Does free will exist?

[Edward_Bear]

Please read my extra posts. I actually study chemistry computer science, biology and maths for A level. So far im going quad A on my grades. Im not an idiot. I understand what im talking about, i know nothing magic happens, thats my point. Surely if it is not randomised at all it is predictable no? I also understand the pseudo random numbers computers generate are actually made from a seed and a complex algorithm, ive written a few in python actually. I understand the process behind conduction in nerves both mylinated and not, and i understand how the ion gradiant makes message transfer predictable and physics based. Thus determinalism.

Message transfer, not message content.

So why are you here?

In this thread? To show that unless you want to deny contempery physics determinalism must be true. The choice is simple. Its difficult but i think that more understand couldnt hurt anyone. I think of it like this. I came to the realisation i have no free will. Did anything change? No. It was the exact same as when i thought i did plus one extra thought. I might as well go on living as if i do have free will for all the difference it makes. The points faily moot to be honest. Its not really worth worrying about, i just enjoy scientific discussion.

Sounds more like nihilism or fatalism to me. Nothing you do matters, blah blah blah. You can say to me "But science says so!" and I can say to you, without a doubt in my mind, that science has been and will be proven wrong. Every time. What we believed about science 100 years ago isn't the same as it is now, and 100 years from now things will be different. Because we as beings never will understand the truth of existence, no matter how many machines we create to "see" things we couldn't before, no matter how many times you "prove" it with math.
Do I believe science is all hocus pocus bullcrap? No. I know it serves a purpose and all, but people who believe science is 100% correct are just as bad as the scientists predating them who thought they were right too. Our species collective knowledge of the real universe is a drop in the friggin ocean. We know little, understand little but pride ourselves on "getting it all". Overinflated gas bag egos.
You say "but I go to college for this, I know it all". No, you know what they tell you. So of course you have no free will, you accept what you are told like a good sheep. Baa baa baa.

Ah but you miss the true beauty of science. Testing! I can use my physics to determine how fast an object will fall, and then i can test it! I have dont this. My predictions were right in a random experiement. So it shows the science is correct! If i can test and test and get the same results of course the science is right, you cant prove that my calculations were not 19 seconds or the ball didnt take 19 seconds to hit the ground. I have studied cells, i have span them in a centrifuge, i have added the enzymes i have recorded the results, i accept what i see like a perfect scientist! 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 even if it meant forcing my teacher to take out the labs locusts and show me actual biology happening in front of me.

If you think teaching, our most valuable skill, is just training sheep i weep for you.
For you are more nihilistic than me. I love life. Of course it matters, does it matter that we dont have free will, not at all. Might be hard to get your head around, but its my view, so who cares?

If you believe being taught makes you a sheep, you are either the worlds greatest researcher or horrible ignorant. Either way you have to believe somethings you are told because they are observably true. The earth DOES go around the sun. Yes we are wrong at times, often, but at some points we get a few more things right, eternally correct. Rinse repeat and we iron out the flaws and find the truth.

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.

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 ;-)

 

[L9OBL]

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.

 

[SillyBear]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

 

[Soviet Steve]

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.

 

[zehydra]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

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.

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.

 

[SillyBear]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

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.

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.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

 

[Shadowseraph]

The answer to your question can be demonstrated with this thread. The answer is simply "Could we have done differently?" If you COULD do differently, then you have free will. Case in point: I COULD have ignored this thread and just watched Moviebob ***** about the GL Moive and then continued watching my other movie 3 minutes sooner. But I didn't. Me making this comment has no significant effect on my life or my physiology or soul (if you want to go that route), so who/what I am has nothing to do with it. It was just a matter of tuna over chicken. It's what I felt like doing at that point in time.

 

[zehydra]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

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.

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.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

 

[Delsana]

Psychologically? No.

Realistically? Yes, people are idiots by choice.

 

[SillyBear]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

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.

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.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

Trust me, just look into what neurosurgeons and scientists say about it. There's no point discussing this - it's pretty widely accepted in the neurological community that free will doesn't exist. Sam Harris (the guy who wrote the link I gave you) is a great place to start.

