Do you believe in free will?

[bumab]

I've been thinking about this since it comes up so much- but first off, I'd like to specifically say this is not a religious question, so no answers on that bent :) .

 

Specifically- do you believe the brain has the ability to make free choices, not based on the physics of the brain and it's environment? It's the old determinism vs. free will type question, but I'm still curious.

 

If you do believe in free will, how does it work? How can the pile of cells that is the brain acheieve independence from the natural world (that is, not subject to causality)?

 

If not- are we responsible for own opinions then? Am I not really curious about this, but rather simply acting out the biochemical machine that is my brain?

 

I'm not looking for the whole "free will is a useful construct for the implication of morality, which is useful in society etc etc...." (which is what I would answer, if I believed that :eek: ). Is it an illusion?

[Thomas]

I do believe in free will,

 

The only explination I can think of to how that pile of brain cells makes free choices is that there is more to the person/cells/brain than is physical,

That then (by my implications) becomes a religious question, which we are not here to answer.

Scientifically, I do not know, unless someone has a better answer. :eek:

[pgrmdave]

Well, we know that simple things, in enough quantity, display incrediblel complexity. Life is molecular, and yet displays a lot of complexity. Free will, however, implies either that the rules of physics can change, or that, the same causes have the potential to produce different results. Either our mind can control the chemical reactions and electrical impulses in our brains, or the chemicals and electrical impulses don't affect the mind.

[nemo]

I attempted to have this conversation with someone the other day... Ultimately, their opinion was that free will does not exist, because everything that cannot be explained can be relegated to the subconscious. I suppose that if we don't know what goes on in our subconscious (else it would be our conscious) then that argument is difficult to refute.

 

pgrmdave, would you please expound upon the physics angle? I don't understand at the moment, but I'm curious.

 

With regard to the control we have over the chemicals in our mind, I think that we do have a limited amount of control; the irony is that the control we have over the chemicals in our mind is as a reaction to outside stimuli - my mind is wandering back to the Endorphins thread over in Medical Science. Of course, that brings up another question - Do our minds wander, or are they simply following bread crumbs tossed by previous thoughts and stimuli?

 

Considering the advances being made with regard to neurosurgery and the reverse-engineering of the body's electrical impulses for the benefit of paralysis sufferers, I don't have a hard time believing that we will someday, be able to control the electrical impulses and chemicals in our brain - however it would be as a result of a conscious decision made by that same brain. There's food for thought, or reaction... whatever.

[bumab]

I think that we do have a limited amount of control; the irony is that the control we have over the chemicals in our mind is as a reaction to outside stimuli - my mind is wandering back to the Endorphins thread over in Medical Science. Of course, that brings up another question - Do our minds wander, or are they simply following bread crumbs tossed by previous thoughts and stimuli?

 

Basically what got me thinking as well. "control" is the issue here- if our brain could excert some influence over the chemical reactions going on inside it, what controls the brain? Presumably, in a purely scientific universe, more chemicals, right?

 

It's a nihilistic view, really- if causality (the scientific view) holds, there is no free will. Which means all the debates on free will are, well, amusing. Actually, debates in general are thus amusing.... hmmmm.

 

Agree? Disagree?

[Fishteacher73]

We are all pre-destined in some aspects of biology. Generally we all want to eat, breath and reproduce. We have a frame work that we must operate in. With in these boundries there are options that lead me to assume free will. Do I want tacos or pizza for lunch? I think we exist in a restricted free-will situation. We can independently opt for choices that are essential equal. Not all organisms can. We can specifically choose things that are harmful to us. Perhaps one could argue for entropy, but IMO that's streachinging it a bit. If we are all predetermined than it seems to follow that all our actions would be based on advantagous actions to the chemistry inside of us (and therefore the physics). This does not happen.

[pgrmdave]

The physics idea is that the mind does not exist except as a product of the interacting of neurons - which are simply following the laws of physics. If there was free will, then it implies that there is a way to either bend the rules of physics, i.e., in any given situation it is possible for one to do two different things, rather than only one thing. While it seems like we have the ability to choose, we can never make choices, only one. At any given juncture, we only follow one choice.

