Any evidence for and against free wills existence?

Reply to Thehoneyman So, something compelled you to join the forum and ask this question?

Reply to Thehoneyman There is physical proof that the brain makes decisions before we carry out an action, therefore we do not have free will - is one form of evidence that is empirically undeniable.

Quoting GreyScorpio

There is physical proof that the brain makes decisions before we carry out an action, therefore we do not have free will - is one form of evidence that is empirically undeniable.

Why do people only read half of Libets studies? Ignoring his study on "free won't" just amounts to cherry picking.

Reply to Ying It is still a form of evidence that we should not ignore. Just because it is partial does not mean it did not happen. He asked for evidence and I gave it to him. If he wishes to read the full study then it would be beneficial to his search for knowledge.

Quoting GreyScorpio

It is still a form of evidence that we should not ignore.

Right, we shouldn't ignore Libets experiments in my opinion. We should however ignore gross misrepresentations of his outcomes. Libet himself is a proponent of the free won't model. So there. Also, the conclusions of his experiments can be and are contested. It's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound. It's very possible to level the claim that Libets experiments amount to a giant post hoc fallacy.

Quoting Ying

It's not nearly as clear cut as you make it sound.

I understand this but, nothing is clear cut in philosophy.

Reply to Wayfarer I don't know but I can always trace my choices back and it seems like everything is predetermined ever since the beginning of time. For me to make a different decision I feel like something from another timeline would have to come into ours and interfere or something external like that.

Reply to Thehoneyman And there’s certainly nothing I can think of which might cause you to change that opinion.

Pick one:

A

B

C

Reply to Jeremiah A?

Reply to GreyScorpio The subconscious mind makes some choices for you from learned behavior of the conscious mind. If you drive the same route to work everyday then your subconscious mind makes the decisions of where to go for you; the initial route, however, was chosen by your conscious mind. Of course the conscious mind can stop the process at any time and make the choice to drive a different way to work, or not even go to work.

Reply to Thehoneyman You just demonstrated free choice.

Reply to Jeremiah I don't think you get it. I made a choice, yes, but what made me choose it? All the contributing factors that made me choose it I actually have no control over.

Say I did an experiment with 3 identicle mes in 3 identicle universes. I ask them all that question. They'd all answer exactly the same. It was predetermined.

Reply to Jeremiah I thought someone would bring up that objection :lol:, In any case its hard to believe that we are really free if we already have the choices preemptively chosen for us. Such as; If we were lost driving down a road and come to a fork. The choice is limited between two junctions only. I personally believe that we don't even know what the concept of Free is. We cannot truly understand it if our choices are preemptively chosen for us to make a decision based on what we have been given.

Reply to Thehoneyman Where is your empirical evidence? I thought this thread was about proof. Considerating that hard determinism is unfalsifiable I have my doubts your statement there is anything more than an opinion.

Quoting Thehoneyman

Say I did an experiment with 3 identicle mes in 3 identicle universes. I ask them all that question. They'd all answer exactly the same. It was predetermined.

This is actually really smart, In multiple universes we would have probably made the same decision meaning that it couldn't possibly be us that freely made it? Is that what you are trying to say?

Reply to GreyScorpio

If you don't know what free means in the context of free will, then how is it possible you have empirical evidence against it? I think you need to get your thoughts in order before you decide what you believe.

Quoting Jeremiah

If you don't know what free means in the context of free will, then how is it possible you have empirical evidence against it?

That logic can be used for the existence of God. And I do have my thoughts in order, I don't think you have any right to tell me what I should believe. I am just posing points here, not getting hostile.

Anyway, as I was saying, humans cannot understand the concept of free - even in free will - just like we cannot understand the concept of God. We may know what it is or have an idea of these things, but we do not truly understand it because we have not experienced it as you have just suggested to me -

Quoting Jeremiah

then how is it possible you have empirical evidence against it?

