Living without free will

[bunny]

I just read a snippet from someone who claims she has eradicated the feeling of having free will. She says that when she makes a choice, it no longer feels to her that there is any "thing" making that choice. I cant conceive how it would be possible but she maintains that over time you can live as a determinist without the subjective feeling of making a choice. Has anyone here tried to do this?

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read a snippet from someone who claims she has eradicated the feeling of having free will. She says that when she makes a choice, it no longer feels to her that there is any "thing" making that choice. I cant conceive how it would be possible but she maintains that over time you can live as a determinist without the subjective feeling of making a choice. Has anyone here tried to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Get married.

[Sharkey]

I doubt a specific “subjective feeling” is necessary for free will to exist.

[madnak]

Sounds like a kind of voluntary dissociation. I don't know that it would be useful, so I wouldn't want to try. I don't believe in free will, but I do value my determination and passion and principles. I don't know that I could maintain those things if I did away with the experience of subjectively making a choice (even if I could do so).

[DonkNitUP]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read a snippet from someone who claims she has eradicated the feeling of having free will. She says that when she makes a choice, it no longer feels to her that there is any "thing" making that choice. I cant conceive how it would be possible but she maintains that over time you can live as a determinist without the subjective feeling of making a choice. Has anyone here tried to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

that is interesting. Along those same lines I was talking to someone last night and he maintains that he is complete care-less when it comes to worrying about something because he cant control it.
I wish I could come to this conclusion or something similar because now i tend to worry alot more even about things I can not contol.
As i have stated in my other post, I believe people are brainwashed so to speak as they grow up under their specific religion. I wonder if it is possible to brainwash urself to not worry?

[hmkpoker]

It's called depression, and there's treatment for it.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It's called depression, and there's treatment for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
She claims to be completely happy and to live a moral life even though she doesnt feel like she is making any choices. She also doesnt believe in a "self" but she says she hasnt been able to eradicate the feeling that something exists subjectively experiencing her life (although she doesnt believe anything does).

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in free will ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that opinion extend to everybody or only apply to yourself?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's called depression, and there's treatment for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
She claims to be completely happy and to live a moral life even though she doesnt feel like she is making any choices. She also doesnt believe in a "self" but she says she hasnt been able to eradicate the feeling that something exists subjectively experiencing her life (although she doesnt believe anything does).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dissociation is experiened by most everyone to a certain extent, ranging from daydreaming to multiple personality disorders. It sounds like she is further along in that spectrum than most, but not so far along that its disruptive, and in fact for her may be beneficial. I dont think it bears any relation to free will, though.

[guesswest]

Dissociation doesn't have to be a negative. Some people will contend that eradicating a concept of self it's what's at the heart of the likes of taoism.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's called depression, and there's treatment for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
She claims to be completely happy and to live a moral life even though she doesnt feel like she is making any choices. She also doesnt believe in a "self" but she says she hasnt been able to eradicate the feeling that something exists subjectively experiencing her life (although she doesnt believe anything does).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dissociation is experiened by most everyone to a certain extent, ranging from daydreaming to multiple personality disorders. It sounds like she is further along in that spectrum than most, but not so far along that its disruptive, and in fact for her may be beneficial. I dont think it bears any relation to free will, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dissociation is almost always caused by low serotonin levels. It's very, very deep depression. It's not pleasant.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It's called depression, and there's treatment for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
She claims to be completely happy and to live a moral life even though she doesnt feel like she is making any choices. She also doesnt believe in a "self" but she says she hasnt been able to eradicate the feeling that something exists subjectively experiencing her life (although she doesnt believe anything does).

[/ QUOTE ]

Dissociation is experiened by most everyone to a certain extent, ranging from daydreaming to multiple personality disorders. It sounds like she is further along in that spectrum than most, but not so far along that its disruptive, and in fact for her may be beneficial. I dont think it bears any relation to free will, though.

[/ QUOTE ]
She was claiming that free will doesnt exist and that the impression we have that we are making choices is purely an illusion - one that can be dispelled with practise. (I think that was her claim anyhow - it was just a half-page snippet not a fully presented argument).

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
Dissociation is almost always caused by low serotonin levels. It's very, very deep depression. It's not pleasant.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not aware of any kind of corellation between dissociation and serotonin levels. It's much more common in dsm-iv categorizations like PTSD and DID than it is depression - and where it does occur alongside depression I don't believe it's prevalence has been corellated with serotonin. When it occurs concurrently with depression it's normally in the form of depersonalization/derealization which are distinct forms of dissociation to the extent they're increasingly being thought of as entirely seperate phenomena.

Dissociation also isn't a gauge of 'very, very' severe anything - it's something we all do constantly, it's just a matter of degree. Everytime you sit daydreaming in traffic or start thinking about what you set your tivo to record during a meeting you're dissociating. And extreme dissociation can be identified with very positive experiences too, like religious rapture, meditation etc.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Dissociation doesn't have to be a negative. Some people will contend that eradicating a concept of self it's what's at the heart of the likes of taoism.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed with you guesswest. There is a similar approach in other eastern religions, such as buddhism for instance. The difference may be that in buddhism the goal is not the eradication of the self but, at very least, the seeing thru the falsity of the concept, especially in its monolithic aspect.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in free will ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that opinion extend to everybody or only apply to yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone, if I understand your meaning.

According to my evaluation, the likelihood of free will existing in the universe is very small. Does that clarify things?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in free will ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that opinion extend to everybody or only apply to yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone, if I understand your meaning.

According to my evaluation, the likelihood of free will existing in the universe is very small. Does that clarify things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since you ask, perhaps you won’t mind explaining what, if any, specific observations you have made of the universe that preclude free will being possible.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe in free will ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Does that opinion extend to everybody or only apply to yourself?

[/ QUOTE ]

Everyone, if I understand your meaning.

According to my evaluation, the likelihood of free will existing in the universe is very small. Does that clarify things?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, since you ask, perhaps you won’t mind explaining what, if any, specific observations you have made of the universe that preclude free will being possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

And also how you reconcile the lack of free will with the illusion that we are making our own choices.

[madnak]

I don't believe there are any such observations. It's possible the universe doesn't work in a causal or probabilistic way. That is extremely counterintuitive to me, and I can't think of any mechanism by which choice would otherwise occur.

I'm not certain that free will doesn't exist. I don't believe in certainty. But my belief is pretty strong.

[madnak]

I don't see any conflict there.

[Andrew Karpinski]

It is tough to imagine what could give you free will. Your brain? Your kidney? Your 'soul'? How can these items provide you with free will.

Why do we have the illusion of it? I'm not sure but certainly that is what it is; an illusion.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It is tough to imagine what could give you free will. Your brain? Your kidney? Your 'soul'? How can these items provide you with free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
By allowing you to make a choice not predetermined by your present state?

[ QUOTE ]
Why do we have the illusion of it? I'm not sure but certainly that is what it is; an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Does your certainty arise from being "tough to imagine what could give you free will"? Or do you have strong evidence suggesting it is illusory?

[Andrew Karpinski]

If your decisions are not predetermined than they are random. Neither give you free will.

My certainty arrises from the fact that free will is an impossible concept.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
It is tough to imagine what could give you free will. Your brain? Your kidney? Your 'soul'? How can these items provide you with free will.

Why do we have the illusion of it? I'm not sure but certainly that is what it is; an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, it’s tough to imagine how free will could exist. It’s even tougher to imagine how anything in anyone’s extremely limited understanding of the physical basis of the mind could have greater significance as evidence than firsthand experience.

[pilliwinks]

I'm with you on this one Sharkey.

Is anyone going to comment on emergent properties? The relationship between memory and imagination?

[madnak]

How does that bear on free will?

[vhawk01]

Everything is essentially inference from personal experience. The problem is trying to compensate for bias.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
It is tough to imagine what could give you free will. Your brain? Your kidney? Your 'soul'? How can these items provide you with free will.

Why do we have the illusion of it? I'm not sure but certainly that is what it is; an illusion.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is much harder to imagine what mechanism could be making all of these decisions for me, if I dont have free will.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
If your decisions are not predetermined than they are random. Neither give you free will.

My certainty arrises from the fact that free will is an impossible concept.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try providing some support for these proclamations, discussion is pointless without them.

[Andrew Karpinski]

If you think about it you realize how impossible it is.

Free will implies that you can choose between options. But how? What does the choosing? Consider this :
your brain operates the way it does because of it's properities, because of how it is constructed. If it were made up in a different manner it would behave differently. If it is made up in exactly the same manner it would behave exactly the same. Even if it didn't, even if it behaved randomly because of something on the quantum level, this doesn't provide you with free will. Free will implies an active choice, not randomness.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Try providing some support for these proclamations, discussion is pointless without them.

[/ QUOTE ]


What makes you believe in free will??


I mean, when you make a choice, why is it YOU that is making that choice, and not the combination of genetic and environmental factors that make up who you are, and how you got to that point?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
If you think about it you realize how impossible it is.


[/ QUOTE ]

I have thought about it extensively. It is not impossible and your saying it is doesnt make it so.

[ QUOTE ]
Free will implies that you can choose between options. But how? What does the choosing?

[/ QUOTE ]

What does the choosing? My brain does the choosing, if that it what you are asking.


[ QUOTE ]
Consider this :
your brain operates the way it does because of it's properities, because of how it is constructed. If it were made up in a different manner it would behave differently.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its construction would lead to a different mechanic of executing thoughts but would not necessarily lead to a different result. A sand dial and a Timex watch are constructed differently, but if both are accurately built and read they come to the same conclusion about what time it is.

[ QUOTE ]
If it is made up in exactly the same manner it would behave exactly the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

If by "made up in exactly the same manner" you mean they function with the same processes than it is not correct that they will behave the same. Identical twins brains' have the same construction but they will not make the same decisions. If by "made up in exactly the same manner you mean that every synapse is connected to other synapeses in a direct mapping, that the quantity and location of every molecule is identical, then yes they would behave the same, since all of the life experiences, values, decisions ever made by the two organisms housing that brain would be identical. Two identical organisms coming to the same decision doesnt mean they didnt each have the opportuity to make a choice.

[ QUOTE ]
Even if it didn't, even if it behaved randomly because of something on the quantum level, this doesn't provide you with free will. Free will implies an active choice, not randomness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who maintained anything different?

[Copernicus]

[quote}

What makes you believe in free will??

[/ QUOTE ]

I believe in free will because I experience it. If that experience is an illusion it is irrelevant whether there is free will or not.


[ QUOTE ]
I mean, when you make a choice, why is it YOU that is making that choice, and not the combination of genetic and environmental factors that make up who you are, and how you got to that point?

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? "I" am the combination of genetic and environmental factors that make up who I am and how I got to this point. When I make a choice "I" make a choice. Your question makes no sense.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Huh? "I" am the combination of genetic and environmental factors that make up who I am and how I got to this point. When I make a choice "I" make a choice. Your question makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]


This statement seems to suggest you do not in fact believe in free will.


My point was: all decisions are made based on genetics and environment, over neither of which do you have ANY control. All decisions are made by factors over which you have no control. How can that be free will??

[CallMeIshmael]

Also, while we're at it, to the people who believe in free will:

Do non humans have it? Or is it strictly humans?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Huh? "I" am the combination of genetic and environmental factors that make up who I am and how I got to this point. When I make a choice "I" make a choice. Your question makes no sense.

[/ QUOTE ]



This statement seems to suggest you do not in fact believe in free will.


My point was: all decisions are made based on genetics and environment, over neither of which do you have ANY control. All decisions are made by factors over which you have no control. How can that be free will??

[/ QUOTE ]

But I do have control over my environment. I can choose what environment I live in, and I can impact the environment once Ive chosen to live in it.

The existence or non-existence of free will is ultimately of no consequence anyway.

We live our lives making decisions, and it appears to us as if we have free will. If there is free will, then everything is consistent, and we go on making decisions the same way we always have.

If there is no free will, we certainly live under the illusion of having free will. If we wake up tomorrow and "decide" there is no free will we really didnt make that decision..it was predestined, as will every future decision be. We cant even decide not to make any decisions, claiming that we have no choice so why bother, because we dont have the ability to decide not to make any decisions.
Therefore this new belief has no impact on the way we conduct our lives, we will do what we were destined to do.

Now what if it is somehow PROVEN there is no free will. We can ignore that fact, and go on the way were are destined to go on. Or we can recognize that since the illusion of free will was so strong, but just an illusion, that we cannot rely on the "reality" of anything..all may be illusion.

So what? We can stew over illusion vs reality as much as we want, but since we have no free will, we will just do what we were destined to do anyway.

In summary....free will or no free will? Who cares.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
... your brain operates the way it does because of it's properities ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Naturally, and one of those properties is free will.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
But I do have control over my environment. I can choose what environment I live in, and I can impact the environment once Ive chosen to live in it

[/ QUOTE ]

But those decisions are themselves based upon genetics and environment.

And this can continue back until birth. Thus, there is no free will.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Naturally, and one of those properties is free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, well thought out argument.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Naturally, and one of those properties is free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent, well thought out argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not only that, it’s also based on the first-person testimony of millions.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
it’s also based on the first-person testimony of millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another excellent argument

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But I do have control over my environment. I can choose what environment I live in, and I can impact the environment once Ive chosen to live in it

[/ QUOTE ]

But those decisions are themselves based upon genetics and environment.

And this can continue back until birth. Thus, there is no free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK...I will grant you that piece of your hypothesis. When you look at the other half of your hypothesis however, it is both unproven and/or it suffers from Petitio Principii.

Your premise is that all decisions are made based on genetics and environment. Prove that without resorting to cirular reasoning back to free will. (And dont ask me to prove that they arent, its your hypothesis, not mine.)

And believe me I have carefully considered the issue since I find myself uncomfortable agreeing with Sharkey about anything! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it’s also based on the first-person testimony of millions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Another excellent argument

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, that’s wonderful. Have a nice day.

[madnak]

It doesn't appear to us that we have free will. At least not to me.

There's a very big difference between will and free will. "Free" is the operative word. I make plenty of choices, but I am well aware that they aren't "free." In fact, I even behave in highly predictable manners, and if I make a mistake my immediate impulse is to figure out why I made the mistake. That is, to discover the cause of the mistake. I am always running on the assumption that every one of my choices has a reason behind it. If my choices weren't causal, they would seem arbitrary to me and I would be very disturbed.

It's possible that's the main reason I don't believe in free will. The belief in determinism is absolutely critical to me. If I act in anger, I need to ask myself "what caused that anger? And what caused me to act on it?" Then by identifying the causes I learn more about myself. That's how I grow as a person, by recognizing the causal mechanisms that underlie my choices. So far my predictions have all been reasonably accurate. I've had major success by looking at the why of my choices. I've been able to eliminate a lot of behavior that I don't want. I've been able to reinforce behavior that I do want.

Obviously there is some causal element in choice. Nobody can prove that choice is wholly causal, but that view seems much more powerful and harmonious to me. The idea of free will strikes me as a dissonant and depressing sort of construction. I like my actions to have a purpose.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Your premise is that all decisions are made based on genetics and environment. Prove that without resorting to cirular reasoning back to free will. (And dont ask me to prove that they arent, its your hypothesis, not mine.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I think this is the one point where I cant necessarily prove that I am right. And Im willing to admit this.

But, I think any argument that says decisions arent based on genes or environment is most certainly not going to be the most parsimonious explanation...

ESPECIALLY when you conceded that if you somehow replicated every molecule of a human they would make identical decisions to the original human.

[ QUOTE ]
And believe me I have carefully considered the issue since I find myself uncomfortable agreeing with Sharkey about anything! /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Well, clearly

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
But, I think any argument that says decisions arent based on genes or environment is most certainly not going to be the most parsimonious explanation...

[/ QUOTE ]

On what basis do you exclude free will as a product of genes and environment?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, while we're at it, to the people who believe in free will:

Do non humans have it? Or is it strictly humans?

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it is anything sentient (which I think is a gradient pretty strongly correlated with linguistic ability).

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't appear to us that we have free will. At least not to me.

There's a very big difference between will and free will. "Free" is the operative word. I make plenty of choices, but I am well aware that they aren't "free." In fact, I even behave in highly predictable manners, and if I make a mistake my immediate impulse is to figure out why I made the mistake. That is, to discover the cause of the mistake. I am always running on the assumption that every one of my choices has a reason behind it. If my choices weren't causal, they would seem arbitrary to me and I would be very disturbed.

It's possible that's the main reason I don't believe in free will. The belief in determinism is absolutely critical to me. If I act in anger, I need to ask myself "what caused that anger? And what caused me to act on it?" Then by identifying the causes I learn more about myself. That's how I grow as a person, by recognizing the causal mechanisms that underlie my choices. So far my predictions have all been reasonably accurate. I've had major success by looking at the why of my choices. I've been able to eliminate a lot of behavior that I don't want. I've been able to reinforce behavior that I do want.

Obviously there is some causal element in choice. Nobody can prove that choice is wholly causal, but that view seems much more powerful and harmonious to me. The idea of free will strikes me as a dissonant and depressing sort of construction. I like my actions to have a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent post - I disagree with it but dont know why.

[madnak]

Well, the logic isn't very solid. My "explanations" could be very post-hoc, particularly with regard to spontaneous action. And I may look at those choices that are easy to determine through causal means and generalize those patterns to choices where free will is more relevant. And my "discomfort" isn't a rational grounds. It's not much of an argument against free will in general, but it's a solid argument against free will for me personally. I suppose it's similar to your perspective on religion.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
It doesn't appear to us that we have free will. At least not to me.

There's a very big difference between will and free will. "Free" is the operative word. I make plenty of choices, but I am well aware that they aren't "free." In fact, I even behave in highly predictable manners, and if I make a mistake my immediate impulse is to figure out why I made the mistake. That is, to discover the cause of the mistake. I am always running on the assumption that every one of my choices has a reason behind it. If my choices weren't causal, they would seem arbitrary to me and I would be very disturbed.

It's possible that's the main reason I don't believe in free will. The belief in determinism is absolutely critical to me. If I act in anger, I need to ask myself "what caused that anger? And what caused me to act on it?" Then by identifying the causes I learn more about myself. That's how I grow as a person, by recognizing the causal mechanisms that underlie my choices. So far my predictions have all been reasonably accurate. I've had major success by looking at the why of my choices. I've been able to eliminate a lot of behavior that I don't want. I've been able to reinforce behavior that I do want.

Obviously there is some causal element in choice. Nobody can prove that choice is wholly causal, but that view seems much more powerful and harmonious to me. The idea of free will strikes me as a dissonant and depressing sort of construction. I like my actions to have a purpose.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I think you do believe in "free will", at least as I understand the term. To me the opposite of "Free will" is "totally out of your control", not merely constrained.

In fact embedded in your text is a direct contradiction to you statement that you dont believe we have free will, at least on a "gut" level.

You say "if I make a mistake my immediate impulse is to figure out why I made the mistake".

If you truly believed there is no free will "you" can never make a "mistake". First the decision is out your control, so you didnt make it, and second "no choice" = "no mistakes"

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read a snippet from someone who claims she has eradicated the feeling of having free will. She says that when she makes a choice, it no longer feels to her that there is any "thing" making that choice. I cant conceive how it would be possible but she maintains that over time you can live as a determinist without the subjective feeling of making a choice. Has anyone here tried to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. I think that's a very dangerous way to think and live.
As someone explained it to me on here (I also had a hard time coming to grips with determinism)....

Just because all events lead to only 1 possibility, doesn't mean you aren't making choices.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
If you truly believed there is no free will "you" can never make a "mistake". First the decision is out your control, so you didnt make it, and second "no choice" = "no mistakes"

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this.

Just because 'you' didnt make the choice, doesnt mean that it wasnt a mistake.

Obviously defining what exactly a mistake is, is difficult but... the mistake is the result of either inferior genes or environment, or both.


There is an interesting article somewhere in the archives of this forum from Dawkins, it started by talking about an ancient emperor who order the sea 300 lashes for drowning one of his ships, and IIRC, dealt with this issue.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Despite a lack of free will you can still make a mistake. It isn't your fault of course because you couldn't avoid doing it. For example, I count 8 eggs when their are 9 eggs there. Of course that is a mistake by even the loosest definition. I couldn't have counted 9 as I don't have any choice in what I do (although I do have the illusion of choice).

Back to what I was saying earlier :

When I say exactly the same I mean exactly the same. Take situation A) Joe walks over to the table and takes a drink of water from a cup. Now in my universe sized labratory (this is a thought experiment) I recreate the situation ENTIRELY DOWN TO EVERY ATOM. Everything is EXACTLY THE SAME. Can Joe do anything aside from walk over to the table and take a drink of water? Everything is exactly as it was in the original universe where Joe walked over and took a drink of water.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you truly believed there is no free will "you" can never make a "mistake". First the decision is out your control, so you didnt make it, and second "no choice" = "no mistakes"

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with this.

Just because 'you' didnt make the choice, doesnt mean that it wasnt a mistake.

Obviously defining what exactly a mistake is, is difficult but... the mistake is the result of either inferior genes or environment, or both.


There is an interesting article somewhere in the archives of this forum from Dawkins, it started by talking about an ancient emperor who order the sea 300 lashes for drowning one of his ships, and IIRC, dealt with this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

I pointed out 2 separate inconsistencies, and you shuffled them.

First, if there no free will there was no "you" in the decision, it was out of your control and whoeveer was in control or whatever mechanism made (or predetermined the choice] made the "mistake".

Second, if there is no choice no mistake is possible..there was no other path possible so there can be no error in the decision making process.

If you define "mistake" as leading to a suboptimal result that is not a free will issue, it is an issue of how the decsion making process, or even more to point if the decision maker is an ominsicient god, why the decision maker would choose a path that leads to a suboptimal result.

You picked up the "A" from the first statement and the "B" from the second, which I agree is a non sequiter.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
First, if there no free will there was no "you" in the decision, it was out of your control and whoeveer was in control or whatever mechanism made (or predetermined the choice] made the "mistake".

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, if there is no choice no mistake is possible..there was no other path possible so there can be no error in the decision making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree.

Just because there is no other option doesnt mean that the option that was taken wasnt bad.

[Andrew Karpinski]

Really though I think you two are getting bogged down in semantics, let's focus on the real issue here.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
First, if there no free will there was no "you" in the decision, it was out of your control and whoeveer was in control or whatever mechanism made (or predetermined the choice] made the "mistake".

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, if there is no choice no mistake is possible..there was no other path possible so there can be no error in the decision making process.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree.

Just because there is no other option doesnt mean that the option that was taken wasnt bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol....read what you wrote. "no other option" and "the option taken". If there was no other option there was nothing taken. If there is a fork in the road but the left fork is blocked by a landslide, you must take the right fork, no option = no incorrect decision.


(I have avoided the word "mistake" because as I pointed out before, the path taken...without any choice of taking it...may lead to a poor result and could be consider a qualitative mistake, but that is not a free will issue.)

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
lol....read what you wrote. "no other option" and "the option taken". If there was no other option there was nothing taken. If there is a fork in the road but the left fork is blocked by a landslide, you must take the right fork, no option = no incorrect decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im 6 tabling, and that was clearly a mistake, but you know what I meant...lets not make this semantics

My argument: just because the path that was taken was the only option does not mean it cant be judged as a mistake

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
lol....read what you wrote. "no other option" and "the option taken". If there was no other option there was nothing taken. If there is a fork in the road but the left fork is blocked by a landslide, you must take the right fork, no option = no incorrect decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im 6 tabling, and that was clearly a mistake, but you know what I meant...lets not make this semantics

My argument: just because the path that was taken was the only option does not mean it cant be judged as a mistake

[/ QUOTE ]

one mo time.....it cant be judged as a mistake in the context of "taking the wrong path" there was only one path so it cannot possibly be the "wrong one", it can be judged as a mistake in other, non free-will contexts.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
one mo time.....it cant be judged as a mistake in the context of "taking the wrong path"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it can.

Just because you only have 1 option for the path to take, doesn't mean that you didnt "take the wrong path"

I say this based on the following though:

though the person is only capable of choosing one path (as determined by his/her genetic/environmenal history) doesnt mean that the person isnt aware of other options (hence the illusion of free will) or that others also are unaware of these options.

