My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

Lots of people ask me about this. Do humans have free will?

Well if you are going to discuss this question rigorously, it is imperative that you define what you mean by "free will" in very precise technical terms. On the other hand, even though it might be very difficult to come up with this technical, precise definition, the fact is that free will is a lot like what pornography was to that judge. "I know it when I see it".

I'm pretty sure that I have the jist of a proof that free will exists. Intuitively I am almost certain of it. But to turn this general idea into a rigorous proof would probably require a Godel type logician. Mere hi fallooin philosophers are probably not smart enough. I might be able to do it myself but I have got a poker tournament to deal with.

Anyway, it seems to me that somewhere out there in logicland, a proof of free will can be constructed from the simple fact that PEOPLE WONDER (AND DISCUSS) WHETHER THEY HAVE FREE WILL.

If Bertrand Russel were alive, I am almost sure he could elaborate.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

nsfw

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

Sort of like a "I think, there I am" notion.

Obligatory Shannon quote
 

Claude Shannon, when asked if machines can think: "I'm a machine and you're a machine, and we both think, don't we?"

Optional starbird quote: "The difference between a human being, and, say, a dinner plate, is that the plate lacks the illusion of free will."

Re: Obligatory Shannon quote
 

Like you say, it all comes down do definitions. I personally think we are deterministic in a random environment. That is I think if you reproduced the universe exactly, down to quantum states that were collapsed into and not, you would get the same decision from a human every single time.

Starbird, I like that second quote a lot.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]

Mere hi fallooin philosophers are probably not smart enough. I might be able to do it myself but I have got a poker tournament to deal with.


[/ QUOTE ]

Sklansky posts are starting to grow on me.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that I have the jist of a proof that free will exists. Intuitively I am almost certain of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, just scribble in a margin somewhere.

luckyme

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well if you are going to discuss this question rigorously, it is imperative that you define what you mean by "free will" in very precise technical terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I choose 'anything'? no, that would make it 'random will' and there would be no sense of "I" making choices.
Will there be a reason I made a choice? Then it would be constrained by preconditions.

My own approach is the "assumed free will" and I await the fermatian margin notes that clarify it for me.
Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" seems on the right track but not quite at the station.

luckyme

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

very good despite the repeated contradiction.

chez

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Well if you are going to discuss this question rigorously, it is imperative that you define what you mean by "free will" in very precise technical terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can I choose 'anything'? no, that would make it 'random will' and there would be no sense of "I" making choices.
Will there be a reason I made a choice? Then it would be constrained by preconditions.

My own approach is the "assumed free will" and I await the fermatian margin notes that clarify it for me.
Dennett's "Freedom Evolves" seems on the right track but not quite at the station.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
The sort of freedom Dennett talks about is consistent with us having no free-will in the sense people usually mean, its simply consistent with determinism. Its also probably sufficient to produce creature that wonder about free-will which would make the op not very profound.

As for DS's post (an idea I've seen somewhere before, can't remember where) it just sounds like it refers to this deterministic free-will or is an abuse of language

If Wittgenstein or Shopenhower were alive ...

chez

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
The sort of freedom Dennett talks about is consistent with us having no free-will in the sense people usually mean,

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP mentioned the need fo a definition which is what is lacking in most peoples sense of free-will.
Free to choose anything is more like a quantum random number generator and could hardly count as "my' choice or any choice.
Constrained in some way by preconditions in my brain doesn't fit any sense of 'free'.

I'm not concerned with the actual mechanism that would give us free will, I'm waiting to hear a definition of it that actually keeps it 'free'.

luckyme

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

It is quite easy to observe that a human has the power of decision wherein the subject is asked to make a selection from two or more choices.

If selected choice is evidence of "will", then the remainder of the discussion has to do with the definition of "free".

Ray

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The sort of freedom Dennett talks about is consistent with us having no free-will in the sense people usually mean,

[/ QUOTE ]

The OP mentioned the need fo a definition which is what is lacking in most peoples sense of free-will.
Free to choose anything is more like a quantum random number generator and could hardly count as "my' choice or any choice.
Constrained in some way by preconditions in my brain doesn't fit any sense of 'free'.

I'm not concerned with the actual mechanism that would give us free will, I'm waiting to hear a definition of it that actually keeps it 'free'.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, free-will is easy to say but doesn't seem to refer to anything much.

chez

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm pretty sure that I have the jist of a proof that free will exists. Intuitively I am almost certain of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

well, just scribble in a margin somewhere.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL. Hilarious post.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]


I'm pretty sure that I have the jist of a proof that free will exists. [...] I might be able to do it myself but I have got a poker tournament to deal with.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm pretty sure I could cure cancer and win the Nobel for Meds-- but my schedule for today has "download porn from the internet" slated for all waking hours. Oh well. Duty calls.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

so uncertainty about x implies x.

this seems highly implausible for just about anything other than uncertainty and anything that uncertainty implies (thinking for example).

Is the intuition that deliberation (rather than uncertainty) about free will implies free will?

But without assuming free will to begin with, deliberation ought also questioned as whether it legitmately exists. Sure, people reason to conclusions, but is it deliberation if they must end up at one particular answer (is not knowing what the answer will be sufficient to call reasoning deliberation? maybe?)

Without the further elaboration that Russell could provide, this stance is suprisingly uninformative, but at least it recognizes the work required to answer the question well. And since many people have strong feelings about the issue without precise and rigorous definitions, this is worth something.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
Anyway, it seems to me that somewhere out there in logicland, a proof of free will can be constructed from the simple fact that PEOPLE WONDER (AND DISCUSS) WHETHER THEY HAVE FREE WILL.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. Discussing and wondering about free will can just be a product of the deliberative process that helps super-smart and incredibly-well adapted beings like humans make very good decisions, taking into account theoretical considerations, etc etc. I.e., the determinist just sees this as a perfectly reasonable (even expected) symptom of high-order reasoning.

I've spent a significant amount of time studying the free will question, and I've come to the conclusion that all sides are just talking past each other using different definitions. Pretty much everyone thinks we have to at least pretend we have free will in order to operate (although this would be true of people who didn't have FW too), and everything past that is kind of spinning wheels.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

Such an algorithm will hit an enormous number of problems. Roger Penrose considers a similar question in a number of his books (e.g. The Emporer's New Mind.) He restricts himself to the question of whether a computer can be programmed to do useful mathematics.

His conclusion stems for Godel's incompleteness theorems. He thinks computers cannot do meaningful maths, whereas humans can.

So humans do have free will.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was going to respond, but I think you sum it up pretty well.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

free = to have no external determinants

will = conscious purpose

free will = conscious purpose without external determinants

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

"Is the intuition that deliberation (rather than uncertainty) about free will implies free will?"

Yes of course that was what I meant.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Is the answer no because there is true randomness in the states the human encounters? If so, does this mean there is an algorithm which takes as input the state of the universe and outputs the human's decision?

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have to disagree. Well sort of anyway. If we don't have free will then it is implied that an external influence is responsible for the "choices" we make. That influence could be broadly categorised into 2 possibilities. One is that the software hardwired into our brains is the sole mechanism responsible for our actions and that we're unable to transcend this programming, so once we are born we are essentially on autopilot. This encompases fnord's suggestion that:

[ QUOTE ]
if you reproduced the universe exactly, down to quantum states that were collapsed into and not, you would get the same decision from a human every single time.

[/ QUOTE ]

The other possibility is that we are subject to, with some undetermined frequency, the ongoing influence of another entity or entities. The entity/ies could be something like a deity who played a part in our creation or who was otherwise charged with the responsibility of influencing some/all aspects of our existence. We could be part of an MMORPG type existence whereby some beings using quantum gamepads exercise a very hands-on level of control over our daily lives (disclaimer: I do not and have not ever played an MMORPG). Anyways I'm getting off track here.

Assuming the first possibility is true and the second is false (I guess a combination of both being true is possible) then the relevant external influence ended long ago when the wheels were set in motion that resulted in our biological evolution. Therefore, though the model would be extremely complex and have many variables, it must be theoretically possible to predict future actions assuming a given "brain state" and specific input.

So to answer the question: [ QUOTE ]
If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

[/ QUOTE ]
Depending on the nature of the external influence, yes.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
free = to have no external determinants

will = conscious purpose

free will = conscious purpose without external determinants

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if all of my actions are determined by the molecular configuration of my body at the time that I act, is that "free will" since nothing external is at work?

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
free = to have no external determinants

will = conscious purpose

free will = conscious purpose without external determinants

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if all of my actions are determined by the molecular configuration of my body at the time that I act, is that "free will" since nothing external is at work?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. Why does the external influence need to be perpetual, or even current? Your molecular configuration may be a result of past external influences.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
free = to have no external determinants

will = conscious purpose

free will = conscious purpose without external determinants

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if all of my actions are determined by the molecular configuration of my body at the time that I act, is that "free will" since nothing external is at work?

