Free Will?

[gibran2]

...But the fact that something is deterministic to a certain degree also doesn't proof anything. It certainly doesn't need to proof that the whole construction is deterministic.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness (can you think of any others?). It’s obvious that a deterministic universe precludes the possibility of free will. But how does randomness allow it? How do you define free will?

I originally equated “will” with making choices, and showed that all choices satisfy a logical tautology in that they are either made for a reason (deterministic) or not made for a reason (random). So where’s free will in choice-making?

There is ultimately no free will, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make choices. We DO make choices all the time, we weigh the pros and cons, we apply problem-solving skills, we consider our emotional response to imagined outcomes, etc. But all of this is ultimately a bunch of sub-atomic particles obeying the laws of physics. Isn’t it?

 

[polytrip]

...But the fact that something is deterministic to a certain degree also doesn't proof anything. It certainly doesn't need to proof that the whole construction is deterministic.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness (can you think of any others?).

Yes, something of wich it is impossible to determine whether it's random, deterministic or a mixture of randomness or determinism.

 

[jamie]

^nothing is one or the other..ever. Chaos and order are like left and right..you dont get one without the relevance of the other..to look for one of them as the ultimate value is to be fooled..

 

[polytrip]

there is ultimately no free will, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make choices.

But why would the fact that a decission was driven by processes seen on a brainscan mean that there was no free will? What if free-will is just the name that we give to the endproduct of decissionmaking?

It's like saying there is no actual motion on television because they're all separate images.

 

[gibran2]

...But the fact that something is deterministic to a certain degree also doesn't proof anything. It certainly doesn't need to proof that the whole construction is deterministic.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness (can you think of any others?).

Yes, something of wich it is impossible to determine whether it's random, deterministic or a mixture of randomness or determinism.

Well of course a complex phenomena can be composed of a mixture of deterministic and random elements. But if determinism precludes free will and randomness precludes free will, then how does a mix of the two allow free will?

there is ultimately no free will, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make choices.

But why would the fact that a decission was driven by processes seen on a brainscan mean that there was no free will? What if free-will is just the name that we give to the endproduct of decissionmaking?

It's like saying there is no actual motion on television because they're all separate images.

Yes, it does come down to definitions. If we define free will as the end-product of decision-making, then we have free will. But I don’t think most people define it that way. Computers make decisions, yet most people who accept the idea of human free will would deny that computers have free will, so a definition based on decision-making seems inadequate.

As far as I know, there is no adequate definition of free will that includes human beings but excludes machines.

 

[jamie]

there is ultimately no free will, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make choices.

But why would the fact that a decission was driven by processes seen on a brainscan mean that there was no free will? What if free-will is just the name that we give to the endproduct of decissionmaking?

It's like saying there is no actual motion on television because they're all separate images.

I was never saying that there was no free will..What I wa saying was the the whole idea of "free will" is like a dead end street. It makes no sense. I see the idea of it as a lower level of understanding. So to say that there is no free will, is just as pointless as saying there is free will, since the whole idea of free will is a dualistic head game..how can you have the opposite of something that doesnt exist in the first place?

This is fundamentally way different from simply saying "there is no free will". What I am saying goes way way beyond that philisophically. I dont think that most people who are against free will are saying what I am saying. They are still caught up ina dualistic head game.

Free will, and non free will are like 2 sides of a coin. What I am saying is that the coin percieved that way doesnt even exist..so you cant argue one side against the other past the point at which you realize that..and yes..of course there is a paradox there..

I dont believe in free will, or non-free will either. Who says these are the only explainations anyway?

 

[gibran2]

I was never saying that there was no free will..What I wa saying was the the whole idea of "free will" is like a dead end street. It makes no sense. I see the idea of it as a lower level of understanding. So to say that there is no free will, is just as pointless as saying there is free will, since the whole idea of free will is a dualistic head game..how can you have the opposite of something that doesnt exist in the first place?

This is fundamentally way different from simply saying "there is no free will". What I am saying goes way way beyond that philisophically. I dont think that most people who are against free will are saying what I am saying. They are still caught up ina dualistic head game.

Free will, and non free will are like 2 sides of a coin. What I am saying is that the coin percieved that way doesnt even exist..so you cant argue one side against the other past the point at which you realize that..and yes..of course there is a paradox there..

