Arguments for free will?
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HYWiIWpcCIM
Are there any strong arguments for free will?
Are the only arguments for determinism assuming the universe is a clock?
Are there any strong arguments for free will?
Are the only arguments for determinism assuming the universe is a clock?
Comments (173)
[quote=Schopenhauer]You are free to do what you want, but you are not free to want what you want.[/quote]
:fire:
How does that grab ya?
Lee Smolin thinks that what is novel/unique requires consciousness to resolve it (somehow free will?), whereas what has happened before goes on auto pilot, or something like that. I can't find his write-up.
On the flip side, fixed thinking patterns like suggested above maybe a drawback, evolution preferring flexibility (read free will) in order to tackle the inherent uncertainty in nature; however this doesn't necessarily mean we possess free will.
Is it that black and white? After all if absolutely everything was chaos, then nothing could exist, as existence requires order. But if everything was determined, then nothing new could occur. So it’s not a one or the other situation, there is both chaos and order.
Quoting TiredThinker
Only that if there’s no free will, there’s nothing to discuss, because the outcome of any discussion is already predetermined, so it’s not worth having.
It kind of is at a fundamental level, but i agree with you and that's why i said "in either case or in combination", but i still don't see how "freewill" can reasonably work in those conditions even in combination. I'm willing to change my mind on the matter, it just needs to make sense.
Quoting Wayfarer
I agree as well, except that it's no more or less worthwhile than discussing anything else. It's all simply the universe processing information, and there is always a reason why anything occurs including apparently pointless discussions. We have no choice in discussing freewill.
Suicide.
Yes. I never really understood the arguments around free will.
Bad assumption. The universe is not like a clock. It is more like a rugby game, or a well-planned vacation in Europe.
Except the discussers don't know the outcome until they reach the end of the discussion.
Also, if there is no discussion, then the ACTIONABLES arising from that discussion are not going to happen.
Therefore discussions must happen, despite the fact that they will predictably end in one resolution (if they do). The reason is that no human mind can predict the end result of the discussion therefore we must carry it out in order to find the resolution.
Does this simple quantum example defend the idea of free will? That things aren't certain even in the short run?
Also is the free will question based entirely on objective outcomes? Clearly I can throw a baseball and wish it to hit a target, but I don't control the wind and its end could be slightly off. In science we like things to be predictable, but do we need them to be perfectly predictable? And would there need to be a good reason for everything to be predetermined before they could be?
Is there free will?
Niether yes nor no! In other words, Gautama's followers would be agnostics regarding free will.
Doesn't the whole idea of karma presuppose free will? Here's an article on it https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html
Quoting TiredThinker
I think so! I've always believed that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle slayed LaPlace's Daemon.
Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle simply states that YOU can not know where the electron is. It's Heisenberg who is uncertain not the universe. If you measure the position then you're precluded from knowing it's momentum, and if you measure the momentum then you're precluded from knowing its position. In either case the universe knows both, but we are limited as conscious observers as to what we can know at any one time. It says nothing about freewill.
I think the whole freewill dilemma is actually quite easy to settle, but our feelings confuse us. We don't want to admit the unflattering truth that we can't choose, so we keep on going in circles trying to prove something that can't be proven because it's just not true.
Think about it... there are only two options; determinism and indeterminism. We already know that determinism means no freewill, that's easy enough. We get confused when it comes to indeterminism as if the order of the universe can be upended because someone just felt like having it their way. To believe in freewill is to literally believe in magic and in a chaotic universe where things happen not by laws of nature but by the whim of people or simply a person. We can't tell the universe what to do, the universe tells us what to do, and it gets us to do what it wants by making us think it is our "freewill". What we call "freewill" is really the will of the universe itself, and even the universe itself doesn't have freewill it's just "will".
Not, not so in Mahayana :snicker: Buddhism. In the Great Vehicle tradition, karma isn't an open and shut case - doubts remain as to its factuality, but the catch is the uncertainty extends to/includes its falsehood. Aporia is what is being suggested and then onto ataraxia.
Isn't it impossible to prove a negative? Not only that, isn't it impossible to define a negative? (Other than to say what it is not?)
Is not "freedom' a negative?
When I say I am free, what am I free of? It seems that 'free' means an absence of something...eg, 'sugar free.'
So, a 'free will' is a will without something?
What exactly is it free of? External force? External compulsion?
It at least seems that everything must be free of something in order to be distinct from everything else.
For my will to be different than other wills, it must be seperate, or free, from other wills. Other wills don't seem to be capable of entirely forcing my will to will things. So at the very least my will is partly free from some external forces.
But maybe I am using 'free' differently than it's normally used in the term 'free will'.
My personal argument in favor of Limited Free Will is based on Evolution. Like a linear clock, it continues to click in a single direction (arrow of time), toward the not-yet-real future. Darwinian theory is based on directionless Randomness, guided by directional Selection. But who established the fitness formula (rules) for cosmic natural selection? Who knows?
Metaphorically, in between each tick of the evolutionary clock, there is a moment of decision, fit or not fit. But fit for what? Fitness implies Purpose (future goals). So, I assume that purposeful agents -- who can imagine a desirable future -- have some degree of freedom to decide their own short-term goals. And all those independent choices add-up, and cancel-out, to a single arrow of time, "toward infinity and beyond", as Buzz Lightyear so eloquently expressed it.
Therefore, unlike a cyclical clock, the space-time mechanism doesn't go around in circles. It progresses toward an ultimate goal ("optimal design solution"), that is not decided in advance, but chosen by every particular Fitness Function (algorithm) in the world*1. Apparently, piloted by reason, humans have a bit more fitness-choice freedom than a bacterium --- but within a deterministic context that is not concerned with my personal fitness goals. So, each of us has a limited degree of control over personal (one in a million?) and universal (one in a gazillion?) evolution toward a contingent future Omega Point. :cool:
*1. Those who fail the fitness function test fall into the slippery-slope of Entropy. Those who pass, get to play the next round of the Natural Selection game.
