Free will

[tshern]

Now when I have a few minutes time, I'd like to open a discussion about one of my favourite subjects, free will, or lack thereof. Too many boards accommodate users who are unable to have a civilized, well-organized and coherent change of opinions about this, but my days around here have made me more than certain that you guys and gals are more than suitable participants to this argument.

Most of you probably have run across this argument or something similar before, but I'll give you a little briefing about the topic before stating my own opinion. General opinion seems to be that humans are able to make conscious choices without outside influence and thusly, actually have very surprising effects on events, sometimes even on a large scale. The opposing argument claims we have been affected by too many outside factors for us to make decisions of our own. Essentially this means that things like advertisements, news broadcasts and different sorts of propaganda are too deeply rooted in our brains and hence, all of our choices can be predicted in case someone just has followed us through our entire life.

That was the lengthy introduction, hopefully you did bear with me.

Just to make things simple, I tell you already at this point that I condone the latter view. I am fairly sure none of you seriously claim you can be born anywhere in the so called Western world without being exposed to massive amounts of outside influence, such as advertising. You probably know where I am getting at, after spending years covered in this flow of information, our thoughts must have been influenced by it severely. It is easy to observe this on small scale. Just stop hanging around with whoever you are hanging around with nowadays and spend, say, two weeks with an entirely different group of people and then check what kind of vocabulary are you using. It works and it's amazing.

To expand my theory further, it all comes down to subatomic level. The driving power of the universe is causality. You know, you lit a match, it burns releasing carbon dioxide while consuming oxygen and so forth. Isaac Newton stated it better than I can ever even hope to do, every action has a reaction.

I am willing to admit that there are still some scientific issues we cannot predict, such as seemingly random half lives of a few artifical elements and movement's relation to position as per Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. However, I consider these cases just to be evidence of our lack of tools. We simply do not have the technology yet.

To expand this theory further, every reaction has a predictable reaction. I kick a football and it moves forward, car crashes with a squirrel and the squirrel dies and so forth. That is why I think it is completely plausible to believe that if someone had data about everything in our lives, he (given that he had a super computer with capabilities beyond our technology) could figure out exactly what we answer to any given question. The only issue is that we haven't achieved that level yet. In short, I think our existence is but a continuous and predictable chain reaction consisting of smaller chain reactions all the way down to quark level.

You opinions?

[Dja Majista]

I used to think of it like that. Now I'm simply not sure. It's a very difficult thing to test since we can't replay fragments of our life over and over to see if something different actually happens.
Chaos theory may be important to bring up.

[tshern]

Then there's the issue of seeing the big picture. Since there is no way for any human to actually comprehend even a fraction of all chains of causality happening in the universe, it is hard to prove that everything follows a pattern. At some point things go either too small or too large for anyone to understand...

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I think many things play a part in our decision making. Our culture reflects us as we reflect our culture, then we have sub-variances of those cultures which include many smaller categories that we make. We have our biological influence, our genetic influence and our upbringing. While these place a significant impact on our lives I don't think that they alone determine it. There are too many instances were people were raised in one environment and became something drastically different, good and bad. Also people fall in love with people all the time who don't meet their general criteria, even habits like smoking and drinking, and when they are in love, they end up tolerating it because they love that person so much. There are many other examples, but I'll leave my first post brief for rebuttal (plus I have work in 10).

[Dja Majista]

admin said:

I think many things play a part in our decision making. Our culture reflects us as we reflect our culture, then we have sub-variances of those cultures which include many smaller categories that we make. We have our biological influence, our genetic influence and our upbringing. While these place a significant impact on our lives I don't think that they alone determine it. There are too many instances were people were raised in one environment and became something drastically different, good and bad. Also people fall in love with people all the time who don't meet their general criteria, even habits like smoking and drinking, and when they are in love, they end up tolerating it because they love that person so much. There are many other examples, but I'll leave my first post brief for rebuttal (plus I have work in 10).

