The Existence of Free Will

[ballin4life]

No we can't be that sure that they are correct (ever notice how they keep changing?), and we can't be sure that they apply to metaphysical objects like the mind.

I observe free will every time I undertake an action.

 

[KrazyGlue]

(ever notice how they keep changing?)

Causality is a foundational principle of physics and has not changed at all for a very long time.

we can't be sure that they apply to metaphysical objects like the mind.

The whole idea here is there is no such thing as the "mind". It's just your brain. In your head.

See, how could you just discount thousands of years of physical evidence of physics and then just assume there is a "metaphysical mind"? Seems like a double standard.

I observe free will every time I undertake an action.

You think you do. You're essentially saying you prove free will by thinking that it exists.

 

[Deleted member]

Last night I was watching a video on youtube about the existence of 11 dimensions, and it made me think about another way of showing how free will is contradictory.

Imagine that every time you make a choice by free will, you could enter one of 2 timelines. In one timeline you chose the fish sandwich, and in the other one you chose the chicken sandwich (just examples, using only 2 options for the sake of simplification). If you were to ask a determinist which timeline you would end up in, he/she would say either that which one that the person goes into is predetermined, or that which one you go into relies on random chance.

However, if you were to ask an indeterminist which timeline you would end up in, they would say that it depends on what the person decides to go in; that person's free will it was makes the decision. Let's say that the person chooses the fish sandwich, then you ask the indeterminist "could the person have chosen the chicken sandwich?" If they answer no (which an indeterminist wouldn't), then that simply means that only one timeline could have possibly been entered, and free will had nothing to do with it.

If they answer yes, then the followup question needs to be asked "If both sandwiches could have potentially been picked, then what made this person pick that sandwich?" The only thing which could make the difference (other than random chance, which is what a determinist might believe) is free will. Which begs the question, "what is it that can make free will pick one thing, and not the other." The only thing which can really influence free will, is that individual's thoughts. However, if the same thoughts are always "entering free will", then "free will" should always be producing the same results (or different results due to random chance), which means that it is not free at all.

So that's why the idea of free will is contradictory. The very act of "deviating from a certain timeline" by your own will must imply that the "input" of thoughts leading up to that decision must have been different. However, the difference of those thoughts can only be a result of random chance or free will, and again if it's an act of free will, that must mean that the thoughts leading up to that act of free will must have been different.

Sorry, this post sounds horrendously patronizing, which it isn't meant to be. It's the best way I can explain it (this is what I've been trying to form into words for 10 or so years, so I'm kinda in a good mood).

 

[Dre89]

Alt, I know it's not truly random, nut you're missing my point.

I'm not arguing that a robot has free will, but in a causal chain, we go back to the robot's AI, so do robot's violate causailty too?

Again, it's just like saying that something needs to cause a fire everytime it burns an object, which isn't the case.

The will is the self, or conciousness distinct from our thoughts. The burden of proof is on me to prove that such a self exists distinct from our thoughts.

 

[AltF4]

Causality is measured at the level of fundamental particle interaction, Dre. You're trying to confuse the matter with clever word play. You don't measure a causal chain by high level objects like fires, wood, or robots. (We may say sometimes use these objects as a simple shorthand, though)

Otherwise a car would violate causality. If you consider a car to be a single object, and observe it making turns, what is causing the car to turn? The car itself? Absurd. Both the question and answer. Completely missing the point.

Think of the world in terms of a series of particle interactions. Like a massive game of billiards. Causality just says that behind the scenes, there is a series of laws governing how those particles interact. They do not move according to whim and superstition. They do not move for no reason at all.

How does Free Will it into this scenario? In what way can some ill-defined concept of the 'self' just magically impose itself upon the world?

 

[ballin4life]

Causality is a foundational principle of physics and has not changed at all for a very long time.



The whole idea here is there is no such thing as the "mind". It's just your brain. In your head.

See, how could you just discount thousands of years of physical evidence of physics and then just assume there is a "metaphysical mind"? Seems like a double standard.



You think you do. You're essentially saying you prove free will by thinking that it exists.

What I am saying is that the so called "laws" of physics change because they are based on observation and induction. They are NOT proven, and they are NOT necessarily true. Thousands of years of physical evidence may have told us that things fall when they are unsupported, but all it takes is one new case (a helium balloon) to show that that is not true.

The mere fact that causality has been observed in some cases does not mean that it will hold in all cases, particularly with regard to humans. You might say "well we would be able to perfectly predict what humans can do if we knew all the variables", but again you don't know this for sure. There are even fields in physics that reject this sort of determinism - quantum mechanics. And surely we can see that scientists are not in general able to predict human behavior.

The mind is consciousness. Do you deny that you are conscious?

Descartes gives two arguments for distinguishing the mind from the body:

1) You can imagine a body without a mind, or a mind without a body (note that I am NOT saying that this is physically possible, but the mere fact that we can imagine it shows that the mind and the body are distinct.)

2) The body, and likewise physical objects, are divisible, whereas consciousness is not divisible. This is meant to show that the mind is nonphysical.

Overall though, the mind may indeed be a product of the body, but I at least cannot deny my own consciousness.