A fitness function is a particular type of objective function that is used to summarize, as a single figure of merit, how close a given design solution is to achieving the set aims. Fitness functions are used in genetic programming and genetic algorithms to guide simulations towards optimal design solutions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_function
Freewill Within Determinism :
http://bothandblog2.enformationism.info/page67.html
THE ARROW OF ENTROPY
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/19364/1/Physics-Time%20and%20Qualia%20-%20Smolin-Verde-7-24-2021-FINAL.pdf
excerpts:
[i]We must then make a distinction between events which generate a constant statistical distribution of outcomes, whose causal future is at least on a statistical level, a consequence of their causal past, and those which are not governed by any evolution law, deterministic or stochastic. We will call the first kind, precedented or habitual events; the latter unprecedented or “free” events.
How does the universe choose the outcomes of preparations which have no or few precedents? We propose that the novel states or events are the physical correlates of conscious events. At these moments, the universe has perhaps some degree of freedom to choose what happens next. It is these moments of freedom which make up conscious experience.
Those unprecedented moments are presumably common near the universe's origin, and spread throughout the universe. As the universe ages, it takes a higher degree of complexity for a state to be unprecedented. But we can wonder whether complex biomolecules might serve as a reservoir of novel states. Might the biosphere and the brain have evolved, to make use of the special properties of novel states, including the freedom present at those moments to choose a small part of the future. It is not difficult to see that this access to novel states might give an animal a selective advantage.
Consciousness is connected with - in fact, created by - the resolution of indefinite states. This ties qualia tightly to quantum theory – especially when that is looked at with the perspective of a world created by an active time. This implies a heightened sensitivity to novelties. The ability to detect novelty is not a peripheral or optional feature of the mind/brain-it is its main function. Qualia, we conjecture are signals of the recognition of novel situations. We and other creatures have evolved the ability to do so through evolution - as a creature that can resolve ambiguities quickly will, all things being equal, survive better.[/i]
Good post.
Since outputs always have inputs, so true,
Then what, we wonder, should we try to do?
[i]It’s the other way around, oh, brain stew,
For cause, time, and the universe do you![/i]
Freedom means freedom from constraint. This is only ever partial, the is no such thing as absolute freedom of constraint: one must obey the laws of physics.
"Free Will" properly refers to freedom from oneself: From the emotions and desires that one rejects. For instance, if one can master one's undesired desire for cake, or video games, or drugs, one is free from these desires, for the nonce. True freedom entails identifying all such habits and emotions desires, and conquering them all, and thus always acting in accordance with (what you identify as) you true will. No small feat, but free will, defined this way, may certainly be achieved. Whether this true will is determined, random, or some mix of the two, is irrelevant.
I think the difference is simply this: there is an immediate, recognizable difference between, say, raising your arm now (go ahead and do this) and having someone else lift it up for you. Likewise with moving your leg and having a doctor hit it with a device that causes a muscle reaction that results in movement.
We can then set up elaborate exercises in which we consider a person being in prison vs. being free in a city, etc., etc.
Sean Carroll, who I believe is compatibilist, nevertheless makes a good point. Suppose you steal some money off a cash register or do something else which is wrong. If determinism is true, then, strictly speaking, the cause of you stealing the money is directly related the big bang and the laws of physics than then developed.
Most people chuckle at this, and rightly so. But we could not have a functioning society without at least considering it real (even if, somehow, someone can prove it to be an illusion).
I agree that the topic is being made more complex than necessary, but in my opinion for no good reason. We have the rules of logic and mathematics which are our only tools for approaching truth. There is no other (at least accessible to us), so it's all we have.
Quoting Manuel
I mean what is there to continue disputing that can not be settled with simple logic and first principles. Of course those executing the logic must at least have some mastery of themselves before effectively wielding the power of it. If we do not know how to recognize our own bias, pride, and ignorance then even when faced with truth will we reject it at our own detriment, perpetually sinking into a maelstrom of bewilderment.
“Know thyself, and thou shalt know the universe and God.” - Temple of Apollo at Delphi
What exactly is the fundamental difference? In either case you have a reason for giving to charity. If you have a reason for doing something, that reason has a reason, and that reason has a reason, etc.. If reasons were turtles it would be turtles all the way down.
Everything we do is a manifestation of unconscious activity in the brain governed by the laws of biology in turn governed by chemistry, and ultimately the laws of physics. It all bubbles up into the conscious portion of our minds (Global Neuronal Workspace) and given a confabulated justification by specifically the left hemisphere of the brain (the "interpreter" or "storyteller" responsible for the feeling of freewill and the sense of self).
This video clip having to do with split-brain patients illustrates what i am trying to point out:
Split-brain and left hemisphere "interpreter"
Another illustrative phenomena that can help us gain some insight into this question of freewill is called the "Alien Hand Syndrome", again with split-brain patients. These people have each side of their bodies and minds independent of the other, and sometimes they need to restrain their left hand (right hemisphere) because it occasionally decides to attack its owner. This and other available data contribute to a significant body of evidence showing that we are not in control of our decisions. Here is a short clip about that:
I challenge anyone to provide me with a reasonable account or mechanism by which freewill can be achieved, even if just hypothetical. I've never heard one, perhaps someone can surprise me. I want to believe in freewill as much as the next guy but i must have reasons for doing so, if not then what are we really doing?.
Merci beaucoup mon ami, I'll get back to you when I can; if I don't qui tacet consentire videtur.
This is what i mean, are you committed to uncovering the truth or to just defend your views? and if you can't or won't defend your views then just ignore and move on? Because i addressed your claim about the difference between one scenario and the other in your example. Are you implying that my objection is invalid somehow? If so then let me know how.
You see the reason i joined this forum is so that i can test the validity of my ideas, notions, conclusions, etc. with other quality critical thinkers. I would think that a sincere philosopher or scientist would be willing to do that. I personally want my ideas to be picked apart, criticized and tested in the hope that i may learn something new and advance to the next stage of understanding. I have no problem in changing my mind about something if reasonable arguments are supplied. Like i mentioned before, if we're not doing that then what are we doing? Why is it so difficult to provide just one reasonable account or mechanism by which freewill can be realized, even if just a hypothetical one? Anyone??
I have free will to respond. I did not have to. Otherwise, I do not know what you mean by free will.
Fortunately, the video was only about 5 min long. It could be longer and it would add nothing to the subject, which in my opinion is very simple (see below), even if a lot of ink and saliva has been spilled and a lot of disputes arisen on the subject.