Sometimes environments make us think someone will turn out a certain way, but they really don't. It's simply the limitation of human judgement. Like tshern said, lots of things factor into a persons decisions. So many that there is simply no way for a human to comprehend it, let alone be able to calculate an exact consequence from those factors.
Essentially both require this argument of human limitation, which is why my stance on it is that I simply don't know, or at least explain philosophically why I do. However I'm inclined to say that human's have free will: Whether it's scientifically sound or not, I think it is the better mentality to live with.

[tshern]

This thread in aimed to be philosophical/physical rather than theological, that's why I tried to exclude religious aspects from my first post. Playing with human mind has always fascinated me, illusions, card tricks based on mathematics and simply things that are too complicated to understand are probably the main reasons I ever started to study and discuss science and philosophy in the first place...

[Dja Majista]

My point sounds theological?

[tshern]

damasta said:

My point sounds theological?

Not in the least. Just thought I might to add that before we've got two religious debates here just because I was being unclear.

[Dja Majista]

Oh ok.

You know, technically isn't "Does God exist?" more of a philosophical question rather than a religious one. When I think of a religious discussion, I think about how people discuss things within the context of the holy book itself, whatever that may be. Really it's just a philosophical question whose answers hold religious implications... eh just a thought. We should avoid getting off topic though.

Anyway do you want to start elaborating on your opinion of free will, or do you want to wait for more people?

[tshern]

I think I already did, I don't believe in free will. It's nice to have the illusion of making choices and regardless of my view, I don't consider the lack of free will to limit my life in anyway, because I do make choices constantly. Whether or not my decision and its causes could've been predicted does not matter since *I* cannot predict them and I can still ponder what course of action I follow.

That must have been more confusing than Cambodian domestic policies in the 70's, but hopefully you all know what I mean. If you don't, ask and I try to elaborate on it better.

[Dja Majista]

I just don't see how we can be certain of it either way, not scientifically anyway. I mean, I see the point of causality. But scientists say that subatomic motion is random, and it doesn't follow any of Newton's laws. It's hard to say whether everything in the universe is completely causal.

[tshern]

damasta said:

I just don't see how we can be certain of it either way, not scientifically anyway. I mean, I see the point of causality. But scientists say that subatomic motion is random, and it doesn't follow any of Newton's laws. It's hard to say whether everything in the universe is completely causal.

Lest us forget what scientist said 500 years ago. The seemingly random motion just cannot be predicted with out techonology. How many educated people in the Middle Ages believed there was a vast universe where Earth actually orbits sun?

[Dja Majista]

tshern said:

damasta said:

I just don't see how we can be certain of it either way, not scientifically anyway. I mean, I see the point of causality. But scientists say that subatomic motion is random, and it doesn't follow any of Newton's laws. It's hard to say whether everything in the universe is completely causal.

Lest us forget what scientist said 500 years ago. The seemingly random motion just cannot be predicted with out techonology. How many educated people in the Middle Ages believed there was a vast universe where Earth actually orbits sun?

Well, we won't know if it's random or predictable until we do get the technology. But if it truly is random we will never have a technology that can predict exact outcomes, perhaps probable contingencies, but never exact.

A human's view of the universe was a major progression over time. Though I can't recall when it was that geocentricism was debunked.

Anyway, maybe we're starting at the wrong place. Perhaps free will is possible in the presence of causality. Maybe one is more fundamental than the other. You never know until you inquire.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

"We as people haven't discovered everything, we just haven't made the technology to discover those yet."

I believe that's how the saying went.

[Psyquis52]

Okay. So, scietifically we can't be certain. Leaving us to philisophical speculation.

Mentally I think it's more sound to believe in free will. My reason being that believing in cause and effect can lead to possible paranoia and a general sense of irresponsibility.
Essentially if we believe that our entire life has already been set out before us and that there's very little or nothing we can do about it, we should (in theory) not concern ourselves with anything we do wrong. If we steal, well, it's not our fault. It's just the way we were built to be. If we kill, if we lie, if we cheat... Suddenly we no longer feel remorse.

