A discussion of freewill

[x65943]

How do you explain the world?

Do you think the world is deterministic - meaning every cause has an effect? e.g. a ball rolls because you kick the ball.

If so - you can predict everything given the proper data.

It's almost like plugging values into an equation e.g. y=mx+b

So if this is the case - that everything is predictable. Does this mean you can predict human behavior?

Accepting all of these previous points necessitates that you can predict human behavior - as the human mind is considered a giant algorithm - or group of equations.

So if you can predict what I do - How can I have freewill? I can't.

So there you have it. Determinism precludes freewill.

Now, this is not intuitive. Every fiber of your being says that you can choose your actions. But even here there are some hints that you cannot.

Do you find yourself acting in predictable ways? This is because the machine that is you is not drastically changing from day to day - so given similar situations you will act in a predictable manner.

But you still want to believe you're free - right? Your only recourse is that you FEEL you are free.

But can you trust your feelings? After all, you feel as though the world is stationary - when we know it is rotating and traveling through space. Your feelings deceive you.

But even with all of this. It's not convincing is it? No collection of inanimate objects can convincingly create a consciousness.

And that's the big question. Can we create consciousness. And if we could - could we disprove freewill. Consider this - if you created AI consciousness - you should be able to look at the code that makes each decision and determine that there is no room for choice.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe in freewill, and if so, do you have a reason beyond "I feel like I do"?

 

[Deleted User]

I believe in freewill. I do see how you can predict people but I think its because they have inclinations rather than purely reacting under instinct.
I think humans, as rational beings, are able to make choices by discerning the situation and figuring consequences of their actions.
They may be inclined to act in a way that has a more favourable outcome for themselves but they can also fight that and choose something of a greater good.

 

[x65943]

I believe in freewill. I do see how you can predict people but I think its because they have inclinations rather than purely reacting under instinct.
I think humans, as rational beings, are able to make choices by discerning the situation and figuring consequences of their actions.
They may be inclined to act in a way that has a more favourable outcome for themselves but they can also fight that and choose something of a greater good.

>I believe in free will
Why? Is it a feeling you have? Would you say you can know that it exists beyond reasonable doubt?
>choose something of a greater good
What is good and what is bad? How can you know?

 

[dAVID_]

In the end, the human brain is a biological recurrent neural network.

 

[Reiten]

Well yes, if you have enough data and understand the underlying mechanics then you can predict the result. Even when it relates to people you can predict to some extent what someone will do, but in this case you calculation would be probability and not certainty. So I don't see any reason not to believe in free will at this point.

To look at it from a more philosophical stand point: As long as I can make choices I don't feel forced into I am making them of my free will. Something like this, kinda hard to put the thought into proper words.

 

[x65943]

Well yes, if you have enough data and understand the underlying mechanics then you can predict the result. Even when it relates to people you can predict to some extent what someone will do, but in this case you calculation would be probability and not certainty. So I don't see any reason not to believe in free will at this point.

To look at it from a more philosophical stand point: As long as I can make choices I don't feel forced into I am making them of my free will. Something like this, kinda hard to put the thought into proper words.

I agree with what you're saying for the most part.

But consider this. If the world is completely deterministic - then it's possible to calculate a decision with absolute certainty (not just probability as you suggest).

If the mind is just a very complex computer - with data in -> data out - and if you can completely understand that system and all of the variables going into it - then you should be able to completely predict the outputs i.e. a human's "choices"

If you cannot predict an outcome given all of the variables - then the world cannot be deterministic - because you are saying that given the same causes you can get different effects.

Basically if you believe the human mind can act outside of its own physical constraints - and somehow make different decisions given all of the exact same variables - then you believe in a non-deterministic mind, and you have to reject the absolute determinism of the world.

 

[Deleted User]

Why? Is it just a feeling you have? Would you say you can know that it exists beyond reasonable doubt?

I think it just comes back to the idea of rationalism. That humans can act on reason and logic that they are able to make a conscious decisions

What is good and what is bad? How can you know?

Good and bad is difficult to define but regardless humans can act on perceived good.

 

[xpoverzion]

How do you explain the world?

Do you think the world is deterministic - meaning every cause has an effect? e.g. a ball rolls because you kick the ball.

If so - you can predict everything given the proper data.

It's almost like plugging values into an equation e.g. y=mx+b

So if this is the case - that everything is predictable. Does this mean you can predict human behavior?

Accepting all of these previous points necessitates that you can predict human behavior - as the human mind is considered a giant algorithm - or group of equations.

So if you can predict what I do - How can I have freewill? I can't.

So there you have it. Determinism precludes freewill.

Now, this is not intuitive. Every fiber of your being says that you can choose your actions. But even here there are some hints that you cannot.

Do you find yourself acting in predictable ways? This is because the machine that is you is not drastically changing from day to day - so given similar situations you will act in a predictable manner.

But you still want to believe you're free - right? Your only recourse is that you FEEL you are free.

But can you trust your feelings? After all, you feel as though the world is stationary - when we know it is rotating and traveling through space. Your feelings deceive you.

But even with all of this. It's not convincing is it? No collection of inanimate objects can convincingly create a consciousness.

And that's the big question. Can we create consciousness. And if we could - could we disprove freewill. Consider this - if you created AI consciousness - you should be able to look at the code that makes each decision and determine that there is no room for choice.

What are your thoughts? Do you believe in freewill, and if so, do you have a reason beyond "I feel like I do"?

Newtonian and Einsteinian physics suggests that determinism is very real, and every single outcome today, and into the future, has been in predictable motion since the big bang. However you would have to have a super computer, or some kind of supernatural power to calculate such things over 13.7 billion years. The saving grace for those who have faith in free will is quantum physics. In quantum physics, the location of particles are very "spooky," unpredictable, and single partical can even exist in two different places at the same time!?!?. The outcome of the reactions between quantum particles can often be as up to chance as a coin flip. So Quantum Theory is a huge problem for determinism theories. Maybe someday we will better understand quantum theory, and it will satisfy determinism like Einstein/Newtonian physics does. I used to be a firm believer in determinism, but as I have learned more about quantum theory, I can't say that I have as much faith in the deterministic nature of this universe anymore. If anything, the study of quantum theory humbles you, and makes you realize that we really know next to nothing about reality, existence, matter, etc...

 

[x65943]

I think it just comes back to the idea of rationalism. That humans can act on reason and logic that they are able to make a conscious decisions


Good and bad is difficult to define but regardless humans can act on perceived good.

Just because someone seems to act rationally does not mean they are choosing their actions.

You could conceive of a computer that made decisions based on probability - and so made "rational" decisions - yet the computer would not have free will.

And I agree that you can't define good or bad objectively - but that people seem to have their own opinions of good and bad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Newtonian and Einsteinian physics suggests that determinism is very real, and every single outcome today, and into the future, has been in predictable motion since the big bang. However you would have to have a super computer, or some kind of supernatural power to calculate such things over 13.7 billion years. The saving grace for those who have faith in free will is quantum physics. In quantum physics, the location of particles are very "spooky," unpredictable, and can even be in two different places simultaneously. The outcome of the reactions between quantum particles can often be as up to chance as a coin flip. So Quantum Theory is a huge problem for determinism theories. Maybe someday we will better understand quantum theory, and it will satisfy determinism like Einstein/Newtonian physics does. I used to be a firm believer in determinism, but as I have learned more about quantum theory, I can't say that I have as much faith in the deterministic nature of this universe anymore. If anything, the study of quantum theory humbles you, and makes you realize that we really know next to nothing about reality, existence, matter, etc...

As I'm sure you know there is a big controversy regarding quantum mechanics and determinism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
The only thing I can say about that is that there is a lot we don't understand, but there is probabilistic determinism in quantum mechanics suggesting absolute determinism with unknown factors.

And I agree that it would be hard to model the entire universe - imo impossible because you would need at least one particle to represent each particle in the world - necessitating a second universe to model the first. But its impossibility does not preclude modeling 1 mind or understanding that if you could create a second universe that it would mirror the first one perfectly.

 

[xpoverzion]

Just because someone seems to act rationally does not mean they are choosing their actions.

You could conceive of a computer that made decisions based on probability - and so made "rational" decisions - yet the computer would not have free will.

And I agree that you can't define good or bad objectively - but that people seem to have their own opinions of good and bad.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------


As I'm sure you know there is a big controversy regarding quantum mechanics and determinism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Quantum_mechanics_and_classical_physics
The only thing I can say about that is that there is a lot we don't understand, but there is probabilistic determinism in quantum mechanics suggesting absolute determinism with unknown factors.

And I agree that it would be hard to model the entire universe - imo impossible because you would need at least one particle to represent each particle in the world - necessitating a second universe to model the first. But its impossibility does not preclude modeling 1 mind or understanding that if you could create a second universe that it would mirror the first one perfectly.

Yeah, you make some good points, and there definitely needs to be A LOT more understanding accomplished in quantum theory to suggest that it still, in theory, satisfies determinism. As for modeling the entire universe based on "billiard balls" physics, I believe it will always be humanly impossible to predict the future location and orientation in space/time of every atom in the Universe, or even the atoms on the leaves of a tree that are shimmering in the wind. Although, if Determinism is really a fact of this Universe, thenj you know that there is a quantifiable, true answer out there for everything, and every time point in the past or future. We'll just never know how to calculate those answers, as well as I believe there are a lot of other properties of this Universe that we will never know, or understand. I have always believed that our 5 senses, and even all our advanced analytical instruments, are really only sensing a tiny fraction of the total reality of the Universe. It will be impossible to know certain properties and realities of this Universe if it's not even possible to see it, measure it, or sense it with any of the matter that is in the universe, whether that be biological, inanimate/instruments, etc..

 

[dAVID_]

Yeah, you make some good points, and there definitely needs to be A LOT more understanding accomplished in quantum theory to suggest that it still, in theory, satisfies determinism. As for modeling the entire universe based on "billiard balls" physics, I believe it will always be humanly impossible to predict the future location and orientation in space/time of every atom in the Universe, or even the atoms on the leaves of a tree that are shimmering in the wind. Although, if Determinism is really a fact of this Universe, thenj you know that there is a quantifiable, true answer out there for everything, and every time point in the past or future. We'll just never know how to calculate those answers, as well as I believe there are a lot of other properties of this Universe that we will never know, or understand. I have always believed that our 5 senses, and even all our advanced analytical instruments, are really only sensing a tiny fraction of the total reality of the Universe. It will be impossible to know certain properties and realities of this Universe if it's not even possible to see it, measure it, or sense it with any of the matter that is in the universe, whether that be biological, inanimate/instruments, etc..

Welcome to the boundaries of the human mind.

 

[x65943]

Yeah, you make some good points, and there definitely needs to be A LOT more understanding accomplished in quantum theory to suggest that it still, in theory, satisfies determinism. As for modeling the entire universe based on "billiard balls" physics, I believe it will always be humanly impossible to predict the future location and orientation in space/time of every atom in the Universe, or even the atoms on the leaves of a tree that are shimmering in the wind. Although, if Determinism is really a fact of this Universe, thenj you know that there is a quantifiable, true answer out there for everything, and every time point in the past or future. We'll just never know how to calculate those answers, as well as I believe there are a lot of other properties of this Universe that we will never know, or understand. I have always believed that our 5 senses, and even all our advanced analytical instruments, are really only sensing a tiny fraction of the total reality of the Universe. It will be impossible to know certain properties and realities of this Universe if it's not even possible to see it, measure it, or sense it with any of the matter that is in the universe, whether that be biological, inanimate/instruments, etc..

I agree with you completely.
Especially this point
"There is a...true answer...for everything...We'll just never know how to calculate those answers"

And this really underpins another idea. Even though free will cannot co-exist with determinism, functionally we cannot (at least currently, probably never) determine what someone will do at a future time.

So we are functionally free. Just as for most aspects of our life the earth is functionally stationary.

The only real take away in my opinion is this. Since humans are essentially machines formed from genetics and environment - you shouldn't judge the "bad" too harshly, as the only difference between you and that person is circumstance. If you were them - you would do the exact same thing, no exceptions.

Essentially be compassionate to those ruled by fate.

 

[Reiten]

I agree with what you're saying for the most part.

But consider this. If the world is completely deterministic - then it's possible to calculate a decision with absolute certainty (not just probability as you suggest).

If the mind is just a very complex computer - with data in -> data out - and if you can completely understand that system and all of the variables going into it - then you should be able to completely predict the outputs i.e. a human's "choices"

If you cannot predict an outcome given all of the variables - then the world cannot be deterministic - because you are saying that given the same causes you can get different effects.

Basically if you believe the human mind can act outside of its own physical constraints - and somehow make different decisions given all of the exact same variables - then you believe in a non-deterministic mind, and you have to reject the absolute determinism of the world.

This is an interesting discussion so I'll elaborate a bit more.
As others have said before me, the human brain is basically a neural network. It is far more complex then anything we can do one a computer, so what I'm going to explain might be completely wrong when it comes to the human brain, but still it is an interesting point for this discussion.
I have some experience with neural network algorithms and there exist cases where the neural network(not being trained) produces different outcomes given the same input data. Usually you can still see some pattern in this randomness, like result A appears 25% of the time and result B 75%. Now taken the huge amount of neural networks out there I would wager that there are cases where some of them land at the situation of 50%/50% of something happening. Now if we are fully deterministic how would we handle such a situational?

 

[FAST6191]

Barring the simulation hypothesis then were the universe Newtonian I could see it being predictable, give or take being unknowable/incalculable (there appear to be parts of the universe I will never reach if speed of light is my limit, thus there is information I can never know, whether the effect of such things is notable or not is a slightly different matter*).

*outside the solar system it can probably be boiled down to something fairly basic for purposes of Earth. Galaxy almost definitely, go to local group and it is not going to be better, supercluster and...

With quantum being as seemingly unpredictable, quantum also percolating up into the macro all the time and chaos theory then coming into play I can't see it happening, especially as some things are very unknowable.

"Do you find yourself acting in predictable ways?"
Few people go against the grain for very long -- laziness is a rather nice evolutionary adaptation.

"But can you trust your feelings?"
Everybody seems to have different ones, and possibly even none at all. Equally one can dupe the feelings of others or induce them readily enough. Feelings then are only marginally more useful than reading tea leaves.

"Can we create consciousness."
Leaving aside that nobody can quite define it then I give it good odds of being within the realm of possibility. Nothing I can see really suggests there is a "magic spark" that can't be simulated or otherwise created.

"you should be able to look at the code that makes each decision and determine that there is no room for choice."
Leaving aside discussion of the methods by which such things are created* these days then unknowable/unpredictable inputs retains the unknowable part of the equation. Equally if the internal state is not known either (I am sure we have all seen people with depression act differently) and plays into the calculation we have another source of the unknown.

*spin it another way. Quite easy to create some encryption that would take a computer operating at Landauer's principle limits powered by the energy output of a star more than the life of that star to break, scaling up to visible universe size is easy enough too. Does encryption not exist?

As far as myself goes I think I will take a spin on Pascal's wager/gambit

Four options
There isn't I and play to it, whatever that means.
There isn't and I assume there isn't, whatever that means.
There is and I assume there is. To waste one's agency by being a leaf on the breeze would be bad from where I sit. While I prefer to play life like a zero sum game but you can rectify the numbers right at the end.
There is and I assume there isn't. See above for the reasoning here.

 

[Veho]

Humans may have a "free will" (in that they are not 100% deterministic), but it has nothing to do with the conscious part of our brain and what we like to think of as a "will". Decisions, even very important high-level ones, are made automatically by subconscious semi-autonomous parts. The conscious mind is then informed of these decisions (long) after the fact*, and it then interprets and rationalizes the decision by providing facts and experiences that support/justify it retroactively.

The subconscious mind is a) not under the control of what you would call "will", b) easily influenced by chemicals and parasites and magnets, and it's not just the instinctual "four Fs"** decisions but things we consider complex, like morality (see the magnet link). Most of our immediate reactions and decisions are made without any conscious thought. The only place where we have conscious control over our decisions and reactions is in completely imaginary scenarios in our head, i.e. daydreaming or storytelling, where the entire setup is under our control and you are not reacting to anything unexpected, and even then everyone's basic motivation is ultimately sex and/or food.

And think about how a very slight change in brain chemistry can lead to mood swings, hallucinations, manias, all sort of weird shit that dramatically affects our "reasoning" (hah) and behavior, and think about how much of our thoughts are really our own (dude, so meta).

Basically we are pink fleshy sex-driven automata with our consciousness trailing several seconds behind, going "I meant to do that".

* https://www.nature.com/news/2008/080411/full/news.2008.751.html
**Four Fs: fighting, fleeing, feeding and... mating

 

[Gizametalman]

Free will does not exist. We do not exist.
If you really, really think about it, you'll realize that your whole life is a waste and complete nonsense.

Our brains is what gives us the sense of reality.
For instance, when we see something, we capture rays of light bouncing of objects. Some objects may absorb all colours except ONE, thus, we perceive THAT bounced colour as "The object's colour".
Think of... Grass. Why is green? Because, when the Sun sends its light, and gets through our Atmosphere, Light gets decomposed. All the colours that composites White Light gets everywhere in our visible world.
Clorophyle, happens to absorb all colours with the exception of Green Frequencies, thus, we see that Grass is Green. In Autumn, when there's not enough light in whicever side of the world you're, Grass and Leaves can't absorve SunLight, this makes them more Grey-ish or Brown-ish to our perception. Thus, we can say that it is Autumn.