You are asking about "strong" arguments. I don’t know what do you expect from that. A strong argument is just a well-founded argument. Sometimes, even a simple question or example can provide such foundation.
There are a lot of simple ways to show the existence of free will or reject its inexistence, since a lot of people in here and in other philosophical media negate its existence.
First of all, one must bring in the definitions of free will and its opposites, determinism, fate, etc., so that we walk on the same ground.
So, from Oxford LEXICO:
Free will: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion".
Determinism (Philosophy): "The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes regarded as external to the will".
Fate: "The development of events outside a person's control, regarded as predetermined by a supernatural power".
Now, I can bring in the following questions:
1) What is more realistic (pragmatic) for you?
This is what is of outmost importance, since each one has our own reality and the answer must fit to it, comply with it and be accepted by it.
2) Do you feel responsible for and in control of your actions (except in certain situations)?
Ask yourself this exact moment you are reading this, moving the mouse around, drinking coffee, etc. Are you doing all tthis mechanically and/or are forced to do them in some way?
3) If free will were inexistent and everything in our life were predetermined, how would we know that?
This is similar "How do we know if we live in a dream or simulation?" (Some prefer to use the catchy word "Matrix".). Well, we can't, can we?
Simple arguments are the strongest, sometimes. :smile:
You think you have free will, and you did have to. This is what is meant when one claims that free will is not real. In essence my point is that free will is illusory. I can go on to write a bunch of stuff now, but i think a more efficient course in this case is to share this thought experiment offered by Sam Harris in this video.
Let me know what your thoughts are after watching, and performing the thought experiment.
Sam Harris Free Will Thought Experiment Number 2.
I actually do not understand the idea we have no free will. I chose to respond. That is all I mean by free will. Not some metaphysical or psychological notion of having absolute freedom.
Quoting Jackson
This is the reason why posted the Sam Harris video, to help you understand what is actually being addressed here. Sam Harris gives a pretty thorough explanation of the process you think of as free will or choice. Did you watch it? Take your time, and think about it, there's no hurry.
I never watch videos. Nothing personal.
Of course.. that's why you don't understand what is even being discussed here. I won't waste your time or mine anymore because you obviously just want to believe what you just want to believe at all costs. That in itself is interesting to me.. human nature got to love it.
You certainly must know many people read philosophy books and journal articles addressing free will.
Information comes in many forms. Text, audio, video, what's the difference?
Passivity. Notice, you only told me to look at the video. You made no argument and did not address my comment.
I said i wasn't going to waste our time if i don't think you're serious. I find it strange that you don't know what i mean by free will is not real. That is fundamental to the discussion. Your motives are suspect. I've dealt with this type of thing many times before, it never reaches any useful conclusion.
Quoting Jackson
I already made arguments in prior posts, and how did i not address your comment?
Neither free will nor determinism adequately describes the human situation. Both options in fact cling to kinds of determinism.
Free will metaphysics assumes a self-consciously knowing subject whose choices are determined by this unitary ego. What you are calling determinism makes choices the product of causal laws. In both cases, the autonomous freely willing subject and the determined subject, the determinism is based on a preconceived notion of the self or the world.
Alternatives to the freedom vs determinism
binary assert that while we are determined by our history, both personal , biological and social, these don’t dictate future behavior in a strictly causal way because the future rewrites the past.
Please elaborate on this point. Preconceived or not, how is determinism negated, and negated by what?
Quoting Joshs
What are these alternatives called? And again what is the basic concept in these alternatives that enable free will? How does that happen, is there an alternative to determinism and indeterminate randomness or chaos? Is there a third or fourth option that i'm not aware of?
I’m thinking of such approaches as enactivism, phenomenology, postmodern perspectives like poststructuralism and hermeneutics.
Determinisms accept empirical models of causation based on determined characteristics or properties of objects. The post-deterministic approaches are radically interactional, meaning that there can be no such properties of objects that remain self-identical.
“Although modernists in psychology have attempted to cast the free will/determinism dilemma as either settled or irrelevant, it continues to enfeeble theory, therapy, and practice. The primary reason for this continuing enfeeblement is the modern dualistic framework for this dilemma: Either the will (choices, decisions, motives) is dependent on antecedent conditions and thus is determined or the will is independent of antecedent conditions and thus is free. This framework, however, is not supported by current research and practical experience, indicating that the will is inextricably connected to the past but is not determined by it.”
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0022167800401008
Quantum mechanics refutes the deterministic model of classical physics.
Quoting Jackson
Does Quantum Mechanics Rule Out Free Will? According to this article, physicists are split on the issue.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-quantum-mechanics-rule-out-free-will/#:~:text=%E2%80%9CIn%20quantum%20mechanics%2C%E2%80%9D%20she,Superdeterminism%20returns%20us%20to%20determinism.%E2%80%9D
Yes. Which is always how I've lived my life. The deterministic model never made sense to me.
If free will exists , then does evil exist?
Evil is a theological concept.
Newton stated that God caused the physical laws of science. It is not a casual association of deterministic science and Christian theology.
So is free will. Advocates of free will generally believe in some form of evil. Exceptions include
Daniel Dennett, but his notion of freedom, as laid out in his book Freedom Evolves, is compatible with that of many determinists and incompatible with that of typical free will advocates.
Which is why I do not find debates about free will very enlightening.
Quoting Jackson
Me either. I like the approach of my favorite psychologist, George Kelly:
“…determination and freedom are two complementary aspects of structure. They cannot exist without each other any more than up can exist without down or right without left. Neither freedom nor determination are absolutes. A thing is free with respect to something; it is determined with respect to something else.
The solution proposed for the problem of determinism and free will provides us with the pattern for understanding how persons can vary and still be considered as lawful phenomena of nature. A person’s construction system is composed of complementary superordinate and subordinate relationships. The subordinate systems are determined by the superordinate systems into whose jurisdiction they are placed. The superordinate systems, in turn, are free to invoke new arrangements among the systems which are subordinate to them.
