Nope. The movement of everything that makes up the mind is deterministic, why would the mind not be as well?
Does free will exist?
- Thread starter Spectral Dragon
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Quantum mechanics says it's impossible to accurately mathematically predict the future (and even if you could, by doing so you'd inevitably change the result). When you add Chaos theory to this, you'll find it's all but impossible to predict the future at all.
Sure, you can say "tomorrow it'll rain" with a degree of certainty, but you can't say exactly where the raindrops will fall. When dealing with complex systems such as the human brain, knowing where the raindrops will fall could mean the difference between a decision that gets you killed and one that doesn't.
Until we fully understand the brain, it's not possible to say what degree of freedom our concious minds possess over our actions, but I can tell with as much certainty as humanly possible that destiny does not exist.
Sure, you can say "tomorrow it'll rain" with a degree of certainty, but you can't say exactly where the raindrops will fall. When dealing with complex systems such as the human brain, knowing where the raindrops will fall could mean the difference between a decision that gets you killed and one that doesn't.
Until we fully understand the brain, it's not possible to say what degree of freedom our concious minds possess over our actions, but I can tell with as much certainty as humanly possible that destiny does not exist.
I believe we have free will, though admittedly having no way to prove it. However, I believe free will is something we have to choose to use, and a lot of the time we default back to determinism.
I think I like to think we do but I think we are all conditioned to the point it is not our free will.
Yes we can choose what we do and when but how much free will do we have we get given a choice of A, B or C in some form or another.
Is it your choice to go to work to earn money to live or to go to school if you are of that age, no That decision was made for you. You can choose what to do but only to the point of what is available and what is wanted.
When the choice is work, go on benefits or starve you cannot go for D, none of the above I am going to go live off the land. That one falls apart when you are forced to pay taxes and dines with money you have not got.
You do not have any free will as much as I do, if you boil everything down you are doing something for someone else and any real decision is probably made for you, whether that decision is made because of a request, backed up by research it is rarely your decision or even if it is not it will always be limited.
Yes we can choose what we do and when but how much free will do we have we get given a choice of A, B or C in some form or another.
Is it your choice to go to work to earn money to live or to go to school if you are of that age, no That decision was made for you. You can choose what to do but only to the point of what is available and what is wanted.
When the choice is work, go on benefits or starve you cannot go for D, none of the above I am going to go live off the land. That one falls apart when you are forced to pay taxes and dines with money you have not got.
You do not have any free will as much as I do, if you boil everything down you are doing something for someone else and any real decision is probably made for you, whether that decision is made because of a request, backed up by research it is rarely your decision or even if it is not it will always be limited.
I'd rather not sort through a thread of statements, perhaps you could tell me your opinion?nobleee said:
The fact is, we don't control these movements. Freewill cannot exist if that's true.
I'm a follower of determinism, but I believe we need to act as if we have free will otherwise the structure of human society will fall apart.
Edit: Annoying how many people come to a post about a philisophical question just to say 'it doesn't matter'.
I'm pretty sure the arguments of hardline free will and hardline determinism are mutually exclusive. You can't 'fall back' on determinism - if it is the correct theory then all actions are governed by what has already occurred, and free will is impossible.neurohazzard said:
Edit: Annoying how many people come to a post about a philisophical question just to say 'it doesn't matter'.
Just a paper I wrote very brielfy...
How free are we?
Question one.
Freewill is the ability to make a decision that is not determined by prior causes. Though can our decision be decided before the following action? If true, does this mean we have no freewill?
Premise one: If an action is predictable, it is not freely made.
Premise two: In principal, all human decisions are predictable in advance.
Conclusion: There is no freewill.
If a sufficiently knowledgeable scientist can predict our pending actions, does it mean we have no freewill? Freewill is defined by making a decision, which is not bound by earlier constraints. We cannot freely choose our decisions because, they are bound by earlier causes.
The earlier cause/s that may make a decision possible to predict is on a subconscious level. Our subconscious could be controlling our actions. At the same time we have no freewill and we are indirectly controlling our decisions. If a thought is chronologically placed, subconscious before conscious, we have no control over our actions. If our subconscious can create decisions, why can?t it refuse a decision, before turning it into a conscious decision? If this is true, why do we need to be conscious, if our subconscious creates, controls and decides our actions? We do not need to be aware of anything, if we consciously have no say in what goes on. Though simply, our consciousness too has a conscience. We can deny an action that our subconscious has presented to us, consciously. This is called this self-control.
Can another individual predict my actions, if the individual can, does this mean I have no freewill? The paradox called self-control, makes premise one false. Yes freewill is defined by a choice that is not bound by earlier constraints, but we can easily deny the earlier constraints, by using self-control. If a scientist has the technology and knowledge to predict my future actions, this does not mean we have no freewill. Scientists can predict simple, easy and limited actions like, having the option to pick up a small block, a large block or to simply touch a block. This is done by observing the subject?s brain activity with an f.M.R.I. machine (functional magnetic resonance imaging). The f.M.R.I. machine shows brain activity before the action presently occurs, which could signal subconscious thoughts. This is how scientists are able to predict these simple and limited actions. However this test is intended for research for controlling prosthetic limbs. They will not research further to what will happen if the subject begins to think about an action and then stop. Will the f.M.R.I. machine and scientist be able to predict the cease of the action? Even if the scientist and the f.M.R.I. machine are able to predict the cease of the action, it does not mean we have no freewill. As in, there is a difference between predicting actions and determining our actions are bound by prior causes.
Premise two states, in principal, all human decisions are predictable in advance. Today?s technology forces this premise to be false. Science can predict limited and simple actions, like which cube the subject will pick up. Science right now cannot predict real life situations, without prior information, like statistical data on previous relevant actions. For example, if someone was attempting to predict how James would get to university on Wednesday. After watching how James got to university three times consecutively, they discovered on all three Wednesdays, he biked to university. Assuming that on the fourth Wednesday, James would again bike to university. If James did bike to university on the fourth Wednesday, the assumption was correct. Alternatively if James did not bike to university, the assumption was incorrect. There are too many variables that could cause this prediction to be either correct or false. From simple environmental variables like, James? bike had a puncture or he was sick on Wednesday. Even if scientists observed James for several years, they would not be able to predict accurately, how James would get to university on the fourth Wednesday. This is where the Butterfly effect comes into play. If James catches the flu by being sneezed on, he may or may not bike to university, on the fourth Wednesday. The individual, who sneezed on James, could have alternatively not even sneeze on James, to not ever be in the same country as James. There could be billions of variables that could possibly lead to James being sneezed on. And in saying this, James could have caught the flu in other ways. He still may bike to university, if he has the flu, due to earlier causes.
Can another individual predict my future actions and if so, does it mean I have no freewill? The conclusion relates to the end of that question. There is no freewill. So far premise one and two have been proved false. Premise one is false because, there is a difference between predicting future actions and proving freewill doesn?t exist. Our subconscious mind may catalyse our thoughts, but our conscious state can deny the thought and not follow up with the action. Premise two is too false, due to being near infinite variables that are going to play a role in the desired action, in order to predict. And accounting for every variable and calculating it into the other practically infinite other variables, is impossible to do with today?s technology. Freewill is defined by, choice that is not bound by earlier causes. Earlier causes can influence our actions, possibly give us new information and change our previous intended action. Or earlier causes can even hinder our number of choices, making some actions impossible to do. As long the earlier causes do not affect our number of causes to less than two.
An obvious exception or objection is that, there will be no freewill if there is only one outcome. Even if we have multiple decisions, but all of them will conclude with the same outcome and then there is no freewill. If we can choose one of the outcomes, without earlier constraints, we have freewill. Though, we are not free from reality. If so, it doesn?t matter how many decisions we can choose from, if they all end the same. We all have a limited grasp on our surroundings. We can control ourselves, our actions and decisions. But this doesn?t mean we have freewill. The outcome of the decision proves whether we have freewill or not. If our intentions are fulfilled by the outcome of the event, then we have freewill. Clearly this is not as simple as it sounds. Some of our intentions are fulfilled by the outcome and others are not. Freewill is limited by the constraints of reality. We cannot jump sixty feet high, but if a human tries, they will fail, due to gravity. The individual intended to jump sixty feet high, failed, due to his environment. Our freewill is limited according to the rules of nature. So there are many factors that can hinder our freewill. Not just the laws of nature, other individuals and yourself, can limit the extent of freewill. Our choices are free, if the conclusion is what you intended happens. If the same individual intends to jump four feet high and succeeds, he has freewill in that case. But a wheelchair bound cripple attempts to jump four feet high and fails, due to his frail body; he has no free will in that case. Freewill is subjective. There is no freewill. This statement is false. There is freewill. This statement is incomplete. Some actions we can do and others we cannot. Which leads either to the conclusion being fulfilled, by the intentions, or not.