I dont believe in free will, or non-free will either. Who says these are the only explainations anyway?

If we’re in disagreement (and I’m not sure that we are), the disagreement seems to be semantic.

When I say “there is no free will”, I consider that statement to be equivalent to “free will does not exist”. I might also say “free will is an abstraction created by human beings”.

If someone claims that some phenomenon X exists when in fact it doesn’t, a semantically concise way of asserting the non-existence of the phenomenon is to say “the phenomenon X does not exist” or “there is no phenomenon X”. This does not imply a dualistic view, does it?

If someone claims that the sky is green, the assertion “the sky is not green” does not imply a “dualism” of possible sky colors. It simply asserts the negation of the original claim. In fact, every logical tautology is constructed this way, yet not all tautologies imply dualism. A tautology – “X or not X” is logically always true.

“Free will exists OR free will does not exist” is a logical tautology, not some dualistic head game.

 

[polytrip]

...But the fact that something is deterministic to a certain degree also doesn't proof anything. It certainly doesn't need to proof that the whole construction is deterministic.

The only alternative to determinism is randomness (can you think of any others?).

Yes, something of wich it is impossible to determine whether it's random, deterministic or a mixture of randomness or determinism.

Well of course a complex phenomena can be composed of a mixture of deterministic and random elements. But if determinism precludes free will and randomness precludes free will, then how does a mix of the two allow free will?

Well, the 'indeterminate' option does allow free will in all it's weird definitions. If you cannot determine whether something is deterministic or random, you can't even exclude divine intervention.

 

[polytrip]

there is ultimately no free will, but that doesn’t mean we can’t make choices.

But why would the fact that a decission was driven by processes seen on a brainscan mean that there was no free will? What if free-will is just the name that we give to the endproduct of decissionmaking?

It's like saying there is no actual motion on television because they're all separate images.

I was never saying that there was no free will..What I wa saying was the the whole idea of "free will" is like a dead end street. It makes no sense. I see the idea of it as a lower level of understanding. So to say that there is no free will, is just as pointless as saying there is free will, since the whole idea of free will is a dualistic head game..how can you have the opposite of something that doesnt exist in the first place?

This is fundamentally way different from simply saying "there is no free will". What I am saying goes way way beyond that philisophically. I dont think that most people who are against free will are saying what I am saying. They are still caught up ina dualistic head game.

Free will, and non free will are like 2 sides of a coin. What I am saying is that the coin percieved that way doesnt even exist..so you cant argue one side against the other past the point at which you realize that..and yes..of course there is a paradox there..

I dont believe in free will, or non-free will either. Who says these are the only explainations anyway?

I completely agree. The concept of free will as often used is such a contradiction in itself that almost every sentence in wich it occurs is a contradiction as well, or at least nonsense.

I think that there are several definitions of free will that, when clearly separated, DO make sense. But most of the time the concept of free will has all kinds of metaphysical connotations.

I think that free will is a mental creation that is simply a nessecary part of how we function and that as a mental product it DOES affect decissionmaking. In that sense it also clearly distinguishes itself from the decissionmaking of computers, for instance.

At the same time the deterministic aproach runs aground here since the concept of free will as seen this way becomes so complex that there won't ever be any mathematical model that can describe it.
The complexity lies mostly in the fact that the 'sense' of free will, will start to exercise influence over those deterministic factors that are responsible for it.

 

[gibran2]

I think that free will is a mental creation that is simply a nessecary part of how we function and that as a mental product it DOES affect decissionmaking. In that sense it also clearly distinguishes itself from the decissionmaking of computers, for instance.

I agree that belief in free will may affect decision-making, as will any beliefs, but I don’t see how this is different from machine-based decision-making. Care to elaborate?

At the same time the deterministic aproach runs aground here since the concept of free will as seen this way becomes so complex that there won't ever be any mathematical model that can describe it.

Determinism has nothing to do with our ability to mathematically model things. Determinism implies that some future state is fully determined by some prior state. Our knowledge of the prior state is irrelevant, as is our ability to model the state and the changes in state.

 

[Virola78]

Why does random preclude free will?
If i choose for a reason, then this choice is not free. My choice was determined by something else.
If i choose for no reason, at random, then this choice is free. My choice was not determined by something else. i choose when, i choose what... at random.

Also, i don’t think it makes much sense to define ‘free will’ as ‘the freedom to choose’. Freedom to choose is freedom to choose. And since no individual is truly free (undefined, ‘free from the rest’), none of the choices of the individual can be free.

Free will tastes like something bigger, less limited.

 

[Virola78]

What about Chokmah? Where are the Kabbalists? (Can't seem to find some interesting texts I had saved at the moment. ) This thread needs an esoteric twist!

I would like that : )

 

[ragabr]

Virola, did you read The Dice Man?

 

[gibran2]

Why does random preclude free will?
If i choose for a reason, then this choice is not free. My choice was determined by something else.
If i choose for no reason, at random, then this choice is free. My choice was not determined by something else. i choose when, i choose what... at random.

Also, i don’t think it makes much sense to define ‘free will’ as ‘the freedom to choose’. Freedom to choose is freedom to choose. And since no individual is truly free (undefined, ‘free from the rest’), none of the choices of the individual can be free.

Free will tastes like something bigger, less limited.

I think you see how important defining “free will” becomes. Certainly we can define free will to mean “choosing at random”. But I can sit down and write some very simple computer code that generates, for example, a sequence of random letters. The application is “choosing at random”. Does the application have free will? If not, why not?

I don’t think “free will” is exactly the same as “freedom to choose”, but making choices is definitely a part of exercising will, and if we are not free to choose, then we don’t have free will. But I’m not defending the existence of free will, so the onus is on it’s defenders to provide a definition of what exactly it is. How do you define free will in the context of this discussion?

 

[Virola78]

Why does random preclude free will?
If i choose for a reason, then this choice is not free. My choice was determined by something else.
If i choose for no reason, at random, then this choice is free. My choice was not determined by something else. i choose when, i choose what... at random.

Also, i don’t think it makes much sense to define ‘free will’ as ‘the freedom to choose’. Freedom to choose is freedom to choose. And since no individual is truly free (undefined, ‘free from the rest’), none of the choices of the individual can be free.

Free will tastes like something bigger, less limited.

I think you see how important defining “free will” becomes. Certainly we can define free will to mean “choosing at random”. But I can sit down and write some very simple computer code that generates, for example, a sequence of random letters. The application is “choosing at random”. Does the application have free will? If not, why not?

I don’t think “free will” is exactly the same as “freedom to choose”, but making choices is definitely a part of exercising will, and if we are not free to choose, then we don’t have free will. But I’m not defending the existence of free will, so the onus is on it’s defenders to provide a definition of what exactly it is. How do you define free will in the context of this discussion?

No, im thinking the application in itself has no free will. But it is expressing free will. And it is choosing. As a subset, the application is not choosing truly random. The application is determined. Those parameters you put in there, they are defining. Even the fact that you program it, is defining. The application is defined, it is therefore not truly free, and not truly random.

Making choices is an expression of free will. And only the first choice was truly free, perhaps random. All the other choices are also free, but only in so far as they are part of the first choice. Which they are of course, as an effect. In this picture every choice is a cause and an effect at the same time. Only the first choice forms an exception becuse it has no cause.

hmmm
i wonder what happens if we delete time by putting it in a fourth spatial dimension.
what would free will look like now? it ceases to exist?
hmmm
we seem to need an extra dimension (like we have 'time') that is not spatial in order to see something happening...
hmmm
im rambling now..

Of course i am just playing with this subject, to see what happens : )
Im not preaching pratical use here

 

[gibran2]

No, im thinking the application in itself has no free will. But it is expressing free will. And it is choosing. As a subset, the application is not choosing truly random. The application is determined. Those parameters you put in there, they are defining. Even the fact that you program it, is defining. The application is defined, it is therefore not truly free, and not truly random.

Making choices is an expression of free will. And only the first choice was truly free, perhaps random. All the other choices are also free, but only in so far as they are part of the first choice. Which they are of course, as an effect. In this picture every choice is a cause and an effect at the same time. Only the first choice forms an exception becuse it has no cause.

Well, it would be possible to write an application that generated truly random data (by coupling the computer to a Geiger counter or something). And how can something express free will but not have free will?

You say that the first choice was truly free, and that subsequent choices are free because they are part of the first choice. I don’t understand this “freedom by association” idea. Care to elaborate?

You make the assumption that there was a first choice. That’s a big assumption. What if there was never a first choice? What if we are part of something eternal, something that has always been?