As for your definition of the word "decision", I can't really see your point at all. Something isn't a "decision" if there is only one possible outcome. So yeah, I don't think there is much weight in that line of thought you're getting into.

 

[InsipidMadness]

Not a chance. We have the ability to perceive free will, and some are presumptuous enough to assume it as their own, however that is nothing more than a fancy word for Choice. We can choose things but overall, people with a greater standing by context will always have their tidal wave of will crush the little wave you call freewill. Let me ask a few questions: as a kid, have you ever wanted something at the store (your will desires object) yet your parents said no (their will as a parent), your will was outdone by another; have you ever wanted something intimate from a relationship and your partner turned you down, another example of one will having more standing than another. There's a billion more examples like this, and it never has to be you who's wanting, you could be the one who directs someone else's will elsewhere; some friends really wanted to party at your place specifically for a night but you persuaded them to meet at a bar instead. We're allowed to make choices and decisions but freewill is impossible. There are factors like morals, values, and other people who will increase or decrease what it is you desire but we will always be suppressed by the factors that is life. We can't exactly fly or teleport now can we.

 

[zehydra]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

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.

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.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

Trust me, just look into what neurosurgeons and scientists say about it. There's no point discussing this - it's pretty widely accepted in the neurological community that free will doesn't exist. Sam Harris (the guy who wrote the link I gave you) is a great place to start.

As for your definition of the word "decision", I can't really see your point at all. Something isn't a "decision" if there is only one possible outcome. So yeah, I don't think there is much weight in that line of thought you're getting into.

except that a process HAS to occur for that possible outcome to occur, no? What shall we call that process, calculation? I calculate that I shall have a sandwich for dinner? My mind calculates for me that I shall have dinner? Why NOT just call it a "decision"?

We don't say that people make "decisions" because we believe they have free will, we say that people make "decisions" because there are available options, which they must choose from. It doesn't matter how they choose it, just that they do choose one. Thus, they make a "decision".

 

[Gamblerjoe]

Strong compulsions do not define free will. Free will has to do with the fact that you are physically capable of choosing something. Just because you chose the option that makes sense, doesnt mean that you lack free will.

However I started thinking about this while playing Mass Effect. In that game they distinguish between VI (virtual intelligence) and AI (artificial intelligence.) VI is what we call AI in real life. It is just a program that mimics the decision making process through a series of programmed scripts and logics. An AI is a program that demonstrates sentience, reasoning, and intuition.

This got me thinking about the human brain. First off, I dont believe in any religion or the idea that we have a soul. I believe that our thoughts and feelings are our interpretation of chemicals and neurological signals in the brain. If that is the case, who is to say, until we gain a better understanding of the brain. If it turns out that the brain is just a far more advanced version of a computer, then we too are making our decisions and gaining sentience the same way as the AI in Mass Effect. Once you get to that conclusion, who is to say what free will is. Are we just responding to complex algorithms attached to a wonky RNG, or are we really making our own decisions. Even if we could go back in time to observe loose wiring in action (the ability for a single human to respond in more than one way to the same stimulus) it would still not prove free will. One could just make the argument that loose wiring is the result of the RNG starting with a different seed number.

Crazy stuff; and the more we learn about behavioral science, the weirder it gets.

...lol, the capatcha is swarela serum. That sounds like something out of a Sci-Fi game too. Perhaps some kind of mind altering drug. I always knew that Dr. Swarela was up to no good.

 

[NightHawk21]

Not at all. Our choices are down to neurology, context and surroundings. Nothing we do is truly a "choice". It seems like it is sometimes, but it never is.

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.

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.

Him "deciding" consists of neurological impulses dictated by his genetics, past experiences and current context.

There is no "decision" at all. Like I said - to him, it seems like he just made a logical choice - but there was no choice involved at all. He would have always chosen that option, at that moment, in that frame of mind. That is not a choice.

No, there is no free will.

Let an actual neuroscientist explain:

http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/free-will-why-you-still-dont-have-it/

I'll read it, but it's kind of lengthy and I don't have time currently. If I read it, and it inspires a response, I'll give it later.

I think where we are disagreeing here, is that you're saying that the neurological impulses cannot be considered "deciding", whereas I think they should be.

For instance, it would maybe be unorthodox to say, but it would not be incorrect to say that when you query a computer to run a certain program, it "decides" to run the program you have specified from the given input and other information already stored in the machine.

Trust me, just look into what neurosurgeons and scientists say about it. There's no point discussing this - it's pretty widely accepted in the neurological community that free will doesn't exist. Sam Harris (the guy who wrote the link I gave you) is a great place to start.

As for your definition of the word "decision", I can't really see your point at all. Something isn't a "decision" if there is only one possible outcome. So yeah, I don't think there is much weight in that line of thought you're getting into.

Maybe in extreme circumstances, but there are situation in which the outcome is not clear and the person's action even to them is is no way "logical". For instance, even right now I know I should be studying as I have a shit ton of work coming up this week and next, but I am choosing to sit on the internet. So I'll give you that our ability to choose in life or death matters (eating, breathing, etc) is limited to non-existent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our ability to make decisions as a whole is non-existent.

 

[Ghengis John]

A thought struck me while reading the replies on the thread about what makes us human. A few mentioned free will. But lately I've been wondering if that really exists.

Oh I think we have a considerable degree of free will, but this clip's fun.

 

[creonto]

it does and it does not. what i am typing now is what i was always going to type, however, that does not mean i did not decide to type this, that was still my decision, it was simply always going to happen

 

[RThaiRThai]

No, free will doesn't exist. In a topic this long, the likelihood of this post being read goes down significantly, and I'm sure somebody somewhere in this thread has said everything I would have said already.

On the other hand, I should contribute more if I'm going to post.

The answer depends partially on the definition of free will. I have had a discussion with a person who I entirely agreed with, except because of our definitions of free will, he decided that it exists, while I decided that it doesn't exist.

I was going to start explaining what I think in an abbreviated way, but that wouldn't really work. I'll just end it here.

 

[SillyBear]

snip

Dude, the more you respond the more you are setting yourself up to feel like an idiot after you read the article. You're coming in from a baseless angle.

There is no decision. It's instantaneous and it occurs before your conscious mind has even registered the fact it has occurred. 300ms before, to be specific.

That is not free will. You are not making the decision. That is not free will. That is not free will.

I don't know what the hell you're on about. Now you're trying to argue semantics and vague definitions on what the word decision means. Earlier you used an analogy about a computer. In a topic about FREE WILL... you used an analogy... about a computer. See what I mean? I'm honestly not interested buddy. The line of thinking you're going through is irrelevant, you're just trying to convince me that you can make "decisions" without free will. Because you think computers have choice and make decisions. Or you don't think that, you just say that they do.

Whatever. It's annoying now, let's just drop it.

Maybe in extreme circumstances, but there are situation in which the outcome is not clear and the person's action even to them is is no way "logical". For instance, even right now I know I should be studying as I have a shit ton of work coming up this week and next, but I am choosing to sit on the internet. So I'll give you that our ability to choose in life or death matters (eating, breathing, etc) is limited to non-existent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that our ability to make decisions as a whole is non-existent.

Do research.

It doesn't matter if you are deciding on a life and death matter or what kind of sandwich you are eating, your neurological impulses set it all out before you have even registered the fact you are thinking. There literally is no choice at all. It feels like there is, but there isn't.

We don't have free will. Read the article I linked earlier. Neuroscience has already confirmed this, and yet there are still people doubting it. Oh well, same goes for evolution and physics too.

 

[Roberto Hadi]

Short answer: yes.
Longish... You have to give a working definition of will and another of freedom. And a means of proof for a phenomenon that happens inside a person's head, so its kinda hard. BUT. Lets take the oposite route for a minute. Can there be any meaning in anything if we dont have some form of free will? No. Does the world feels as if you have some degree of freedom and meaning or at least feels as if those are possibilities? If yes, there is free will, if no, take some lithium and answer again.
The only context anyone says there is no free will and means it besides depression is if they want to control others. Don't be like that.