This is precisely what provides for freedom and determination in one’s personal construct system. The changes that take place, as one moves towards creating a more suitable system for anticipating events, can be seen as falling under the control of that person’s superordinating system. In his role identifying him with his superordinating system, the person is free with respect to subordinate changes he attempts to make. In his role as the follower of his own fundamental principles, he finds his life determined by them. Just as in governmental circles instructions can be changed only within the framework of fixed directives, and directives can be changed only within the framework of fixed statutes, and statutes can be changed only within the framework of fixed constitutions, so can one’s personal constructs be changed only within subsystems of constructs and subsystems changed only within more comprehensive systems.”
All there is in this or any universe is energy and information. Information is generated as pattern from the chaos of the quantum foam (indeterminate, symmetric). These patterns manifest and rise from the quantum fluctuations (breaking symmetry) as what we call fundamental particle / anti-particle pairs like quarks, electrons and positrons.
At this point these particles are now determined by emergent laws that aim to bring everything back to neutrality (symmetry). This is why particles annihilate when they meet their perfect anti-partner. This represents the shift from an indeterministic system to a deterministic one. So both are the case where one produces new patterns (matter) and the other just processes the patterns in strictly deterministic ways.
As patterns (particles) are attracted and repelled by other particles they begin to combine and fall into more complex patterns. While complexification continues; emergent levels of organization begin to form such as the atomic level of organization, which in turn engender the emergence of molecular systems with new affordances and possibilities unavailable at lower levels of emergence. All this is strictly governed by natural laws that are perpetually seeking to annihilation matter.
Eventually from molecules we arrive at the cellular or biological, which complexify even further to form emergent structures like tissues that form organs that form systems and finally intelligent organisms like humans. Again all this is ruled by natural law, non of these particles or structures have free will.
Now the type of organization that occurs in the brain is not fundamentally different than what goes on at the lower levels (no free will just natural law). There is no place in this whole story where free will can be found, so why would it happen in the brain, or in our consciousness which is itself an emergent property of the brain? (rhetorical).
The feeling of free will is a manifestation or product of what i call "causal reflection", in which the bottom-up trajectory of causation is reflected back down from the highest level of causal organization in the body namely consciousness, looping back on itself yielding the effect of self awareness. Within this self-awareness we experience the feeling of free will, but it is still caused by the chain of cause and effect that came up all the way from the quantum foam itself. We are the repositories of information history on this planet.
At any point in this chain had free will agents emerged then it would have disrupted the entire enterprise of higher order complexification. Things would deviate from the main pattern of evolution and fall into eventual catastrophic failure. Evolution is still doing it's work on us and we are not the final product, we are still larval at this stage, and any free will interference would compound into abnormal and imbalanced systems.
Can this process of biological and cultural complexification be modeled in terms of the deterministically causal motions of objects in space (evolutionary arrangement and rearrangement of molecular patterns)?
Quoting Joshs
Yes, anything above the quantum level is classical and deterministic. At least that's how i see it.
It has been argued that classical determinism is an arbitrary scheme which doesn’t allow for any true change or novelty. If evolutionary transformations are just outcomes of a template that could be run on a computer, they don’t address the nature of novelty. Insteadthey turn it into data spit out by a machine.
The level of complexification we are in right now is forming the next level of emergence. We are the ones building it through our cultural and technological systems that will culminate in a global cybernetic conscious system that AI is the head of. We are building it but not by our free will, but by the biological, and psychological drives in all of us (conscious and unconscious). It is just like how cells got together to form tissues, they don't know they are making tissues that will make organs. They just do what they are driven to do by their nature and local influences. We are no different.
The apparent novelty that we see develop in macro states of organization was determined at the moment the seed pattern emerged from chaos. All the implications are inherent in that original pattern. All it takes is time to develop or evolve through pattern mutation and environmental selection.
I'm a computer programmer, and i have for some years now programmed simulation experiments that follow what i've outlined (in parts not in whole). I've been able to produce novel forms that can interact with each other, and complexify. At this time i'm trying to produce self created emergent laws along with patterns that can produce new emergent levels. I'm looking into how Marchov chains can be used and incorporated to produce better simulations of this kind, along with simple neural networks that self assemble (self-organization).
Are you sure it is binary? Either free will or determinism? Doesn't determinism imply that that exact end state of the universe needs to be a particular way and thus a particular trajectory is needed?
Agree. Good point.
I decided to change my shirt. Therefore I have free will.
I don't want to repeat myself and bore you to death. All I'm willing to say is my position is plain and simple - it could've been worse for our freedom, but it isn't and to my reckoning that counts for something. Mind you I'm not saying we possess free will, but suffice it to say that I'm not being coerced.
Quoting TiredThinker
The dichotomy is not to do with free will, but between determinism and indeterminism. The difference between determinism and indeterminism is that determinism enforces a definite trajectory of development or unfolding with no possible deviations from natural law.
Indeterminism states that things don't have to have a cause, because things can behave in whatever random way. An example of indeterminism would be like a positive particle that is attracted (not repelled) to another positive particle or refusing to move at all. While in determinism the particle has no choice but to obey the law of electromagnetism, gravity, or what have you.
Quoting TiredThinker
Yes, the trajectory and end state of the whole universe is determined at initial conditions. A good analogy for this would be to say that when an egg is fertilized, an organism begins to develop along a very specific trajectory until it's final form or state is achieved. If this type of development were open to the free will of any of its parts or even environment, then structural abnormalities will develop in its systems jeopardizing the organism's viability.
For the proper functioning of the universe or any system all the parts need to do their job correctly every time, not just some of the times.
Nature is lazy i.e. it wants to minimize energy expenditure for any given task. Rivers flow in such a way that it takes the shortest path down from it source to a sea/ocean/lake. That's that.
I remember zig-zagging my way from my bedroom to the bathroom even though the shortest path was a straight line. I defied and broke the laws of nature that says minimize energy consumption at all times and always take the shortest route and follow the path of least resistance. If I can do that, what else can I do? Do I possess free will? Do I?