Of course that's taking it to the extreme and I'm not saying everyone would respond that way, just that belief in free-will is quite possibly more healthy in general.

Now we'll look at it physically......If you don't believe in free-will you'll be stabbed with a knife in the leg. If you do believe in free will, cats will hunt you down and poop in your cereal.
That's kind of a lose-lose situation if you ask me. So we can skip that.

Actually that's as far as I'll go today.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 17, 2008 0:11:30 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Okay. So, scietifically we can't be certain. Leaving us to philisophical speculation.

I think that largely depends on how we choose to define free-will. Say, is there a necessary amount of randomness in possible outcomes or could a supercomputer possibly calculate exactly what a person would do based on assumption of causation knowing all the influences of the will at the moment and of course the nature of the brain/mind?

Mentally I think it's more sound to believe in free will. My reason being that believing in cause and effect can lead to possible paranoia and a general sense of irresponsibility.
...
Of course that's taking it to the extreme and I'm not saying everyone would respond that way, just that belief in free-will is quite possibly more healthy in general.

That's what I think as well. Whether free-will is the case or not, I still think believing we have it is better than believing we don't. Or better yet, being unconscious of our unfree will is better than being conscious of it, whether you believe it or not. Does that make sense?

Essentially if we believe that our entire life has already been set out before us and that there's very little or nothing we can do about it, we should (in theory) not concern ourselves with anything we do wrong. If we steal, well, it's not our fault. It's just the way we were built to be. If we kill, if we lie, if we cheat... Suddenly we no longer feel remorse.

The big problem with the way we tend to view unfree will is that we are no longer ourselves, no longer free to choose, no longer responsible for the actions of our bodies. (Granted there is a little paradox here but I'm leaving that alone at the moment.) We become bodies, even whose very minds are commanded by this higher sense of causality. But I believe, that if we humans really were subject to unfree will, and we were to realize this, I think our understanding of it would be better, such that we could live consciously of this idea and still be the free, mystical, and intelligent creatures we view ourselves as today.
It's also a bit of a depressing concept when you look back on your life to realize that your entire life was inevitable sequence of events based on how you were made and what you were influenced by.

Actually that's as far as I'll go today.

Great points. I hope to hear your reply.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 17, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I think that largely depends on how we choose to define free-will.

How about: the innate ability to alter the course of one's life through conscientious decision making throughout one's lifetime? #stalking9jl#
That definition is of my own design and not definite in any sense. In other words if you see something that you don't like in it...change it and get back to me. ;D

Apr 17, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Say, is there a necessary amount of randomness in possible outcomes or could a supercomputer possibly calculate exactly what a person would do based on assumption of causation knowing all the influences of the will at the moment and of course the nature of the brain/mind?

Assuming there is a computer in existence (there isn't but that's why we're assuming) with the processing power to calculate that...Well...essentially what you would have there is something that borders on AI. If anybody actually tries this it could cause the end of the world. #tv_horror#

But on a more serious note, there we have a dilemma.
No two minds are alike, so I suppose we assume that we have a singular test subject that we're basing it on.
I think said computer could calculate things like whether he would choose Rice Kris pies or Cheerios but let's say for argument’s sake that we inform the test subject that there is a computer testing him and that he needs to try to throw the computer off?
Given 5 tries in a row do you think this person who is fairly competent could possibly fool the computer?
Essentially, I'm asking is there a limit to a computer's (no matter how powerful) ability to predict the human mind's ability to act spontaneously? Can it calculate chaos?

Apr 17, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

That's what I think as well. Whether free-will is the case or not, I still think believing we have it is better than believing we don't. Or better yet, being unconscious of our unfree will is better than being conscious of it, whether you believe it or not. Does that make sense?

It does make sense and quite frankly I seriously doubt there are that many people who really give free-will much thought.

