Free Will?

[Saidin]

I think that the illusion of free will might be the result of agreement between different brain regions.

A subconscious brain area makes a (non-free) choice, says to a more conscious part of the brain, “Hey, here’s what you’re going to do” and the more conscious part says “Yeah, that’s what I’m going to do alright. Not only am I going to do it, but I want to do it.”

Our most conscious parts are unaware of the whole conversation and only hear the last “I want to do it” part.

This is what I called "Fake Free Will" in another thread I started. I understand what you are saying, and would agree that the majority of people fall into this type of process.

For me, there is rarely a case where my conscious mind says or acts on "I want to do it" without recognizing/understanding the subconscious processes that led to it.

 

[Saidin]

I'll try to explain it a little better.

The argument is a reductionist one.

Your reductionist logic is sound.

What if the mind is not the brain? What if things are mostly deterministic with a little randomness thrown in to force us to choose outside of that conditioning?

 

[gibran2]

I'll try to explain it a little better.

The argument is a reductionist one.

Your reductionist logic is sound.

What if the mind is not the brain? What if things are mostly deterministic with a little randomness thrown in to force us to choose outside of that conditioning?

There is no mix of deterministic processes and random processes that will yield free will.
If the mind is not the brain, then the behavior of the mind is governed by non-brain processes. A choice is a choice is a choice. Doesn’t matter what’s making the choice – if a choice is made, it was made for a reason (remember the causal chain) or not (and causal chains may have deterministic and non-deterministic links).

For me, there is rarely a case where my conscious mind says or acts on "I want to do it" without recognizing/understanding the subconscious processes that led to it.

I don’t see how that can be the case. When I say “subconscious” I mean “not conscious” – maybe I should have said that in the first place.

Anyhow, you’re not aware of what individual atoms in your brain/body are doing.
You’re not aware of what individual neurons in your brain are doing.
You’re not aware of what computational groups of neurons in your brain are doing.
You’re not aware…

You get the picture. Most of what the brain and body does is outside the awareness of the conscious mind (and that’s a good thing – way too much going on in there!).

 

[Saidin]

Anyhow, you’re not aware of what individual atoms in your brain/body are doing.
You’re not aware of what individual neurons in your brain are doing.
You’re not aware of what computational groups of neurons in your brain are doing.
You’re not aware…

You get the picture. Most of what the brain and body does is outside the awareness of the conscious mind (and that’s a good thing – way too much going on in there!).

Oh, I agree it is a good thing we have unawareness, at least in our current form.

If the mind is not the brain, then that takes away the physical components for the most part in the determination of choice. If the mind is part of a higher consciousness, and that higher consciousness is not restricted in its ability to understand or percieve the roots of its choices, or the possible outcomes of its choices, then it could take all the information available to it (as nothing would be unconscious/unknown) and make a decision based on what is best at that particular moment, knowing full well where the choice came from, and what reprecussions that choice would have?

Our choices will always be based upon our experience, but that experience does not dictate that in a particular situation, a particular choice will be made. We can always choose to act not in our self interest.

 

[joebono]

We are programmed to seek pleasure and avoid pain. All of our behaviors follow this rule and I have no choice in any of my actions but to go with the stronger desire. If there are two paths in front of me, I have no choice but to go with the path that I believe best suits me - there is nothing else I can do. I don't decide which desire is stronger, this is done without my consent.

 

[gibran2]

...If the mind is not the brain, then that takes away the physical components for the most part in the determination of choice. If the mind is part of a higher consciousness, and that higher consciousness is not restricted in its ability to understand or percieve the roots of its choices, or the possible outcomes of its choices, then it could take all the information available to it (as nothing would be unconscious/unknown) and make a decision based on what is best at that particular moment, knowing full well where the choice came from, and what reprecussions that choice would have?

It’s not a question of knowledge. Knowledge effects the decision-making process, but it effects it in a deterministic way.

In your example of a higher consciousness making a choice, you say that it bases it’s decision on “what is best at that particular moment, knowing full well where the choice came from, and what reprecussions that choice would have”.

If that were the case, then how is it free will? The higher consciousness is simply examining the available information and making a choice based on some “algorithm” to determine what is best. It is not free to choose otherwise.

Now, you may say that it could choose otherwise. And I agree. But if it chose otherwise, it would have a reason for choosing otherwise (deterministic) or no reason (random, not deterministic). Again, no free will.

 

[Saidin]

Now, you may say that it could choose otherwise. And I agree. But if it chose otherwise, it would have a reason for choosing otherwise (deterministic) or no reason (random, not deterministic). Again, no free will.

I agree with your logic, just trying to understand how something that I believe is fundamental to the structure of the universe could be applied. I was a determinist for a long time, even taught it in school, but it doesn't work for me anylonger, even though I still believe the logic of it to be sound. I guess I like to believe I have risen above my programming...

Isn't the act of being able to choose otherwise, yet deciding not to an act of free will? I could have, but I didn't, and given the same choice at a different moment in time, I might have made a different choice.

What about choices made from intuition? Or having to choose from a number of value neutral options?

If there is a higher self, and that higher self exists outside of time, could an application of free will be available in such a state of being? Would metaphysical determinism be the same as physical determinism?

 

[kyrolima]

Free will is an illusion created by the mind. Ultimately there is no choice. Anything seems to be directed by energy.
The direction in which energy flows creates a certain situation in which there is only ONE choice.
Either you let the energy flow, or change the flow of energy.
If you are able to do so you change the situation.

 

[Virola78]

Reminds me of Zeno

"God is not separate from the world; He is the soul of the world, and each of us contains a part of the Divine Fire. All things are parts of one single system, which is called Nature; the individual life is good when it is in harmony with Nature. In one sense, every life is in harmony with Nature, since it is such as Nature’s laws have caused it to be; but in another sense a human life is only in harmony with Nature when the individual will is directed to ends which are among those of Nature. Virtue consists in a will which is in agreement with Nature. The wicked, though perforce they obey God’s law, do so involuntarily; in the simile of Cleanthes, they are like a dog tied to a cart, and compelled to go wherever it goes."

Zeno Stoicism Philosophy: Metaphysics of Stoicism, Ethics. Quotes Stoic Philosopher Zeno

www.spaceandmotion.com

 

[gibran2]

Now, you may say that it could choose otherwise. And I agree. But if it chose otherwise, it would have a reason for choosing otherwise (deterministic) or no reason (random, not deterministic). Again, no free will.

I agree with your logic, just trying to understand how something that I believe is fundamental to the structure of the universe could be applied. I was a determinist for a long time, even taught it in school, but it doesn't work for me anylonger, even though I still believe the logic of it to be sound. I guess I like to believe I have risen above my programming...

Isn't the act of being able to choose otherwise, yet deciding not to an act of free will? I could have, but I didn't, and given the same choice at a different moment in time, I might have made a different choice.

What about choices made from intuition? Or having to choose from a number of value neutral options?

If there is a higher self, and that higher self exists outside of time, could an application of free will be available in such a state of being? Would metaphysical determinism be the same as physical determinism?

Even if the universe is non-deterministic (which quantum mechanics tells us is the case) there is still no room for free will. All phenomena which are not deterministic are random. And if your brain makes you do something because of some random process (such as the spontaneous decay of an atom or something), how is that free will?

Free will obviously is not possible in a deterministic universe. But it’s also not possible in a non-deterministic universe.

If we choose to act contrary to the way we might ordinarily act, then something (particular brain activity) is causing us to act in this new way. If we act out of intuition, then we are simply following a program that is less available to the conscious mind.

A higher self existing outside of time cannot have free will. Any choice that such a higher self might make is made for a reason or at random. If it was made for a reason, then no free will. If it was made at random, no free will.

As I’ve already stated, nothing can have free will. Not us, not our higher selves, not God. And it doesn’t matter if the universe is deterministic or not.

The whole concept of free will is an illusion.

 

[Saidin]

Attempting to posit an understanding of metaphysical realms and the mechanics behind it and reach a definitive conculsion is not possible. You are using human logic to attempt to explain a non-human existence, creating a framework of A or B when in actuality duality no longer exists. It is A and B, and there lies your free will choice.

If a being exists outside of time, then there is no past and no future. There is only the present moment, and therefore any choices would be indeterminate.

 

[RealAwareness]

I tend towards the belief in Free Will. Either free will is true, or I'm simply not free to think otherwise.

IF Proposition 1: Free will is True, and Determinism is False

THEN EITHER
A: My belief in free will is freely made based on the available evidence and the capacity of humankind to see Truth. Though the behavior of matter and energy can be proven to be deterministic, consciousness operates at a different level of reality, and choices are not determined, or at least not computable (there are many levels of reality that are in principle not computable, even by an infinitely powerful computer, for example, the collapse of the quantum wave function into a measured reality at the classical level from a quantum probability amplitude).

OR

B: My belief in free will is a deterministic delusion - I could not have believed otherwise. It's truth or falseness is irrelevant; what counts is the subconscious determining that this is the belief most beneficial to my happiness and survival.

However, since I cannot believe otherwise (I am not free to do so), I cannot really say this statement is true, as, by definition, it is non-falsifiable. It is a premise of the modern scientific method that any potentially true explanation must, in principle, be falsifiable (see Popper); ergo, I cannot say that that determinism is true, merely a useful belief. Determinism at the level of conscious experience cannot be proven nor disproven, even in principle.

IF Proposition 2: Determinism is True, and Free Will is False

THEN EITHER
A: My belief in determinism is a deterministic delusion - It's truth or falseness is irrelevant; what counts is the subconscious determining that this is the belief most beneficial to my happiness and survival. However, since I cannot believe otherwise (I am not free to do so), I cannot really say this statement is true; it is simply a useful belief. Ergo, determinism at the level of conscious experience cannot be proven nor disproven.

OR

B: My belief in determinism is a freely made conclusion based on the available evidence and the capacity of humankind to see Truth. However, since this statement contradicts itself, it is false, and I have free will.

Proposition 3: Non-Determinism is true, and Free Will is (Still) False.
Here I have to agree with Gibran2 that while Determinism excludes Free Will, non-Determinism doesn't necessarily imply free will. However, non-Determinism is a prerequisite of Free Will, so if we have established non-determinism, then we at least have the possibility of Free Will.

I do not see a conflict between free will and "reasons". Yes, every choice has a reason (unless a random quantum event is used to initiate a decision process). However, a reason is not the same thing as a cause. A cause is Objective. A Reason is Subjective. Reasons are not Causes.

Since there is no causal element in the reasons for our choices, there is also no objective necessity for our choices. They are made for reasons - and reasons stand outside of the chain of causality: If they do not, then we are back to causes, and strict determinism.

If choices do not have causes, how can one argue that they are non-free? I freely chose to kiss her, for the reason that she is beautiful (awkward choice of words, but I am trying to demonstrate non-causality in my choice). I didn't HAVE to kiss her. I ALMOST didn't, as I was afraid. But I freely chose to do so despite my fear, and the reason I chose to do so is that she is lovely.

While this doesn't prove free will, it does prove the *experience* of free will, coupled with non-deterministic reasons. I don't see how reasons conflict with free will.

 

[RealAwareness]

Many events at the Quantum level are ontologically non-deterministic. Thus, a physical means, based in physical, not metaphysical, reality, does exist for non-determinism. How the physical brain can tap into a fundamental non-determinism is not, in principle, an unanswerable question; mind science is still in it's infancy; the important point to note here is that a known mechanism does exist, in reality, that is non-deterministic.

Thus, it is physically possible for the human mind to have in its design the ability to tap into a non-deterministic process for making choices. This occurs at the subconscious level; we become consciously aware of our choices only after we have already made them at a subconscious level (this has been demonstrated in many studies).

Hence, if we, as humans, *feel* that we have free will, and if a mechanism exists in reality that the human brain\mind can tap into to resolve those choices that cannot be resolved by the pain\pleasure reward\punishment matrix that most choices are indeed computable against, then our choices are NOT necessarily determined: We have the subjective experience of free will, coupled with a physical mechanism that makes perfectly possible an ontological "randomizer" at the seat of our mind that is not, even in principle, computable - it is truly random, truly non-deterministic.

While this may not be the classical definition of free will, it is, however, the experience of free will coupled with ontological non-determinism. And that is close enough for me.

 

[Virola78]

Gibran2 your logic seems solid to me.

But im thinking since we are part of a whole (unity), our will must be as free as the ‘will’ of the whole. It must be free, because how can this unity have a cause outside itself? If it is determined by (in) itself, it is free of choice. (Leads me to question creativity.)

As far as we experience duality, we are not free. We feel caused by something else.
But as far as we experience individuality (unity), we are free.

Freedom of choice is not so much an illusion, as it is a reflection.

 

[gibran2]

...Hence, if we, as humans, *feel* that we have free will, and if a mechanism exists in reality that the human brain\mind can tap into to resolve those choices that cannot be resolved by the pain\pleasure reward\punishment matrix that most choices are indeed computable against, then our choices are NOT necessarily determined: We have the subjective experience of free will, coupled with a physical mechanism that makes perfectly possible an ontological "randomizer" at the seat of our mind that is not, even in principle, computable - it is truly random, truly non-deterministic.

While this may not be the classical definition of free will, it is, however, the experience of free will coupled with ontological non-determinism. And that is close enough for me.

I think you’re getting close to the heart of the problem of free will.

What does it mean for a phenomena to be non-deterministic? It doesn’t mean to be under the control of something unknown. It means, as you stated, that the phenomena is random.

Many phenomena are deterministic. So it’s clear that we aren’t exercising free will when these phenomena are involved. But how are we exercising free will when random phenomena are involved?

How do choices made at random represent the exercise of free will? A random selection does not require will of any kind.

There are some dualities that are, by definition, always true. We call these tautologies. The statement “either a choice is made for a reason or a choice is made for no reason” is always true. Timelessness, the unity of everything, etc. don’t make it any less true.

If we don’t choose for a reason, and we don’t choose for no reason, how else can we choose?

 

[Saidin]

Man do I LOVE this forum. So many intelligent, articulate people! Talking about this stuff with friends of mine is like pulling teeth without novocaine. I love having my thought processes challenged and for my other selves to provide new understandings.

Does non-deterministic have to equal randomness? Is there any other way of expressing this that makes this statement falsifyable?

Perhaps it is our reasoning which is the illusion, rather than that of free will?

I read an anaolgy regarding free will last night and thought I'd pass it on for comment if people wish... The process of life is like a map where the destination is known, which is death. Imagine this destination as a place on a map, lets say 42nd street and 5th avenue in New York City. You were born in Los Angeles, and your life a journey to this destination. How does one get to the end point? There are so many roads to take, many opportunities to retrace ones steps, try alternate routes etc. If life were deterministic, wouldn't we take the exact same route each and every time given the opportunity? Or does our path consist of choices to which path we shall take? Does the desire for future events necessitate that those desires arise from that which as come before? I want to see Cleveland, but I am only in Las Vegas at the moment. Is my path there determined by a particular route, or could that route change over time, or not manifest at all? If everything is dertermined, how did I choose the route that got me there?

What if my car breaks down, and I have to be towed to a location that is not on my route? Does that break the deterministic arrow of cause and effect?

 

[gibran2]

...Does non-deterministic have to equal randomness? Is there any other way of expressing this that makes this statement falsifyable?

As far as I know, non-deterministic phenomena are what we call random phenomena. There is nothing I know of that is non-deterministic and also non-random.