Thank you, and it's quite alright. We don't need to agree exactly every time, but we should understand each other, and be able to reason together. I may not know you, but i know the I in me is the same I in you. :-)
:up:
Water usually meanders and curves as it flows. That is why rivers are not straight in the long course. You can see this also happening perhaps in the shower as streams of water flow down the tile or glass in a sideways sinusoidal flow pattern. I think it has to do with the angular momentum of the water molecules. Besides it's not really the same when dealing with complex adaptive systems like a human being. You're "decision" to zig-zag is contingent on the confluence of many internal factors mostly psychological and unconscious that were themselves trying to minimize their energy states. Those internal energy states probably take presidence over other energy states at different levels.
This may be interesting to you: Free energy principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle
As you can see free will is not an easy topic. The "breaking of simple laws of nature" like follow the path of least resistance or take the shortest route or minimize energy consumption by humans could simply be the wagon wheel effect (apparently rape but actually consensual sex). :snicker:
Well i still think it's as easy as conservation laws, you don't have to wonder after some complex process if there is more or less energy. You are guaranteed to have the same amount of energy coming out as you had going in. I see this almost as an analog of determinism in the sense that there is no chance of deviating from law, no matter how much complexity and time is involved. One can probably even call it the law of conservation of will, or maybe the law of conservation of order.
Consider how a crystal grows in a saturated solution. If the crystal in question is salt then one would see a matrix or lattice cube formation expanding. The salt molecules have no choice but to attach to the growing crystal in a specific way. Positive to negative, never positive to positive or negative to negative (like Legos). Only one way (determinism). This is simple to figure out but when more than one molecule is involved then things become more complex and varied, but never does it violate the charge rule.
Positive and negative charges represent a type of energy imbalance which is always trying to resolve itself by neutralizing with an opposite charge (energy minimization). It is the only reason things move in the universe, except for gravity which works in a different way because it's a different thing. But all the forces are deterministic, i've never seen or heard of indeterminism outside the quantum realm.
The only thing that can convince me of some type of macro-indetermanancy that leads to free will agents is to show me the mechanism by which it is enabled. Apart from that everything points to macro-determanancy, and i have no reason to think otherwise.
So, what does an argument that proves free will look like, eh? Makes you wonder, don't it?
Quoting Agent Smith
Well that's why i said that. I have wondered about it, and it would probably look like some undiscovered force that can negate for example charge coupling. Like some kind of particle degaussing force. It's the only thing i can think of, do you have any ideas? But the problem is that it would probably violate some conservation law.
Yes and no. You can justify anything but one would have to tinker with the premise of the argument. The logic itself can not yield a false conclusion if the correct premise is used. I think that would be the only way.
Quoting punos
Would you agree with this by Evan Thompson?
“…it is important to distinguish between determinism as a feature of a scientific model and determinism as a metaphysical thesis about nature. According to the metaphysical thesis, all physical properties in nature are definite and determinate, and the evolution of the natural world is fixed uniquely. (The complete and instantaneous state of the world fixes its past and future with no alternatives.) This thesis hardly follows from the fact that we can construct nonstochastic dynamic-system models of observable phenomena.
Science has barely begun to chart this vast sea of nonlinearity and stochasticness. Within this context, "deterministic" seems best understood as describing certain nonlinear analysis techniques (those in which there are no noise terms), not as an ontological characteristic of nature (in a classical observer-transcendent sense).”( Mind in Life)
Not sure how the distinction between scientific models and metaphysics helps, but i would agree in general with what is quoted above.
Quoting Joshs
I'm having trouble with this part, how does it hardly follow?
It seems to me that Evan Thompson (never heard of him, will look him up) is just making arbitrary distinctions between in this case a scientific model and a metaphysical proposition. I don't necessarily see anything particularly "wrong" about it, but i'm not sure how much the distinction helps in answering the question of free will. Perhaps you can help me understand how it does if you think it does.
If you mean that you had the ability to change your shirt then I understand what you mean by free will. I don’t think that the desire to do something and the coincidence of favorable circumstances that allow you to perform that particular action also being present is what we typically are referring to when we mention free will. Just because you are free to do something doesn’t mean that your life isn’t the product of forces that shape and mold your behavior in ways that you have no ability to oppose.
Please explain. I chose to come on to the forum and see your post. What "forces" made me do that?
Before I reply I just want to remind you about the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false or a proposition is false because it has not yet been proven true. Of course I don’t want either one of us to fall into the fallacy fallacy either. It occurs when we presume that because a claim has been poorly argued, or a fallacy has been made, that the claim itself must be wrong.
Now onto the reply. Someone who defended deterministic fatalism might argue that something like genetics, neurological factors such as dopamine, cultural or psychological considerations, and or any of the things that influence these elements of behavior could account for your actions.
Possible, but proves nothing. Like saying, because you're tall (I am) you're likely to bump your head (I have).
Quoting punos
This isn’t an arbitrary distinction, it’s a crucial one when it comes to the issue of free will. He is saying that classical determinism is a social construction, rather than telling how nature ‘really’ operates.
Newton and others invented the idea that nature is deterministic. They never proved it.
I don’t know what you would consider a proof. I’m happy to try to provide one but it would help me if I knew what criterion you use to determine what you will accept as a proof.
Proof other than methodological consistency. The quantum model rejects determinism. That is, regularities in nature do not prove necessity.
Thank you for replying but I must confess I still don’t understand what you mean by proof. First of all I’m not a physicist so I can’t defend Newtonian mechanics. I don’t know what you mean by methodological consistency. I would ask for an example of something you consider to be proven and the proof used to demonstrate it’s truth but I don’t want to push my luck in this exchange because you’ve been very polite in my opinion.
Look at the other side. Everything is determined. What does it explain? Nothing really. Everyone's lives from birth to death are completely determined.
Would you argue that the theory of self determination or free will somehow explains something?
Let us say I want to get a job at a particular company. I write up a resume and contact people there. Whether I get the job or not, both cases support determinism. I fail to see how the belief in determinism affects my actions.
Added: It is what the positivists called myth. Something for which both the statement and its negation makes true.
Maybe I’m not the sharpest tool in the shed but I fail to see how either scenario supports determinism. I’m not trying to be difficult either. They just seem like possible outcomes to me. If what you mean is that both cases fit into a deterministic model of the universe then I agree.
Right. If determinism can show that a statement and its contradiction are both true, then it is useless as an explanation.