In conclusion, both premises are false, while the conclusion is inaccurate, therefore false. At the same time freewill is not always in the grasp of an individual. None of us have absolute freewill. Our actions are constrained by the laws of nature. A sufficiently knowledgeable scientist can predict some simple and limited actions, but not all actions. Actions can be accurately estimated; this is done by prior information of the individual?s actions, but this is not a prediction, it is estimation.
If the action is accurately predicted, the action is still chosen freely. But it doesn?t mean, actions that are accurately predicted are all chosen freely. While actions that are unpredictable are chosen freely and unfreely.
How free are we?
Question one.
Freewill is the ability to make a decision that is not determined by prior causes. Though can our decision be decided before the following action? If true, does this mean we have no freewill?
Premise one: If an action is predictable, it is not freely made.
Premise two: In principal, all human decisions are predictable in advance.
Conclusion: There is no freewill.
If a sufficiently knowledgeable scientist can predict our pending actions, does it mean we have no freewill? Freewill is defined by making a decision, which is not bound by earlier constraints. We cannot freely choose our decisions because, they are bound by earlier causes.
The earlier cause/s that may make a decision possible to predict is on a subconscious level. Our subconscious could be controlling our actions. At the same time we have no freewill and we are indirectly controlling our decisions. If a thought is chronologically placed, subconscious before conscious, we have no control over our actions. If our subconscious can create decisions, why can?t it refuse a decision, before turning it into a conscious decision? If this is true, why do we need to be conscious, if our subconscious creates, controls and decides our actions? We do not need to be aware of anything, if we consciously have no say in what goes on. Though simply, our consciousness too has a conscience. We can deny an action that our subconscious has presented to us, consciously. This is called this self-control.
Can another individual predict my actions, if the individual can, does this mean I have no freewill? The paradox called self-control, makes premise one false. Yes freewill is defined by a choice that is not bound by earlier constraints, but we can easily deny the earlier constraints, by using self-control. If a scientist has the technology and knowledge to predict my future actions, this does not mean we have no freewill. Scientists can predict simple, easy and limited actions like, having the option to pick up a small block, a large block or to simply touch a block. This is done by observing the subject?s brain activity with an f.M.R.I. machine (functional magnetic resonance imaging). The f.M.R.I. machine shows brain activity before the action presently occurs, which could signal subconscious thoughts. This is how scientists are able to predict these simple and limited actions. However this test is intended for research for controlling prosthetic limbs. They will not research further to what will happen if the subject begins to think about an action and then stop. Will the f.M.R.I. machine and scientist be able to predict the cease of the action? Even if the scientist and the f.M.R.I. machine are able to predict the cease of the action, it does not mean we have no freewill. As in, there is a difference between predicting actions and determining our actions are bound by prior causes.
Premise two states, in principal, all human decisions are predictable in advance. Today?s technology forces this premise to be false. Science can predict limited and simple actions, like which cube the subject will pick up. Science right now cannot predict real life situations, without prior information, like statistical data on previous relevant actions. For example, if someone was attempting to predict how James would get to university on Wednesday. After watching how James got to university three times consecutively, they discovered on all three Wednesdays, he biked to university. Assuming that on the fourth Wednesday, James would again bike to university. If James did bike to university on the fourth Wednesday, the assumption was correct. Alternatively if James did not bike to university, the assumption was incorrect. There are too many variables that could cause this prediction to be either correct or false. From simple environmental variables like, James? bike had a puncture or he was sick on Wednesday. Even if scientists observed James for several years, they would not be able to predict accurately, how James would get to university on the fourth Wednesday. This is where the Butterfly effect comes into play. If James catches the flu by being sneezed on, he may or may not bike to university, on the fourth Wednesday. The individual, who sneezed on James, could have alternatively not even sneeze on James, to not ever be in the same country as James. There could be billions of variables that could possibly lead to James being sneezed on. And in saying this, James could have caught the flu in other ways. He still may bike to university, if he has the flu, due to earlier causes.