Quoting GreyScorpio

I don't think you have any right to tell me what I should believe.

If hard determinism were true, and I am an external agent then by your standards my function would be to tell you what to believe and you would have to comply, which makes the fact that you have decided to resist my external influence a contradictory and interesting decision.

Quoting GreyScorpio

just like we cannot understand the concept of God.

Gods are fantasies created by human imagination; it is not that hard to understand.

Quoting GreyScorpio

don't think you have any right to tell me what I should believe.

In fact I think this could be considered a counter example against the concept of hard determinism. If I push a rock it has no choice but to roll the direction I will it; however, if that rock could resist my push then that is something else. It means it has a force or will to disrupt that line of cause and effect, which would result in a new line of cause and effect.

Reply to GreyScorpio
I'm not sure that's what I meant. The universes being identical is key here because the indentical people will make the same choices because they are identical in every way down to every thought. Every contributing factor in choice making will be exactly the same in both of them. Something about these two identical universes would need an external influence to change them.

So say before I asked them all the question I punched one of them in the face. Now that one might answer differently to the others because they are now different.

Reply to Jeremiah
I have no evidence of either I'm just discussing my thoughts... On my own topic... Is that okay? :P

Quoting Jeremiah

If hard determinism were true, and I am an external agent then by your standards my function would be to tell you what to believe and you would have to comply,

That has no correlation. Because you are an external agent with no free will you are then able to tell people what they can and can't believe to which they must comply to? If hard determinism were true, the function of decision making doesn't then fall into the hands of a normal human being.

Quoting Jeremiah

Gods are fantasies created by human imagination; it is not that hard to understand.

I'm not arguing on that. I agree. So I don't know where I showed a failure to understand.

Quoting Jeremiah

In fact I think this could be considered a counter example against the concept of hard determinism. If I push a rock it has no choice but to roll the direction I will it; however, if that rock could resist my push then that is something else.

If you push a rock in a direction it moves that direction through gravity ... Without the sarcasm - There are only a limited of directions that rock can go. So how are you free to make a decision of where the rock goes. If you push it over a mountain in England, it doesn't suddenly end up in China even if were using your 'free will' to 'decide' that it would go to China after pushing of this rock in England.

Reply to Thehoneyman

You are the one that set the standard of proof. It would be nice if "philosophers" actually tried to live up to such standards, but I guess when it comes down to it that is asking a bit much of them.

Quoting Thehoneyman

The universes being identical is key here because the indentical people will make the same choices because they are identical in every way down to every thought.

I completely agree - I must have misunderstood you. Sorry about that. What I thought was smart was that, using the point that the parallel universes are exactly alike, we would be making the very same decision in all of these universes no matter the circumstances. This again shows a lack of understanding of 'free' because decisions are always preemptively made for us. And if the environmental circumstances were different then the nature of the decision would change which would then lead the person back to another preemptively made 'choice'. It may be that you punched the person in the face and now you have to make another decision between two decisions that would not have been the same had you not punched him in the face.

Quoting GreyScorpio

If hard determinism were true, the function of decision making doesn't then fall into the hands of a normal human being.

If determinism is true, everything is both a cause and effect, that includes humans.

Your statement here shows how little thought you have put into this, we are very much shaped by the other humans around us.

Quoting Jeremiah

Your statement here shows how little thought you have put into this, we are very much shaped by the other humans around us.

Considering I am literally behind a computer trying to learn, No I haven't thought much about it. I am pretty much thinking about it as I go along as to make an educated minuet on what I have learned. Just because I don't agree with your point of view doesn't make mine incorrect.

I also notice how you manage to tiptoe around the rest of my comment by not responding. In any case, If determinism is not true then everything would be chaos and we would be able to do the unimaginable which is why I think we are unable to comprehend what free means. Having free will is having the ability to act on one's own discretion with no factors influencing it, including the environment, Laws of physics, Laws of Humanity, Society and more... we are not free to do what we want. It is evident to me.

Reply to GreyScorpio Let me know when you have learned enough to understand the difference between determinism and hard determinism.

Hard determinism has many flaws that should be kept in mind. It is an unfalsifiable claim, which means it should not be used as a standard for proof. It leads to infinite regression, since it states everything is the result of cause and effect.

However, I think the biggest error is the lack of defined systems, hard determinism precives all of existence as one system, which may be true but at the same time it leaves no account for local systems and their role. If everything is cause and effect then so is the human system, so why would we not consider the influence of the human themselves? They certainly have a role in all of this.

So I find the whole arumgent of hard determinism full of holes, unconvincing and just an inadequate explanation.

A bit of a side note, but I find it hypocrital how many non-believers reject God due to lack of evidence, but eagerly accept hard determinism even though it suffers from the same lack of evidence. Seems like selective skepticism to me.

Schopenhauer and others have already proven the absence of 'free will'

The problem is that philosophy and individuals remain afraid to take ownership of the inevitable consequence. For example they might have to give up the cherished notion of the god of heaven and the god of self. Empty refutation of hard determinism will persist as long as the Gods of heaven and self continue to be adored.

Quantum mechanics and special relativity have provided the formal proof but are equally afraid of the consequence.

To put it simply free will necessitates the linear evolution of time. The future cannot be fixed or already in existence because it is created by our free will. However special relativity insists that temporal shift occurs on the basis of relative velocity. This has been conclusively proven experimentally, by placing synchronized clocks upon planes.

If time travel is possible and has been proven possible, if one can effectively travel into the future... The future must pre-exist if one might travel into it. If the future is already in existence there can be no such thing as freedom of the will.

M

Irrespective of the very good arguments of hard determinism, I, and I think most have the sensation of free will. When I stare at the ice cream in the freezer, I feel i am making an independent choice to have it or not. So is this sensation of choice a valid argument that free will does exist, however it can only be known by experience, and is not able to be known by analysis, investigation or reason. Is it a Qualia?

In the famous thought experiment, a person spends their entire life in a black and white room, with a black and white monitor. She spends her entire existence learning all there is to know about color. How the eye and optic system operate, wave lengths etc. She analytically and theoretically knows everything that can be known about color. Then they let her out of the room into a beautiful sunset - and she says "wow"? And is amazed. Did she learn anything new? I think yes. I think the experience of color is a different thing than the analysis of color. I feel the same about the sensation of choice.

Reply to Jeremiah As I said you have your opinion and you evidently can't get over the fact that other people have opinions that differ from yours.

Reply to Rank Amateur

You can have opinions and feelings about the form of reality. But in the approach to truth science has always had a more definitive insight than simple and all too often self serving 'feelings'

I like feelings I have loads but I rarely allow them to dictate over facts.

If and when I do, l must have reasons for doing so.

M

Reply to Jeremiah Also, I feel as though free will is just as unfalsifiable as determinism from the points I had raised earlier. Free will is just as 'cause and effect' as determinisim. As I explained before, my view is that we cannot comprehend what 'free' truly is and as a result we also cannot comprehend 'free will'. There is no evidence for it therefore it is unfalsifiable and is meaningless. There is more physical evidence for hard determinism than there is free will. You didn't choose how your cells were aligned to create a human body. You didn't will your existence or anyone else's existence. Hard determinism states causes of our behaviour and personality, genetic makeup, and essentially how we came to be. These are decisions already made for us evidently. We do not know what free is in my opinion.

Reply to Marcus de Brun I agree, Logical evidence and physical evidence are the best thing we have to go one right now. It is how we develop most theories about the world and existence itself.

Reply to Marcus de Brun a quilia is more than just "a feeling" , the concept is, there are things than can not be known by analysis, study, or science. They can only be known by experiencing them. Quilias, if you believe they exist, are facts. You can try describe blue, by some scientific explanations of wave lengths, but does it truly describe the experience of seeing blue ? I do not think so, and that experience of blue is factual.