Correct me if I’m wrong but determinism doesn’t show that either are true. Both are possible but in reality neither are true unless you actually replicate the scenario in real life. Also couldn’t both of these hypothetical outcomes be consistent with the theory of self determination?
Yes. The free will/determinism argument is pointless. I can say I have freedom, but my freedom is limited by many things. My point is that determinism in science is false. Randomness influences events.
Fair enough. I’d like to discuss the notion of randomness but if you’re not interested I completely understand.
I brought it up.
I don't think Newton and others invented determinism, i think they discovered an aspect of nature. It is at least true under certain constrained conditions. Others have also discovered indeterminism such as in quantum physics, and this is also true. We tend to always want to through the baby out with the bathwater.
I have reason to believe that nature is both indeterminate and determinate, both have been shown to be true in one or some other aspect of nature. Complex systems like the ones we are familiar with operate in the range between chaos and order (indeterminism and determinism respectively), generally termed "edge of chaos". You need both for complexity to evolve. Chaos (indeterminism) produces variations in the environment, while order (determinism) selects from the environment. This is the nature of evolution.
I should say that i'm not very concerned about social constructs because a social construct may be true or false like anything else. There is no reason why a social construct must be true or false exclusively. In fact social constructs are part of evolution, where human ideas undergo variation in individual minds, and then are selected out of the environments of minds (memetics) those ideas that confer some kind of advantage to the system in question. Then further variation and further selection ad infinitum.
Like i've already stated in prior posts, my point is that in any case (determinism or indeterminism) the possibility (not the probability) of free will is absurd and illogical. What i have been consistently asking here is for someone to provide me with at least a concept that does not violate what we already know to be true, and that can in principle show that free will is in fact possible and consistent with logic.
I also want to say that our ideas and models of the world do not have to match exactly with the way nature "really" works, it need only be sufficiently true for our purposes. Science is evolving like everything else and it is not in some already perfect state. The better our models get the better we know to make better models, etc..
Newton said God made physical laws.
I’ll assume that means you’re on board with some more discussion. My first question would be what constitutes randomness? What would need to be true or what would be necessary for something to be considered random?
How is free will illogical? You would have to show the concept is inconsistent with itself.
By random I mean the absence of necessity. So the first state of the Big Bang is there, but we see no necessity for it being so. Nor is life necessary since it exists no where else in the universe.
This is irrelevant. Newton was also a virgin when he died, and had dreams or desires of burning his mother. But this brings up a point i've been pondering...
Does it unsettle you in any way to consider that free will might not exist. Do you have a personal preference? Like i said in a previous post, it's important to examine oneself before one examines problems or issues outside oneself. I can easily see why some people may be disturbed by the notion. Especially if one believes in God, or is seeking to believe in God. Do you believe in God?
It does not matter to me one way or the other. I make my decisions without reference to free will or determinism.
Tell me first if you are a determinist, an indeterminist, or both (like me). I think i can logically show it's impossible with any one you pick. I'm not sure that you can show that it is possible regardless of the one you pick. Which one is it?
I find the dichotomy of free will/determinism to be false.
This is also the way i operate. I never wonder about my free will when making decisions, because it's pretty much settled as far as i'm concerned. I'm open to being proven wrong of course or i wouldn't be sincere.
I’m not sure I follow but I’ll try to ask some probing questions that might enable me to discern your meaning. Wouldn’t it still be possible for life to be necessary but just under very unique and specific conditions? I’ve heard that the notion of necessity is almost as ancient as philosophy itself. It supposedly stretches back all the way to the pre-Socratics but I’ve never been able to completely understand it. The only thing I can claim to have some grasp on is the idea that a notion is necessarily false but that might be completely irrelevant and unrelated to the idea of necessity in science.
The universe does not make life necessary or it would be everywhere. Thus, random.
I've already stated that the dichotomy is not between free will and determinism. It is about determinism and indeterminism. Free will is simply something thought to be contingent depending on which one is considered to be true.
I don’t think that there is anything in the universe that is everywhere in the universe. If I’m correct wouldn’t that mean that everything is random and also that nothing is necessary?
That is my view. I think it the view of quantum mechanics.
If things are indeterminate are you able to determine your own choice?
If things are determinate are you able to determine your own choice?
Ok, but just tell me how the distinction helps us answer the question of free will?
Not sure the logic here. I see nothing meaningful in questioning whether I have freedom to choose. I can't choose to fly off a mountain top, for example.
And thus free will is negated, because you can't choose to fly, just like you can't take short cuts by walking through walls, or any such thing.
Not negated, conditioned.
It seems like you use the word necessary as a synonym for ubiquitous. That strikes me as problematic because it does appear to be a radical departure from traditional usage. Either way I have one more question. Is there anything in the universe that is inevitable? Inevitability and necessity seem like siblings or even identical twins.
What is conditioned are the possibilities, then there is random selection from the possibilities (probability). In no sense is free will present in that situation.
Death is inevitable. So, I suppose I would agree with that.
Change is inevitable, it's a constant in the universe.
Agree.
:up:
Would you also agree that inevitable and necessary are synonymous? I only ask because if that is the case then your view that everything is random and that nothing is necessary would seem difficult to defend.
By inevitable I mean very likely to happen, a tendency. I am not denying the utility of the concept of necessity, but I think it is often misused. For example, in the future death may be overcome.
That certainly would be wonderful.
I am fine with a short life. But I get the idea. Some think death is an illness to be cured.
Some people think that life is the illness and death is the cure. But I want to ask you do you believe that every death is random? That would be consistent with the idea that everything is random. If everything we do and everything that happens to us or around us is random then it’s hard to recognize what the utility of randomness as a notion could possibly be. Maybe you mean something like what you said about inevitability. You said it represents a probability or a tendency. Would randomness just be the other side of that coin and therefore mean something like improbable?
On this example, we know a person will die. When, by what cause, is not known--the randomness. Someone could have cancer and get hit by a car and die. Death is inevitable, but the random is still there.
Interesting. it seems like there is some overlap with the notion of knowledge and ignorance or certainty and uncertainty. in other words the inevitable would be the predictable and the random would be the unpredictable. Is this a fair assessment of your ideas or am I failing to do them justice?
A finite set of elements can still have randomness in it.
