Free Will?

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

FREE WILL?
Zeno’s Paradox and the Problem of Free Will.
After the beginning of the Christian era, theologians developed new concerns. They worshipped an all-powerful and all knowing God, but soon found that the existence of this God would have rather negative implications for human freedom. If God really knew everything, he would have to know the course of all history. But if this were true, we humans seemed to be simply going through the motions like characters in a novel.

Free Will Advocates vs. Determinists and/or how to reconcile.
The contributions of neuroscience and quantum mechanics to the mix.

Champions of free will cite the importance of non-material factors on human behavior, such as culture. We are more than mere collections of atoms or genes. We are also social creatures capable of adapting to a wide range of cultural habitats.

Determinists contend that culture has no relevance to the question of free will. They argue, quite correctly, that all choices ultimately stem from cognitive activity in the brain, which remains a material entity subject to material laws.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/11-04-27/#feature

This topic was also covered quite interestingly in a book I just finished by Sam Harris:
The Moral Landscape.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Moral-Landscape-ebook/dp/B003V1WT72/ref=tmm_kin_title_0?ie=UTF8&m=AG56TWVU5XWC2
Two thumbs up!!!

[rickymouse]

We have about as much free will as the cows in a long narrow fenced trail. We are required by humanity, tradition, government, and the morals we independably possess to mozy up this trail to the end. I feel life is like a script and we are the actors. We can chose personal variations in the script but we can't escape the limits imposed on us by others and ourselves. Mankind has accepted this as free will in the past, and the go with the flow routine has become normal for most. We think things have changed but the basics of mankind haven't changed much. The same basic things drive people now as did a thousand years ago.

[Charles miller]

Not only do we have free will but so does everything else in the universe. Free will, that is with in the limits of the nature of the thing. I am not free to ignore gravity. I am not free to chose to live forever. I am free to chose never to eat again but such a choice will cause my death.

Electrons have been shown experimentally to behave like people do who are making "free will ' choices.

[TENNWH]

There are many people who have a brain problems and it impossible for them to exercise such a thing as free will if a person who has had a stroke cannot function as they did before having a stroke this of course would prevent them for any free will choice if there was such a thing possible has free will ever one is not the same when it comes to the brain or other bodily functions.

[jhuffy6212]

Not only do we have free will but so does everything else in the universe. Free will, that is with in the limits of the nature of the thing. I am not free to ignore gravity. I am not free to chose to live forever. I am free to chose never to eat again but such a choice will cause my death.

Electrons have been shown experimentally to behave like people do who are making "free will ' choices.

I completely agree with this, but i feel as if there is more. Nature has so many boundaries, but using free will and human ingenuity we are able to overcome many of these barriers that seem now to be unbeatable. Although it may not physically be possible for "us" to overcome it (such as flying, we use airplanes to fly, but we cannot physically fly), we still overcome many of these obstacles with technology.

With that, i think the biggest problem with human freewill is our own extreme regulations.

[genemachine]

I am intrigued by this

Electrons have been shown experimentally to behave like people do who are making "free will" choices.

I believe that the fashionable position on free will is that it is compatible with determinism. Of course, the truth of the statement lies in the definition of freedom.

If we're restricting ourselves to naturalistic theories, and determinism is actually false, perhaps due to some random quantum indeterminacy at a scale to small for use to examine, would this make a difference to how free our thoughts and behaviors are? does radiation exposure increase freedom more than knowing the likely consequences of your actions?

[BioWizard]

Electrons have been shown experimentally to behave like people do who are making "free will ' choices.

Is there a reference for this statement?

[jhuffy6212]

Electrons have been shown experimentally to behave like people do who are making "free will ' choices.

Is there a reference for this statement?

Check out the Quantum Mechanics experiment called the Double Slit Experiment. It was shown in the movie, "What the Bleep?" Down The Rabbit Hole.
Here's a link from that part in the movie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

It's not necessarily "free-will", but it gives one the idea that our notion of free will is potentially determined by the things we as humans have yet to understand. I find it interesting, whether it is a credible experiment or not, simply because it brings to light the idea that we are so oblivious to the true complexity of life and most of all, reality.
If you find any better sources, please post them.

[genemachine]

What the Bleep? is not a science documentary or even an attempt at one, it's a pseudo-scientific "independent film" beloved of new age hippy mystics. I don't think I managed to stomach it all the way through. By all accounts it makes a chain of extravagant and unsubstantiated claims.

