Do we have free will? Is the world indeterministic?

[Mise]

The determinists say we have very limited or no real choice and the nub of the issue is about meaningful choosing or not.

Do they? Some of the might, but there's no reason why a determinist couldn't say (a) we have a wide array of choices, but (b) they are merely predictable, and (c) this is what they mean by "determinism". I can predict with an astonishing degree of accuracy what my team-mates will do when we play football together; does that mean that their actions aren't their own? I'm certainly not controlling their actions; influencing theirs by my own actions, perhaps, but I'm no puppet-master. I've just played with them for a long time, and can pretty well determine what they'll do next. An all knowledgeable being would have little trouble divining my future actions. I'm not a complicated man.


(As an aside, it's partly for this reason that determinism makes free will more meaningful: the only way for nobody to be able to predict my actions is if my actions were completely random -- but this would be deeply unsatisfactory, as it means that the roll of a dice, something I have no conscious control over, is the true source of my "free will". It certainly feels like I have free will, and it certainly doesn't feel like my actions are entirely random. Predictable, sure; free, absolutely; but not random...)

 

[Borachio]

I saw a study once that noted that most of your "free" decisions are done about six seconds before you do it. The decisions that aren't "free" - i.e. reflexive decisions - are instinctual and have nothing to do with free will as we understand it.

Free will doesn't objectively exist. It's not even over-analyzing. There are brain scientists researching on it too.

I saw that study too. And IIRC it was milliseconds. And this may well be true, (though may also be made up - phoney science is all too frequent), at the level of muscle response. But for grander scale macro level decision making - at the level of 1 or 2 seconds - your conscious decision making processes still rule, IMO.

Free will does objectively exist. Let me demonstrate as I sit here typing deciding to continue typing sometimes deciding to st......at will....and continue.....as I choose. Similarly, you are exercising your free will to read this. You could have chosen to ignore this post. You could now decide you've had enough and are now going to...





stop.

It's entirely up to you what you do at each moment of the day. Until someone comes along and drags you off by the scruff of the neck.

Anyway, I could go on but now I'll....

keep going a little bit longer up to...

 

[Traitorfish]

stop.

It's entirely up to you what you do at each moment of the day. Until someone comes along and drags you off by the scruff of the neck.

Define "you". Because that's really what's under debate, here.

 

[Borachio]

"You" or "me"?

This could get tricky.

But "I" am the thing that makes the decision. As a start.

 

[Angst]

I saw that study too. And IIRC it was milliseconds. And this may well be true, (though may also be made up - phoney science is all too frequent), at the level of muscle response. But for grander scale macro level decision making - at the level of 1 or 2 seconds - your conscious decision making processes still rule, IMO.

Free will does objectively exist. Let me demonstrate as I sit here typing deciding to continue typing sometimes deciding to st......at will....and continue.....as I choose. Similarly, you are exercising your free will to read this. You could have chosen to ignore this post. You could now decide you've had enough and are now going to...





stop.

It's entirely up to you what you do at each moment of the day. Until someone comes along and drags you off by the scruff of the neck.

Anyway, I could go on but now I'll....

keep going a little bit longer up to...

But "I" am a machine. What I decide to do is a computed process of inputs. It's purely reactionary. Free will requires absence from reaction or any kind of input forcing/shaping the will to decide what the will does.

Even that stop thing, I mean: "I do have free will. As a counter-argument to your proposal that I do not have (Or my own realization that I might not have) I notify myself of the choices I make. Eg now I stop typing. Phew! I proved a point! I do have free will after all, since when questioning whether I had free will or not, and wanting to prove that I was not merely a computing slave of a complex set of inputs, I reacted on this input!" Do you see the mistake made there?

See, the argument you are proposing has been debunked a while ago through simple understanding of the nature of existence. Your argument does not hold up since its claims contend our simplest understanding of the world.

Butore complex understanding of existence has arrived, however, allowing the possibility for free will (I think that's the Copenhagen-something some posters call it in these threads) to exist. I do not agree with it, but it's because I do not have a higher understanding of physics. When I understand it, I'll probably agree with it. And note, however, that while you have the same conclusion as these theories, your premises are different, and I was showing you why your premises were wrong.

Here's the deal:


Link to video.

EDIT: The thing is, what Souron and other posters advocate in this thread, that free will exists since, eg, God isn't real and can't puppeteer us to do things, even when we live in a determinist world, is strange and mishandling the concept of "free will". It basically translates "free will" into "independent will" or "unsupervised force". If everything is reactionary, with or without a God, it's dependent on other things, it's enslaved, it's a reaction. Simply that nobody tells us to do X or Y action is irrelevant when we do X or Y action regardless due to complexically computed sensory inputs. There is no free will. Kaku believes otherwise, but it is disputed between physicists right now, so, yeah. I don't know. Perhaps I should talk.

But your way of saying it is wrong.

 

[Borachio]

Pfft! Fine! Tells me nothing. Certainly nothing new.

