Does free will exist?

[Mookowicz]

I don't believe we can answer this question with a mere 'yes' or 'no', because it asks about both metaphysics and self-hood. We have to think about whether the physical world itself is preprogrammed (and how would we know?) Then we have to decide what 'self' is, if it's not just a system within the physical world -- and whether it even makes sense to separate 'self' from the other stuff.

The problem is, both questions are political. If we had an answer to determinism, what would we do with it other than use it to struggle for power? And what is 'self' but a fiction we use to try and make ourselves the good guy of our own story?

Does it suit us to say 'the world is predictable, but I am not?' Heck yes... it makes us feel like the centre of the world.

What about 'the world is unpredictable and so am I?' Of course -- it lets us argue whatever we want.

Or how about 'the world is predictable and so am I?' Sure -- it lets us avoid fear.

Or 'the world is unpredictable but I am predictable?' -- why not? That lets us relegate all self-scrutiny to some higher power.

I don't think that these questions are answerable, and I also think that the more we want to answer these questions, the more self-interest we have invested in the answers. I think we'd be best served to treat people as they appear to be: a mix of both.

 

[Zyxzy]

Who cares? If it doesn't, our action is predetermined. It's only if it does exist that getting it wrong matters. So, might as well bet on it existing.

 

[y1fella]

This is such an insanely stupid question. If you have no free will than it is a lack of free will (IE chemicals in the brain) that cause you to ponder if you actually have free will.
Do you value freedom of speech?(I assume the answer is yes) than this isn't worth discussing. Until people actually start to treat it seriously and taking away people rights than it is a non-issue.

 

[dvd_72]

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.

I don't know what you've heard, but alot of the quantum stuff cannot be determined. Otherwise we wouldn't have probability distributions for things like a particle-in-a-box, or we could predict the moment an unstable nucleus will decay, or even in which direction said radiation will be ejected in.

Now, if the rate and even the direction of radiation, a form of energy transfer, cannot be predicted, nor does it follow any (aparant) strict rules, appearing to be completely random, then wouldn't much of the flow of energy be essentially unpredictable?

To sum up, while your view that classical physics is deterministic may be correct, that does not account for all of physics. As there are random elements that we cannot predict, nor do we understand, who's to say that somewhere, deep down in the mechanics of our brain, there isn't room for a little randomness? And who's to say that randomness isn't, infact, free will?

 

[Fanta Grape]

Yes we have...
The fact that I must in the morning chose cereal or porridge and make that choise every morning I have free will, then sometimes I go fro bread which means I have the power of Ultimate Free Will (UFW from now on!)
yes we have free will.

But because of past experiences, you like cereal. It's not because of your choice, it's because you were fed cereal as a child and you know it's not in any way harmful or dangerous and it tastes good. It's a logical decision, yes, but from a purely mechanic standpoint, it wasn't your decision, it was your brain. But you say you could have chosen something else, you say? Well it depends on your mood, or your tastes, or your time, or your budget, which all come from external factors.

Also, I have no idea. I've been thinking about this one for a long time and I still have no answer.

 

[Xircspheroth]

Free will does not exist, whether god exists or not is irrelevant. If god exists then God is omnipotent and omnipresent, God would know all and see all, and nothing could happen without God, past, future and present. Which means that God knew what you would do even before God chose to create you, therefore since you were created, God would have created you for the specific purpose of being who you are and doing what you have done, are doing and will do. God could not create something random because that randomness would be outside of God, which would mean that God is not truly omnipotent, besides God would still see the result of the random force nullifying it's effectiveness.

If the big bang happened then every single particle of mass and energy exploded from a single point in an instant. Each particle would have been moving on a set path that was decided in the first instant of time, as we would see it, and would only deviate from that path due to the influence of other particles. Which could be predicted by mapping out the two, or more, paths and seeing where they intersect. We could predict what would happen when they intersect by knowing the type of particles the energy of the particles and the angle of intersection, it would seem uncertain or probabilistic to us because we can't examine things to an infinitesimal degree, any variation at all could change the result, but all variations were already determined.

Free will is definitely an illusion unless a new theory of existence can say otherwise.

 

[CrystalShadow]

You've mis understood. Of couse you can make electricty. Also your cells mitochondria make electricy from ATP dyring respiration not in your brain, its everwhere. However this process is physics! And predictable. I mean create energy from NOTHING. And no you didnt just "generate" energy, you converted it from one type to another. Other than with fusion matter and energy are non interhchangable and can neither be created or destroyed.

Yes, the process if physics.

Yes, the conversion of electricity is predictable.

But you brain - your thoughts - determine WHICH CELLS transmit electricity at any given moment.

Your brain cells don't just transmit electrical impulses willy-nilly - and when they do, you have a SEIZURE - it's called epilepsy.

Your mind - created by your brain - chooses what to focus on. You make a CHOICE about what signals are sent.

I can choose to think about whatever I want. I can think about Doctor Who, if I like. Or about mushrooms. Or I can think about the work I need to do later. And as soon as I make that choice, my brain starts firing electrical impulses to the correct part of my brain to reference that material.

If you're going to go shouting about science, make sure you understand it past a grade 8 level.

I'm sorry, I really didn't want to get involved in this discussion at all, but your argument doesn't make sense.

(However, given the size of this thread I've probably only seen a small fraction of it. So apologies if I'm repeating anything already said by others)

Granted, this is a matter of perspective. (IE. what does it actually mean to choose something.) There is, after all, in the scientific circles that even bother to discuss this the concept of 'strong' and 'weak' free will.

Trouble is, the person you are arguing with is arguing on principles that refer to the 'strong' argument, and your counter-arguments depend on taking the perspectives related to the 'weak' conception of free will.

The problem with your statement (from the perspective of the 'strong' concept of free will), is that while your brain may be able to make a choice, this is not free will.
This choice is entirely constrained by prior experience, and the inputs from your environment.

It is the illusion of choice, because it's origins depend on deterministic processes. And since a deterministic process cannot produce a random result, the 'choice' doesn't actually exist.

You say you can choose to think whatever you want, but the flaw in that is that this choice isn't independent. No matter what choice you made, it's cause can be traced to some external influence, either now, or in your past that results in you making that particular 'choice' at that moment in time.

Psychology studies don't help much in this matter. Fully 80% of the 'choices' we make aren't us consciously choosing something, but rather justifying the choice we made after the fact. This has been measured experimentally several times...

These studies suggest that instead of something like this:
"I can do A or B"
"I choose to do B"
"I then do B"
The reality is more often than not this:
"I can do A or B"
"I do B"
"I then come up with a reason for why I did B"


And here, in fact, is the big hole in your reasoning exposed:

And as soon as I make that choice, my brain starts firing electrical impulses to the correct part of my brain to reference that material.

You've externalised the choice. You make it seem like the choice is somehow independent of your brain...

No. Even in the cases where you can be said to actually be making a decision, (As opposed to what I just explained a moment ago) that decision-making process is in and of itself electrical impulses within your brain.

But since these impulses are themselves the result of previous impulses, which also depend on previous impulses... The whole thing becomes an unbroken chain of cause and effect, which excludes the possibility of choice. (Or rather, unconstrained choice. Choice is an awkward word to use in a discussion about free will, because there's a difference between making a choice, and making an unconstrained choice.)

At the end of the day, free will is only possible by the most restrictive definitions of 'free', if the choice being made is 100% independent of ALL outside influence.

Given that the brain is part of the universe, not independent of it. That's pretty much impossible.

So, that means free will is an illusion.

Now, that's the 'strong' argument.

There are other possible arguments that aren't quite so demanding of what it means to make a 'free' choice. And with many such arguments there is far more reason to claim that Free will of some kind does in fact exist.

But the person you were arguing with was definitely invoking the 'strong' argument, and none of your counter-arguments are valid in that context. (Now, if you wish to argue by less stringent definitions of free will, that's fine. But the way you're going about it doesn't establish that in any way, and otherwise fails to really counter-act anything you've been presented with.)

 

[Ledan]

Me and my brother had this arguments last night. 3 hours of philosophy/physics and theorizing. I'm pretty sure we arrived at Quantum physics. Here are some of the arguments in list form.

1. Space is infinite. Therefore there must be more than one big bang. An infinite amount of matter in an infinite space. (Though the infinite matter never equals the total amount of space)

Now, determinism requires there to be an initial cause. Like the big bang. But the big bang must have been caused by something, perhaps due to rules that govern how huge amounts of energy behaves.

2. We start to delve downwards in complexity, from a person down to the atoms, from the atoms to the quarks, and from the quarks downwards to perhaps energy. Endless space means that you can go an infinite amount of times down. An infinite complexity of everything.

3. so there is an infinite chain of causes that affects you. However, this scale of complexity moves upwards as well. If there is more than one big bang, if we "zoom out" enough, these clusters of big bangs will be part of something, that is part of something, that is part of a quarks on the atom of the compound in the cell of the leg of a giant turtle.

4. If we blow up the earth, we aren't going to affect the turtle.
5. As we go up or down in complexity, we see that each "tier" of complexity affects each other less and less.
6.There are an infinite amount of causes affecting you. Your reaction to this, an infinite amount of causes affecting you, is indistinguishable from coming out of nothing

So, to recap: both free will and determinism.
free will is because every cause/event has an infinite amount causes/events. which is indistinguishable from out of nothing.
infinite causes/events is due to infinite complexity downwards.
space is infinitely big and small.
(think of like this, tier a can affect tier b, which will affect tier c. However, there are an infinite amount of affects affecting tier b, so the affect of b on c is indistinguishable from something "new".
This is pretty long, so props to you if you read it. And if i had a lolcat you would get one.

 

[Sectan]

I think this has something to do with this question.
If not, I just like hearing this guy talk!

