Free Will: Illusion or Reality?

[RDK]

Let's slay some sacred cows.

The topic of free will has always been a favorite of mine, and recently I came across an article stating that tests have been done showing that when confronted with certain decisions, our brain has already made a choice even before we consciously ponder it ourselves and act. This is interesting for several reasons, and it brings up questions about what it means to have "free will".

First I'd like to address several problems with the idea of free will. Try defining for yourself what free will even means. Just think about it for a minute. What is “free will”?

The idea that we have wants? Yes, people want things. But for your will to be “free” instead of merely a deterministic cause-and-effect process? What does it mean for your will to be “free”? That you don’t follow your will sometimes? I suppose if you wanted to frustrate yourself. But then again you’d only make that decision because you wanted to frustrate yourself, and because the desire to do so was stronger than some other desire that might have taken precedence.

The problem is that all of this can fit under the umbrella of rational decision-making without living under the old-world idea of free will.

As individual organisms we react to the environment. As the environment changes, so does the individual’s concept of the “right thing” (survival-wise, morality, etc.). The environment is dictating your input - perception is the key, and it can be manipulated. It is a combination of pressures, some internal and some external, that collectively dictate our pathway through life.

That’s why free will is bunk. Our personality - our will, or essence - is not free. If anything, it’s steady and solid. Humans are creatures of habit; it’s patterns in behavior that make us who we are, not some sort of quasi-religious entity called a “soul” hanging off in some other dimension.

Which brings us to the ultimate question: what do we mean when we say things like “you”, or “I”? Is it our personality? Our identity? Our essence?

What is the self?

These are tough questions, and I think this would be a fun topic for everyone to participate in. I've purposely refrained from using some of my more advanced arguments because I kind of want this OP to be just a conversation starter; that way I can save them for later and we can get into greater detail as the thread continues.

Have fun!

 

[Nysyarc]

That’s why free will is bunk. Our personality - our will, or essence - is not free. If anything, it’s steady and solid. Humans are creatures of habit; it’s patterns in behavior that make us who we are, not some sort of quasi-religious entity called a “soul” hanging off in some other dimension.

Which brings us to the ultimate question: what do we mean when we say things like “you”, or “I”? Is it our personality? Our identity? Our essence?

What is the self?

Very nice topic, I'm intrigued.

You know, all his life, my dad has wanted to know what makes human beings conscious, it's one of the only things he'd like to know before he dies. He wants to know what exactly it is inside of our heads and the rest of our bodies that makes us live, die, fall asleep and wake up. We often take it for granted that we're conscious. We never think about what it even really means.

I think when we say "you" or "I" we are only saying that because we are conscious. I wouldn't address someone as "you" if they were asleep, unless I was having a bizarre soliloquy. Nor would I address a rock or any other inanimate object as "you". I do talk to my dog and refer to him by "you" sometimes, because he is conscious, and even though I know he may not understand me, I know he can hear me and may respond in his own way.

So essentially the way I see it is that I am not my personality or anything like that, I am simply my consciousness, and when that consciousness is extinguished for good, I am no more. Where does free will play into that? Well like you said, as a conscious being, I have instincts, habits and urges which guide my life.

I don't think that free will by definition exists, but I also don't believe in fate either. Am I typing this post now because it is my free choice? Or is there a primal urge telling me to do it because I find it interesting? Every choice we make is influenced by countless things inside and outside of ourselves, so they are not really our own choices in that sense.

Just thought I'd share my speculations to keep the ball rolling, I think this will develop into a very interesting thread.

 

[aeghrur]

Nysyarc, what do you define as consciousness or conscious? The ability for thought? The ability to be alive? If so, the ability for thought is simply chemical reactions happening in your brain. Life, again, is simply chemical reactions happening at a set time due to certain variables. So, what is consciousness aside from being chemical reactions?

And RDK, if we were to go into the extremes of sociology, then no, free will does not exist. All of one's decisions would simply be the synthesis of influences by the people around that said person. What you believe is not what you believe, but it is the result of being in interaction with the people you have met. However, if that was the case, how would one punish another for their misteaks? How can you justify the punishment for murder when it wasn't by one's free-will that made them homicidal, but it was by the influence of those before them and the ones they've met?

 

[Darxmarth23]

^Yeasz!^

As said above.

When you are influenced by something or someone is what you are doing out of free will? I don't think so.

Honestly we don't really have a free will IMO. Just because we are constantly thinking. Too much. We look at the consequences and the influence our decisions. I'm in a hurry so I'll post more on this later.

Nice topic RDK.

 

[Jam Stunna]

The problem I see with your arguments, RDK, it that you seem to be presuming that people will make rational decisions. Environmental and internal pressures may push us in a certain direction, but we don't have to respond the "right" way to them.

Besides, I don't see how determinism conflicts with free will in the first place. Having a personality that leads me to like vanilla over chocolate doesn't mean that I still don't have to choose vanilla when confronted with a choice.

 

[Overload]

Besides, I don't see how determinism conflicts with free will in the first place. Having a personality that leads me to like vanilla over chocolate doesn't mean that I still don't have to choose vanilla when confronted with a choice.

This. Free will is doing what you want. If you have a primal urge to do something, and you go with that urge, it's still free will, as you are doing what you want to do, regardless of whether or not you have preexisting urges that influence your actions.

I think much of our personality is influenced by conditioning, which I guess breaks down to memory. I think conditioning can account for many of our fears, desires, etc. If someone gets sick after eating a certain food, they may not have any desire to eat that food ever again. Conversely, if someone eats a certain food and it tastes good, they will probably eat it again because they enjoy the sensation brought about by eating that food.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Intriguing topic, RDK.

I really think this issue comes down to the issue of how the inner mechanics of our brains work, which nobody really knows enough about to make a well-educated argument here. Therefore I have no strong opinions on this issue.

If I had to guess, I would say all of our decisions come down to a chemical signal given from the brain that is influenced by sensory input, meaning we have no free will. But as I said before, I can only guess.

 

[Darxmarth23]

So acting Free Will is an ability?

 

[KrazyGlue]

So acting Free Will is an ability?

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Clarification please?

 

[Jam Stunna]

If I had to guess, I would say all of our decisions come down to a chemical signal given from the brain that is influenced by sensory input, meaning we have no free will. But as I said before, I can only guess.

Once again, I don't see how the biological processes of the brain conflict with the notion of free will.

 

[KrazyGlue]

Once again, I don't see how the biological processes of the brain conflict with the notion of free will.

Well, if we do everything based off of chemical signals and sensory input, wouldn't we technically not be choosing to do certain things? Wouldn't it just be a chain of chemical reactions?

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well, if we do everything based off of chemical signals and sensory input, wouldn't we technically not be choosing to do certain things? Wouldn't it just be a chain of chemical reactions?

The chemical signals are how we perform tasks, not why we do them. And sensory input informs our decisions. It doesn't make them for us. If I'm standing on the sidewalk and see a car coming, I can still choose to cross the road. It would be extremely foolish, given the sensory data that I've collected, but I can still choose to make a foolish decision.

 

[KrazyGlue]

The chemical signals are how we perform tasks, not why we do them. And sensory input informs our decisions. It doesn't make them for us. If I'm standing on the sidewalk and see a car coming, I can still choose to cross the road. It would be extremely foolish, given the sensory data that I've collected, but I can still choose to make a foolish decision.

Well, again, we don't really know how the brain works. You can't say for sure that our brain doesn't make decisions due to certain signals it receives from neurotransmitters. One could certainly argue that every decision we make is made solely due to the amounts of different neurotransmitters relaying different signals.

Also, (and I realize this is going a bit into the field of semantics) do you consider someone's brain to be the same as the person? If not, then due to the fact that the brain controls all of our decisions, wouldn't we not be making any choices out of free will?

 

[aeghrur]

This. Free will is doing what you want. If you have a primal urge to do something, and you go with that urge, it's still free will, as you are doing what you want to do, regardless of whether or not you have preexisting urges that influence your actions.

But it is NOT what YOU want to do, but rather what the environment around you and the people you've met has caused you to do. For example, take a murderer. Did he choose to become a murderer? I would say no. It would probably be because of his life, certain aspects of it pushed him down that road. Sure, he had the option of not becoming a murderer, but all regards, that was a false option due to the experiences he had to bear. He could no longer see the other path. In the end, because of things that pushed him toward that path, he had no choice but to become a murderer.

I think much of our personality is influenced by conditioning, which I guess breaks down to memory. I think conditioning can account for many of our fears, desires, etc. If someone gets sick after eating a certain food, they may not have any desire to eat that food ever again. Conversely, if someone eats a certain food and it tastes good, they will probably eat it again because they enjoy the sensation brought about by eating that food.

To go further into that, someone might think a certain food tastes good for many reasons based upon the environment they grow up in and the people they live with. For example, if someone lives in China, then they would have a different idea of what type of food tastes good compared to someone in America. They might also think X food is good because people told them to, and thus, like Placebo, their brain makes them like the food. =/

 

[Jam Stunna]

Well, again, we don't really know how the brain works. You can't say for sure that our brain doesn't make decisions due to certain signals it receives from neurotransmitters. One could certainly argue that every decision we make is made solely due to the amounts of different neurotransmitters relaying different signals.

Also, (and I realize this is going a bit into the field of semantics) do you consider someone's brain to be the same as the person? If not, then due to the fact that the brain controls all of our decisions, wouldn't we not be making any choices out of free will?

You're right, we don't know how the brain works for sure. But if I can't assume that the brain functions a certain way, then neither can you, and then we really don't have a discussion anymore. So for the sake of argument, I suggest that we treat each other's ideas about how the brain works as equally valid until proven otherwise.

As to your second point, I do think the brain and the person are the same thing. Liver, kidneys, lungs, even hearts can be replaced. But if the brain dies, there's no more person. Whatever it is that makes us who we are is contained in there, so I don't think you can separate the physical brain from the more metaphysical person.

But it is NOT what YOU want to do, but rather what the environment around you and the people you've met has caused you to do. For example, take a murderer. Did he choose to become a murderer? I would say no. It would probably be because of his life, certain aspects of it pushed him down that road. Sure, he had the option of not becoming a murderer, but all regards, that was a false option due to the experiences he had to bear. He could no longer see the other path. In the end, because of things that pushed him toward that path, he had no choice but to become a murderer.

This takes the argument of environmental factors way too far. So would you say that this person doesn't deserve jail time because it wasn't really his fault in the end?

 

[KrazyGlue]

You're right, we don't know how the brain works for sure. But if I can't assume that the brain functions a certain way, then neither can you, and then we really don't have a discussion anymore. So for the sake of argument, I suggest that we treat each other's ideas about how the brain works as equally valid until proven otherwise.

Ok, well in that case I would argue that your decision to cross the road when the car was coming was caused by different levels of signals from neurotransmitters. Personally, I believe all decisions are made as a result of chemical reactions.

As to your second point, I do think the brain and the person are the same thing. Liver, kidneys, lungs, even hearts can be replaced. But if the brain dies, there's no more person. Whatever it is that makes us who we are is contained in there, so I don't think you can separate the physical brain from the more metaphysical person.

Ok

 

[aeghrur]

This takes the argument of environmental factors way too far. So would you say that this person doesn't deserve jail time because it wasn't really his fault in the end?

Lol, you're right. But it can be true and it's fun anyhow.
And that's not for me to answer, ask a philosopher.

 

[Overload]

We only know what we want because of these underlying urges and our environment. I don't think we would want much if it were not for these things, besides food, water, and to live.

 

[KrazyGlue]

We only know what we want because of these underlying urges and our environment. I don't think we would want much if it were not for these things, besides food, water, and to live.

But these "underlying urges" come as a result of sensory input and chemical reactions, not just some random occurrence. It's a very controlled system.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Clarification please?

I'm sorry, I don't have very good English. I mean, is Free will an ability? Nvm.

And even though we have these external influences to do such an act, we also have a conscience which in most cases looks out to see what is the most beneficial to the person.

 

[RDK]

The problem I see with your arguments, RDK, it that you seem to be presuming that people will make rational decisions. Environmental and internal pressures may push us in a certain direction, but we don't have to respond the "right" way to them.

Besides, I don't see how determinism conflicts with free will in the first place. Having a personality that leads me to like vanilla over chocolate doesn't mean that I still don't have to choose vanilla when confronted with a choice.

But you have to ultimately ask yourself why you are choosing vanilla over chocolate.

It is merely a battling of many different desires, or “wants” inside the brain. If one desire is stronger, it wins out. And these desires are in part reactions to the environment.

Let’s use a simple analogy. I tie up my dog Rex in the yard outside to a leash. A lady dog happens to walk by, and Rex gets a whiff of her; she just so happens to be in heat. This brings about certain extremely intense desires in Rex that he will try extremely hard to satisfy. Rex rushed towards the source of the smell, but is unfortunately thwarted by the leash he is tied to. Poor Rex.

Obviously this demonstrates that some sort of will is in effect - but is it “free” will? How do humans have anything that transcends Rex’s dog-like yearnings?

We have intense yearnings too (whether sexual or in some other area of life), and when they are satisfied we achieve happiness. When they are not satisfied, we are forlorn, like Rex in the above example.