And this whole decision deal, with you, seems, to me, to boil down to this. It seems to be saying yeah you could make a decision but then you have to make a decision to make a decision and so ad infinitum.

To which I say, "Nonsense, I go out my front door. And Bam! I make my decision and then I go right or I go left." Notice, I have to choose. I don't have to choose to choose.

 

[Traitorfish]

"You" or "me"?

This could get tricky.

But "I" am the thing that makes the decision. As a start.

What is the nature of this decision-making thing, though? We can say "I make decisions, and that which makes decisions is I", and it might be true enough, but it's not much use.

To which I say, "Nonsense, I go out my front door. And Bam! I make my decision and then I go right or I go left." Notice, I have to choose. I don't have to choose to choose.

Declining to choose is itself a choice. "Man is condemned to be free" and all that.

 

[Leoreth]

I saw a study once that noted that most of your "free" decisions are done about six seconds before you do it. The decisions that aren't "free" - i.e. reflexive decisions - are instinctual and have nothing to do with free will as we understand it.

Free will doesn't objectively exist. It's not even over-analyzing. There are brain scientists researching on it too.

I remember this study too, and wanted to bring it up, but couldn't remember any specifics so I wasn't able to find it again

Pfft! Fine! Tells me nothing. Certainly nothing new.

And this whole decision deal, with you, seems, to me, to boil down to this. It seems to be saying yeah you could make a decision but then you have to make a decision to make a decision and so ad infinitum.

To which I say, "Nonsense, I go out my front door. And Bam! I make my decision and then I go right or I go left." Notice, I have to choose. I don't have to choose to choose.

To quote Schopenhauer: "You can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want".

 

[Angst]

Pfft! Fine! Tells me nothing. Certainly nothing new.

And this whole decision deal, with you, seems, to me, to boil down to this. It seems to be saying yeah you could make a decision but then you have to make a decision to make a decision and so ad infinitum.

To which I say, "Nonsense, I go out my front door. And Bam! I make my decision and then I go right or I go left." Notice, I have to choose. I don't have to choose to choose.

You don't understand my point, at all. If that's "nothing new" then you haven't understood what people told you. The decision to decide (WTH are you talking about there) doesn't come from within. I merely said that you, trying to prove that you have free will by, well, stopping typing, you needed an external input to challenge your beloved ideal of free will. Which you need to counterargue. If there is no challenge to your concept of free will and yourself making those choices, you will never provide counterexamples. And yes that's a silly truism of action-reaction philosophy but that's because that's how the world works. If you don't accept that, be my guest, then you're just ignoring how the universe ticks in order to create your own metaphysics. Ie you're making up bad religion.

Do you understand that you're basically a machine computing inputs to produce actions? Then you understand what a choice really is.

Do you understand that in order to consciously disabide the natural flow of things this way, you have to detach yourself from how everything else in this universe works? Then you understand how to be a god.

 

[Borachio]

I
To quote Schopenhauer: "You can do what you want, but you cannot want what you want".

Wanting is an act. You could say.

This is all just thinking in circles. It'll lead nowhere.

 

[Angst]

Wanting is an act.

Nope.

Wanting is a part of your brain going active so machines can read it and go "oh, this is where his brain instinctually lights up when he's hungry."

 

[Borachio]

Eating is just part of the brain lighting up when you're eating. This goes nowhere but a solipsm. Which goes nowhere.

 

[Angst]

Eating is just part of the brain lighting up when you're eating. This goes nowhere but a solipsm. Which goes nowhere.

Nonsense. This goes everywhere and is everywhere. Because this isn't a problem with my argument, this is a problem with you not understanding the nature of "acting" and "eating". What have you read or researched on this, exactly?

 

[Mise]

But "I" am a machine. What I decide to do is a computed process of inputs. It's purely reactionary. Free will requires absence from reaction or any kind of input forcing/shaping the will to decide what the will does.

What? No it doesn't. I'm not sure what makes you think that this is the case? I mean, just on the face of it, it seems ridiculous: that an action can only be considered free if it is not influenced by any other inputs. You would have to live in some kind of trivial vacuum, where no other influences or inputs could possibly interfere with your decision-making process. It's just ridiculous to say that free will can only exist when there is no other outside input that could possibly affect your decision. What kind of decision could you possibly make, in that case? And what good is the ability to make decisions if you can't incorporate external factors into those decisons?! Imagine if a being with free will did exist. How could he possibly exercise that will, if you're defining a free decision as one that cannot be based on external events? A man with free will stands in the middle of the road. A car approaches. He decides to move out of the way. Is that decision free? Or is it merely a predictable response to a car approaching? How would a man with free will's actions differ to a man without free will? What a ridiculous understanding of free will...

 

[Borachio]

^^

Never mind.

But is "eating" not an act? I'm surprised you don't tell me about the nature of "wanting". And just mention "acting" and "eating".

Are you suggesting that "eating" is not an activity of the brain?

 

[Angst]

Nah, Borachio, I'm merely having a problem with you thinking that Newtonian physics do not apply to us. You might consider yourself a divine supermetaphysical being. I don't. I'm a human!