When the guy in your clip say that electrons decided to act differently as though they were aware of being watched I gave him the benefit of the doubt and assumed he meant metaphorically. He then gets started linking the so-called "observer effect" to consciousness, jumping from science to mystic pseudoscience and the clip ends.

As I understand it, the "observer effect" is really a misnomer when used in quantum physics. Every time, they are interacting with that which is being measured. It's like blind people "observing" each other by bumping into each other.

See the film's wiki page for links to more detailed criticism. I am quite certain that the view that it is pseudoscience will be prevalent with all viewers with a reasonable grasp of the physics. I also doubt that many scientists who study consciousness, or any other subject, would disagree.

[genemachine]

I did Young's slits experiment at school. We used the interference pattern from a red laser passing through twin slits to calculate the laser's wavelength. I think we initially used glass slides with one side painted black and thin scratches in this paint creating the slits then switched to using professionally made diffraction grating with a known gap spacing between slits for our calculations. I imagine that this would be a cheap and easy experiment to reproduce.

[jhuffy6212]

I understand that it is not defined in any way, but it doesn't negate the creativity behind outside ideas. After all, ideas that once seemed insane to even consider are those that birth the greatest evolution.

I found a quick briefing on Young's experiment. I'm not proposing it's significance or factual applications, just simply bringing the outside idea into relation of quantum free will. This, quoted, i like quite a lot.

"The formation of the interference pattern requires the existence of two slits, but how can a single photon passing through one slit `know' about the existence of the other slit? We are stuck going back to thinking of each photon as a wave that hits both slits. Or we have to think of the photon as splitting and going through each slit separately (but how does the photon know a pair of slits is coming?). The only solution is to give up the idea of a photon or an electron having location. The location of a subatomic particle is not defined until it is observed (such as striking a screen)."

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_centu ... lec13.html

I also think that this will explain the idea of the "observer effect" more clearly. Although this has to do with light waves and electrons, the observer effects the electrons energy distribution, simply by observing. Which brings upon the idea that the observer effects the way an electron choices to distribute it's energy, which in turn could POSSIBLY bring upon the notion that, even on the quantum level, reality is created for us in terms of observation. Create for us by things left unanswered; such as the idea of our involuntarily fabricated reality. Involuntary because nature seems to have this idea or construction for us, maybe in essence it could be determinism, but this would completely change the idea of what freewill is, let alone the fact that you would have to discover the freewill of the relative and quantum nature in order to even consider the applications involved with Human freewill.

Psuedoscientific, yes i can see this, but it doesn't change the interesting ideas being proposed, as well as the controversy behind it. From my understanding, Young's experiment has proven light to be a wave without a doubt, but as it's been reproduced alongside our more advanced technology, this idea of electrons and the observer effect have risen. It's most definitely not proven, but it's still very interesting to think about.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Just received my copy.
Free Will, by Sam Harris.
http://www.amazon.com/Free-Will-Sam-Har ... 328&sr=8-1

[charon]

BorisOfTerreHaute

We do have will but it's not free. Free means unlimited, unconditioned, and when we exercise will it's anything but; on the contrary, it binds us. Will can only operate in one direction and when the mind functions in a particular direction it limits itself. It's only free when it has no direction, no goal, no reaching for something, and thus no pursuit of will.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Free will is kind of meaningless.
We can only act upon thoughts that happen to arise, which are based on other things, also based on other varieties of thoughts that just happened to arise due to many quirks of circumstance, etc...
So, free will as most people think of it is a fallacy.

[BadgerJelly]

Free will is kind of meaningless.
We can only act upon thoughts that happen to arise, which are based on other things, also based on other varieties of thoughts that just happened to arise due to many quirks of circumstance, etc...
So, free will as most people think of it is a fallacy.

Agree 100%

Look at the subatomic and astrophysical universe. Its so complex that in one temporal dimension we have none but on our temporal plane its much harder to see the underlying patterns.

[mtbturtle]

I wonder how most people think of free will and what it is that makes it "fallacious" but most likely that's going to open up a discussion regarding all the various definitions and arguments for/against them, and I'm not about to get into that!

[wuliheron]

To quote the immortal Frank Zappa, "You are what you is, and that's all it tis."

Free will and determinism are both nothing more then metaphysical mumbo jumbo. So much meaningless verbiage with no practical application whatsoever outside specific contexts. If someone asks me if I have a choice about what to eat I'm not going to debate metaphysics or start spouting mystical nonsense. The more interesting question then is why people and societies seem to insist its an important issue when, demonstrably, its meaningless word play?

[BadgerJelly]

To quote the immortal Frank Zappa, "You are what you is, and that's all it tis."

Free will and determinism are both nothing more then metaphysical mumbo jumbo. So much meaningless verbiage with no practical application whatsoever outside specific contexts. If someone asks me if I have a choice about what to eat I'm not going to debate metaphysics or start spouting mystical nonsense. The more interesting question then is why people and societies seem to insist its an important issue when, demonstrably, its meaningless word play?

That's utter nonsense. Word play is how we think and develop new ideas by divergent thinking. To dismiss an idea is to dismiss an opportunity for real knowledge.

Existentialism is just as valid a subject as any other and could lead to a great er understanding of the human condition.

[wuliheron]

To quote the immortal Frank Zappa, "You are what you is, and that's all it tis."

Free will and determinism are both nothing more then metaphysical mumbo jumbo. So much meaningless verbiage with no practical application whatsoever outside specific contexts. If someone asks me if I have a choice about what to eat I'm not going to debate metaphysics or start spouting mystical nonsense. The more interesting question then is why people and societies seem to insist its an important issue when, demonstrably, its meaningless word play?

That's utter nonsense. Word play is how we think and develop new ideas by divergent thinking. To dismiss an idea is to dismiss an opportunity for real knowledge.

Existentialism is just as valid a subject as any other and could lead to a great er understanding of the human condition.

LOL, word play is no more or less useful then anything else and, in fact, insisting otherwise is just more word play. Go ahead, spout all the gibberish you want like some infant babbling and then tell us all how useful it is. Maybe a little nonsense poetry to go with it. I could use some entertainment.

[BadgerJelly]

To quote the immortal Frank Zappa, "You are what you is, and that's all it tis."

Free will and determinism are both nothing more then metaphysical mumbo jumbo. So much meaningless verbiage with no practical application whatsoever outside specific contexts. If someone asks me if I have a choice about what to eat I'm not going to debate metaphysics or start spouting mystical nonsense. The more interesting question then is why people and societies seem to insist its an important issue when, demonstrably, its meaningless word play?

That's utter nonsense. Word play is how we think and develop new ideas by divergent thinking. To dismiss an idea is to dismiss an opportunity for real knowledge.

Existentialism is just as valid a subject as any other and could lead to a great er understanding of the human condition.

LOL, word play is no more or less useful then anything else and, in fact, insisting otherwise is just more word play. Go ahead, spout all the gibberish you want like some infant babbling and then tell us all how useful it is. Maybe a little nonsense poetry to go with it. I could use some entertainment.

Are you being ironic? You just agreed with what I said? :S
So its meaningless mumbo jumbo but its no more or less useful than anything else.

Sorry to poke fun but I think we may have our wires crossed here I think. And if I think something is nonsense I will say so but it is not my intention to encourage hostility and just want to understand what you are thinking regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

From the surveys and interviews I've seen, "most people" think of free will as the ability to think whatever thought they want, whenever they want, and thus be in total control of what thoughts happen to arise from their neural structure at any given time.
Our brains just don't work that way.
Conscious "thoughts" arise do to complex contingencies and circumstances, and we do act on those arisings, but we have a lot less control over what happens to pop to the surface than most folks think.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Harris did a pretty fine job of explaining this in "The Moral Landscape".
I haven't read the new book yet, but I am very intrigued, and anxious to discover his new insights on the topic
.

[wuliheron]

Are you being ironic? You just agreed with what I said? :S
So its meaningless mumbo jumbo but its no more or less useful than anything else.

Sorry to poke fun but I think we may have our wires crossed here I think. And if I think something is nonsense I will say so but it is not my intention to encourage hostility and just want to understand what you are thinking regardless of whether I agree with it or not.

No irony intended. Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts. Life, the universe, and everything is not a specific context and the whole issue of free will verses determinism is no more meaningful then insisting the universe is ultimately composed of lime jello. Without a specific context anything and everything becomes mumbo jumbo, even lime jello. Try reading Louis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" if you doubt me.

Whether it is useful or not is another matter altogether. If contemplating lime jello gives you mystical or psychological insight or helps you practice your reasoning that's a personal matter. What I see though is more often just people arguing pointlessly and getting nowhere.

[mtbturtle]

boris,

Would be interested in those surveys only because I can't say I've really seen it outlined that way. Is that the view Harris argues against?