Reply to GreyScorpio You can choose to respond to this post or not. That much should be self evident, which is intersubjectivally verifiable.

Reply to Jeremiah I don't believe so.

Reply to GreyScorpio

Seems like you made a choice to me.

We make choices all the time, some we make on the spot while others we take time to think about. That much should not be in dispute. In fact when we take time to study the various possible outcomes of our choices, new options may even arise for us to choose from. Options that we would have not considered before, but are now possible paths because we decided to invest more time in making our decisions. This seems a bit more involved than you are giving it credit for.

Reply to GreyScorpio

Correlation does not necessitate causation. So many people make that mistake, it is likely by far the most common error when assessing "evidence."

Hard determinism is very black and white, which is why people grasp on to it; however, I think things are a bit more involved, and like I said the concept just has too many holes.

Reply to Jeremiah My point is that the various possible choices are already chosen for us. From which, follows the effect of the choice.

Reply to GreyScorpio

You are anthropomorphizing cause and effect. Objective cause and effect has no will of its own, that is a human trait.

I think the linear framework humans tend to think in makes hard determinism inviting to people. When we think about cause and effect we tend to think in terms of if A then B; however, what if there was an agent of causation in which if A then B was not true? Instead, as the stream of cause and effect passes through this agent it becomes if A then B or C or D, or even if A then {B, C, D}, or any other possible combination.

If I have the capacity for reason in such a way that I can assess possible outcomes of cause and effect, and I have force that I can apply to the world around me, then why can't I influence the posterior chain?

In fact by claiming I am a summation of cause and effect, you place me as part of cause and effect with all the same powers, and if external forces can shape my path, then it seems only reasonable to assume so can internal forces.

Free will is consistent with determinism. Libertarian free will is not (by definition).

One is exercising free will by making decisions based solely on one's personal factors (prior beliefs, dispositions, impulses, emotions, likes, dislikes...), and not being coerced into some choice. This is consistent with determinism because those internal factors determine the decision we will make. This is a compatibilist account of free will.

Libertarian free will is simply the doctrine that our freely willed choices are not determined.

As to which is true (compatibilist or libertarian free will) - it is impossible to know one way or another. Consequently, the concept of free will doesn't really provide a clue into the nature of the mind.

Quoting Thehoneyman

Is there actually any proof for either side?

Yes:

Since Libet's results started to trickle out,
there were speculations that we do not have free will...
What??? My free will is useless - I'll give it up.
Now, how could I - give up something I did/do not have???

My joke clearly outlines scenarios - required for proving that we do have free will. This can be "peer-reviewed in a cafe for example, with your friends.

Hearty,

It depends what you mean by free will. If you have read Dan Barker and Sam Harris you would get the impression that free will does not exist on the individual basis, that all of our actions are consequent of physical and psychological traits beyond our comprehension. However, Barker suggests free will in terms of a social context, that when we judge others behavior, we suppose that person had the free will to make such action. To have society without that notion would be chaos.

Quoting Watts729

It depends what you mean by free will. If you have read Dan Barker and Sam Harris you would get the impression that free will does not exist on the individual basis, that all of our actions are consequent of physical and psychological traits beyond our comprehension.

Are you suggesting that our (in)actions are triggered by mysterious causes. In this case, ask your friend to tell you which hand to lift - and you will have a mysterious cause replaced with words of your friend...

Quoting Watts729

However, Barker suggests free will in terms of a social context, that when we judge others behaviour, we suppose that person had the free will to make such action. To have society without that notion would be chaos.

I can see a scenario with me on a deserted island freely exercising my free will - without anything like social considerations...

I will need a bit more convincing argument - without gossip of WHO said/did WHAT.

Hearty, :cool:

I take the liberty to transfer this topic to The Joke thread...

Sorry, but this thread has lost its direction. :)

Hearty, :cool: