Is there any free will?

[dkv]

Respected Mathematicians have proved that it is not possible to have free will and determinism...

In other words either one has free will or is ruled by some deterministic algorithm.

News and Views: Do Subatomic particles have free will?

[Pyrotex]

Respected Mathematicians have proved that it is not possible to have free will and determinism... ...[/url]

Nonsense.

I repeat, Nonsense.

 

Math tricks and philosophical mumbo jumbo cannot PROVE anything about consciousness, let alone "free will".

 

What will it take to constitute a PROOF (either way)???

First, an unambiguous definition of "free will";

then a decisive experiment based on that definition, where a number of individuals are placed in a carefully crafted set of circumstances, such that IF the individuals select a certain option ALL the time, it proves they have NO free will -- OR, if the individuals select a certain option 50% of the time, it proves they DO have free will.

 

Until you can perform the experiment, all the jibber-jabber, fancy rhetoric, ivory-tower philosophy and math juggling in the world is a total waste of time.

[Nitack]

In what context?

 

Free Will

The principle of free will has religious, ethical, and scientific implications. For example, in the religious realm, free will may imply that an omnipotent divinity does not assert its power over individual will and choices. In ethics, it may imply that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In the scientific realm, it may imply that the actions of the body, including the brain and the mind, are not wholly determined by physical causality. The question of free will has been a central issue since the beginning of philosophical thought.

[Thunderbird]

The hypothesis in question is '...that "You", your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behaviour of a vast assembly of nerve cells and their associated molecules."

Francis Crick

-------------------------------------

The most profound story I’ve ever read comes one from one of Carlos Castaneda’s books, I can’t recall which one, but it was like many of his “tales of eternity” they always hint at more than they actually say .

 

This one starts with the old shaman Don Juan and his apprentice the anthropology student Carlos observing some desert creatures as they scurried about in the desert chaparral.

 

Don Juan commented that a man could survive in the dessert by hunting those animals, But first you would need to study them and know their habits.

He explain how they followed a pattern that could be mapped as a circle around a burrow. Once these feeding cycles are learned snares could be set and escape routes could be routed, so the animals own cyclical behavior became its venerability.

But he warned his apprentice, as you follow these behaviors and set your snares every day in the same way, you also make yourself venerable because you too are being observed.

He said there were predators even more attuned to theses circular patterns of the dessert, so some day something could be waiting for you along one of your well worn paths.

 

He went on to say that there existed in nature an ultimate balance between awareness of these cyclical movements in the world and a spontaneity of action in ones self, an unpredictability that wells up from the spirit.

Once this balance is achieved the hunter becomes a “magical warrior.”

“A magical warrior can never be trapped” don Juan said or “be caught without an escape route,” because he can never be reduced to behaviors .

 

This “warrior’s path” are no longer connected to cycles of the world, but of the spirit, thus he can always “see” what is coming without being seen himself.

 

Also, he said there existed in the world animals “magical creatures.” that have achieved this balance.

 

Don Juan recounted that he himself had achieved this state as a young man and became a magical warrior, and seemed to always know instinctively what to do in any situation, until one day he was hunting on a heavily forested ridge top. He remembered hearing a strange sound that sent shivers though his body.

 

He knew instinctively that he was to about to have an encounter with a magical creature, and for the first time since he had reached this state he had no clue what to do.

 

So he did the most illogical thing. He stood on his head and began to cry, after some time he felt something breathing in his ear, he fell over in a sitting position and looked up at the most beautiful deer that he had ever seen, and then it spoke “ Why are you crying ?” the deer inquired “ Because I'm sad ” Don Juan heard himself reply, then he remembered the deer lowered his head and said very clearly “ Don’t be sad ” and ambled away.

 

After listening to Don Juan’s story, Carlos, being an anthropologist and a man of logic and science, replied that the story was ridicules “deer’s do not talk !” he said “I know I know” the old shaman replied “It was the damndest thing.”

[HydrogenBond]

I define free will as the ability to freely chose between subjective alternatives, without a bias, that slants you one way. If there is an apple and orange on the table free will is happy with either. When it comes to objectivity, free will, will chose the objective path because it is not compelled by subjectivity, which would amount to an irrational bias.

 

There are also situations where there are many logical explanations. Free will will not chose one, but can freely move between logical alternatives. In this case, the subjective bias is hidden in social subjective factors such as fad, prestige, biggest herd, etc.

[C1ay]

Respected Mathematicians have proved that it is not possible to have free will and determinism...

 

Define free will.

[Zythryn]

I define free will as the ability to freely chose between subjective alternatives, without a bias, that slants you one way. If there is an apple and orange on the table free will is happy with either. When it comes to objectivity, free will, will chose the objective path because it is not compelled by subjectivity, which would amount to an irrational bias.

 

I would define free will as the ability to chose one alternative even though your bias is to choose the other;)

[C1ay]

I define free will as the ability to freely chose between subjective alternatives, without a bias....

 

I would define free will as the ability to chose one alternative even though your bias is to choose the other;)

 

Define bias. Are either of you referring to a simple apparent urge or tendency or an underlying chemical action taking place in the brain's electro-chemical computing unit that may or may not be casual to bias? What exactly is bias and is it necessarily a consciously perceptible part of the cognitive process?