Again - what on earth does “free” will mean? What does it mean for your will to be free? The idea that our will is some sort of detached entity free from bias and experiences is non-scientific and borders on the mythical.

In reality, free will is simply a way of speaking that we have adopted because it is useful for us to do so. It doesn’t follow that we actually have some sort of “free” will (which as of yet still requires a coherent defintion). Rather, it seems that we are pre-disposed to certain types of habits and behaviors that emerge from the interaction of the environment in which we live. Organism + Experience = predisposition to act. A prime example is personality types. No doubt you can guess how certain friends of yours are going to act before the actual event, knowingly saying to others: “Oh, that’s just Phil,” or “Well, that’s Bob for you!”. We identify with others via personality. Without that, I'd be hard-pressed to recognize people as being unique entities.

In my opinion, it is the minutiae that counts - recognizable habits and patterns in people's behavior, not some sort of ghostly soul-like "mind" that resides deep in everyone's brain.

 

[Jam Stunna]

Again - what on earth does “free” will mean? What does it mean for your will to be free? The idea that our will is some sort of detached entity free from bias and experiences is non-scientific and borders on the mythical.

In reality, free will is simply a way of speaking that we have adopted because it is useful for us to do so. It doesn’t follow that we actually have some sort of “free” will (which as of yet still requires a coherent defintion). Rather, it seems that we are pre-disposed to certain types of habits and behaviors that emerge from the interaction of the environment in which we live. Organism + Experience = predisposition to act. A prime example is personality types. No doubt you can guess how certain friends of yours are going to act before the actual event, knowingly saying to others: “Oh, that’s just Phil,” or “Well, that’s Bob for you!”. We identify with others via personality. Without that, I'd be hard-pressed to recognize people as being unique entities.

In my opinion, it is the minutiae that counts - recognizable habits and patterns in people's behavior, not some sort of ghostly soul-like "mind" that resides deep in everyone's brain.

I don't disagree with you, but I still don't see why our choices need to be devoid of influence in order to be free. Free will, to me, means that our choices are not coerced or pre-determined. They can be influenced, biased or informed by anything, but so long as the choice itself still exists, then you have free will.

 

[GoldShadow]

Determinism (and by corollary, lack of free will) is an appealing philosophy.

That everything we do, every choice we make, is the result of any near-infinite number of factors.

The chemical signals are how we perform tasks, not why we do them. And sensory input informs our decisions. It doesn't make them for us. If I'm standing on the sidewalk and see a car coming, I can still choose to cross the road. It would be extremely foolish, given the sensory data that I've collected, but I can still choose to make a foolish decision.

Right, but that does not entail free will. The choice that you make is the result of all your experiences that have come before. If a person makes a foolish choice, it is the result of everything that has happened to them before, all of which was out of their control.

It's sort of an infinitely complex butterfly effect. Imagine you could mathematically map out the behavior of every single atom, every single particle in the universe.

Atom X was positioned in such and such a manner within dust cloud "A" that formed as a result of the Big Bang and was surrounded by a million other atoms (also in those positions as a result of the Big Bang) that it settled into position "B"... and as a result of the positioning of all the atoms, gravity acted in manner "C" that pulled all the atoms and molecules into the Earth, and atom "X" ended up in position "D" in the new Earth's mantle. Fast forward a few billion years. Due to the measurable influence of every other particle and force on atom "X", it is now part of molecule "E", a neurotransmitter in the brain of person "F" (keep in mind that every single person, every atom in that person, is all because the Big Bang sent it flying a certain way), and when person "F" was a child, he had an experience that triggered atom "X" to be secreted into a neuronal synapse that shaped one part of one neuron of his brain a certain way, and the shape of this neuron, in combination with the shapes of all the neurons around it (which are also shaped and positioned that way because of a near-infinite number of events leading back to the Big Bang) caused the electrical impulses and neurotransmitters to fire in such a way that one day, upon seeing an oncoming car, did not make his muscles make him move out of the way.

According to this theory (and it is a very elegant, convincing theory) every action is the result of trillions upon trillions of influences. Every quark, every atom, every molecule, every force and as a result, people.

But (and this is the view I take) quantum mechanics brings all that into question. Now I am certainly no physicist, but I believe that quantum theory disproves determinism. Wikipedia has a pretty good page on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Determinism.2C_quantum_mechanics.2C_and_classical_physics

According to quantum theory, the position and velocity of a particle cannot be known simultaneously. This has been mathematically derived and proven numerous times. This is known as the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

This is why quantum mechanics deals with probabilities. The probability of finding an electron in one part of an electron cloud at any given time. The electron is both there and not there at the same time. Same with the Schrodinger's cat thought experiment. A cat is put into a box with a canister of deadly gas that is programmed to open at a random time. The box is closed. Is the cat alive, or is it dead? You don't know when the gas will be released. The cat is both alive and dead at the same time.