I'm not sure that I follow. Can you give me an example or elaborate a little more?
You can say the universe started as Big Bang. There was nothing inevitable about our galaxy being formed, much less life on our planet. So, the state of the BigBang was fairly simple, a finite set of elements.
I was under the impression that inevitable just meant very likely to happen, or a tendency. How can we calculate the probability of a galaxy forming or of life developing and thus determine how likely these outcomes were. If there is no way of calculating these kinds of probabilities then there is no way of knowing whether or not these things were inevitable.
I think self analysis is pointless in terms of free will. We can't trust this subjective perspective anymore than anecdotes about out of body experiences proving their truth in and of themselves. Our desire for free will doesn't discount it.
I tend to associate the term ‘free will’ with conservative approaches to moral philosophy like that of Peter Strawson ( or ). What Thompson has in mind is not this theological concept of free will. It is closer to Nietzsche’s view of the will:
“Consciousness doesn't cause itself, Will is neither free nor a Determinism: The causa sui is the best self-contradiction that has ever been conceived, a type of logical rape and abomination. But humanity's excessive pride has got itself profoundly and horribly entangled with precisely this piece of nonsense. The longing for “freedom of the will” in the superlative metaphysical sense (which, unfortunately, still rules in the heads of the half educated), the longing to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for your actions yourself and to relieve God, world, ancestors, chance, and society of the burden – all this means nothing less than being that very causa sui and, with a courage greater than Munchhausen's, pulling yourself by the hair from the swamp of nothingness up into existence. Suppose someone sees through the boorish naivete of this famous concept of “free will” and manages to get it out of his mind; I would then ask him to carry his “enlightenment” a step further and to rid his mind of the reversal of this misconceived concept of “free will”: I mean the “un-free will,” which is basically an abuse of cause and effect. We should not erroneously objectify “cause” and “effect” like the natural scientists do (and whoever else thinks naturalistically these days –) in accordance with the dominant mechanistic stupidity which would have the cause push and shove until it “effects” something; we should use “cause” and “effect” only as pure concepts, which is to say as conventional fictions for the purpose of description and communication, not explanation. In the “in-itself ” there is nothing like “causal association,” “necessity,” or “psychological un-freedom.” There, the “effect” does not follow “from the cause,” there is no rule of “law”.
1. We are morally responsible for our choices
2. If we are morally responsible for our choices, then we have free will
3. Therefore we have free will
In my experience, those who deny we have free will can quickly be shown to be reasoning badly. This is because it is far more self-evident that we have free will, than that free will requires something we do not have.
Many, of example, think that free will is incompatible with determinism. But it's more self-evident that we have free will than that free will requires the falsity of determinism. So only a fool would conclude that we lack free will on the grounds that determinism is true. For if determinism really is true, it would be more rational to conclude that determinism is compatible with free will than that free will does not exist.
So, a fool reasons like this:
1. Determinism is true
2. Determinism is incompatible with free will
3. Therefore we lack free will
A clever person reasons like this:
1. Determinism is true
2. We have free will
3. Therefore, determinism is true and we have free will
The self analysis i'm referring to is not meant to figure out if there is free will or not, it's meant to expose personal assumptions, desires, insecurities, fears, etc. that will affect how one perceives, relates, and handles certain ideas. For example, if one believes in God or is religious, and if one begins their inquiry trying to prove God, or at least trying not to disprove God, then one will avoid and reject anything that they think might take them in the direction they have decided already not to accept (even if it's potentially true). You must be like a mirror, able to reflect what is with as little distortion as possible. This should be obvious to most people i think.
I myself have used and still use certain lessons i've learned from Buddhism, Hinduism, but especially Zen Buddhism. Meditation i have found works for achieving a state of empty objective neutrality (as much as possible). In my opinion it would be a waste of my time really to even attempt to tackle big external questions with big internal implications if i haven't done my internal prep work.
It's useful to think about it like vision. Some people have bad vision which keeps them from seeing the world accurately. These people then need to correct that handicap by going to an ophthalmologist to have their vision analyzed to then fashion lenses that will correct for the visual distortions. Then they can go and see the world for what it is, they can drive for instance and not kill anyone by accident, or mistake things for other things, etc..
Yes, our galaxy was not inevitable.
How can you make this assertion with such confidence?
It did not always exist. Why did it not come into existence before or after it did?
I agree that consciousness dosn't cause itself, but i don't see how it follow that will is neither free nor deterministic.
Quoting Joshs
I agree with all of the above quote.
Quoting Joshs
My issue is mainly with this last section. How is "un-free" will a violation of cause and effect? I think he is playing with words here perhaps in a disingenuous way. Description and explanations again are arbitrary distinctions. If you observe a thing and describe it, that's perfectly fine, but if you want to do something with it, or go even deeper then it has to be converted into an explanation (but it doesn't have to be true to begin with). Take the explanation and generalize it, then experiment and verify. If the generalized explanation holds then it may be considered more true than not. Further and deeper development can continue. We don't understand anything from descriptions unless we generalize, they are just static pictures, explanations are more akin to video. Still not the territory, it's just a map of the territory. An explanation can be described, and a description can be explained. I would use a description, not an explanation to communicate a concept like cause and effect, but use an explanation to produce technology, or even to discover deeper principles of nature.
I don't understand how he makes the conclusion that there is no cause and effect in the "in-itself". I kinda get a funny distrusting feeling about him. Just saying.
Descriptions are really good for art, literature, instruction, but it's not sufficient on its own for science, and understanding.
I fail to see the relevance of it’s nonexistence or of the timing that is associated with it’s development. Maybe you’re suggesting that there is no reason why it came into existence when and where it did. Maybe this is what you mean by random. In other words something is random if there is no available reason that explains it’s existence.
Yes.
Would that mean also that something is necessary if there is an available reason for it's existence?
No, just a condition. There may be many conditions.
Do you mean like necessary and sufficient conditions? I'm not asking for an exhaustive list but I would like to know what would be sufficient to make something necessary.
I don't think anything about the universe is necessary. Necessity is just a condition. There is nothing necessary about life on planet earth. Just a chain of events.
Free will, one poster remarked, isn't an empirical claim. In defense of this poster, I'd say free will is, after all, a metaphysical topic.
Something's off, it doesn't add up now does it?
Your replies sometimes remind me of riddles. Admittedly I'm a bit confused. I won't pursue this dialogue any further if you're only going to respond with vague, ambiguous, or nebulous responses. Perhaps it's my fault though and if so I apologize. I just don't understand what you mean when you say that "Necessity is just a condition" and since necessity is so closely connected to what is necessary it follows necessarily that I can't understand what you mean when you say that "There is nothing necessary about life on earth".
Necessity is the way scientists in the classical, deterministic model explained events. In the 1900's the quantum model disputed necessity and replaced it with probability or randomness.
Another way to explain it. Statement one, "If you do not eat, you will die." Statement two, "If you don't eat, you will necessarily die." Statement two adds necessity, but it still means the same as the first statment.
As Schrodinger said, just because things happen a certain way only explains the boundary of the behavior, not that it has to act that way.
In other words there is nothing necessary in the universe necessarily because necessity is meaningless. Is that an accurate summary or am I missing something crucial? Also if you replace the word necessary with the word probability it doesn’t seem like a radical transformation. To use your example if you don’t eat you will die could also be replaced with the statement if you don’t eat you will probably die and the meaning is still basically similar.
Yes. Empirical.
I don’t know how empiricism is connected to these concepts but I’m glad that I understood your intended meaning.
I don’t know how empiricism is connected to these concepts but I’m glad that I understood your intended meaning.
From Seth Lloyd, a few years ago: "the only way to figure out what's going to happen in a computing system is to go through the computation."
https://www.edge.org/conversation/seth_lloyd-seth-lloyd%E2%80%94life-what-a-concept
There are no "short cuts." It has to be played out to see what it was about.
Next: "PRESS: You mean this metaphor of the computer very literally — you can literally envision the universe as sort of going through a set of procedures that you could trace back.
LLOYD: Yes, I don't even mean it as a metaphor.
PRESS: How do you avoid the Gödel trap, in the sense that there are things that exist that you can't possibly explain the origin of?
LLOYD: Exactly. The halting problem and Gödel's theorem are essentially the same problem — they're very closely related, and Turing knew about Gödel's work when he came up with the halting problem.
I know nothing about computation but I think I get the idea. You need to perform an experiment to test a hypothesis. That’s basically what you’re saying unless I’ve misunderstood you.
It's the concept of a series or algorithm where it is supposed to continue on to infinity and retain the same outcomes. People now see that is false and cannot be proven true.
I won’t pretend to understand a mathematical concept like infinity. Also discourses that involve algorithms as an important component will inevitably be viewed by me as somewhat cryptic due to my limited exposure to such notions.
Quoting Jackson
According to Wiki,
“In his 2006 book, Programming the Universe, Lloyd contends that the universe itself is one big quantum computer producing what we see around us, and ourselves, as it runs a cosmic program. According to Lloyd, once we understand the laws of physics completely, we will be able to use small-scale quantum computing to understand the universe completely as well. Lloyd states that we could have the whole universe simulated in a computer in 600 years provided that computational power increases according to Moore's Law.”
This is an interesting blend of deterministism and indeterminism. It is a determinism in that the laws of physics can be understood ‘completely’.
don't care about wiki
You think this is not what Lloyd is claiming? Would take me probably a half hour to confirm that this is exactly what he is claiming. Should I waste the half hour or do you think what I quoted sounds quite consistent with what you quoted from Lloyd?
I ignore posts with wiki.
Good for you. Then ignore the wiki quote and pay attention to my comments. My comment is that Lloyd is offering an interesting blend of determinism and indeterminism. What is deterministic about his model is that he begins from determined laws of physics to produce indeterminism. That’s why the predictions are probabilistic rather than inferential. Lloyd , like Turing, is subject to Wittgenstein’s critique.
ok
As I can see, you didn't deserve my reply to your topic. Well, it's the last one. You are a tired thinker afterall ...
As it turns out, most vision problems require much more than lens. Lol. The human eye has many fallible parts unfortunately.
Exactly, that is why it must be examined.
You do realize i was making a metaphor?
I know. Lol.
:smile:
1. A practical "difficulty" arises when a holistic (general) Philosophical question is expected to be answered in terms of reductive Scientific mechanisms.
2. Another adversity is that the skeptical questioner usually assumes that the question refers to absolute freedom from natural laws, as recounted in magical myths. Yet, like everything else in this world, human freedom is Relative to the wider context.
3. One more obstacle to reasonable discussions of Free Will is that many intellectuals today are philosophically Fatalistic in their presumption of Absolute Determinism. For them, the notion of exceptions to Fate is absurd.
4. Perhaps the biggest dilemma in Free Will Discussions though is the scientific "axiom" (unprovable assertion taken on faith to be self-evidently true) of the inevitable "second law" of Cause & Effect that drives all things to ultimate destruction.
With so many obstacles to overcome before even getting to the starting line, FreeWill advocates are handicapped & hobbled. So, all I'll say is that I have written down several "arguments" in favor of limited freewill for moral agents. That's what I call "unscripted freewill". Generally, Nature seems to be an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect. But Life itself is an exception to the ruthless rule of Entropy, relentlessly reducing organisms to ashes. Moreover, human Culture has a history of exceptions to that deterministic Law of Disorder.
Admittedly, both of those exceptions are temporary. But Life has been staving-off Death for multiple millennia, and Culture has been pushing-back unruly Nature for thousands of years. So, for those interested in atypical arguments for Freedom Within Determinism, I can provide links to a few of those reasons for acting as-if we have some freedom from Fate. :smile:
Paradox of Freewill :
Modern Science is based on the assumption of an unbroken chain of Cause & Effect, since the Big Bang beginning of the world. Logicians have created supposedly airtight arguments against the possibility of libertarian freedom-of-choice. And some theologians, who take the Bible at its word, have concluded that divine omniscience means that the entire existence of the creation was foreknown in detail; hence allowing no opportunity for individual sinners to make the fateful choice between Good or Evil, God or Devil. Thus, the incompatibility of Fate and Freedom has been debated for millennia. And the beat goes on . . . .
http://bothandblog5.enformationism.info/page13.html