[/ QUOTE ]

Under those conditions, I'd say you would technically qualify as free. However, since consciousness is not, or at least has never been shown to be, reducible to molecular configurations, you would basically be an autonomous robot.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

"Having free will" implies that it was given to us.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

Free will implies that having made a choice, it is always possible that one might have chosen otherwise.
If its not possible that one could have chosen otherwise then there is no freewill.
My question to those who believe on free will, how could I have chosen differently?

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand. Is the answer no because there is true randomness in the states the human encounters? If so, does this mean there is an algorithm which takes as input the state of the universe and outputs the human's decision?

[/ QUOTE ]

In theory it is possible, you just create an exact model of the universe and just watch it to see what is going to happen.

In practices I believe it is logically beyond humans to completely predict the future in this way, as the universe satisfies the conditions of Gödel’s theorem.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
Well if you are going to discuss this question rigorously, it is imperative that you define what you mean by "free will" in very precise technical terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

No $hit.

In my opinion free will exists.

The most natural way to consider it is as a sensation that humans, and presumably other primates at least, feel when they make decisions.

The advantage it gives the life form is I think clear, especially if you consider a human that does not have the sensation of free will when making decisions can reasonably be considered insane.

Inability to generate the sensation of free will typically leads to a feeling that life is meaningless and a much-increased chance of suicide. It would appear easy to see how life forms evolved to have this particular trait.

Another way to view free will, is as a view we have on the world, analogues to say tinted glasses. Viewing all social reactions between humans with the presumption of free will makes the interpretation of these actions much easier and hence much simplifies decision-making.

While the sensation of free will is a very useful process, it is nevertheless a form of self-delusion and there I think times where it is useful to deactivate it.

For instance say you make a tight pre flop fold, and would have floped the nuts and miss out on a huge flop. This can be quite distressing if you actually believe you had a free choice when you folded.

I find myself generally unaffected by this sort of thing, because I can get myself to really believe I did not have a choice. That the way the universe was constructed I had no option but to make the decision I made. This prevents me getting upset and allows me to more easily maintain my focus. In almost all other situations I manage to maintain the illusion of free will. Fortunately I believe I have a particularly stable personality, so I feel I can get away with such dangerous tampering with my psychological balance. I would not necessarily recommend it to everyone.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

Free will?

When I hear this term used in religious circles it has to do with a decision, usually about an action.

Is the meaning here to mean free will to think anything? If so, the answer for most people is no, imo. Too many barriers were placed in one's development process by parents, teachers, etc to have no restrictions on thinking. Even if you don't see any doesn't mean they aren't there. It would be easier for someone else to see (who has different barriers).

If free will is about choices then the answer would also be no, imo. Can you murder your children just to see if they'll scream? Only an insane person can answer that question yes. Instinct will get in the way of that decision.

Can David take all of his clothes off right now, walk out his door and start walking over to the Bellagio? Not unless he went insane (although I've been told there is a thin line between insane and genius [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] ).

So, perhaps only a truly insane person has free will.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

if there is something other than our genes and our experience that determines what we do, what is it?

if there is nothing else, then it is merely our extensive use of symbols for metaphors of reality, that gives us the illusion of free will.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

David,

How do you know god isn't forcing us to consider the free will problem?

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

not to be a philosophy snob, but i don't think there's anything in this thread that isn't covered a hundred times in an undergraduate survey course on free will. people are making a lot of statements or conclusions that they think are dispositive, as if philosophers haven't considered every one of these arguments since aristotle -- and a million articles have been written on the implications that genetics and quantum mechanics have for the debate.

If someone has made a dispositive statement about free will, it would probably be the aforementioned Bertrand Russell, from Why I am Not a Christian:

"If when a man writes a poem or commits a murder, the bodily movements involved in his act result solely from physical causes, it would seem absurd to put up a statue to him in the one case and to hang him in the other."

This doesn't really say much on the question of whether we have free will or not, but it illustrates the necessity of acting as if.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

The idea of a proof of free will resulting from the premise of deliberating about free will is interesting. As far as I know, the opposite approach is normatlly taken (without free will we could not deliberate, or at least without the future seeming open we could not deliberate)

I would probably challenge the premise that we actually deliberate (or that this word is as murky as the other terms in the debate) as my earlier post suggested. But I think most people will accept that we deliberate (it seems even more basic than free will in a way and while free will may be necessary for deliberation, deliberation may be sufficient for free will) so it is an argument that would have wide appeal.