Since the person can look at other paths (in addition to the one taken) they/we can objectively compare them.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Now in my universe sized labratory (this is a thought experiment) I recreate the situation ENTIRELY DOWN TO EVERY ATOM. Everything is EXACTLY THE SAME.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a physically meaningless description. It cannot happen, not even in theory.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
one mo time.....it cant be judged as a mistake in the context of "taking the wrong path"

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes it can.

Just because you only have 1 option for the path to take, doesn't mean that you didnt "take the wrong path"

I say this based on the following though:

though the person is only capable of choosing one path (as determined by his/her genetic/environmenal history) doesnt mean that the person isnt aware of other options (hence the illusion of free will) or that others also are unaware of these options.

Since the person can look at other paths (in addition to the one taken) they/we can objectively compare them.

[/ QUOTE ]

THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS TO LOOK AT AND COMPARE. PERIOD!

You are confusing results (which may or not be optimal) with decisions (which didnt exist).

[Andrew Karpinski]

Sharkey : Well, perhaps it could happen, who is to say. That is not the point.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS TO LOOK AT AND COMPARE. PERIOD!

[/ QUOTE ]

YES THERE ARE!

[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing results (which may or not be optimal) with decisions (which didnt exist).

[/ QUOTE ]

Decisions dont exist, options do.

I know I can answer A,B,C,D or E on a particular SAT question. Those are my options. It just happens that the decision is already made as a result of genes/environment.

Again, this is semantics, and perhaps we have slightly differing definition of options for a decision. Again, its all just semantics.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now in my universe sized labratory (this is a thought experiment) I recreate the situation ENTIRELY DOWN TO EVERY ATOM. Everything is EXACTLY THE SAME.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a physically meaningless description. It cannot happen, not even in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make it a galaxy sized lab, would that be ok?

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
THERE ARE NO OTHER OPTIONS TO LOOK AT AND COMPARE. PERIOD!

[/ QUOTE ]

YES THERE ARE!

[ QUOTE ]
You are confusing results (which may or not be optimal) with decisions (which didnt exist).

[/ QUOTE ]

Decisions dont exist, options do.

I know I can answer A,B,C,D or E on a particular SAT question. Those are my options. It just happens that the decision is already made as a result of genes/environment.

Again, this is semantics, and perhaps we have slightly differing definition of options for a decision. Again, its all just semantics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok we'll leave it at semantics.













but you cant answer A B C D or E if your choice is predetermined to be E.

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Andrew Karpinski]

This last one is a great point here. The right answer is C. You are predistined to answer D. It is clearly a mistake.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now in my universe sized labratory (this is a thought experiment) I recreate the situation ENTIRELY DOWN TO EVERY ATOM. Everything is EXACTLY THE SAME.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a physically meaningless description. It cannot happen, not even in theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you make it a galaxy sized lab, would that be ok?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Since you seem to have missed my question, I’ll repeat it here for your convenience: On what basis do you exclude free will as a product of genes and environment?

[Andrew Karpinski]

Note I would generally recommend ignoring Sharkey.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
This last one is a great point here. The right answer is C. You are predistined to answer D. It is clearly a mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is the wrong answer, but not a mistaken decision, since there never was a decision to be made. If you want to call that a mistake then it is a semantic difference.

(At least we agree about Sharkey).

[Andrew Karpinski]

Well dictionary.com agress with me :P
Mistake
An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.

This is an error resulting from deficient knowledge I believe.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
Since you seem to have missed my question, I’ll repeat it here for your convenience: On what basis do you exclude free will as a product of genes and environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did miss it.

How is any choice not the product of both genes and environment, both of which you have no control over?

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Since you seem to have missed my question, I’ll repeat it here for your convenience: On what basis do you exclude free will as a product of genes and environment?

[/ QUOTE ]

I did miss it.

How is any choice not the product of both genes and environment, both of which you have no control over?

[/ QUOTE ]

That’s only the case if everything that happens is entirely deterministically caused. To take that position would be to contradict the status quo of science (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing).

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Well dictionary.com agress with me :P
Mistake
An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.

This is an error resulting from deficient knowledge I believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can it be an error of deficient knowledge? You may know that the answer is C, but you were predestined to answer E, so you mark the answer sheet E.

[madnak]

In a deterministic universe, there must be a reason why you chose E. Assuming you intend to answer the question correctly, but answer it incorrectly, then "an error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness" is usually the cause.

Of course, that ties intent into it as well, which is another semantic obscurity.

Maybe a computer analogy is better. If I'm playing chess against a computer opponent, and the computer leaves itself open to checkmate, I would say that the computer has made a mistake. A computer is obviously incapable of will, choice, or intent. Its actions are deterministically generated. Perhaps you would say that the programmer made the mistake, or that no mistake was made. I say that the computer made a mistake, and that's how I'll continue to use the word "mistake."

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
That’s only the case if everything that happens is entirely deterministically caused. To take that position would be to contradict the status quo of science (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing).

[/ QUOTE ]


Then how are decisions based, if they arent based on genes and past experience?


EDIT: to clarify, if they arent based solely on these things, what else figures into the decision

[madnak]

I think I understand what you mean by the "illusion of free will" now. You mean my illusion that I can choose option A when in fact I will choose option C.

Context is one problem here. The "input" hasn't been fully "processed" by the "machine" of my brain. So while my brain will come to a certain decision, it isn't yet aware of that decision. What I experience isn't so much a feeling of "having multiple choices" in the sense you describe, it's more a feeling of not knowing which choice I will pick.

I do know, however, that I will pick one and only one choice.

A second element to the effect may be the lack of understanding of the causes that lead to the choice. But just because you aren't aware that causes result in your choice doesn't mean those causes don't exist. If I look at an apple, I see a red round thing. I don't see atoms. Yet I believe that apple is composed of atoms despite the fact I can't see them.

Finally, the illusion of choice depends on contingency-related thinking. "If I choose A, then..." This is a very deterministic form of thinking. When I say that I can choose A, what I mean is that if my brain processes resulted in the selection of A, nothing would restrict them from acting on that selection. I'm not saying that I want to make the decision A, I'm saying that if I wanted to then nothing would be preventing me. But whether I want to is determined by the mechanics of my mind. My wanting something doesn't represent an extranatural phenomenon.

It's true that if I chose A instead of C I would fill out A instead of C. In a similar sense, if my computer were an old Pentium II, I wouldn't be able to play Oblivion on it. Thankfully, it isn't and I can!

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
In a deterministic universe, there must be a reason why you chose E. Assuming you intend to answer the question correctly, but answer it incorrectly, then "an error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness" is usually the cause.

Of course, that ties intent into it as well, which is another semantic obscurity.

Maybe a computer analogy is better. If I'm playing chess against a computer opponent, and the computer leaves itself open to checkmate, I would say that the computer has made a mistake. A computer is obviously incapable of will, choice, or intent. Its actions are deterministically generated. Perhaps you would say that the programmer made the mistake, or that no mistake was made. I say that the computer made a mistake, and that's how I'll continue to use the word "mistake."

[/ QUOTE ]

The dictionary, not written in the context of a free will discussion, may be correct that the most common errors are of deficient judgment, knowledge or carelessness.

In fact when you get the scores back and see you marked E when you damn well knew the answer was C, you will attribute the error to carelessness. That attribution is the only "error" that has actually been made in this scenario, and that is an error of deficient knowledge..you dont have the knowledge that you did not have free will and your choice was restricted to E.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That’s only the case if everything that happens is entirely deterministically caused. To take that position would be to contradict the status quo of science (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing).

[/ QUOTE ]


Then how are decisions based, if they arent based on genes and past experience?


EDIT: to clarify, if they arent based solely on these things, what else figures into the decision

[/ QUOTE ]

The simplest, though perhaps not the best, answer could be that there is a non-deterministic element in all interactions involving matter and energy. That much is taken as given.

It has been speculated that choice could originate along similar lines.

[madnak]

Again, I'm going to continue using terminology as I define it. Otherwise I'd be reduced to saying "the big bang did this, the big bang did that," which wouldn't be practical.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The simplest, though perhaps not the best, answer could be that there is a non-deterministic element in all interactions involving matter and energy. That much is taken as given.

It has been speculated that choice could originate along similar lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting.

Can you link me to some studies/info on this subject?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, the logic isn't very solid. My "explanations" could be very post-hoc, particularly with regard to spontaneous action. And I may look at those choices that are easy to determine through causal means and generalize those patterns to choices where free will is more relevant. And my "discomfort" isn't a rational grounds. It's not much of an argument against free will in general, but it's a solid argument against free will for me personally. I suppose it's similar to your perspective on religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought the same as I read it. I'm interested that you find the idea of free will dissonant and depressing, for me it is the exact opposit. I am a dualist, separately to and prior to my theism, so have no philosophical problem explaining how we may make choices non-deterministically. Materialism seems to evoke the same feelings in me as free will does in you. I'll have to think about it more...

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The simplest, though perhaps not the best, answer could be that there is a non-deterministic element in all interactions involving matter and energy. That much is taken as given.

It has been speculated that choice could originate along similar lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is interesting.

Can you link me to some studies/info on this subject?

[/ QUOTE ]
This seems pretty close to what Roger Penrose is talking about in Shadows of the Mind (I dont have any internet link)

[madnak]

I should make it clear that I find freedom very appealing. It's free will that I find disturbing. The two concepts seem to evoke similar feelings in many people, so I think the distinction is important.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
I just read a snippet from someone who claims she has eradicated the feeling of having free will. She says that when she makes a choice, it no longer feels to her that there is any "thing" making that choice. I cant conceive how it would be possible but she maintains that over time you can live as a determinist without the subjective feeling of making a choice. Has anyone here tried to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you take it as axiomatic that all physical things must act according to physical law (as I do), then free will is logically impossible. I find it very difficult emotionally to deal with this, so I choose (or pretend to choose- lol) to believe that there is an immaterial "part" of me that makes choices (soul, heart, spirit, call it what you like). My subjective perception of a relationship with God has alot to do with this line of thinking, obviously.

[cambraceres]

Purnell, why does the nature of physical law invalidate the premise of free will?

The nature of static physical law does, but we are still quite unsure of what type of universe we are living in.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Purnell, why does the nature of physical law invalidate the premise of free will?

The nature of static physical law does, but we are still quite unsure of what type of universe we are living in.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a good enough physics background to give a good answer (E-school dropout /images/graemlins/blush.gif), so my thinking may be too simple. Basically I'm arguing that if all physical things must act according to physical law, then a being which is purely physical must also follow physical law, and thus its "willings" are merely the result of its previous state and the action of its environment. In order for a course of action to be consciously chosen (this is how I define free will), there must be something non-physical (not subject to physical law) there to choose it. Otherwise, it merely acts as it must according to physical law, and though it may feel like it is making a choice, no choice is in fact made, and so the freedom of its will is illusory.

The element of randomness introduced by quantum theory doesn't create the possibility of a free will, just a probabilistic one.

[pilliwinks]

I was expecting someone to bring up emergent properties, because they are sometimes touted as being a rational way to get non-reductionistic outcomes (ie we are more than the sum of our neurons). And if we are more than the sum of our neurons, and one of the emergent properties of a brain is that it is able to get different outputs from the same input, then we have a mechanism that could be what we experience as our will in action.

Personally I agree with whoever it was a few pages back who said that the existance or not of free will is immaterial. We all agree that we make choices and that we are and should be responsible for the outcomes. I do not think that it is possible for us to satisfactorily test to what extent those choices were constrained, so the discussion, while entertaining, is unlikely to be resolved.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
The element of randomness introduced by quantum theory doesn't create the possibility of a free will, just a probabilistic one.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you know that quantum systems aren't "choosing" which state to take?

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The element of randomness introduced by quantum theory doesn't create the possibility of a free will, just a probabilistic one.

[/ QUOTE ]
How do you [know] that quantum systems aren't "choosing" which state to take?

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly I don't- excellent question.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The element of randomness introduced by quantum theory doesn't create the possibility of a free will, just a probabilistic one.

[/ QUOTE ]


FWIW, you might find this (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Board=scimathphil&Number=442087 0&Searchpage=1&Main=4420870&Words=-re%3A+CallMeIshmael&topic=&Search=true#Post4420870 ) thread interesting.