According to quantum theory, it is impossible to have exactly one answer. Location or state are determined by probabilities.

So maybe when atom "X" was part of the dust cloud that would become the earth, there was a 1/2 chance that its electron would be in one location and a 1/2 chance it would be in another. Same with all the electrons in all the atoms around it. Based on these random (not determined) fluctuations, the atoms would arrange randomly when collapsed in by gravity. Their positions would all be random. Everything from that point on would also be random. Thus, it would be impossible to determine that "W would have an effect on X and would cause Y." Instead, "W would have 50% chance of having one effect on X and causing Y, but it would also have a 50% chance of having a different effect on X and causing Z instead of Y." So it is impossible to know what the outcome will be based on prior events.

 

[aeghrur]

GoldShadow, you're disproving determinism from a natural science perspective, which is not necessarily the same as determinism from a social science perspective. Do you believe that the same thing that applies to quantum physics applies to human thought and decision making?

 

[AltF4]

GoldShadow:

Yes, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that individual particles do not have definite position or velocity. These can be said to act "randomly", but only within well defined statistical boundaries. Quantum Mechanics says "Stop thinking of particles as little definite balls, but rather clouds spread out over space".

Those "clouds" (probability distribution clouds) of the particles DO act deterministically. So there is still a layer of determinism laid out on top of QM. Just not how you might imagine it. It only seems counter-intuitive if you think of the world as being made up of particles. If you think of it as being made op of clouds, then you're back to plain old determinism.



I think that RDK hit the nail closest to the head when he asked "What is the self?". That's the most interesting question, here. Free Will requires a "self" that is not natural. In order for you to have Free Will, you must have a "mind" or "soul" that is not made of matter and that exists in our spatial universe. Because if you're a materialist (doesn't believe in a mind or soul. Just body) then everything must follow physics, which does not allow for Free Will.

The only possible way to justify Free Will that I can conceive is to suppose that some "mind" that resides in another plane of existence is pulling the strings of your puppet body here on Earth. (Though even this explanation violates the principle of conservation of momentum, energy, mass, and just about everything else too)

 

[Zero Beat]

If this is going to turn into Free Will vs Determinism, then try the following for me:

Define free will in such a way that it is mutually exclusive with determinism, because to me this is like Left vs Wrong. "What the hell? These aren't opposed or even on the same spectrum."

As a conversation, I guess it could get a few pages here and there. But here's my rant on this as a debate:

As a debate, there doesn't seem to be any real value.

Moreover, even if we DID answer the question, would it in any way change the decisions you make every day? Real, useful debates give you something that you can actually act on. An answer to a question where you never knew what to do under some circumstances kept in mind during the debate. A question about the feasibility of blowing up the sun with a really big nuke is more useful than free will vs determinism.

If you discover that you have no free will, will you stop acting and making decisions? No. If you discover that causality is somehow flawed, will you stop eating food because there's no reason that should stop you from continuing to live? No. If you discover that what you already assumed true actually is true, that both you are a thinking being with the ability to make decisions and act on them and that those decisions that you make have consequences that cannot be avoided, well, you haven't gone anywhere. In the matrix of "What do I do about this" every box says "Nothing." It's the epitome of a useless debate! But, that was just a horrible rant and I do apologize because we kinda need activity in the DH and now I'm feeling a little dumb.

 

[cF=)]

If this is going to turn into Free Will vs Determinism, then try the following for me:

Define free will in such a way that it is mutually exclusive with determinism, because to me this is like Left vs Wrong. "What the hell? These aren't opposed or even on the same spectrum."

To me, this debate looks more like existentialism vs determinism. Every second I live, I feel like I have the choice to do whatever I want inside my own liberty. The world is meaningless at first sight to existentialists, each individual has to create his own meaning of life. However, am I really myself before encountering the world (existence preceding essence), or am I simply an observer inside a universe guiding my path through life? Existentialists claim that one can change their values at any given time, but somehow this is contradictory with the fact that a stimuli/action relation exists inside our brain too.

It's just fun to compare what philosophers from the twentieth century came up with and scientists from the same century who built the foundation of a theoretically deterministic universe, though you've already said it and I agree with you, free will or not, it's not gonna change the way I live whatsoever.