[Fishteacher73]

I feel I see the reasoning behind it, it just seems to be a bit over simplified. If you take a standard deck of cards and look at the first 51, then of course you know what the 52nd card wil be. But if you shuffle 10 decks together, you have to look at 519 cards to determine the outcome. What if the next sequence is using mah jong tiles? Theoretically it can make some sense, but when one applies it to life, it seems to falter a bit. I just think there are too many variables.

What if you have two systems in your body and ended up at a situation that each decision would equally bennift itself with the same but converse implications to the other choice? You would have equivilant results in different directions. What then? Free-will must step in or you just hang in stasis until the variables change?

[bumab]

I feel I see the reasoning behind it, it just seems to be a bit over simplified. If you take a standard deck of cards and look at the first 51, then of course you know what the 52nd card wil be. But if you shuffle 10 decks together, you have to look at 519 cards to determine the outcome. What if the next sequence is using mah jong tiles? Theoretically it can make some sense, but when one applies it to life, it seems to falter a bit. I just think there are too many variables.

 

But that's a random situation- there's nothing random in non-QM physics. Thus, every event can be known if all the pre-conditions are also known. It's not like a deck of cards at all...

[pgrmdave]

And I'm not entirely convinced of randomness in QM. I think that what we see as randomness may simply be chaotic. There is a difference. Randomness has no reason, while chaos only seems random, but is actually highly organized.

[Fishteacher73]

But that's a random situation- there's nothing random in non-QM physics. Thus, every event can be known if all the pre-conditions are also known. It's not like a deck of cards at all...

 

How could a seires of cards be random if every thing is pre-determined?

[bumab]

True, I'm not conviced of real randomness either. But, it's still usually assumed in QM, but since that randomness still doesn't affect the larger world, it doesn't really matter either way for this discussion, I don't think.

[bumab]

How could a seires of cards be random if every thing is pre-determined?

 

I think I misunderstood your previous post. Sorry. If everything is predetermined, then nothing is random. So those cards are not in a random order, but rather the order was predetermined by the conditions set up prior to them being shuffled together. That's correct as per what I was saying.

 

So you have to check 500 some cards to know whats coming next? That's just because you didn't understand the pre-conditions. If you did understand all the conditions that went into the shuffling of the cards (the order of the origional decks, how they went together, etc) you would not need to look through them, you would be able to calculate it- it's not random at all.

[Fishteacher73]

Ok, sorry. I misunderstood you. Just as if you start with a new deck, you know the order.

 

Another example is weather prediction. We understand it, what causes it, etc., but we can not fully predict it. Is this not a reasonable counter example? This is a system at that we KNOW has no free-will, and we can not predict it still.

 

This is slightly an uphill battle, because any counter I use can be explained by us not knowing all the factors involved...A bit like objectivism.

[bumab]

Another example is weather prediction. We understand it, what causes it, etc., but we can not fully predict it. Is this not a reasonable counter example? This is a system at that we KNOW has no free-will, and we can not predict it still.

 

Right, but like you said- although it's unpredictable, it's still deterministic. Are people the same way?

 

Basically, most conversations about free will come down to this: if it exists, then either some sort of higher power gave it to us or neurons are able to manifest this ability because of the complexity of the neurons. I'm interested in the second statement for now. Is there scientific evidence for free will?

 

Some people take scientific causality to it's inevitable conclusion- there is no free will, thus, we have no choice in anything. I don't think I'm that brave yet. Is there any way a causal universe (on which science depends) can form beings with free will?

[Fishteacher73]

Maybe its my anti-authority streak that still is my heart that just winces at the thought. I think that we live withing a larger deterministic framework, but with intellegence we can manipulate our rections beyond the simple chemistry. I do not believe that an ant or a cactus has free will. They lack the ability to act outside of the instinctual level.

 

Man's ability to think I feel has allowed him to make decisions.

[bumab]

Maybe its my anti-authority streak that still is my heart that just winces at the thought. I think that we live withing a larger deterministic framework, but with intellegence we can manipulate our rections beyond the simple chemistry.

 

I wince too, which is why I'm asking for free-will supporting scientific evidence... I just wonder if, from a purely empirical point of view, those who deny free will (we are just biochemical machines) might just be a little more brave then thsoe of us who hold on for autonomous free will, which may not be able to exist in a causal universe. :eek: