Freewill

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I define free will as the belief that, although I just made choice C, I could have made choice !C.

In other words, I define "free will" as an experiential label, not a metaphysical property. This definition solves the "problem" of free will by converting it to a tautological psychologism.

[/ QUOTE ]

While this is my view, it dismisses the notion of free will as something incompatible with determinism. Therefore it's not relevant.

In terms of the common definition of free will, as some (usually supernatural) nondeterministic phenomenon, I think the answer "no" stands out as the most rational. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, and that's about all I need. Of course, it's impossible to completely disprove free will, and given our current level of knowledge we can't even say that free will is necessarily implausible.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps "independent" was a poor choice of words. Consider the following analogy. A gamer may control a video game character. Within the game, it appears as though the character has no free will and is completely determined by the the events of game world. However, the character's actions are actually controlled by a user who is independent of the rules of the game. He watches his monitor and listens to the speakers to receive input from the game world, and he controls his character so that he affects the game world, but he is not bound by the same rules that the character is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a sloppy analogy because there is no "game world." There is a game loop (basically the program where the game processes are taking place - the graphic context is just an "arm" of that program). That game loop treats the buttons you press on the controller as inputs, and then translates those inputs into game terms.

In order for "free will" to exist in the real world, there would have to be a similar process. Something would have to translate inputs from the "otherworld" into physical responses in the brain. This process should be obvious on observation of certain brain patterns. Unfortunately, our ability to observe the brain is limited for now, so there remains the possibility of such a mechanism. But it's likely we'll overcome the limitations soon (within our lifetimes) and then either free will should be empirically obvious, or it will have nowhere to hide.

Regarding quantum mechanics... Certain quantum effects appear to be random - appear to be perfectly random, in fact. There are two points to recognize about this. First, probabilistic determinism is still determinism. Random events can't be predicted, but that's wholly irrelevant. That human actions may be random to some extent doesn't imply free will. But more important is the second point - because quantum randomness is empirically "truly" random (more random than the results of any pseudo-random number generator!), it's nonsensical for it to have patterned effects within the context of physics. Physicists have gone to great lengths to verify that there are no patterns in quantum randomness, so to suggest that quantum randomness (the only unexplained part of human functioning at the reductionistic level) has patterns when involved in decision-making is to suggest that somehow quantum physics starts to work completely differently when scientists aren't watching.

But it gets worse. Some people are unable to take a certain action if you disable a part of their brain. There are many sorts of odd situations in which affecting the brain affects basically every aspect of human functioning. Your idea of free will posits a "player" behind the scenes, interpreting independently from the brain. However, the ability to think, interpret, and decide changes depending on the state of the brain - this makes no sense if there really is an independent entity controlling the action.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualia.

But really, you're asking an unfair question.

If it's separate from the physical world, then it can't enter into the physical world in any way. Thus, it can't affect what any of us are typing here on this message board. And thus, it can't be expressed. Any physical response to your physical question misses the point.

(Incidentally, this means we can't - not just shouldn't, but can't - act on the basis of such a "thing." Our physical selves can't even know about this "thing." Therefore, in practical terms we can assume it doesn't exist. And in philosophical terms all we can do is speculate baselessly.)

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Qualia.

But really, you're asking an unfair question.

If it's separate from the physical world, then it can't enter into the physical world in any way. Thus, it can't affect what any of us are typing here on this message board. And thus, it can't be expressed. Any physical response to your physical question misses the point.

(Incidentally, this means we can't - not just shouldn't, but can't - act on the basis of such a "thing." Our physical selves can't even know about this "thing." Therefore, in practical terms we can assume it doesn't exist. And in philosophical terms all we can do is speculate baselessly.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly, so how could such a thing be anything like what we mean by free will?

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free will" is our conscious decisions. You can say they are not "free" because they may have consequences, or results, brought about by your environment, that you were not anticipating, however, you are free to choose. If you have choice C or !C, and each of them have a consequence, you have "free will" to decide which choice benefits you the most, taking into consideration the consequence. The fact that the choice you make has a cost, does not put a price tag on your will.

A practicing alcoholic has limited free will. A recovering alcoholic with 15 years sobriety has more free will than one with 6 months sobriety.

So, yes, one's "free will" is compromised based upon genetic makeup, environment, etc., however, nobody or no thing (God) or "collective things" is controlling our decisions, unless, we are unconscious of our behavior and remain dormant to changing the negative aspects of our personality.

We do not have "free will" over everything, such as emotion, although there are those who can walk over a bed of hot coals with their bare feet; the average joe has to resign himself to just trying to (thru a willful decision of his own free will) to absolve himself from destruction behavior, i.e., drinking himself to death, abnormal anger issues.

Some of us, due to our genetic makeup, have no control over some of our actions, i.e., mentally ill patients. Serial killers are mentally ill.

So, is our will free? Yes, if our genes are perfect, however, our decisions have a consequence.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think if there is part of our consciousness independent of the physical world, then it's the part that experiences or feels, not a part that acts. If it acts then it isn't independent of the physical world.

[/ QUOTE ]

If its INDEPENDENT of the physical world, how could we ever know what it is doing? Independent sort of implies that it doesnt interact with the physical world in any way right? Well, that rules out emotions and feelings and thoughts. What exactly is it?

[/ QUOTE ]

"Free will" is our conscious decisions. You can say they are not "free" because they may have consequences, or results, brought about by your environment, that you were not anticipating, however, you are free to choose. If you have choice C or !C, and each of them have a consequence, you have "free will" to decide which choice benefits you the most, taking into consideration the consequence. The fact that the choice you make has a cost, does not put a price tag on your will.

An practicing alcoholic has limited free will. A recovering alcoholic with 15 years sobriety has more free will than one with 6 months sobriety.

So, yes, one's "free will" is compromised based upon genetic makeup, environment, etc., however, nobody or no thing (God) or "collective things" is controlling our decisions, unless, we are unconscious of our behavior and remain dormant to changing the negative aspects of our personality.

We do not have "free will" over everything, such as emotion, although there are those who can walk over a bed of hot coals with their bare feet; the average joe has to resign himself to just trying to (thru a willful decision of his own free will) to absolve himself from destruction behavior, i.e., drinking himself to death, abnormal anger issues.

Some of, however, due to our genetic makeup, have no control over some of our actions, i.e., mentally ill patients. Serial killers are mentally ill.

So, is our will free? Yes, if our genes are perfect, however, our decisions have a consequence.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[Moseley]

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you are raised by a worthless mother, who fed you at McDonalds, Burger King and Dunkin Donuts a good portion of childhood, and you were 60lbs overweight when you left home and learned about proper diet in college, you would now have free will to choose what you will eat.

Your mind will crave the junk, your desire to break the cycle, if strong enough, will win the battle. Just like an alcoholic, mentally & physically addicted, can free his mind of the desire to drink over time.

[Qrawl]

There is no free will. The future already exists. At the root of everything are tiny mathematical formula/number series. However, there might be branching timeline/universes, in which case you get the illusion of freewill. If that's true, then you if you have to choose between A and B, you'll choose both, 1 in each branching timeline.

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]


If you dont have free will to control your emotions (and by this I will assume you include things like desires and motivations and preferences) then who really cares if its possible to choose C or !C? Your preferences dictate your choices, and you are at the mercy of your preferences.

[/ QUOTE ] Is sense of self the same type of illusion that free will is, to determinists.