Free Will?

[wuliheron]

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...

Now you are insisting we must be judgmental about each other? This is a science forum where objectivity is what matters. You might as well be spitting into the wind.

[mtbturtle]

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

What's Dennett's position? I don't recall him being opposed to free will.

[narnug]

Hey.

I was thinking about this same matter, free will, not so long ago.

I came to the following conclusion:

Free will does not describe our movements at all. That are choices. Sitting down or standing up is a choice we make. If we stand up we simply move some matter up. We choice to move that matter. If we throw a rock at a window we practiced no free will. It was a rapid movement we choice to make with our arm while holding a rock in it. And then releasing at the right time in our rapid movement. (the window broke if you are wondering).

Deciding to face hate with love is free will. Deciding to meet anger or violence with understanding or forgiveness is free will.
We are free to practice our free will. How we use it will indeed effect our future, and the future of others.
How we use our free will when we do so can be effected if we are not aware that we can choose from our own heart, our own free will.

Well, like always this is in progress and might bend or change with age.

All my best

Narnug

[BadgerJelly]

The only certainty is there is no certainty ... and even that is not certain. So look at what you think see and sense and decide is this probable?

If you think yes its probable then free will may as well be true for your existence.

If you think no then free will doesn't exist and you will stop doing anything and curl up and die in a pointless and meaningless universe as fate expects you to because you can make no difference :)

[BadgerJelly]

And I want to say you cannot holdme responsible for any suicides due to this statement! XD

[neuro]

Yes, but a majority of what arises in your brain, to be contemplated or decided upon, is not volitional.

but that contributes to define me, in the perspective I outlined above, doesn't it?
(this is why I say I look at the question in kind of an upside-down way...)

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

It does define you, yes.
But many other contingent circumstances in your environment, which in turn influence the chemistry of your brain/body play a huge role in what happens to "arise" in your "mind", thus one is not in as much volitional control of what thoughts "arise" as one "thinks".
A long series of luck and choosing between which thoughts happen to "arise", to put oneself in a situation to have the "best" thoughts "arise", does give us the illusion of total free will, but it is far, far less than total.
According to my current understanding.

[mtbturtle]

what's the difference between "total free will" and free will?

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Free will is more a feeling after the fact, that we have been in control, because we chose from which options happened to present themselves.
But the "thoughtful" action of "choosing" also was a result of very contingent circumstances.
So, in a way, "free will" is a very "muddy" term.
My choice of terminology with the word "total" may have been misguided.
These are quite slippery grounds, and grasping these neuroscience revelations about how our brain comes up with thoughts, and the causality involved, is very counterintuitive to many.
According to my current understanding. ;)

[kymberly]

I am interested in the effects of personal intelligence and society on free will.

Earlier in this conversation it was mentioned that someone with a mental handicap would have less free will.

When thinking of your free will, could it not be unique to you? If there are biological barriers on your intellect it would seem your personal free will would grow to fit around you. Or do we define free will on broader terms, as a society? It seems to me that to not contradict it's own purpose, free will would have to be defined on an individual level, giving someone with a mental handicap (no matter how severe) as much free will as someone who is considered intellectually gifted.

[wuliheron]

Free will and determinism are myths along the lines of infinity. Convenient fictions we adopt whenever they are useful for whatever purposes we have in mind and ignore whenever they are no longer convenient. In ancient times epileptics were thought to be possessed by the gods, later possessed by demons, then science insisted they were "acting out", and now we describe their behavior as a disease. The same for other problems such as Tourette's syndrome.

I'm reminded of a famous murder case where it was discovered the killer was suffering from advanced syphilis that had eaten his brain and left him mere months to live. You could debate how much free will such a person had for the rest of eternity and never get anywhere. Likewise you could debate whether everything is predetermined from now until eternity and never get anywhere. Its a moot point either way. They guy was dangerous and needed to be locked up and treated medically and allowed to die with what little dignity was possible in his case.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Sam Harris explains the thesis in a recent lecture:

Sam Harris on "Free Will"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCofmZlC72g

[mtbturtle]

Came across this response to Sam Harris Free Will argument and since it has been such a hot topic lately figured I would throw it into the mix. Since this thread was about Sam Harris rather than Free Will general I decided this thread would be best.

Will This Post Make Sam Harris Change His Mind About Free Will?
By John Horgan | April 9, 2012 | Cross-Check | Scientific American

I spent this morning pondering whether I should attack neuroscientist Sam Harris for attacking free will. I thought, haven’t I spent enough time hassling Harris? I already knocked him, twice, for arguing in The Moral Landscape (Free Press, 2010) that science can help us discover moral principles as true—True with a capital T!—as heliocentrism or Euclid’s proof of the Pythagorean theorem. In fact, I have complained about Harris’s disparagement of free will in Landscape. Do I really need to revisit the topic?

But Harris keeps intruding on my thoughts, in part because he keeps emailing me about his writings, and especially his new book Free Will (Free Press, 2012). Also, I admit to a certain voyeuristic fascination with Harris. I wonder, what crazy idea is he going to peddle next? Some of his righteous rants give me a perverse pleasure. I’m simultaneously irritated and titillated. I get the same feeling listening to Rush Limbaugh or Rick Santorum.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/2012/04/09/will-this-post-make-sam-harris-change-his-mind-about-free-will/

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

I guess if you want to disparage someone, just link them to Rush Limbaugh or call them crazy in the press.
Where did this guy get his neuroscience degree?
Cookoo

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

An opening quote snidely couched in the terminology of a smear does not capture my interest.
I guess he thinks he's funny or something.
But the terminology of the quote does sound kind of reminiscent of something Limbaugh might do: smear.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

His credentials are just not that formidable as a science critic, IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Horga ... rnalist%29

[mtbturtle]

Where did Harris get his neuroscience degree? Given Harris' own ummmm tone which could be generously described as "a puckish, provocative" I don't really think you have much to complain about with a journalist using an attention getting comparison to open.

John Horgan's science credentials weren't really an issue for me since I don't consider him critiquing Sam Harris' (or any) argument about free will to be a scientific topic requiring science training. It's a philosophical topic.

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Bruce Hood is currently the Director of the Bristol Cognitive Development Centre at the University of Bristol. He has been a research fellow at Cambridge University and University College London, a visiting scientist at MIT, and a faculty professor at Harvard. He has been awarded an Alfred Sloan Fellowship in neuroscience, the Young Investigator Award from the International Society of Infancy Researchers, the Robert Fantz Memorial Award and voted a Fellow by the Association for Psychological Science.

THE SELF ILLUSION: HOW THE SOCIAL BRAIN CREATES IDENTITY

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/019989 ... 019989759X

[BorisOfTerreHaute]

Nevertheless, I feel I do have a little bit to complain about ;)

[psionic11]

Replied to the other free will thread before I saw this one. I'll just sum up my contribution in these sentences:

Pure free will is an abstraction that doesn't exist in the real world. Pure determinism is likewise an abstraction. These are both matters of degree, and the ends of the spectrum on either side of the false dichotomy are asymptotes.

Anyone disagree with this assessment? I daresay that free will proponents will concede some amount of determinism, and am expecting a proponent of pure determinism to step up and argue his case. I'll assume no response is either agreement or apathy (or ignorance =).

[charon]

psionic11

Pure free will is an abstraction that doesn't exist in the real world. Pure determinism is likewise an abstraction.

What do you mean by pure?

[psionic11]

Since the thrust of the argument seems to be mutually exclusive pro-free will versus pro-determinism, which I argue are false dichotomies, I thought to introduce the concepts of "pure" free will versus "pure" determinism in order to illustrate more clearly how degree triumphs absolutism.

In other words, pure free will is some abstract concept that we can do or act or "will" however we wish. To take it to an extreme, pure free will implies we can simply will away unwanted actions from the past or wish into being some future state. We can freely "will" reality to however we each desire. Nevermind the inherent contradictions that not only defy physics and reality as we know it, but also the logical impossibilities of having billions of humans each freely willing their own perfect reality even if it utterly contradicts what someone else has "free-willed".

Obviously, pure free will cannot and does not exist. It is tempered by reality, which in large part is deterministic.

Likewise, "pure" determinism is also a fabrication, at least from the point of view of us acting human beings. Arguing that the universe is purely deterministic from some higher level is not only fruitless for us, but also practically impossible (to prove).

And so, as seems entirely obvious, practical, and provable, there are no such things as pure free will nor pure determinism.

We are acting agents with some measure of free will bound by certain deterministic laws. Seems plain as day to me...