Now some dualists are still determinists in the sense that your mind just thinks that it is influencing the physical world. I think that that is possible, but can never be proven. And overall, I think that the mind controlling the body lines up better with my observations.

puu, it seems that you are saying that humans simply have a preferences function that maps from situations to choices (ie my preference function states that I will choose the chicken sandwich over the tuna sandwich). This might be a definitional issue, but does this not constitute free will? It's just semantics to say "well if I knew all your preferences then I would know what you are going to do in every situation". Yes, if you know all the choices I would make, then you could predict what I am going to do in any given situation.

 

[KrazyGlue]

What I am saying is that the so called "laws" of physics change because they are based on observation and induction. They are NOT proven, and they are NOT necessarily true.

They're about as close to being proven as we can possibly get. We also haven't proven whether anything actually exists, have we? Perhaps humans don't exist, which would make this debate pointless. But for the sake of debating, we generally accept things that are so unfathomably close to being proven.

Thousands of years of physical evidence may have told us that things fall when they are unsupported, but all it takes is one new case (a helium balloon) to show that that is not true.

What law of physics does a helium balloon defy? Please do not say gravity, because gravity does effect helium balloons. Gravity is mass times acceleration, and helium has VERY little mass, making gravity's pull very weak on it, enough so that the other forces acting upon it cause it to rise.

The mere fact that causality has been observed in some cases does not mean that it will hold in all cases, particularly with regard to humans. You might say "well we would be able to perfectly predict what humans can do if we knew all the variables", but again you don't know this for sure. There are even fields in physics that reject this sort of determinism - quantum mechanics. And surely we can see that scientists are not in general able to predict human behavior.

Again, causality is as close as anything can ever get to being proven. If causality was found to be not true for humans, our entire perception of reality and everything that has ever happened would be dynamically effected.

The mind is consciousness. Do you deny that you are conscious?

Consciousness simply means that your brain is active. Emotions, thoughts, and perceptions are all results of various nerves and hormones sending and receiving signals from your brain.

1) You can imagine a body without a mind, or a mind without a body (note that I am NOT saying that this is physically possible, but the mere fact that we can imagine it shows that the mind and the body are distinct.)

Actually, I really can't imagine the second one (mind w/o body). The first one (body w/o mind) is easy, because deceased people fall under that category.

2) The body, and likewise physical objects, are divisible, whereas consciousness is not divisible. This is meant to show that the mind is nonphysical.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you mean by divisible. Explain please?

Overall though, the mind may indeed be a product of the body, but I at least cannot deny my own consciousness.

Again, it's merely brain function.

 

[ballin4life]

They're about as close to being proven as we can possibly get. We also haven't proven whether anything actually exists, have we? Perhaps humans don't exist, which would make this debate pointless. But for the sake of debating, we generally accept things that are so unfathomably close to being proven.

What law of physics does a helium balloon defy? Please do not say gravity, because gravity does effect helium balloons. Gravity is mass times acceleration, and helium has VERY little mass, making gravity's pull very weak on it, enough so that the other forces acting upon it cause it to rise.

This is completely missing the point. I'm just giving an example of how our laws of physics change as new observations are accounted for. If someone discovered a perpetual motion machine tomorrow we would have to rethink our laws of physics. This is what I mean when I say that they aren't proven.

The laws of physics are based on observations - and my rationale for free will is also based on observations. I don't think it is proven that free will exists, but I think that free will is the best explanation for the control I seem to have over the actions of my body and mind.

Again, causality is as close as anything can ever get to being proven. If causality was found to be not true for humans, our entire perception of reality and everything that has ever happened would be dynamically effected.

How so? It seems more like assuming that humans can't cause things to happen would be the thing that drastically alters our perceptions.

Also could you define causality please? Just want to make sure we are on the same page.

Consciousness simply means that your brain is active. Emotions, thoughts, and perceptions are all results of various nerves and hormones sending and receiving signals from your brain.

I don't deny any of this. I'm just giving the definition of the metaphysical mind. The mind is consciousness - the sense of self - the "I" in "I think therefore I am".

Actually, I really can't imagine the second one (mind w/o body). The first one (body w/o mind) is easy, because deceased people fall under that category.

Yes, all this argument is meant to show is that consciousness is distinct from the body. So it appears you accept that.

Also why can't you imagine a mind without a body? I think that sitting in a quiet room and closing your eyes will give some idea of what a mind without a body would be like.

Anyway the ability to think truths like 2+2=4 does not have anything to do with the outside world, including the body. So it is possible to imagine the mind separated from the body.

But that's just food for thought anyway as you have already accepted that the mind is distinct from the body.

I'm sorry, I just don't understand what you mean by divisible. Explain please?

Divisible means that you can divide it into pieces. The body and likewise all physical objects can obviously be divided into pieces. Consciousness cannot be divided - it wouldn't make sense to say "half of your consciousness". You are either conscious or not conscious.

This argument is only meant to show that the mind is a nonphysical entity.

Again, it's merely brain function.

As I said, I don't deny that the mind may be a product of the body (in fact it seems likely). But still the mind is metaphysically distinct from the body.