[Thunderbird]

Nonsense.

I repeat, Nonsense.

 

Math tricks and philosophical mumbo jumbo cannot PROVE anything about consciousness, let alone "free will".

 

What will it take to constitute a PROOF (either way)???

First, an unambiguous definition of "free will";

then a decisive experiment based on that definition, where a number of individuals are placed in a carefully crafted set of circumstances, such that IF the individuals select a certain option ALL the time, it proves they have NO free will -- OR, if the individuals select a certain option 50% of the time, it proves they DO have free will.

 

Until you can perform the experiment, all the jibber-jabber, fancy rhetoric, ivory-tower philosophy and math juggling in the world is a total waste of time.

 

It may be hard to define free will.... but it sure is easy to see it in people. Some people are more prototypes, they repeat what they see or is said. Being around them for time you can usually predict what they will do, or say in a given situation. They have become a slave to a program that has lost its fluidity . Others, much fewer are archetypes they responses to situations though spontaneity, fluidity, instinctively, creatively and humor constantly updating their internal program to adapt to a new set of challenges.

[Galapagos]

I don't think that free will in the sense that we can become whatever we choose, do whatever we'd like with ourselves etc. exists. I can't place in the Olympics, write anything like Shakespeare, or make any number of decisions(or post replies) that do not occur to me right now, because my mind is limited by the (currently incomprehensibly complex) physical interactions in my brain.

I can however choose from a list of possible actions so vast that no human being(including myself) could ever predict my actions in a reliable manner, so I have about as much free will as I could ever want anyway. :thumbs_up

[ughaibu]

Definition: free will is the ability to exercise conscious choice from among realisable alternatives.

I can type "A" and I can type "B", it's thus established that I have realisable alternatives.

I'm presently conscious and I will now think about which of A or B to choose.

I choose A.

I have demonstrated a conscious choice from among realisable alternatives, in other words, I have demonstrated free will.

[Thunderbird]

Definition: free will is the ability to exercise conscious choice from among realisable alternatives.

I can type "A" and I can type "B", it's thus established that I have realisable alternatives.

I'm presently conscious and I will now think about which of A or B to choose.

I choose A.

I have demonstrated a conscious choice from among realisable alternatives, in other words, I have demonstrated free will.

This definition works well when one is choosing between a vanilla or chocolate ice cream cone, but when we attempt balance our responsibilities to others with personal needs and desires, it can get a bit more complicated.

[C1ay]

Definition: free will is the ability to exercise conscious choice from among realisable alternatives.

I can type "A" and I can type "B", it's thus established that I have realisable alternatives.

I'm presently conscious and I will now think about which of A or B to choose.

I choose A.

I have demonstrated a conscious choice from among realisable alternatives, in other words, I have demonstrated free will.

 

Can you prove that your choice was not the result of a casual chemical reaction in your synaptic network? Exactly how are cognition and neuronal mechanisms related? Opinions aside, how can we know for sure and declare a conclusory answer on the question of free will?

 

IMO, we do not have a suitable working knowledge of the brain to draw such conclusions.

[ughaibu]

IMO, we do not have a suitable working knowledge of the brain to draw such conclusions.

I gave my definition and as far as I can see I met the conditions. Our models of how the brain works don't decide the facts, hopefully they accommodate them.

Can you prove that your choice was not the result of a casual chemical reaction in your synaptic network? Exactly how are cognition and neuronal mechanisms related? Opinions aside, how can we know for sure and declare a conclusory answer on the question of free will?

I dont see how any of the above challenge my demonstration. There are various objections that free will deniers offer, the most usual are these:

1) when choosing "A" I didn't demonstrate that I could choose B

2) determinism entails that there are no realisable alternatives

3) all conscious activity has been completed unconsciously

None of these stand up to scrutiny.

[Nitack]

2) determinism entails that there are no realizable alternatives

 

Does determinism mean that there are no realizable alternatives or does it simply mean that the choice has already been made for you and therefore you don't actually have any alternatives because there is no actual choice involved on your part?

 

Even an unattainable alternative implies that you have some decision making ability. If the answer was already determined before the choice was presented then the choice is only a imaginary.

[C1ay]

The debate at hand is one that pits free will against causal determinism. Nothing you have presented demonstrates your alleged free will is free from a causal process. You have made a claim but not proved it so it is nothing more than a claim. It is no one's burden to disprove your claim or even challenge it, it is your burden to support it and I have simply pointed out that you have not. I will add that disproving determinism would only accomplish that and fail to prove the existence of free will. IMO proving free will requires and understanding of cognitive processes that we do not understand yet.

[ughaibu]

Does determinism mean that there are no realizable alternatives or does it simply mean that the choice has already been made for you and therefore you don't actually have any alternatives because there is no actual choice involved on your part?

 

Even an unattainable alternative implies that you have some decision making ability. If the answer was already determined before the choice was presented then the choice is only a imaginary.

I dont know, do you have an objection to my demonstration?