What? No it doesn't. I'm not sure what makes you think that this is the case? I mean, just on the face of it, it seems ridiculous: that an action can only be considered free if it is not influenced by any other inputs. You would have to live in some kind of trivial vacuum, where no other influences or inputs could possibly interfere with your decision-making process. It's just ridiculous to say that free will can only exist when there is no other outside input that could possibly affect your decision. What kind of decision could you possibly make, in that case? And what good is the ability to make decisions if you can't incorporate external factors into those decisons?! Imagine if a being with free will did exist. How could he possibly exercise that will, if you're defining a free decision as one that cannot be based on external events? A man with free will stands in the middle of the road. A car approaches. He decides to move out of the way. Is that decision free? Or is it merely a predictable response to a car approaching? How would a man with free will's actions differ to a man without free will? What a ridiculous understanding of free will...

So you basically realized the concept is meaningless since it's a) impossible and b) to its supporters, there still no difference of it being there and it not being there? You know, like God? Great.

Free will requires a choice between alternatives. Alternatives don't exist to the machine (Unless taking the above video I linked into account where the physicist talked about this stuff, and even in that case, the nature of "freedom" in regards to decisions is questionable) therefore the choice is an illusion.

Really, people, I'm not being being a self-proclaimed . I'm basically quoting Einstein and Newtonian physics.

 

[Mise]

So you basically realized the concept is meaningless since it's a) impossible and b) to its supporters, there still no difference of it being there and it not being there? You know, like God? Great.

No, I'm saying that your definition of free will is ridiculous and nonsensical. All you've done is present a definition of free will that necessarily makes it stupid and impossible. Great, thanks, but I absolutely reject your definition.

I may as well define free will as "free will is a potato". Potatoes exist, therefore free will exists. I'm sure this definition would leave you as unsatisfied as yours left me, and you would quite reasonably reject it outright. I would expect to be called a complete idiot for defining free will so nonsensically.

Free will requires a choice between alternatives. Alternatives don't exist to the machine

Of course alternatives exist! That the machine will always choose one but not the other is irrelevant to the fact that there are many options it could have chosen from. See the modal logic discussion...

 

[Angst]

Note that I am not set in stone about anything, and if provided alternatives, I will bend. I just don't see alternatives as possible. And I'll get back to that in the end of the post, but for now...

Let us assume the machine always eats one of two fruits on a table first in the same situation if recreated, if all conditions are fully recreated (Ie the sensory and following computations of the machine I've put forward are all the same, leading to the same result). Now, it is true that the mere possibility of the machine eating the other fruit first would mean that free will existed. The problem is that the possibility doesn't exist. The same situation will always produce the same result. I do not acknowledge the other options as they will never be there, the "it could have been" is not a "could have" because it requires it being. If you understood that... Language barriers, sorry.

And, no, I do not think that just because an individual is self-aware and considers that other options exist, these considerations are mere physical computations, I do not consider it free will. And here's the issue, again: If you could both consider these computations free will and not free will, the term is meaningless and therefore not really worth spending time on.

Now, I think that you, Mise, seemingly have a better understanding of this than me (I mean, you even conjured a term I haven't heard before in English!), and I'd like to see what people you've read that have provided your point of view and if it isn't just another bloke trying to elevate humans into being metaphysically important. I haven't seen the modal logic discussion, is it in this thread? I was inactive/not really observant since page one where I posted my viewpoints on the subject matter.

Note that I believe that free will being impossible is irrelevant to me as I will always remain in the illusion of making choices and can never escape from that. What I experience is to me more important to me than what is metaphysically true to not-me, because I'm only ever going to be me. But that's another issue.

 

[Mise]

The discussion of modal language was started on page 1 by Lovett, and picked up by a few others. I think Lovett's initial post covers a lot of what you're saying here, to the point where I'd merely be repeating him (poorly and confusingly, no doubt), if I tried to reply to you... Ayatollah So is good at this stuff too, if Lovett doesn't respond here (he's the guy that initially introduced me to the concept of modal logic, back in 2007, during another CFC discussion of free will where IIRC I took roughly the position that you're taking now).

For the record, I don't believe humans have metaphysical importance... Indeed, I agree that we are merely machines, but ones capable of making free decisions. Birdjag asked whether animals have free will: yes, I think some of them do, to some extent. And one day, I have no doubt we'll make machines that are truly intelligent, and capable of making free decisions, too. Free will doesn't imbue us with metaphysical importance.

Basically, my opinion is that theories that deny free will (and/or that make it dependent on indeterminism) are simply implausible or unsatisfactory, because they just don't gel with anything I know about myself, the universe, physics or technology. They're simply incompatible with my understanding of those things.



EDIT: here is that 17 page-long thread! http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205315&highlight=modal+logic&page=17
Good times, good times...

 

[Souron]

EDIT: here is that 17 page-long thread! http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205315&highlight=modal+logic&page=17
Good times, good times...

Oh my, it's been five years, and I'm still arguing the same point with Ayatollah So. Even though I'm a compatibalist now.