Free WIll: Illusion or Decision?

[LagMasterSam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

Take a stance!

i'm with Hume and Dennett, i'm compatibilism. It all comes down to how you define both free will.. and Determinism

Definition seems to always be the problem in logical argumentation. I suppose the only way to have a "real" logical argument would be for all parties to come to agreement on all definitions and assumptions prior to the start of the argument.



My ultimate problem with the existence of free will is demonstrated by trying to imagine a system that is neither deterministic nor random...

A deterministic system is not free because it is fully constrained by a set of governing laws.
A random system is not free because every event is arbitrary.

I can not imagine any system that is "free" from both determinism and randomness. That is why I don't accept free will.

 

[SouthPaw]

Definition seems to always be the problem in logical argumentation. I suppose the only way to have a "real" logical argument would be for all parties to come to agreement on all definitions and assumptions prior to the start of the argument.



My ultimate problem with the existence of free will is demonstrated by trying to imagine a system that is neither deterministic nor random...

A deterministic system is not free because it is fully constrained by a set of governing laws.
A random system is not free because every event is arbitrary.

I can not imagine any system that is "free" from both determinism and randomness. That is why I don't accept free will.

would you define your definition of free will then?. I don't agree with impossibility of "free" will in either scenario. But our choices themselves can be proven to be outcomes of variables, and therefore deterministic, yet.. you are free to choose between 2 or more actions when presented with a choice, independant of any other minds for the most part...

you have a free choice of presenting an counter-argument to this if you so choose, and you DO choose if you read this.

that choice is yours to make, freely, i would argue. But you still have deterministic variables i don't know the state of, like = do i care to and do i want to.... and those 2 can be split into further variables, which then again split into other variables.. not ad infitum perhaps, but still. there'd be a lot =)

 

[IrBubble]

that choice is yours to make, freely, i would argue. But you still have deterministic variables i don't know the state of, like = do i care to and do i want to.... and those 2 can be split into further variables, which then again split into other variables.. not ad infitum perhaps, but still. there'd be a lot =)

Well, the number of variables do not change the deterministic nature of the result (in this case, the choice). No matter how many variables you present, the result is invariably deterministic as long as the variables are deterministic(Darwin that sentence sucked).

 

[Witalian]

If you're thinking of "free will" as the libertarian concept of free will, then ofc that's unfounded to believe in. But what i call free will, is to have multiple choices avalible to you, before decisions. And being able to choose from them uninfluenced by another mind. where the compatibilism comes in, is that even if that definition i just stated, is true, it is compatible with the causal relationship of determinism.

Your definition of free will is weak. Haveing multiple options does not define will.
According to Nietzsche will is any internaly motivated action. I think that the only actions that can be internaly motivated are those motivated by instincts, and can not qualify as free will.
You can shurely make a choice without direct influence by other mind, but you can't make choice without influence by memes that you have addopted from other minds. Unles you make a choice without any criteria, then that will be choice free of infuence. So free will exsts only in the form of random choisce(and a case can be made that even that is dederministic)

 

[Witalian]

A random system is not free because every event is arbitrary.

A random system is free exactly because every event is arbitrary. The fact that such kind of system is not apealing is irrelevant. The problem is that the concept of free will includes the word "free" wich is loaded with positive meaning, while the reality of free will means makeing random choices wich is not at all that positive.
That's why most people deffend the idea of free will, because they want it to be true, because they associate it with the positive concept of freedom.

 

[Witalian]

you have a free choice of presenting an counter-argument to this if you so choose, and you DO choose if you read this.

that choice is yours to make, freely, i would argue.

I can agree with that, but I would that say that you will make those choices based on your belifes and prefferences. Prefferences are
concepts that are apealing to you because they are reinforcing some of your belifes to wich you have an emotional connection to some degree. So your choice is entirely guided by your belifes. Other variables are the current chemical enviorment of your brain(your emotional state) and maybe neccessety.