There is a potential problem since all that may be required for deliberation is the illusion of free will. But the OP may well have been intending to go a different direction with this. Also while almost certainly a minority position, it seems to me that the link between moral responsibility and free will is exagerated. From a utilitarian perspective, learning that we have no free will does not present good grounds to give up the current moral structure we have in place unless we can replace it with a better (in terms of utility) structure. No structure at all is almost certainly negative utility for society.

A similar error is often made in terms of skepticism:

We don't know that we aren't brains in vat.
If we don't know we aren't brains in a vat, we don't know we have hands.
We don't know we have hands.

But then an additional step is usually taken,

Since we don't know we have hands, we should stop believing that we have hands. Then iterate this for all other beliefs and you arrive at the principle that you should stop believing everything. But this principle of belief revision does not follow from skepticism and is an independent assertion.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
If free will is about choices then the answer would also be no, imo. Can you murder your children just to see if they'll scream? Only an insane person can answer that question yes. Instinct will get in the way of that decision.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't discriminate like that; either we all have free will or we all don't have free will. If one "insane" person can exhibit this behaviour then we all potentially can, it's just that the overwhelming majority of people "choose" not to. So if you want to conclude that a person murdering their child just to see if they'll scream is a demonstration of free will, it only takes one person to actually do it to prove that we all have free will*.

For the record, a person behaving that way does not prove nor disprove that we have free will IMO.


*Unless you want to argue that not all human beings are born equal, to the effect that some can truly exercise free will while others can't, but hey, I'm not going there. Also, if you want to argue that point then there needs to be way, at least theoretically, that we can distinguish between those with free will and those without free will that doesn't rely purely on retrospective consideration of someone's actions.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

David,

Do you think this is a problem that will be solved by logical proof, or one that scientists will eventually address when we start to better understand the brain? It seems to me it's just a level of complexity that neuroscience hasn't yet reached... and one I'm not all that anxious for them to reach, either.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

[ QUOTE ]
David,

Do you think this is a problem that will be solved by logical proof, or one that scientists will eventually address when we start to better understand the brain? It seems to me it's just a level of complexity that neuroscience hasn't yet reached... and one I'm not all that anxious for them to reach, either.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science can help moderately with the determinism question, but not with the compatibalism question. Most people in the debate are determinists these days, but moreover, most people who argue that we do have free will argue that determinism is irrelevant whether they believe in it or not.

Re: My Basic Thought On Free Will
 

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

If there is no free will, does it mean that there is an algorithm that will predict all future actions?



No.



I don't understand. Is the answer no because there is true randomness in the states the human encounters? If so, does this mean there is an algorithm which takes as input the state of the universe and outputs the human's decision?



In theory it is possible, you just create an exact model of the universe and just watch it to see what is going to happen.

In practices I believe it is logically beyond humans to completely predict the future in this way, as the universe satisfies the conditions of Gödel’s theorem.


It sounds very deterministic to me... how would you build an exact theoretical model without an Super-algorithm you could only define (or prove) with an existing Model? Even then you would have collision with the uncertainity relation, wich would exist in the theoretical model too, and never would be able to prove it at least. A model that lasts as long there is no bether one, like all models.
Chaos... The underestimate factor, call it hazard if you like. Our organism, and obviously every living organism, is a structured organisation that fight against chaos permanently, because we're walkin against the natural entropy, wich surrounds us! Think about, all our deeds are basically work against desorganisation in order to keep or create structure . Our thoughts tend to build structured models and perceptions(more or less) from the endless chaotic input. How could we survive this flow without an free will?javascript:void(0)
On the other side you could argue exactly this could be a reason for a kind of bio-robotic background of all living organism, this might correspond to ants or bees, but primates tend to do useless and absurd things like painting pictures, making music, create gods and reproduce themselves without intended descendants, there must be something like a free will in us! Everything else is an obnoxious thought.
Another simple way to think about it: Is the fact, that we are thinking and debating about it not the prove of our free will? Shouldn't all genius of the earth allways found the same results to any given problem, if their will are determined by a kind of robotic logic or mental software? Obviously they dont't...javascript:void(0)
Oh... you could argue that there is a kind of great plan determining the whole, each individual subject only part of it, so you could determine the future action of the collective but not of the singular subject( see 'Foundation cycle' from Isaac Asimov, an entertaining sight of this point of view).
I come back to the topic. How could you determine the whole future of an individual or a collective without determining all other exterior aspects first, because they obviously influence most of our actions? I believe you can't either... the fact that I mistrust any determination is prove enough... for me personaly, of course!javascript:void(0)javascript:void(0)javascr ipt:void(0)

sorry for my awful grammar and orthografy, english is, as everybody just discovered, not my language.