertainty we experience all the time. Because our brains can't possibly process all of the variables involved, we're often left with choices which feel similarly in weight. In the end though, the choice we make will always be the best one.

[Arrowstormen]

Let's suppose that I have a deck of shuffled cards. I quickly look at the top card without showing it to you, and then I put it back to the top of the deck. What is the top card? Even though I know what the top card is, and you know that I know what the top card is, you're still forced to assume that the top card can be any card. Since you can't directly observe the card, the closest approximation that you can make is a probability. For me, the top card is definite. For you, it's a superimposition of all the different possibilities (since you can't rule any possibility out). The uncertainty is what causes probability and the appearance that the event is random. Since I know what the top card is, there is no uncertainty for me. So, I don't observe probability or the randomness associated with it.

Just because something appears to be random, doesn't mean that it is. The reason free will feels so free is because of the sheer amount of uncertainty we experience all the time. Because our brains can't possibly process all of the variables involved, we're often left with choices which feel similarly in weight. In the end though, the choice we make will always be the best one.

The choice we make is always the right one? Erh....

[Mayhem]

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.

couldn´t have said it better, very well

[Kurioxan]

O_O the choices are fairly limited, why does something not limited to DNA/environment be "supernatural"?
Unless by environment you also refer to nurture?

[napalm007]

The choice we make is always the right one? Erh....

By best I mean the choice which results in the most stable outcome based on the nature of the circumstances surrounding the choice. If I'm taking a test, I'm going to answer it in a way that, ideally, results in me getting the highest grade possible. If there's a multiple choice question, and I don't know the answer to it, guessing on it, as opposed to leaving it blank, will increase the likelihood of me getting a higher grade. Even if I end up getting the question wrong, guessing in that situation will still be the best choice.

[Deleted]

O_O the choices are fairly limited, why does something not limited to DNA/environment be "supernatural"?
Unless by environment you also refer to nurture?

I'm a bit puzzled too by the definitions here.

[Deldavala]

The concept of free will is grounded in how you define the term free will. Is it just the difference between actually making a choice between Vanilla and chocolate? Or is it the fact that you have been indoctrinated to prefer one of the other?

I would say that our DNA and environment is shaping our free will, but we humans still have choices outside of what our DNA and upbringing gives us. That is the sheer randomness of what we does as humans. At an atomic level there is no choice though. We are all a lump of atoms in motion. Just drifting around in space on a blue marble called earth.

By best I mean the choice which results in the most stable outcome based on the nature of the circumstances surrounding the choice. If I'm taking a test, I'm going to answer it in a way that, ideally, results in me getting the highest grade possible. If there's a multiple choice question, and I don't know the answer to it, guessing on it, as opposed to leaving it blank, will increase the likelihood of me getting a higher grade. Even if I end up getting the question wrong, guessing in that situation will still be the best choice.

In your example it depends on the ramifications of the test though. Most multiple choice tests I have taken was 100 questions. 1 point for correct answer, 0 points for not answering, -1 point for wrong answer. If those ramifications are present it becomes a much higher risk to gamble on the correct choices and its more bound to what is the best choice given in that moment. Some people will gamble to get a higher score, others will be happy with the score they can manage.

Lets say you are 99% sure you have 87 questions correct which results in a B. 13 questions unanswered. You know that 90 points will give you an A, but 85 points will give you a C. Would you gamble 3 questions for a possible A?

[Dezerte]

DNA = nature
Environment = nurture

I presume.

[Hraklea]

The problem with discussing if "I made my own decision" or if "something controls me" is that you must defined what I am before moving to the question. If my genes are part of me, they can't "control me", they are me, for example.

[Callace]

O_O the choices are fairly limited, why does something not limited to DNA/environment be "supernatural"?
Unless by environment you also refer to nurture?

"Environment" and "nurture" are synonymous. Anything that exists outside of nature is supernatural by definition. Super is Latin for "above".

- - - Updated - - -

The problem with discussing if "I made my own decision" or if "something controls me" is that you must defined what I am before moving to the question. If my genes are part of me, they can't "control me", they are me, for example.

That is almost precisely the second option in the poll.

To be fair, I never mentioned an outside control, but rather focused on whether what we "are" constitutes control.

[Hraklea]

To be fair, I never mentioned an outside control, but rather focused on whether what we "are" constitutes control.

I remember a thread like this a few months ago where someone kept saying that, as your decision are taken subsconciously, there's no free will. It doesn't make sense to me to say that "I'm not making my own decision" if that's the case because my subsconcius is a part of me.

Voted on option 2.

[Deleted]

Kinda missing the "Free will is a myth" option