[charon]

psionic11

We are acting agents with some measure of free will bound by certain deterministic laws. Seems plain as day to me...

Perhaps, but I'm just wondering why philosophers have spent centuries banging their heads together about it? It's probably the word 'bound'. There is such a thing as freedom despite universal laws.

[BadgerJelly]

@ Whut - catching up here and noticed this so I am laying down the gauntlet and challenge you as you seem to want to oppose what I say so strongly to the point of exaggerating my point :

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.

But you also say :

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?

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.

You have completely blown out of proportion my point.

For the record Jabberwocky makes PERFECT sense. It is not nonsense and makes a very valid point about what words are in relation to physical reality.

Explain the the first page of the Tao Te Ching if you can or I'll just have to say that is nonsense too following your twisted reasoning. I personally would like to know what you think it is saying rather than saying "it means what you want it to mean".

[mtbturtle]

http://www.philosophynews.com/post/2012/05/15/An-Analysis-of-Sam-Harris-Free-Will.aspx

An Analysis of Sam Harris’ Free Will
by Paul Pardi 15. May 2012 23:34
Philosophy News

Sam Harris says the concept of free will is incoherent. Humans are not free and no sense can be given to the idea that we might be. There are good arguments in philosophical and scientific literature that call into question the ability of humans to make truly free choices. Those arguments generally are rigorous attempts to show that certain necessary conditions for free will can’t obtain or particular sufficient conditions don’t obtain. That is, they unpack a clear definition of what it might mean to be free and then attempt to show that nothing could or actually does fulfill the requirements of the definition. Sam Harris’ new book Free Will takes a somewhat unique, and I think ultimately inconclusive, approach. I will focus mainly on the first part of the book in which Harris lays out his philosophical case. The last part of the book is more about application and I agree with Harris that assuming his philosophical case works, his description of how such a situation would apply to the world seems largely correct.
The Lowdown

In this section, I summarize what I think is going on in the book and provide a quick analysis of it for those who don’t want to wade through more dense material. For those interested in the fuller story, there’s more in the second section.

[Gregorygregg1]

Freedom of choice:  We can choose to believe in the illusions of this world, or we can choose the beauty of the reality that underlies it.  We can choose to live for the benefit of the self, or we can choose to live in the service of life.  Do we have free will? Only when we are aware of the difference between illusion and reality.

[dennis.francos]

i think free will exists as a virtual concept in the reality of the world that we sense, but, in a higher level of reality, cause & effect relationship should determine if that concept could be extended. Anyway, we dont have the technology to seriously select one or other theory... because we still without surely say "in the same conditions, i could choose the other way..."

Beside of that, i also think that the fact of we can´t choose "time stop" or "travelling to specific time state" but we have only one option: follow the time flow... its a strong argument to say that free will its not absolute, even if it exists... the power of it its limited by some dimensions that automatilly destroy the total free will theory...

[Mello]

We should define "free will." If our personalities (including our subconscious) are a combination of chemistry and experience, it is not unreasonable to consider our life predetermined--not to be confused with intelligent design. After all even if an avalanche fell on you by chance, you are still confined by your new prison, are you not? If you've got your body chemistry on one shoulder and your experience from day one on the other, on what basis do you think that you chose ANYTHING "on your own?" Of course that would depend on how you define it, I suppose. It would be nothing you don't do every day--how often do we rationalize that something was our own decision to avoid frustration on how something turned out? Even the BLAME of oneself is a total control freak move cause you get to say "I did this," and claim control of the situation. So one could argue that the whole concept of Free Will is just a giant Freudfest. With special emphasis on the anal stage. Control and the fear of lacking it.

Read Le Horla by Guy de Maupassant and keep the subconscious in mind. How do you like realizing that the crazy man is right? Albeit overreactive?


One more thing I can't get out of my head. The landscape and characters of a video game are physically made out of pixels. Pixels arranged by data. Surely you see the similarity between that and the real world. While it proves nothing, it certainly gives logical credence to the idea that we are someone's video game. Fractal universe, anyone? ;P Don't shit a brick--this does not require a programmer--chemical formulas may stand in for the "data," with atoms as the pixels. Our movements, while quite meaningful to us and our little brains, may be as mindless as the wrinkling of a blanket. And a blanket may be wrinkled by a mere collision, a wind....or an indiscriminate radiation from another life form. *bites tongue to avoid going off on hp lovecraft tangent