…I read an anaolgy regarding free will last night and thought I'd pass it on for comment if people wish... The process of life is like a map where the destination is known, which is death. Imagine this destination as a place on a map, lets say 42nd street and 5th avenue in New York City. You were born in Los Angeles, and your life a journey to this destination. How does one get to the end point? There are so many roads to take, many opportunities to retrace ones steps, try alternate routes etc. If life were deterministic, wouldn't we take the exact same route each and every time given the opportunity? Or does our path consist of choices to which path we shall take? Does the desire for future events necessitate that those desires arise from that which as come before? I want to see Cleveland, but I am only in Las Vegas at the moment. Is my path there determined by a particular route, or could that route change over time, or not manifest at all? If everything is dertermined, how did I choose the route that got me there?

What if my car breaks down, and I have to be towed to a location that is not on my route? Does that break the deterministic arrow of cause and effect?

Not everything in life is pre-determined! In fact, reality at it’s most basic level is non-deterministic. But most of the macro-phenomena of everyday life are deterministic.

Concerning your analogy: If your car broke down, then it broke down for a reason. You weren’t aware that it was going to break down, but it’s breakdown was pre-determined. So if the breakdown causes you to change your path, then the path you end up on is the one that was pre-determined, regardless of what you may have thought.

 

[gibran2]

I’ve attached a simple Windows application that I wrote many years ago (should still work on a Windows machine). Uploads of .exe files aren’t allowed, so I changed the extension to .pdf. After downloading the file, change the extension to .exe. The file is safe.

The goal of the application is to move from a starting point through an obstacle course and get to a destination point. There are many approaches to solve this problem, and this application uses a non-deterministic approach. Run the app and click anywhere on the screen to load a new set of obstacles.

 

[The Traveler]

I’ve attached a simple Windows application that I wrote many years ago (should still work on a Windows machine). Uploads of .exe files aren’t allowed, so I changed the extension to .pdf. After downloading the file, change the extension to .exe. The file is safe.

The goal of the application is to move from a starting point through an obstacle course and get to a destination point. There are many approaches to solve this problem, and this application uses a non-deterministic approach. Run the app and click anywhere on the screen to load a new set of obstacles.

Interesting, I assume that this is based on a genetic algorithm?


Kind regards,

The Traveler

 

[polytrip]

Now, you may say that it could choose otherwise. And I agree. But if it chose otherwise, it would have a reason for choosing otherwise (deterministic) or no reason (random, not deterministic). Again, no free will.

I agree with your logic, just trying to understand how something that I believe is fundamental to the structure of the universe could be applied. I was a determinist for a long time, even taught it in school, but it doesn't work for me anylonger, even though I still believe the logic of it to be sound. I guess I like to believe I have risen above my programming...

Isn't the act of being able to choose otherwise, yet deciding not to an act of free will? I could have, but I didn't, and given the same choice at a different moment in time, I might have made a different choice.

What about choices made from intuition? Or having to choose from a number of value neutral options?

If there is a higher self, and that higher self exists outside of time, could an application of free will be available in such a state of being? Would metaphysical determinism be the same as physical determinism?

Even if the universe is non-deterministic (which quantum mechanics tells us is the case) there is still no room for free will. All phenomena which are not deterministic are random. And if your brain makes you do something because of some random process (such as the spontaneous decay of an atom or something), how is that free will?

Free will obviously is not possible in a deterministic universe. But it’s also not possible in a non-deterministic universe.

If we choose to act contrary to the way we might ordinarily act, then something (particular brain activity) is causing us to act in this new way. If we act out of intuition, then we are simply following a program that is less available to the conscious mind.

A higher self existing outside of time cannot have free will. Any choice that such a higher self might make is made for a reason or at random. If it was made for a reason, then no free will. If it was made at random, no free will.

As I’ve already stated, nothing can have free will. Not us, not our higher selves, not God. And it doesn’t matter if the universe is deterministic or not.

The whole concept of free will is an illusion.

Not only is it an illusion, it as a contradiction.

It doesn't matter whether you believe the mind is the result of brain processes or whether it is an immaterial thing.

Free will implies that you have the freedom to decide whatever, wich means that you'd have the freedom to decide what to decide, wich means that you'd have the freedom to decide what to decide, etc.

Even if you believe that you're an immaterial being, you still have to admit that you cannot want anything. You cannot choose to like something or to want something, because then you would already have wanted it.