Can another individual predict my future actions and if so, does it mean I have no freewill? The conclusion relates to the end of that question. There is no freewill. So far premise one and two have been proved false. Premise one is false because, there is a difference between predicting future actions and proving freewill doesn?t exist. Our subconscious mind may catalyse our thoughts, but our conscious state can deny the thought and not follow up with the action. Premise two is too false, due to being near infinite variables that are going to play a role in the desired action, in order to predict. And accounting for every variable and calculating it into the other practically infinite other variables, is impossible to do with today?s technology. Freewill is defined by, choice that is not bound by earlier causes. Earlier causes can influence our actions, possibly give us new information and change our previous intended action. Or earlier causes can even hinder our number of choices, making some actions impossible to do. As long the earlier causes do not affect our number of causes to less than two.
An obvious exception or objection is that, there will be no freewill if there is only one outcome. Even if we have multiple decisions, but all of them will conclude with the same outcome and then there is no freewill. If we can choose one of the outcomes, without earlier constraints, we have freewill. Though, we are not free from reality. If so, it doesn?t matter how many decisions we can choose from, if they all end the same. We all have a limited grasp on our surroundings. We can control ourselves, our actions and decisions. But this doesn?t mean we have freewill. The outcome of the decision proves whether we have freewill or not. If our intentions are fulfilled by the outcome of the event, then we have freewill. Clearly this is not as simple as it sounds. Some of our intentions are fulfilled by the outcome and others are not. Freewill is limited by the constraints of reality. We cannot jump sixty feet high, but if a human tries, they will fail, due to gravity. The individual intended to jump sixty feet high, failed, due to his environment. Our freewill is limited according to the rules of nature. So there are many factors that can hinder our freewill. Not just the laws of nature, other individuals and yourself, can limit the extent of freewill. Our choices are free, if the conclusion is what you intended happens. If the same individual intends to jump four feet high and succeeds, he has freewill in that case. But a wheelchair bound cripple attempts to jump four feet high and fails, due to his frail body; he has no free will in that case. Freewill is subjective. There is no freewill. This statement is false. There is freewill. This statement is incomplete. Some actions we can do and others we cannot. Which leads either to the conclusion being fulfilled, by the intentions, or not.
In conclusion, both premises are false, while the conclusion is inaccurate, therefore false. At the same time freewill is not always in the grasp of an individual. None of us have absolute freewill. Our actions are constrained by the laws of nature. A sufficiently knowledgeable scientist can predict some simple and limited actions, but not all actions. Actions can be accurately estimated; this is done by prior information of the individual?s actions, but this is not a prediction, it is estimation.
If the action is accurately predicted, the action is still chosen freely. But it doesn?t mean, actions that are accurately predicted are all chosen freely. While actions that are unpredictable are chosen freely and unfreely.
Well it took me a bit off time to work trough all the posts so it would be a shame not to reply at this point. It would seem that two discussions are being held here. the first being the question of free will, the second being the nature of truth. Both interesting topics that have similar points. For your entertainment I would like to give my opinion on Truth first and Free will second.BiscuitTrouser said:
The nature of Truth
Traditionally there 2 main schools of thought on this ( i'm going to cut a few corners here so sue me) rationalism and empiricism, truth is born in the mind or truth is received trough the senses respectively. science as being discussed here (If i can test and test and get the same results of course the science is right)is off course the later one. Logical empiricism as this school of thought is called has one philosophical flaw, being that one can not prove trough the use of the senses that senses are correct. and more worryingly all of us know the picture of the [a href="http://www.sapdesignguild.org/resources/optical_illusions/images/faces.gif"]two faces and the vase[/a]. Illusions like this show us that reality as we know isn't a direct product of our senses but rather is the product of interpretation by our brain meaning that all of us have a reality that differs ever so slightly from other reality perceptions. I say slightly for there are only two options in this picture. This brings me to my point that I stole from a mister Quine, reality is not about Truth ( note the capital letter) but about utility. my own opinion on the matter is that because objective truth can not by wrought from the universe using the 5 senses empiricism and thus science is fundamentally flawed and as such not True (note again the capital letter). It is on the other hand, useful. When I get ill I will go see a doctor and take do as he tells me because I belief that is the most useful thing for me to do. When my telly isn't working I will check the power and not pray to the television leprechaun.
but in the end the only defining feature that makes a table, a table is if my brain acknowledges that it can be used as a table. and thus Truth is story. at least in my opinion.
I think this is the point rose was making.
Now for free will
Free will, as has been said, before has many definitions. I do not think that we have a absolute free will. there is no chance that I will wake up tomorrow and decide that I want to eat my own poop. sure i'm physically capable but social taboos have conditioned me and I will not do this unless very strong new motivation is given. Does this mean that there is no free will at all? I do not think so, I recently gave up my 3th master at the university. this was a hard decision because I quite liked the idea of having 3 masters. I would have liked it as some thing to boost about being some what insecure about my potential. on the other next to my full job I hardly got to do any of the things I likes. these are all factors that played a part. But in the end the decision could have gone either way, I can now rationalize my choice but that is hind sight. I can not tell your where that choice came from anymore as I can tell you where my consciousness comes from.
So I experience something the feeling of choice, the question now is, is it useful to assume my experience has merit? For me the answer is yes this does not make it True, in the capital letter way but true in the story that is the story that usefully weaves my life together. and in that regard the point off arguing if we have free choice or but the illusion there off is moot. If we we experiences it, it is there until something more useful comes along. in the endless sea of options we only have our ever shifting interpretation of reality and since the deterministic view on free will does not have any utilistic merit over the idea of free will it makes no difference what story you chose to belief in.
Final note
mister Biscuittrousers I assume( for what else can we do)that you are in some what of defensive mode about this subject or that your have the feeling that you have something to lose or a personal stake here. But try to avoid sentences like I have tested and questioned and denied everything i was told until i was shown it. I asked the tricky questions, i got the answers or i accept what i see like a perfect scientist! or there kind in an argument. You have not asked ALL the questions nor have you denied and tested EVERYTHING until you where shown. a little modesty goes a long way to keep flamers of your back ;-)
free will is what you make of it. To some it exists entirely. To others the confines of society (magazines, tv adds etc), reality (basic needs ie eating to live, environment etc) and/or higher powers (god(s), illuminati etc) control everything right down to how much you breath. I can't really tell you weather or not free will exists as I have not lived enough to form a proper argument. Though if you ask for my opinion I would like to believe in a "fixed points" free will timeline. If you watch Doctor Who you'd get it but basically there are fix points in life, some major some minor but they all have to happen and will happen at (around) their allotted time and end with their allotted outcome but what you do in between them and sometimes what you do to complete these fixed events are completely up to you a good example would be the rise and fall of politician... lets call him... Richard. Richard is destined to be president, he is also destined to be shot out of office in a display of disgrace. those could be his only fixed points (well death excepted but the when and where and how could depend on how he lives). His child hood and adolescence are completely up to him he could do what ever he wants steal, kill, be a boy scout, whatever but depending on what he chooses certain events will steer him toward presidency. If he steal maybe its a near death experience or the dream of pulling off the ultimate heist. Or maybe he was inspired by Roosevelt to become a president when he was young. Either way some how he wants to be president and either after years of hard work or good luck he gets a candidacy and enters the ring. How he gets in or campaigns is again up to him but the he will always win in a landslide victory of 301 to 191 or whatever and becomes president. what he does is as president is up to him and could very well change when is down fall occurs. Maybe it was going to be 1 year but he changed it to 6. then he reaches his next fixed point, the down fall. this time instead of accomplishing the event however he likes (like last time where he got to do his campaigning himself) this event is fixed so the event lets say a heist, the location lets say a lucrative hotel, how much he takes, when and where and how he gets caught and other important details like that are completely set in stone not up to him. little things like what he says certain people he includes and etc are up to him though. so that goes down and he disgracefully resigns from office. now with those two fixed points in time finished the rest of his life is his own. he could run away or go to jail or pull strings to get a more lenient sentence, suicide, what ever its up to him. That is what I believe. though because of this i don't really believe in coincidence either.
Usually 99% of a person's behaviour is down to mathematics, a compromise between our rational and instinctive selves. We have the ability to make irrational choices that go against our nature however, but human nature is something we have yet to make entirely measurable.
I'm glad we understand the 99% fairly well - these tend to be the more important part, and I'm personally satisfied with it.
I'm glad we understand the 99% fairly well - these tend to be the more important part, and I'm personally satisfied with it.
How so? If a person thinks about a decision and chooses to do A, then, according to your statement, he didn't make the decision, his mind did.SillyBear said:
But isn't that how we determine an identity for people? What difference does it make if his mind forced him to make the decision, if there's no difference between him and his mind?
Yes, there is free will, determinism is not incompatible with free will.