When we think, or speak, or move a finger, or breath... or even feel pain... there's Chemistry involved on those actions.
A memory is nothing but an Electrical Path embed within our neurons (brain cells). When you remember the name of your teacher, you're just accesing to that specific path of your Neurons that tells you: "Ah, yes, his/her name is this or that"
When we move a finger, our brains are dictating our nerves and muscles through Electrical Stimulation.
When we sleep, we are changing our Brain Chemistry.
Dreams are also riged by the laws of Chemistry and Physics.
All the persons you dream of, but you can't remember meeting them, are LITERALLY all the people we've seen throughout our entire life. Again, these people gets in our brains, and our brains works by Chemistry and Physics.

When we THINK, we're also objected to the same Chemistry and Physics that happens within ourselves.
If you think about it... Free Will is also rigged by the Laws of Nature.

Now, saying this, and understanding that we are rigged by Nature... would you dare to say that you exist?
What would happen to a person that gets all their senses blocked? As we've learned that sight, hearing, smell, sense, talk, is rigged by our perception, and that PERCEPTION is rigged by Nature... Would such person feel that he/she exists?

Free will does not exist.
Only Nature and its laws exists.

Do we have the need to work for money? To sleep? To eat?
No, of course not.
We do not exist. We are nothing, and when the end comes for us, there will be nothing left from us.
Not even our memories.

 

[Deleted User]

I can't leave this thread without putting this song here:

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice,
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose freewill.

Humans are machines. We don't like to be compared to machines, because it is often connotative of being cold, indifferent, and mindlessly predictable. People seem to have issue with the fact that all of their behavior can be predicted. However, I raise the question that how seriously would people take you if you were totally unpredictable? People have recurrent personality traits because of the human mind and its propensity for learning and adapting. Memories, emotions, instincts: all of them are variables in this machine. As stupid as it may sound, the human machine is not an inhuman system. No, it is very, very human.

Also, it can be argued that you can't have logic without pathos. Without positive nor negative connotations to results when making decisions, it would be impossible to discern what result would be best. Logic is not as emotionless as some people like to think it out to be.

For me, freewill is more the right of every human to act of their own accord, regardless if it may be predictable or not. Everyone should be their own master, and act according to their interests and beliefs. It is wrong to deprive any human of that right.

Welcome to the boundaries of the human mind.

As a counter-argument, I'm sure people born 400 years earlier would have never dreamed of what humans today are capable of.

I agree with you completely.
Especially this point
"There is a...true answer...for everything...We'll just never know how to calculate those answers"

And this really underpins another idea. Even though free will cannot co-exist with determinism, functionally we cannot (at least currently, probably never) determine what someone will do at a future time.

So we are functionally free. Just as for most aspects of our life the earth is functionally stationary.

The only real take away in my opinion is this. Since humans are essentially machines formed from genetics and environment - you shouldn't judge the "bad" too harshly, as the only difference between you and that person is circumstance. If you were them - you would do the exact same thing, no exceptions.

Essentially be compassionate to those ruled by fate.

I tend to disagree with the last part of this statement. I believe that humans have small natural inclinations. While these inclinations can be shaped or controlled, they still exist. Even if you have the same upbringing as the guy who does something "bad," you may not act the same way yourself because of these inclinations.

It reminds me of the Chinese philosopher Mencius and his argument that humans are inherently good. He compared the goodness of humans to Ox Mountain: once covered with trees and vegetation, it became bare over time due to human involvement. Mencius argues that humans are born inherently good, full of trees like Ox Mountain was long ago, but that if we are trained or are learning to act against our nature, a tree is cut from the mountain. If we keep performing acts that go against our inherent good human nature, we end up with a barren mountain, devoid of any life. However, Mencius also argued that even if we have done bad in the past, we can still redeem ourselves by starting again on the path of good, and, in time, the trees, and thus, goodness, will return to us and the mountain.

So, I suppose, in the end, even though humans can be predicted and manipulated in various ways, in the end, it is ultimately us, as people, who make decisions for ourselves.

 

[330]

Very interesting thread!


I think that free will doesn't exist. However, we're so insignificant in the big scheme of things that it doesn't matter. We think that we're doing something because we want it, but it's already written. There is no way to rebel on this.