According to the people in that thread, it appears there is no randomness at the quantum level, just randomness when observations are made.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
that is interesting. Along those same lines I was talking to someone last night and he maintains that he is complete care-less when it comes to worrying about something because he cant control it.
I wish I could come to this conclusion or something similar because now i tend to worry alot more even about things I can not contol.
As i have stated in my other post, I believe people are brainwashed so to speak as they grow up under their specific religion. I wonder if it is possible to brainwash urself to not worry?


[/ QUOTE ]

If you know you can't influence an event, it is absurd to worry about it. Keep repeating that to yourself over and over. I suppose it could be called self-indoctrination if you like, but you will be exercising your will upon yourself. Unless you like to worry.

[choicedeck]

An interesting topic...a topic well worth discussing as all the replies have shown. Here is my perception of free will:
Choice is an obvious method of control. However, in order to have COMPLETE control the future must be known. I highlight "complete" because during the decision making process, we DO NOT have complete control over the choices we are about to make, but we do influence a small part of control( not enough to change the outcome, so it's basically void). I'm very stoned...so...my credibility is a little shoddy. However, I have had this conversation many times with extremely well-versed and experienced people: i.e. a philosophy professor, 2 biochemistry majors, UC grad. student in physics with a concentration in none other than "quantam theory". Anyway, in order for complete control to exist we MUST know more than one path our lives can take and which path has the BEST outcome. However, this is not the case. I have to stop...I can't even come up with a clear thought...this is truly ridiculous. By the way, for all of you philosophers who enjoy reading about religions, check out Gnosticism. Very interesting...it's a totally different perception of Christianity that was established the second century after Jesus died. After his death, there were many different perceptions of Jesus's life, all of which wanted to be right and wanted to be the main religion. The greek orthodox church ended up phasing everyone else out due to the amount of power and money it contained. The purpose of the Gnostic's meaning of life is "knowledge" - meaning that only through experiences that metamorphosize into wisdom can we know what "God" really is and what our purpose is on the physical earth. It is very interesting and really parallels in many ways with Eastern philosophy( daoism and buddhism). Let me go on record by saying that I am not a Christian, nor a believer in many doctrines of the Bible ( I believe they are archiac and stagnant, keeping the human race from a greater understanding of the world through the use of fear. Very unfortunate..) I am spiritual person who is currently stuck on the ways of Daoism - although I wonder if Daoism is too passive. I'm really not anything( belief wise), but I do the best I can to have an idea. Hmmm... I should stop...nodding my head a smurk as I realize what I have been writing. This is [censored] ridiculous...maybe I'll try writing again later about Free Will when I can actually think.
Before I leave, I am very glad to see so many people who enjoy thinking in many neat ways...keep it up! But if course you will, at least until a new experience(s) shapes your next views and choices that will inturn spawn new experiences that will inturn make you choose one path, the only path any of us are on. If only 1 path can exist, then ultimately choice is non-existent and should be of no concern. It never existed before, and once this is truly UNDERSTOOD, choice and control will not worry your thoughts. Choice is control, and control is a byproduct of fear. And this type of fear is a hinderrence when you try to learn more about yourself. Ahhh...[censored] I need to stop...Cheers
James

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
If you take it as axiomatic that all physical things must act according to physical law (as I do), then free will is logically impossible. I find it very difficult emotionally to deal with this, so I choose (or pretend to choose- lol) to believe that there is an immaterial "part" of me that makes choices (soul, heart, spirit, call it what you like). My subjective perception of a relationship with God has alot to do with this line of thinking, obviously.

[/ QUOTE ]
Dualists certainly solve the problem of "How can we have free will?" easily, but only by creating a new one (How does a non-physical thing cause change in the physical world?) I am a dualist also, in fact it seems to me that every theist has to deny materialism.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
it appears there is no randomness at the quantum level,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a little bit of a vague statement. But I can't imagine any reasonable way to massage its meaning to make it true. There is randomness at the quantum level. That's a fact.

[ QUOTE ]
just randomness when observations are made.

[/ QUOTE ]
The word "just" is a little misplaced here. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be under the impression that the observer introduces randomness into a quantum experiment. This is false. The randomness in quantum phenomena is intrinsic to the quantum system itself, and is not simply an effect of being unable to precisely measure something, or being unable to measure something without perturbing it. I don't really care to wade through that other thread, but if some people there are under this impression, they are mistaken.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it appears there is no randomness at the quantum level,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a little bit of a vague statement. But I can't imagine any reasonable way to massage its meaning to make it true. There is randomness at the quantum level. That's a fact.

[ QUOTE ]
just randomness when observations are made.

[/ QUOTE ]
The word "just" is a little misplaced here. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be under the impression that the observer introduces randomness into a quantum experiment. This is false. The randomness in quantum phenomena is intrinsic to the quantum system itself, and is not simply an effect of being unable to precisely measure something, or being unable to measure something without perturbing it. I don't really care to wade through that other thread, but if some people there are under this impression, they are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread (http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=4886263&an=&page=&vc=1) is a little shorter but outlines at least the start of a possible conception of quantum mechanics which is not random. Personally, I think the randomness is inherent but the paper referenced in the above link is food for thought.

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
it appears there is no randomness at the quantum level,

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a little bit of a vague statement. But I can't imagine any reasonable way to massage its meaning to make it true. There is randomness at the quantum level. That's a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

Randomness isn’t quite right, anyway. Indeterminism is a more appropriate concept.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The simplest, though perhaps not the best, answer could be that there is a non-deterministic element in all interactions involving matter and energy. That much is taken as given.

It has been speculated that choice could originate along similar lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any chance you can link me to some info on this Sparkey? Seems interesting.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
The word "just" is a little misplaced here. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but you appear to be under the impression that the observer introduces randomness into a quantum experiment. This is false. The randomness in quantum phenomena is intrinsic to the quantum system itself, and is not simply an effect of being unable to precisely measure something, or being unable to measure something without perturbing it. I don't really care to wade through that other thread, but if some people there are under this impression, they are mistaken.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im a bio student, and dont claim to have much knowledge of quantum physics.

Highlights from the other thread:

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is no. If you have a definite state of an isolated system at T=now, it will evolve to a unique state at T=later. This does not contradict the uncertainty principle!

