Free will

[Leçi]

How free is free will?
For example: if you had all the knowledge of everything that could influence the behaviour of a guy, his education, the complete history of him, his complete environment. You have complete knowledge of how everything behaved and will behave, then that guy has to make a decision, what are the chances of you correctly predicting his choice?

 

[Balstrome]

50/50 Either you will predict correctly or incorrectly. Just the same as if you knew nothing about him. Your knowledge on him will have no effect on his decision to do a thing or not.

 

[Commander Eagle]

Ultimately, it comes down to quantum probabilities, I think. So it depends on how many quantum states are possible for the next stage of the system, and how many of those stages end up in him making one choice versus the other choice, and how likely each of the states is.

 

[Leçi]

So it's not like "ideas are just energy in the brain and therefor you can accurately predict what he will think or decide if you had absolute knowledge of everything that influences him." which makes free will not that free at all.

 

[Balstrome]

You can have all the knowledge of why he really like cake and still be wrong when he free wills a bite of apple.

 

[Aught3]

Every step in a system can be deterministic without the result being fully or even partially predictable. When ever we have discussions about free will I often have to start by pointing out that determinism does not imply pre-determinism or pre-destination.

 

[RichardMNixon]

We have another thread about this somewhere but I can never make the search function work.

50/50 Either you will predict correctly or incorrectly. Just the same as if you knew nothing about him. Your knowledge on him will have no effect on his decision to do a thing or not.

There's no reason to assume all choices are equally likely, which makes it not 50/50.

The issue is one of determinism. We can use physics to predict how an electron moves through a field. We can predict it damn near perfectly if we have enough information. If we have information about the electrons and field in your brain, can we perfectly predict how they move and thus perfectly predict how you think? If we can, do you really have a choice in how you think?

In a purely academic sense, it is a confounding issue. In a practical sense, it's gibberish and not really anything of significant consequence.

Every step in a system can be deterministic without the result being fully or even partially predictable.

Can you give an example?

 

[borrofburi]

Free will does not exist... Sort of. If something is free, then it was not willed. If something was willed then it was the result of that person who is the summation of genetics and experiences, and thus it was not "free".

Yet it does exist in an abstract sense that we do choose vanilla or chocolate, and we have plenty of research that indicates that believing in free will is a very good idea.

 

[Aught3]

Can you give an example?

Partially predictable - weather.
Fully unpredictable (after a certain amount of time) - triple pendulum.
Theoretically with perfect measurements you could do it, but perfect measurements are also impossible.

Yet it does exist in an abstract sense that we do choose vanilla or chocolate, and we have plenty of research that indicates that believing in free will is a very good idea.

Do you mean good idea because it's true or for other reasons?

 

[RichardMNixon]

Theoretically with perfect measurements you could do it, but perfect measurements are also impossible.

Ok, I'll agree to that. Chaotic systems are technically deterministic, but they're so sensitive to variation in input that they practically aren't.

Do you mean good idea because it's true or for other reasons?

Well solipsism never got anyone anywhere. You could sit on a couch all day lamenting that you aren't being lazy because you don't have free will, but that's not a very enjoyable existence.
Not sure what "research" consists of though.

 

[borrofburi]

Yet it does exist in an abstract sense that we do choose vanilla or chocolate, and we have plenty of research that indicates that believing in free will is a very good idea.

Do you mean good idea because it's true or for other reasons?

Other reasons.

But it all really hinges on what "free will" means. When these discussions usually come up, people seem to think "free" part of free will means "not determined by the past", but then that rules out this thing being determined by you (thus eliminating "will"). But if instead we think of "free will" in a more pragmatic sense as the ability of an individual to make a choice (even if that individual is fully determined by genetics and experiences (and thus the past)), then of course we have free will; but then it's a far less interesting question and not the one typically actually being asked.

In my mind the phrase "free will" is itself mostly nonsensical. Either it's defined as an internally contradictory phrase, or it obviously exists.

But research indicates that those who say "free will doesn't exist" can fall into a trap of believing their choices have been pre-determined, and that this leads to bad behaviors. For instance, if I encounter the choice to do my work or play a video game, it may be very easy to think that I'll probably choose the video game; but if I'm a determinist I am extremely likely to simply accept that I was always going to choose playing the video game, that my playing the video game proves that fact true, and to not even bother trying to fight the urge. Believing in determinism removes a lot of the internal resistance to paths that are prone to hyperbolic discounting.

 

[Aught3]

Well solipsism never got anyone anywhere. You could sit on a couch all day lamenting that you aren't being lazy because you don't have free will, but that's not a very enjoyable existence.

I don't think that's what solipsism means but I understand what you are getting at. I remember first learning about determinism, I thought it sounded pretty dangerous, but once you get over the initial shock and start to rethink the way you think about yourself and others it's actually a pretty good outlook.