It is I who is makeing the choice, but what am I? I am the sum of my established memes. I have changed my belifes several times, but most times it have not been the case of me thinking abouth them and finding them inconsistent, although there have been such cases. Most oftenly I would drop a particular belife when I am introduced to a better belif. This is a clear case of memetic predation. Even if I drop an old belife because of criticaly analiseing it, it is still a memetic predation, only in that case I am the author of the new predator meme.
But nobody is the author of all of their memes. If that is the case the person will have a totaly unique paradigm, and it will imposible for him to comunicate with others.

I have no problem with the idea that I am the sum of my memes, because that gives me a reason to throw any bad meme that I can detect in my personality and replace it with better, and thus evolve as an intelectual entity, not just as a biological.
I look on it In the same way that i look the fact that I am the sum of my cells as a biological entety. The cells can be raplaced but the whole structure is preserved.

 

[SatanicBunny]

So your choice is entirely guided by your belifes.

True. However as others have pointed out it is impossible for an individual to act in such manner that he doesn't take advantage of his previous experiences. Like you said, we make decissions based on the knowledge/beliefs we have, and we gather knowledge and beliefs trough experiences. Hence, defining free will as "not basing one's actions on previous experiences" is pointless because it leaves no room for debate.

The important thing, however, is that we at least have the illusion of free will. Each time we have to make a choice we at least feel that it is possible to pick any of the existing options. That makes it possible for me to weigh - in my head - the consequences of each choice and thus better understand why I ended up choosing the option I did.

Neo: But if you already know, how can I make a choice?
The Oracle: Because you didn't come here to make the choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to understand *why* you made it. I thought you'd have figured that out by now.

Proving wether or not free will actually exists is basically impossible because it's so much dependent on the definition of free will and the problems of actually testing it. However, in the end the illusion of free will matters much more than whether or not it actually exists, because making and understanding choices - regardless of whether or not they are "real" choices or fixed ones - is what allows us to grow as human beings. Like Witalian said:

I have no problem with the idea that I am the sum of my memes, because that gives me a reason to throw any bad meme that I can detect in my personality and replace it with better, and thus evolve as an intelectual entity, not just as a biological.

Summa summarum: We feel as if we're free, and that's what matters.

 

[Skepticus]

Firstly I must say what a wonderful topic this is. Reading the thread has been an exercise in suspense, like 'who shot freewill and will it live'. I like what a number of people have said, and I shall attempt to put my own spin on the subject into the pot.

I think this sums up the status quo in the debate quite nicely:

My ultimate problem with the existence of free will is demonstrated by trying to imagine a system that is neither deterministic nor random...

A deterministic system is not free because it is fully constrained by a set of governing laws.
A random system is not free because every event is arbitrary.

People seem mostly divided along these lines of determinism vs randomness for a working definition of 'freewill'. To the extent that our choices are determined without regard to any ability we might have to influence them those choices are not really 'FREE', where as the unrestrained liberty of arbitrary choice tacitly imputes randomness that is hard to reconcile with 'WILL'. I suppose it could be suggested that 'FREE-WILL' is something of an oxymoron. 'Free' is a-causal, whereas 'will' is a deterministic causal agent which compromises (or contradicts) the free. As rational agents we see our conscious choices as being non-random and deliberate with respect to a mind which we just FEEL that we are in control of and that control doesn't seem ether mechanistic in the sense of uber-determinism, nor does it seem disheveled by indeterministic or a-causal randomness. Most of us either accept freewill as functional concept or a convincing illusion. Few would absolve it completely and claim we are and also appear to be automaton. I also feel that our need to reconcile freewill, ties into many of our popular understandings of personality and even that other contentious concept the 'soul'. Suffice is to say, without free will or at least the convincing illusion of freewill, it is hard to satisfy ourselves that we are individuals with intelligent (but non fatalistic) control over our own lives. Planed (and controlled) destiny without strict determinism, but also liberty and choice without unbridled randomness.

It may seem like we want to have our cake and eat it too, but then again, perhaps it isn't so bad. Consider the trade off LagMasterSam presented for us. Do we have to take these extremes as a mutually incompatible dichotomy? I mean, do we have to accept either complete randomness or complete determinism. Well the case for the real world has been well pointed out by others here. There are random variables which run the gamut from unforeseeable, macroscopic events in our lives which may have dramatic impact, right down to multitudes of tiny variables which even if we could in principal influence, in practice they are well below the radar of our conscious awareness. So yes there is randomness and we have to accept the world contains phenomena outside our 'circle of influence' as the personal self-improvement people would say. On the other hand when we exercise control over whatever we can influence, we are ceding somewhat to determinism. Even if it were true that freewill was a proven concrete idea, our choices must still be restrained by determinism, in the inevitability of our history and that much of our world is predictable and causal in the strictest sense. Even if I do have 'real' freewill, it doesn't mean I can choose to sprout wings and fly to the moon does it? So the conclusion we must draw ipso facto, is that both determinism and randomness are in fact components of our choice making mechanism, whether we call it freewill or not. The extremes in the dichotomy are not mutually exclusive, even if they are trade-offs of each other.

I would like to suggest another way of looking at this problem. Instead of looking for a system which is neither deterministic or random, we should instead look for a system which actually does reconcile the two qualities. That is the pragmatic approach as we already know that the in real world the system we see, assumes these qualities are present. So compromise it is, and viewing them as mutually inconsistent is actually incorrect. On the contrary, we could (even should) view them as compatible and necessary compliments of each other. By this view randomness vs determinism is a false dichotomy, it requires that both be not only allowed but must be present in any system exhibiting freewill. Why? Well think about it. The only reason that either of these qualities appears to be antithetical to freewill, is that we are looking at the reductio ad absurdum of each one in isolation. A system of complete determinism is not the best way to admit 'freewill' because it cuts off the 'free' bit; whereas the totally random system of choice is hardly the best either, because it disposes with the 'will' part. If however we wish to escape the freedom-less constraints of strict determinism some randomness will come in handy. Likewise if we wish to evade the reasonless abyss of randomness, then admitting some controlled causality will give us the 'will' we feel such a need to exercise. I agree with Dennet that freewill is an emergent property. I believe it emerges from the union of these two properties which constrain (and actually alleviate) each other. I haven't read any of Dennet's books but I really should, I do like his various Atheist discussions in video around the net.

By this view (let's call it the complementarity hypothesis of freewill), both components (randomness and determanism) are required to temper the other and what we should call 'freewill' is the non-exclusive interface between them. This is not by any means, the only place in nature where the interface between randomness and determinism produces interesting results. It is in fact, not getting ones hopes up to high, to even consider the outcome of such a union, to be not just greater than the sum of it's parts, but infinitely complex, with behaviors or qualities that are quite astoundingly both arbitrary and ordered. The kind of system I am talking about has been defined for quite a while now and is represented by both pure mathematical models and many natural examples. The field of mathematics is chaos theory and deals with complex system dynamics such as turbulence in fluid dynamics, as well as the weather system and other chaotic but partly deterministic systems. In pure mathematical theory, the field has produced astoundingly (indeed infinitely) intricate works of complex patterns, which are nevertheless the result of small finite calculations being repeated and used to plot points on a kind of graph which somehow represents dimensions with other than whole numbers.

I really don't understand this completely and may not be doing it much justice, but the basis as I understand it, is to draw a shape in a model of space, which is comprised of fractional dimensions. The mathematical expression used to plot each point is a differential equation, which when itterated to plot points in this fract[ion]al space result in an astonishing shape/pattern called a fractal. The most famous fractal is the Mandelbrot set, and it is truly an amazing thing. It is hypothetically possible to calculate the details of its border to any arbitrary degree of precision, but it never gets simpler only more and more complex. How accurately you calculate it comes down to how much computing power you have or wish to use. The border is theoretically an infinite length as the more convolutions the longer the line making the border must be, but the convolutions are theoretically infinite. That means the shape bounds a finite area with an infinite border.



The philosophical outcome of this idea, is that complex and truly arbitrary behavior, is exhibited by fixed finite systems. The Mandelbrot set, is not actually an example of a random chaotic system, but it does demonstrate emergent complexity. Other systems are subject to similar concepts such as the butterfly effect, which accounts for the potential scaling effects of all those minute variables. Likewise the so called 'strange attractors' exhibit natural analogues, wherein boundless complexity of behavior is exhibited by the system, which is neither completely deterministic nor completely random. It doesn't stretch the imagination quite so far from here, to understand why freewill seems to exist and without abolishing either random constraints or deterministic ones. The only question that then remains, is whether or not to consider it an illusion or a natural fact. Hmmm... Does it really matter? A concept such as freewill is a matter of information and ideas rather than matter and energy. How tangible does it have to be? Defining it as the codependent interface between random and deterministic thought processes, makes it a meaningful idea and noting it is an emergent property of these things, makes it as real as they are, providing it can be shown that anything appears to emerge from them. Again ipso facto we do appear to have freewill, as well as a mathematical under pining of complex dynamics to account for it. It may still be an illusion, and we could just assume it doesn't really exist but I think we have more reason to assume it does, than to assume it doesn't. We could also decide that it's just a concept that it doesn't depend on tangible evidence, but only an agreed meaningful definition. By that view, it's too late to say freewill doesn't exist, somebody has already conceived and defined it.

 

[mealstrom]

I've noticed a common theme in the replies that free will is an illusion if we aren't capable of choosing ANY option at ANY time. There are very few naturalistic concepts that are all or nothing - free will being one of those. The very fact that we can even conceptualize the idea of 'free will', and that we have the ability to question it leads me very strongly to believe it exists. (And I know that there are plenty of things we can conceptualize without actually being able to do, flying for instance.)

Free will is an obvious ability we possess. Being able to choose any option at any time is NOT. It's important to distinguish between the two ideas. For all intents and purposes we live in a closed system. Because of this we are subject to the influences of that system. But we have the ability to choose between all the available options open to us. The very fact that we are able to choose between two options shows the exercise of free will.

Just because we can't give ourselves every possible option doesn't mean free will doesn't exist. Free will doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the external forces being applied to us as free will is an internal mechanism. Just because our choices are limited doesn't take away from the fact that we do indeed make choices. We may not always be able to control which options are open to us, but of the options we have open we are always able to choose from those options.

 

[ladiesman391]

Free will is an obvious ability we possess. Being able to choose any option at any time is NOT. It's important to distinguish between the two ideas. For all intents and purposes we live in a closed system. Because of this we are subject to the influences of that system. But we have the ability to choose between all the available options open to us. The very fact that we are able to choose between two options shows the exercise of free will.

I agree with you but how much does that "closed system" affect our choice, do we actually have a choice at all or are we completely constricted by a "closed system"?

Do we make a choice when we "choose" what shoes to buy or are we affected by our life experiences and extenuating circumstances that results in the only decision possible being the decision to buy those exact pair of shoes, or do we make fresh brand new decisions each time we buy shoes regardless of our life experience or extenuating circumstances? Would we buy the same pair of shoes even if we had different life experience and different extenuating circumstances, do we actually have a "choice" or is our internal mechanism controlled by our life experience and extenuating circumstances and we don't even realise it?

When we approach the shoe store has it already been determined which pair of shoes we will buy?

I guess the next question would be can you prove it?

 

[mealstrom]

I agree with you but how much does that "closed system" affect our choice, do we actually have a choice at all or are we completely constricted by a "closed system"?

In truth the fact that we're in a closed system really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we have free will, just the types of options we have to choose from. When it comes down to it even if we have no choices, we still have free will. Much like if we were restrained to a bed out ability to walk is still there, the choice just isn't open to us at the moment.

The ability (or lack thereof) to exercise a skill or ability doesn't mean that ability doesn't exist. If Michelangelo had never touched a paintbrush it wouldn't have meant that he didn't have artistic ability, just that he'd never had the opportunity to exercise it.

 

[ladiesman391]

In truth the fact that we're in a closed system really doesn't have anything to do with whether or not we have free will, just the types of options we have to choose from. When it comes down to it even if we have no choices, we still have free will. Much like if we were restrained to a bed out ability to walk is still there, the choice just isn't open to us at the moment.

The ability (or lack thereof) to exercise a skill or ability doesn't mean that ability doesn't exist. If Michelangelo had never touched a paintbrush it wouldn't have meant that he didn't have artistic ability, just that he'd never had the opportunity to exercise it.

I understand what you're are saying but I don't think you understand my post... Are the "types of options" we have really "options", do we really have a "choice" or is it just an illusion?

For example you have the "choice" to choose 1 ball from 100 numbered balls, and let's say you pick ball number 10, now if you could go back in time and have the "choice" again would you still pick the same ball, do you have a "choice"? Is it predetermined that you will pick ball number 10 at that specific point in time and that all the other balls, or "choices", are not really "choices" but are just an illusion of "choice", are the other numbered balls just there to make up the numbers, or do you really have a free will to pick a different ball besides ball number 10 at that specific point in time?

If you do have "free will" or if it is predetermined how could you prove it either way?

 

[mealstrom]

I think that's a very interesting idea, and without having spent the evening thinking it through (I always screw myself like that :lol: ), here's what I think:

Free will is an internal mechanism, but it IS capable of being formed and shaped by external mechanisms. So using the example of lottery numbers we'd have to consider what makes someone choose those numbers, and what would cause them to change. Let's say someone chooses the same numbers every time - birthdays and anniversaries. If you could go back and start their life over here's what (I think) you'd have:

If any external force changed a birthday or anniversary, then they'd likely pick different numbers. This actually supports your idea since that would imply that free will is simply a result of external chances. But what if someone got a hunch and decided to change their numbers? In that case free will would trump external forces. Most people retain the ability to change their mind, even if they choose not to exercise it.

For something to change an internal force like hunches, ideas, or will you have to have a pretty strong external force. Since I can't believe that there are supernatural beings laying out a predetermined path for all of us, I'm forced to believe that external stimuli is the primary (and maybe sole) force acting on free will. And external stimuli can always be overcome if the internal mechanisms are strong enough. For me this means that free will has to exist, or anyone with the same stimuli and history would follow the same path.

I guess the closest we could get to finding out would be to clone an individual multiple times, provide them all with the EXACT same experiences in life, and see if they would ultimately make all the same decisions.

I'm very interested in the medical conditions where people lose the ability to make choices. (I looked for the name but couldn't find it. Stumbled Upon it once.) It's fascinating to me when someone loses their ability to exercise free will and is completely unable to make choices of any sort.

 

[MillionSword]

I answer this topic question with another question: does it matter?

Personally I think it is a decision, but if you were to do a little thought experiment like "If I decide to raise my hand in the air, was I always going to do that?" you'll quickly find that it's meaningless, because there's only one path of time and I believe that there are only four dimensions. And to be honest I wouldn't even care if I did learn that free will is an illusion, since it makes no difference.

 

[mealstrom]

I think it becomes a really interesting topic when you consider the quantum theory of multiple universes. I've always been thrilled by the idea that every decision we could make ends up splitting realities into two separate paths. (I know that's a very simplistic explanation of it, but I'm a few beers and cigars into my posting. :lol

 

[ladiesman391]

I answer this topic question with another question: does it matter?

Personally I think it is a decision, but if you were to do a little thought experiment like "If I decide to raise my hand in the air, was I always going to do that?" you'll quickly find that it's meaningless, because there's only one path of time and I believe that there are only four dimensions. And to be honest I wouldn't even care if I did learn that free will is an illusion, since it makes no difference.

That's exactly right, we couldn't prove it either way even if we wanted to, illusion is enough.