Apr 17, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

The big problem with the way we tend to view unfree will is that we are no longer ourselves, no longer free to choose, no longer responsible for the actions of our bodies. (Granted there is a little paradox here but I'm leaving that alone at the moment.) We become bodies, even whose very minds are commanded by this higher sense of causality. But I believe, that if we humans really were subject to unfree will, and we were to realize this, I think our understanding of it would be better, such that we could live consciously of this idea and still be the free, mystical, and intelligent creatures we view ourselves as today.
It's also a bit of a depressing concept when you look back on your life to realize that your entire life was inevitable sequence of events based on how you were made and what you were influenced by.

Depression! YES! #pumpfist# Another side effect of unfree will!
Well put my friend!

Apr 17, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Great points. I hope to hear your reply.

Well, now you've heard my reply and what are you going to do about it?
NOTHING!! That's what!
Hahahahaha! #evillaughsmil#

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Our life is power, our power is that we have influence on those around us, when we die, we lose this power, it's life's process. But we choose who we influence in the end and how we respond to that stimuli.

[Psyquis52]

And as a Master of the Universe I HAVE THE POWER!!! #pumpfist#

[Dja Majista]

Apr 18, 2008 1:47:24 GMT -5 Psyquis52 said:

Apr 17, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I think that largely depends on how we choose to define free-will.

How about: the innate ability to alter the course of one's life through conscientious decision making throughout one's lifetime? #stalking9jl#
That definition is of my own design and not definite in any sense. In other words if you see something that you don't like in it...change it and get back to me. ;D

When I think of free-will, I think that a part of us must be outside of nature's course indicating some kind of ability to control the course of your life in spite of your influences. But seeing as I'm an empiricist (mostly), that just seems utterly impossible. And we really would have no way of proving it unless we were able to create this impossible-to-build super computer and see if it can predict someone's actions.
See if it was simply the definition you put down we can still have this free-will and still be pawns of nature. That's the only problem I have with your definition. After all, if conscientious thought and decisions were all a result of the constant laws of nature, then we wouldn't be altering the course of our lives at all, rather, we would just be under the allusion that we are.
So as for a revised definition, how about this? "The innate ability of the will to ultimately determine the course of one's life through conscientious decision-making, throughout one's lifetime."
(I used ultimately determine rather than alter, since "alter" indicates there is a laid out course to be altered from, which may not necessarily be true. I say "ultimately" because we still have to acknowledge that nature places other influences on the will, but in free-will the ultimate decision comes from somewhere outside of this.)

Assuming there is a computer in existence (there isn't but that's why we're assuming) with the processing power to calculate that...Well...essentially what you would have there is something that borders on AI. If anybody actually tries this it could cause the end of the world. #tv_horror#

Well technically, or ideally I should say, the computer is simply fed all aspects of reality into its systems at a single instant, and given all the laws of physics and what have you. This would theoretically be able to calculate the reality of each following instant, assuming every quark in the universe necessarily follows all of these laws and no others. The question is, given that, would it be able to calculate the actions of the human? If every aspect of the will can be determined by scientific laws then I believe we would not have free will, as I prefer to define it anyway. Instead, we would be products of natures laws.

But on a more serious note, there we have a dilemma.
No two minds are alike, so I suppose we assume that we have a singular test subject that we're basing it on.
I think said computer could calculate things like whether he would choose Rice Kris pies or Cheerios but let's say for argument’s sake that we inform the test subject that there is a computer testing him and that he needs to try to throw the computer off?
Given 5 tries in a row do you think this person who is fairly competent could possibly fool the computer?
Essentially, I'm asking is there a limit to a computer's (no matter how powerful) ability to predict the human mind's ability to act spontaneously? Can it calculate chaos?