But it all really hinges on what "free will" means. When these discussions usually come up, people seem to think "free" part of free will means "not determined by the past", but then that rules out this thing being determined by you (thus eliminating "will"). But if instead we think of "free will" in a more pragmatic sense as the ability of an individual to make a choice (even if that individual is fully determined by genetics and experiences (and thus the past)), then of course we have free will; but then it's a far less interesting question and not the one typically actually being asked.

In my mind the phrase "free will" is itself mostly nonsensical. Either it's defined as an internally contradictory phrase, or it obviously exists.

I pretty much agree with this. Even on a deterministic stand-point I think it can still be correct to talk about choices but I usually don't because it confuses the conversation. As long as the person is giving up the traditional definition of free will then I agree with them.

But research indicates that those who say "free will doesn't exist" can fall into a trap of believing their choices have been pre-determined, and that this leads to bad behaviors. For instance, if I encounter the choice to do my work or play a video game, it may be very easy to think that I'll probably choose the video game; but if I'm a determinist I am extremely likely to simply accept that I was always going to choose playing the video game, that my playing the video game proves that fact true, and to not even bother trying to fight the urge. Believing in determinism removes a lot of the internal resistance to paths that are prone to hyperbolic discounting.

Sounds like interesting research, I haven't read any of it though. Not doubting you but I just wanted to re-emphasise the important point I made about determinism not implying pre-determinism. I think it is something that determinism newbs need to understand from the get-go.

 

[devilsadvocate]

There's a paradox how anyone would come about believing in determinism. It's perfectly possible that determinism is true, but if that's the case, there's no choice about believing or not believing it, and in any case the belief won't have any effect on your outcomes. Then, if determinism isn't true, you are by your own free will believing the wrong proposition which can have bad consequences for your free choices and resulting outcomes.

Seems like (rigid) determinism is self-defeating idea, since by believing in free will and there being free will gains you something against believing determinism, but if determinism is true, you aren't losing anything by believing in free will nor gaining anything by believing determinism.

 

[RichardMNixon]

I don't think that's what solipsism means but I understand what you are getting at. I remember first learning about determinism, I thought it sounded pretty dangerous, but once you get over the initial shock and start to rethink the way you think about yourself and others it's actually a pretty good outlook.

No but I think it suffers from the same problem. Maybe you are a brain in a jar, but what good can come of thinking that? It's a dead-end. So is lamenting a lack of free will. While Joe Ennui is sitting around his apartment moping about being unable to choose anything of his own volition, I've chosen to go to an amusement park. I win.

 

[borrofburi]

There's a paradox how anyone would come about believing in determinism. It's perfectly possible that determinism is true, but if that's the case, there's no choice about believing or not believing it, and in any case the belief won't have any effect on your outcomes. Then, if determinism isn't true, you are by your own free will believing the wrong proposition which can have bad consequences for your free choices and resulting outcomes.

Seems like (rigid) determinism is self-defeating idea, since by believing in free will and there being free will gains you something against believing determinism, but if determinism is true, you aren't losing anything by believing in free will nor gaining anything by believing determinism.

This is what defeated me when I was a calvinist... It was actually one of the final blows against there being any intellectual foundation for my religion (because all of my efforts to have "good theology" had lead me to calvinism, so if calvinism died, there wasn't really anywhere else to turn).

I can still remember being parked on the side of a road at like 1am watching a lightning storm, and realizing that since I have the illusion of choice I *must* choose to believe that my choices aren't fully predeteremined because it is never possible to choose to believe "pre-determinism" and be right and it is never possible to choose "not pre-determinism" and be wrong... So then I'm forced to choose to believe things aren't pre-determined; but then I can't be a calvinist anymore... But if I can't be a calvinist I don't think I can be a christian, because I am thoroughly convinced that calvinism is the truest consequence of christian beliefs... Huh...

 

[Aught3]

There's a paradox how anyone would come about believing in determinism. It's perfectly possible that determinism is true, but if that's the case, there's no choice about believing or not believing it, and in any case the belief won't have any effect on your outcomes. Then, if determinism isn't true, you are by your own free will believing the wrong proposition which can have bad consequences for your free choices and resulting outcomes.

Seems like (rigid) determinism is self-defeating idea, since by believing in free will and there being free will gains you something against believing determinism, but if determinism is true, you aren't losing anything by believing in free will nor gaining anything by believing determinism.

That doesn't seem much like a paradox more like a certain wager. But I think what you aren't taking into account is the positive side of accepting determinism and the down side of accepting free will if determinism is true. Just to do one quick example, if determinism is true the justice system needs to be adjusted. Because those who broke the law had no free will choice in their actions punishment for crimes no longer makes much sense. Instead rehabilitation would need to be emphasised. Justice systems that focus too much on punishment and too little on rehabilitation are a symptom of belief in free will actions.