Every answer just generates more questions…

 

[polytrip]

I think that free will is a mental creation that is simply a nessecary part of how we function and that as a mental product it DOES affect decissionmaking. In that sense it also clearly distinguishes itself from the decissionmaking of computers, for instance.

I agree that belief in free will may affect decision-making, as will any beliefs, but I don’t see how this is different from machine-based decision-making. Care to elaborate?

Well, ofcourse theoretically, someone could build a machine that would fucntion in the same way.

I think where you and i differ is still on the definition of free will.
I would say that if you have a machine that could make decissions and that would be in some sense aware of it's possibility to make decissions and of wich this awareness has become part of the way this machine operates and of wich this awareness generated by all the parts of this machine can also 're-write' it's initial program and overrule some of it's original codes and the way it's suppose to function, you would have a machine that has free will.

My definition of free will in this sense is of a reflective phenomenon: a phenomenon that can reflect on itself and on the mechanisms that create it, and that can interfere with these mechanisms and therefore can even change it's own course.

That there are mechanisms behind this that are in not free is no objection to me, since i didn't buy that metaphysical concept of 'freedom' anyway. It is free in the sense that it can alter it's own initial course and it is deterministic in the sense that there are mechanisms behind it wich enable it to be this free.

It is free only to a certain degree, wich is why i reject the original 'metaphysical' concept of free will in the first place, since this concept sugests an infinite freedom that has no boundaries AT ALL.

 

[Virola78]

Well, it would be possible to write an application that generated truly random data (by coupling the computer to a Geiger counter or something). And how can something express free will but not have free will?

like i have tried to explain before, things do have free will but only in so far. But for the individual thing, as being part of a whole, a bigger thing, free will can also be seen or understood (if you like) as an expression. Because whatever the individual is choosing, it was not originally and solely his choice. Therefore i call it expression. The individual is expressing the free will of something bigger. Let's just call it Tao ok? lol.

You say that the first choice was truly free, and that subsequent choices are free because they are part of the first choice. I don’t understand this “freedom by association” idea. Care to elaborate?

sure. but im not sure myself i must confess. Like mentioned before, im playing with different ideas and different contexts. not in particular for any pratical purpose other then fun. just trying to get more angles. you know.. what if? and who knows?

About the first choice. How subsequent choices are free because they are part the of the first choice/cause? Because i did not assume the first choice had ended yet. Things are still happening for as far as im considering now. So the (illusionary) subsequent choices, those made by me and you for example, are part of what is happening, what started with what i refered to as "the first choice". One could also say "first cause". We are expressing the first choice. Not such a strange idea to consider i assume? btw i dont think i understand what you mean by "freedom by association" but i hope i still answered your question.

since these thoughts are already so abstract, i was thinking how can i get rid of the beginning and ending cause and effect stuff? that would change the first choice thingy? :d

You make the assumption that there was a first choice. That’s a big assumption. What if there was never a first choice? What if we are part of something eternal, something that has always been?

I am not really assuming i am considering and exploring...

If im experiencing the free will of nature (im thinking as a pantheist), then im expressing this free will of nature, also through my choices. My choices, are natures choices. If natures choices are free, then so are mine.

 

[Virola78]

No, im thinking the application in itself has no free will. But it is expressing free will. And it is choosing. As a subset, the application is not choosing truly random. The application is determined. Those parameters you put in there, they are defining. Even the fact that you program it, is defining. The application is defined, it is therefore not truly free, and not truly random.

Making choices is an expression of free will. And only the first choice was truly free, perhaps random. All the other choices are also free, but only in so far as they are part of the first choice. Which they are of course, as an effect. In this picture every choice is a cause and an effect at the same time. Only the first choice forms an exception becuse it has no cause.

Well, it would be possible to write an application that generated truly random data (by coupling the computer to a Geiger counter or something).

what makes you think the Geiger count is random? and im not searching for any hidden variables here..

i was thinking for something to be truly random, it must be absolutely free. completely undefined and ulimited.
yea. way too abstract to know what im talking about really. but maybe you have different view?

 

[Aegle]

Free will to be able to always make a choice no matter what, is something we will have even after our last breath... It is our greatest gift to be able to eternally choose how we react to a specific situation no matter what the circumstances. Nothing and no one can take your free will away from you...


Much Peace and Respect