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Yes, Harris cites a lot of the research I'm reminiscing on here, in The Moral Landscape.
I'm just spewing forth an editorial piece here.
Don't have actual statistics at my finger-tips.
I'm pretty sure the new book will expound upon the neural science and philosophy started in The Moral Landscape.
He is involved personally in some of the neural research going on in this field of study.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

The broad work of Daniel Dennett, also has supported the opinions I am relating here.

[BadgerJelly]

No irony intended. Words only have demonstrable meaning according to their function in specific contexts. Life, the universe, and everything is not a specific context and the whole issue of free will verses determinism is no more meaningful then insisting the universe is ultimately composed of lime jello. Without a specific context anything and everything becomes mumbo jumbo, even lime jello. Try reading Louis Carroll's "Jabberwocky" if you doubt me.

Whether it is useful or not is another matter altogether. If contemplating lime jello gives you mystical or psychological insight or helps you practice your reasoning that's a personal matter. What I see though is more often just people arguing pointlessly and getting nowhere.

Well I don't argue I discuss. Not here on some weird ego trip like I see all too often. I want people to counter my views so I can improve them and get stimulated by trying to understand others views whether I agree or not that's the entire point of being here isn't it? :)

I've actually never read Lewis Carroll and he's from my home town. Will get round to it one day though.

As for this subject its the same issue and the same contradictions that are repeated over and over. We might think we have free will because the universe we live in is so complex that its almost impossible to see any underlying pattern of cause and effect to the smallest level. Then we have to ask other questions I believe like how does cause and effect present itself between objects and how micro and macro environments behave differently and consider Quantum Physics and Chaos theory.

I find a lot of the question here a little too specific. I believe that all theories need to be broken down and investigated. Also Free Will applied in a religious context as it is here can only be considered by breaking down the original concept of religion and how it has evolved over time to meet humanities needs or to direct humanities needs.

Do we have free will? Probably not but again I'll take a leap of faith like I do with the question of my own existence and say I do have it and if I don't I'm unaware of this but should always keep in mind that I am unsure.

[wuliheron]

I've actually never read Lewis Carroll and he's from my home town. Will get round to it one day though.

The Jabberwocky is a short nonsense poem. The words sound compelling, but are just made up:

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabb ... wocky.html

As for this subject its the same issue and the same contradictions that are repeated over and over. We might think we have free will because the universe we live in is so complex that its almost impossible to see any underlying pattern of cause and effect to the smallest level. Then we have to ask other questions I believe like how does cause and effect present itself between objects and how micro and macro environments behave differently and consider Quantum Physics and Chaos theory.

There is also the alternative that I presented. That free will and determinism/fatalism are merely relative terms like up and down. You can't have an "up" without a "down" and its a contradiction to suggest you can. Neither up nor down have anything to say about the meaning of life, the universe, and everything either. They're merely convenient labels we use.

I find a lot of the question here a little too specific. I believe that all theories need to be broken down and investigated. Also Free Will applied in a religious context as it is here can only be considered by breaking down the original concept of religion and how it has evolved over time to meet humanities needs or to direct humanities needs.

Do we have free will? Probably not but again I'll take a leap of faith like I do with the question of my own existence and say I do have it and if I don't I'm unaware of this but should always keep in mind that I am unsure.

Rubbish. I don't need to investigate and break down someone's theory that the universe is made of lime jello or that I have an invisible pixie on my shoulder. Either a theory has some possible real world application or it is just a distraction from others that do have potential uses.

[neuro]

I'm quite surprised in hearing somebody feel the question of free will is all nonsense.

Apart from the philosophical interest of the question - free will in all its flavors and the ways it is interpreted and looked at can be fully remapped onto the issue of responsibility of one's own actions, with all the connected aspects in law, justice, social obligations and conventions....

Actually, I see the two questions so strictly intertwined that I tend to see free will in an upside-down way: the question is not so much whether my choices are determined or free; the question is each of us can be best described, judged and looked at in terms of their choices and the way they make them.
Whatever may push me in making my choices, that (and nothing else) is precisely me.

I am what I do and the way I do it.
I do it - and do it so - because it's me.
And thus I (the one who acts that way) am responsible for what I do...

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Yes, but a majority of what arises in your brain, to be contemplated or decided upon, is not volitional.
It arises because of many interrelated factors, and contingent conditions that are not under one's control.
Even the "choices" one makes on the "thoughts" that do arise, also arise through biochemically contingent processes, etc...
Than is the point,
And that is what the neuroscience is showing. According to my current understanding.