EDIT: I randomly hit this video a few hours ago and then I saw this thread. Neat huh?

 

[Mycroft Holmes]

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle implies that the world is not nearly as deterministic as Newton and Einstein had thought. Determinism isn't dead but is hasn't as much evidence in its favor as Probability. Free will is wining the argument in physics circles. As far as philosophy goes... this could go on forever.

No it does not. Probability merely supports a chance that different things can happen which would only disprove predestination; and only if multiverse theory is wrong. Even if we aren't predestined, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle merely would possibly provide evidence that predestination is wrong, it says nothing at all about free will. Or do you personally have the power to control the 'random' outcomes described in Heisenburg's principle? Because I can assure you, no one else has such an ability(which I believe means that you're god)

 

[TacticalAssassin1]

Huh, weird. My friend and I had an in-depth conversation about this today..
I'm personally still undecided. It's a weird topic that I haven't fully wrapped my head around yet.

 

[Your Fearless Captain]

"I have noticed that even people who claim everything is predetermined and that we can do nothing to change it look before they cross the road." - Stephen Hawking

That pretty much sums up my view.

 

[Sniperyeti]

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.

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'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.


Edit: Annoying how many people come to a post about a philisophical question just to say 'it doesn't matter'.

I can, and indeed will declare that the two are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps determinism is the wrong word, "nature" perhaps, but I firmly believe that just as there is an art and a science to everything, including art and science, the human mind can contain both.

What does art and science have to do with it? We're talking about all your actions being measurable responses determined by the environment. I'm not even sure where the basis for free will lies, maybe you can explain. Why should there be such a thing?

 

[Wuggy]

Well, we certainly have an illusion of free will. I'm not a theist, and yet I don't believe in absolute free will, but on purely on physical basis: basically, if we could detect every single particle in the universe, we could predict their movement in relation to each other, which means we could tell the future with certainty from human behavior to natural disasters and weather. And this possibility ultimately denies the existence of free will in the strictest definition.

 

[Joccaren]

The universe is deterministic. The state it is in now determines the state it will be in in the future. As such, the cause of the effects that will make your brain think and your body move have been pre-determined since the beginning of time. It is our consciousness that gives us the delusion of free will.
At least, that is what some scientists are stating.
In addition, before you think of anything, your subconscious brain has already started processing data, likely informing your conscious of what 'you' are thinking. If your subconscious knows what you will do before you do, and possibly tells you what to do, where is your free will?

Really, Free will is one of many illusions we live with and become so comfortable with that we usually don't think about it, much like our sense of sight. For all intents and purposes, we are a brain in a vat, however instead of a supercomputer giving us our input, our senses are, and we create illusions based off what they tell us.

 

[Jake the Snake]

I personally believe free will is an illusion. You are the person you are based on the experiences you have, and each new experience you take or experience that's made is merely the culmination of every other moment up until that point in your life. You can't help but act the way you're going to act. People may say, "Well, that's bull, my life isn't predictable. I could out on the street and get hit by a bus, right now. What do you say to that?" What I say to that is: You could, but you most likely wouldn't. And that's the point. You could do all of those, but based on your life and what you've experienced thus far, there's most likely nothing to warrant it, and thus it can be predicted you won't jump in front of a bus. Same principle can be applied to everyday acts: if you get coffee in the morning, how you behave in front of the opposite sex, whether or not you study for a test, etc. We're all on a path that's already been laid out for us, it's just bewilderingly complex.

 

[ascorbius]

We are all just incredibly complex machines which respond to various stimulations and act upon them. Everything from light, electricity, chemical reactions and arrangements in the brain to store, recognise and act on these stimulations... coupled that we're all interacting with each-other - providing each-other with stimulation, it is very easy to forget that in fact, we're just data processors.. free will is just a term we coined to make us feel better about this whole situation.

Every decision you ever make is the result of trillions of tiny stimulations from an almost infinite number of sources. We have as much free will as a ball rolling down a hill.

It's just physics.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It depends what you define as free will.

Are we following a constructed path of thought? Highly unlikely, as it would require an immense plan that is so intricate that it deliberately counters all efforts to undermine it.

If we're talking a set of choices that are determined specifically by the multiple variables in our past, then that's highly likely, as we have no ability to alter our thoughts based on future, or even present, variables.

So in all likelihood, we have a undetermined train of thought built from external influences. Which isn't really free will.

 

[Agent Cross]

Some of these arguements against free will seem more closely related to choice and instinct to me. Which IMO are all closely intertwined. But I'm no physicist/biologist or whatever ...ist. Unlike everyone else on the webs. Just an Escapist.

OT: Gun to my head. I'd say yes, I do have free will. Why? Well that's simple. I have freedom of choice, and no matter what limits there are to those choices. I have free will to make those choices

 

[gLoveofLove]

I'm a soft determinist. So in other words, I believe both that determinism is true and that I have free Will. I may not have been able to choose who I was born as, but since then I have used the tools that I have to decide who I want to be.