It definitely couldn't calculate chaos, seeing as it is a system completely constructed on the order of laws. However, if a form chaos was present in one of the laws, then it would simply calculate possible outcomes. And if that were to continue, it would become a very busy computer. If humans were capable of this chaos, or truly random thinking then we would most certainly have free-will, but again I'm an empiricist and I'm not convinced that humans are actually capable of this. I believe random thinking is actually an illusion. Because when one thinks of anything, say, trying to fabricate an image, the thing would have to be based on things already experienced, or in this case, seen. Granted we have the ability to twist, augment, mold, and bend shapes together with our minds to the point which no one would be able to tell the resemblance to its fundamental composing objects/images anyway, but that's besides the point. I'll give an example, George Lucas came up with most of the Star Wars monsters by using other animals and beasts that he had seen (He explains it in the special edition). But to make a firmer argument consider this: If humans could only perceive images in black in white, do you think there would be any way for us to fabricate an image with color? We already know that it would be impossible to explain to a human who can only see black and white (and of course, would have never seen color before) what color is like. So how could they possibly envisage it in their minds? Essentially the point is, our minds can only work with what we've got. Granted we can do a lot with what we have, but nonetheless, it seems that our thoughts our determined entirely from influences in the natural world. However, it may be the case that there is a fundamental law in physics which uses different possible outcomes for the same preceding event. That would mean that nature allows this chaos. As a matter of fact I heard from a physics teacher that subatomic physics doesn't follow Newton's laws and is consequently perceived as random...

Depression! YES! #pumpfist# Another side effect of unfree will!
Well put my friend!

thank ya

Apr 17, 2008 15:43:23 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Great points. I hope to hear your reply.

Well, now you've heard my reply and what are you going to do about it?
NOTHING!! That's what!
Hahahahaha! #evillaughsmil#
[/quote]
gonna type a really long post! muahahahaha!

[Dja Majista]

Apr 18, 2008 1:52:56 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Our life is power, our power is that we have influence on those around us, when we die, we lose this power, it's life's process. But we choose who we influence in the end and how we respond to that stimuli.

In part I'd have to disagree with this. sorry . We do indeed choose who we influence but we also influence people we do not choose to influence. And when you look at it existentially it gets really complicated: Your choice to step on a bug today may inadvertently cause a war 3000 years from now. Our life is power most definitely, but the question is, how much of this power, if any, do we have control over? Better yet, seeing as we want to be the authors of our own lives, what are we? Thinking things? Choosing things? Physical bodies? all of the above?
I think one of the biggest issues in determining what free-will is, is formulating a definition of the self. And that's a task in itself.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well the fact that we can't fully control who we influence kinda proves the free will in itself if you think about it.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 18, 2008 15:07:16 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well the fact that we can't fully control who we influence kinda proves the free will in itself if you think about it.

...no good. I don't know what you mean.
You'll need to explain it to me; I'm stupid.

[Psyquis52]

Apr 18, 2008 12:03:40 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

So as for a revised definition, how about this? "The innate ability of the will to ultimately determine the course of one's life through conscientious decision-making, throughout one's lifetime."

works for me.

Well technically, or ideally I should say, the computer is simply fed all aspects of reality into its systems at a single instant, and given all the laws of physics and what have you. This would theoretically be able to calculate the reality of each following instant, assuming every quark in the universe necessarily follows all of these laws and no others. The question is, given that, would it be able to calculate the actions of the human? If every aspect of the will can be determined by scientific laws then I believe we would not have free will, as I prefer to define it anyway. Instead, we would be products of natures laws.

I can't tell if you're asking me a question or making a statement.