However, if you start performing measurements on the system, determinism seems to break down (there is in general more than one possible outcome of the measurement). The puzzling nature of this feature of quantum mechanics is referred to as the "measurement problem" -- it's definately not the uncertainty principle, which says something completely different.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
This is perhaps where you are confusing the two issues above. The state of the particle is not in a probability distribution -- it evolves deterministically. One unique vector in Hilbert space evolves to another unique vector in Hilbert space according to the Schroedinger equation. However, if you perform a measurement, you will force the state of the particle into an eigenstate of the observed quantity (yet another vector in Hilbert space), and it is this process that fails to be deterministic. The lack of determinism is not about evolution or the uncertainty principle -- it is about measurement!

[/ QUOTE ]



These seem to imply there is not randomness at the quantum level. Though, again, I dont claim to have a great deal of knowledge on this subject.

[jason1990]

It's true that in the classical interpretation of QM, the "state" of a quantum system evolves deterministically between measurements. But the "state" is just an abstract mathematical object: a vector in Hilbert space. This vector encodes the probability distributions of all possible observable quantities related to the system.

For example, if you want to know whether a particle is moving in some particular direction, the "state" will not tell you that. It only tells you the probability that, upon measuring the velocity of the particle, you will find it moving in that direction. This probability changes with time, and changes in a deterministic manner up until the time you measure the particle to determine its direction of motion. The result of this measurement is not the necessary consequence of any set of variables, known or unknown.

In short, what is evolving deterministically between measurements is the probability distributions of the observable quantities.

[choicedeck]

It seems you are in the world between realizing and understanding....this is good. You focus on self-awareness and have brought down many conventional walls, which can be pretty blinding. However, you haven't had enough time facing fears with the purpose to understand their root. Hmmm...I'm not going to be able to finish this well at all, so maybe I'll try later. Sorry man, I'm pretty baked.
Cheers
James

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The simplest, though perhaps not the best, answer could be that there is a non-deterministic element in all interactions involving matter and energy. That much is taken as given.

It has been speculated that choice could originate along similar lines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any chance you can link me to some info on this Sparkey? Seems interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

I’ve never seen it on the web. It’s probably out there somewhere via Google.

Sparkey?

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
Randomness isn’t quite right, anyway. Indeterminism is a more appropriate concept.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a probabilist, the word "random" means (to me) "not deterministic". This has become so ingrained in my vocabulary, that it's difficult for me to remember how the rest of the world uses the word. Perhaps you could refresh my memory. In common usage, what is the difference between random and not deterministic. Other people please chime in. I would like to have a broad understanding of this to use in my writing.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
As a probabilist, the word "random" means (to me) "not deterministic". This has become so ingrained in my vocabulary, that it's difficult for me to remember how the rest of the world uses the word. Perhaps you could refresh my memory. In common usage, what is the difference between random and not deterministic. Other people please chime in. I would like to have a broad understanding of this to use in my writing.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldnt presume to give an account of popular usage but I would distinguish between them - I think random is a subset of not deterministic. I think there are also events which do not occur as a consequence of a prior physical state but which are not random (I am thinking of free will and me making a choice). When choosing a drink I will usually choose Jamieson and Dry but occasionally choose Jamieson straight - I dont believe this is determined by my current physical state, nor is it random, I make a choice.

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
I think there are also events which do not occur as a consequence of a prior physical state but which are not random (I am thinking of free will and me making a choice). When choosing a drink I will usually choose Jamieson and Dry but occasionally choose Jamieson straight - I dont believe this is determined by my current physical state, nor is it random, I make a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you also say that there are events which are both deterministic and random, such as rolling a die? The process is deterministic, but due to lack of information, we cannot predict the outcome, so it is random (at least to us). Or would you not use the word "random" in this way?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think there are also events which do not occur as a consequence of a prior physical state but which are not random (I am thinking of free will and me making a choice). When choosing a drink I will usually choose Jamieson and Dry but occasionally choose Jamieson straight - I dont believe this is determined by my current physical state, nor is it random, I make a choice.

[/ QUOTE ]
Would you also say that there are events which are both deterministic and random, such as rolling a die? The process is deterministic, but due to lack of information, we cannot predict the outcome, so it is random (at least to us). Or would you not use the word "random" in this way?

[/ QUOTE ]
I would call this random too. I dont think it is due to our lack of information - I think the world has fundamental random elements (physically) at microscopic levels and this has an effect "higher up".

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Randomness isn’t quite right, anyway. Indeterminism is a more appropriate concept.

[/ QUOTE ]
As a probabilist, the word "random" means (to me) "not deterministic". This has become so ingrained in my vocabulary, that it's difficult for me to remember how the rest of the world uses the word. Perhaps you could refresh my memory. In common usage, what is the difference between random and not deterministic. Other people please chime in. I would like to have a broad understanding of this to use in my writing.

[/ QUOTE ]

This should be more or less the correct distinction.

Random: unpredictable result within a known distribution.

Indeterminate: unpredictable effect due to undefined causes.

So randomness would be a type of indeterminacy. At least those are the uses I learned. In what sense do you mean probabilist?

[jason1990]

[ QUOTE ]
This should be more or less the correct distinction.

Random: unpredictable result within a known distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]
So if I flip a biased coin, but I don't know the probability of heads (so the distribution is unknown), then is the result of that toss random?

[ QUOTE ]
Indeterminate: unpredictable effect due to undefined causes.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is "undefined" here the same as "unknown"? What if an event is not due to any causes at all? I'm a little confused by the distinction you're trying to make. Is this a common distinction? It might help me if you gave an example or two of events which are indeterminate, but not random. Are you basically talking about bunny's example of choosing what drink to order -- his choice is not determined, but it is also not random?

[ QUOTE ]
So randomness would be a type of indeterminacy. At least those are the uses I learned. In what sense do you mean probabilist?

[/ QUOTE ]
In the sense of a mathematician that specializes in probability theory.

[Sharkey]

Randomness would be a qualification on indeterminacy by restricting outcomes to a discrete set of possible values (a dealt hand of cards), while indeterminacy per se is the result of undefined causality (the orbit of an electron).

Thus, whether something is determined or not is a function of what is known about it and not an intrinsic quality. That is my opinion based on the definitions I provided.