No but I think it suffers from the same problem. Maybe you are a brain in a jar, but what good can come of thinking that? It's a dead-end. So is lamenting a lack of free will. While Joe Ennui is sitting around his apartment moping about being unable to choose anything of his own volition, I've chosen to go to an amusement park. I win.

Similar to my reply above there is actually good that can come out of accepting determinism. First of all, not everyone is going to sit around and lament after accepting determinism. There are plenty of naturalists who have given up on the idea of free will and yet still go to amusement parks. I agree that the brain-in-the-vat idea is mostly pointless but this is because you can't point to an observation or consequence that differs between the two options. On the determinism question we can look at the brain and use neuroscience to figure out whether we are neurons firing across synapses or if there is some kind of ghost in the machine.

A partial list of the good things about accepting determinism:
1) Truth - I place a lot of value on seeking out the truth so I find it important to consider all types of questions
2) Self-knowledge - determinism/free-will plays a big role in how you see yourself and your actions
3) Understanding others - others are determined to act the way they do and not freely choosing harmful (or irritating) actions
4) Morality - determinism makes it difficult to support a choice-based moral system so alternatives are needed
5) Justice - punishment itself makes no sense and rehabilitation is emphasised
6) Political economics - people really are trapped by their circumstances and this points us towards social justice

 

[devilsadvocate]

Aught3,

The paradox is that if (rigid) determinism is true, then it's pre-determined whether I believe it or not. The only reason I brought out the point of considering benefits and costs of believing in determinism is on the belief that there is free will and in a free willed world it benefits to believe in it. All of your benefits entail a choice which we don't have in a deterministic world.

In a deterministic world, of course, I don't have any choice writing this reply.

 

[RichardMNixon]

There are plenty of naturalists who have given up on the idea of free will and yet still go to amusement parks.

But does their acceptance that they had no choice but to go to an amusement park mean anything? I don't see how it's any more important than brain-in-the-vat. What is observationally different between "I want to go Disney World," and "The sum total of elementary particle interactions in the universe leading to this point in time and space have resulted in my desire to go to Disney World"?

A partial list of the good things about accepting determinism:
1) Truth - I place a lot of value on seeking out the truth so I find it important to consider all types of questions
2) Self-knowledge - determinism/free-will plays a big role in how you see yourself and your actions
3) Understanding others - others are determined to act the way they do and not freely choosing harmful (or irritating) actions
4) Morality - determinism makes it difficult to support a choice-based moral system so alternatives are needed
5) Justice - punishment itself makes no sense so rehabilitation is emphasised
6) Political economics - people are trapped by their circumstances and this points us towards social justice

These are interesting ideas but I feel like determinism factors into the 18th decimal place when considering them, that is, there are much more important things I think should be considered regarding these issues. I don't think you can take determinism into account in any meaningful way, but it's difficult to explain what I mean by that. A philosophy stating that murder isn't the murderer's fault because his will is predetermined leads to Joe Ennui as far as I can tell.

Accused: "I couldn't help it your honor, I was predestined to blow up that bus of pre-schoolers."
Judge: "Hmm, so what am I predestined to do about it?"

It seems like some kind of philosophical infinite loop. Knowing that you're predestined to do something doesn't actually tell you what it is you're predestined to do, but I guess you're only suggesting that knowledge should inform your decision?

Again, I think I'm having trouble framing this because I already think punishment is a stupid way to deal with crime, irrespective of free will.

Consider a hypothetical colleague of mine, Bob. Bob's life revolves around sports. I don't give a toss about sports. I understand that is a difference arising from our different upbringings and that it is neither Bob's fault, nor mine that we have little in common. That doesn't mean I want to hang out with Bob. Even if our mutual apathy towards each other was predestined it doesn't mean we should in any manner oppose that predestination and try to be great friends. We don't get along well, and them's the facts.

 

[Aught3]

Aught3,

The paradox is that if (rigid) determinism is true, then it's pre-determined whether I believe it or not. It' doesn't entail a choice. The only reason I brought out the point of considering benefits and costs of believing in determinism is on the belief that there is free will and in a free willed world it benefits to believe in it.

In a deterministic world, of course, I don't have any choice writing this reply.

Okay, I think I agree. (As long as we change pre-determined for determined.)

 

[Andiferous]

In the various times this topic has come up on this forum, the argument ultimately reduces to semantics (so true of so much). I find that it can be a metaphorical half-full half-empty scenario, where both sides view their opposition in absolutist terms. I'm inclined to believe we're all somewhere in the middle arguing the opposite pending our interpretation of terms.

I've always argued pro-free will, but only because I do not see "free will" with any sort of absolutism and assume that where a smidgen of it exists, the idea cannot be ruled out. On the other hand, I see determinism as absolute. I'm guessing the determinists tend to believe determinism is to say that most things to the best of our knowledge are determined, therefore free will, unrestrained, cannot exist.

It's an interesting discussion nonetheless, but perception of terms tends to make or break the argument.