It definitely couldn't calculate chaos, seeing as it is a system completely constructed on the order of laws. However, if a form chaos was present in one of the laws, then it would simply calculate possible outcomes. And if that were to continue, it would become a very busy computer. If humans were capable of this chaos, or truly random thinking then we would most certainly have free-will, but again I'm an empiricist and I'm not convinced that humans are actually capable of this. I believe random thinking is actually an illusion. Because when one thinks of anything, say, trying to fabricate an image, the thing would have to be based on things already experienced, or in this case, seen. Granted we have the ability to twist, augment, mold, and bend shapes together with our minds to the point which no one would be able to tell the resemblance to its fundamental composing objects/images anyway, but that's besides the point. I'll give an example, George Lucas came up with most of the Star Wars monsters by using other animals and beasts that he had seen (He explains it in the special edition). But to make a firmer argument consider this: If humans could only perceive images in black in white, do you think there would be any way for us to fabricate an image with color? We already know that it would be impossible to explain to a human who can only see black and white (and of course, would have never seen color before) what color is like. So how could they possibly envisage it in their minds? Essentially the point is, our minds can only work with what we've got. Granted we can do a lot with what we have, but nonetheless, it seems that our thoughts our determined entirely from influences in the natural world. However, it may be the case that there is a fundamental law in physics which uses different possible outcomes for the same preceding event. That would mean that nature allows this chaos. As a matter of fact I heard from a physics teacher that subatomic physics doesn't follow Newton's laws and is consequently perceived as random...

I can't tell if you answered my question or not.

gonna type a really long post! muahahahaha!

Good Lord you wrote back with a vengeance.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Apr 18, 2008 16:10:31 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Apr 18, 2008 15:07:16 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Well the fact that we can't fully control who we influence kinda proves the free will in itself if you think about it.

...no good. I don't know what you mean.
You'll need to explain it to me; I'm stupid.

I see.

It's kinda like a chain, we aren't influencing another person if we don't have free will ourselves, it has to start from someplace.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 19, 2008 8:50:50 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Apr 18, 2008 16:10:31 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

...no good. I don't know what you mean.
You'll need to explain it to me; I'm stupid.

I see.

It's kinda like a chain, we aren't influencing another person if we don't have free will ourselves, it has to start from someplace.

What context are you talking about? Just that statement alone is very easy to refute. Rocks influence people; they don't have a will to speak of.

I can't tell if you're asking me a question or making a statement.

It's something like a statement. But the philosophical question is one we're both trying to answer: "The question is, given [the super computer's capabilities], would it be able to calculate the actions of the human?"

I can't tell if you answered my question or not.

You mean for your experiment? I think the experiment you proposed would work perfectly. Granted we can only speculate on what its results would be. So that's what I'm doing. "Can the computer calculate chaos?" My answer is no. However, if we were to discover a law of physics that allowed for different possible outcomes, then it would calculate just that, all possible human actions. Buy it would never be able to guess which outcome actually happens. So in that sense there are two ways humans might have free-will: the human mind does not follow the causal laws of nature to a sufficient extent; OR one of the laws of nature that governs the mind simply has multiple possible outcomes. Does that work for you?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

But you could argue the influence came from elsewhere. Someone influenced someone who influenced someone else. So where would the influence begin if none had will.

Most people react differently to different influences, and the same influences. Even the same person will react differently to the same influences throughout their lifetime.

[Dja Majista]

Apr 19, 2008 16:58:32 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

But you could argue the influence came from elsewhere. Someone influenced someone who influenced someone else. So where would the influence begin if none had will.

Most people react differently to different influences, and the same influences. Even the same person will react differently to the same influences throughout their lifetime.

Before I address this, what are you suggesting as the relationship between influences and free-will?

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

What are you saying determines free will? What makes it free will? What are the requirements?

[Dja Majista]

Apr 19, 2008 22:08:35 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

What are you saying determines free will? What makes it free will? What are the requirements?

*sigh* well I was hoping you already had an idea of that considering this statement:

Well the fact that we can't fully control who we influence kinda proves the free will in itself if you think about it.

Don't worry about what I think. I'm wondering what your thinking right now. But if you want to know, here is our working definition again: "The innate ability of the will to ultimately determine the course of one's life through conscientious decision-making, throughout one's lifetime."
Come to think of it "throughout one's lifetime" might be extraneous. But anyway, just tell me what you were thinking constitutes a free-will so I can at least understand your logic.