Stephen Hawking claims a belief of heaven or an after life is a "fairy story"

[Saidin]

Free will is tightly associated with individuality. There are people who acknowledge that individuality is an illusion – who find it easy to let go of the idea of self, yet find it so hard to let go of the illusion of free will. I believe that it isn’t possible to let go of the illusion of self without also letting go of the illusion of free will.

First off, to acknowledge joedirt, and my own truth....I know nothing, and am just speculating the best this mind can concieve of at the moment.

Free will can be and often is associated with individuality, but this is a flase and misleading connection. Free will is truly linked to UNIQUENESS, which is an entirely different thing. Individuality does not exist, uniqueness does, and as unique entities in the cosmic game we are free to play it as we wish.

And to answer your question, I’m sure there isn’t free will (at least if we define free will as being related somehow to choice) because it’s a logical impossibility.

Could free will exist as a Paradox then?

 

[Tsehakla]

The timing of a radioactive decay event is not predictable, but we can be assured it will happen at some time in the future based on the quantum mechanical state of the nucleus... that sounds like determinism to me. Can you come up with any other example of a "lawful" but non-deterministic system?

If we accept your conclusion that quantum indeterminacy is in fact a form of determinism (contrary to what every physicist tells us), then that just makes it easier to show that there is no free will. If we accept your conclusion, then the universe is deterministic and free will is an illusion. Easy!

No, it just shows that QM isn't an entirely random process--which is a good thing because the universe doesn't appear to be random--it does not show that we are unable to freely chose one path over another. If you believe that QM, which (A) appears to be random at heart, is both, a (B) correct model of how things actually work, and that (C) the universe isn't entirely random, then it follows there (D) must be something which influences the decidedly non-random events we see in the macroscopic world.

Based on your previous statements it looks like you would agree with A, B, and C; you've stated A, by virtue of bringing up QM you've implied that you believe B to be (at least close enough to) true, and since you believe that everything is "lawful" you must also believe C to be true. At this point if you don't accept D as being true your beliefs appear to be inconsistent (specifically, I would expect, how can a random QM universe be lawful?).

It appears that it is possible for something to influence the macroscopic nature of the universe, to choose one outcome over another. So, if we don't have free will it is not because the universe disallows the possibility.

I don't believe that is a tautology. You are simply stating that: A->B or ~A->B, but it is not at all clear that the truth value of ~A->B is true (which is what would be required for it to be a tautology). Even if you were to reword the statement so that: (A->B) or ~(A->B), which would create a tautology, it is trivial and you would need to do something with it (e.g., run an argument showing that both cases give the same result). The question you need to answer to fix the logical problem is:

If a choice is made without cause, how is that not a choice freely made?

The “in which case the choice isn’t free” clauses are my conclusions, but not part of the tautology. The tautology could be written more explicitly as “Either something causes a choice to be made, or nothing causes the choice to be made.”

OK. That is a trivial statement, no different than saying the something is either "blue" or "not blue", and such statements don't carry any weight because they can be said of anything. If you want to incorporate a Law of the Excluded Middle statement into an argument you need to use it to demonstrate, e.g., that choosing either something or its negation leads to the same conclusion and therefore the something is immaterial to the argument.

I'll accept that, (E) "something causes a choice" implies (F) "the choice isn’t free”, but I don't see any reason to believe that ~E -> F.

The only example of “nothing” causing a choice to be made is a choice made at random. I do not consider a choice made at random (quantum random, not coin-flip random) to be a free choice. I suppose you could define it that way, but why? Why equate freedom with randomness?

I'm not defining anything, I'm trying to see the logic of your argument based solely on your statements. So far your logic is lacking because you are drawing unfounded conclusions. It doesn't matter that you start with a trivial tautological statement (a perfectly reasonable way to start, IMO), what matters is that you are jumping to a conclusion. Why does, `it is not the case that something causes a choice' imply that `the choice is not free'?

 

[gibran2]

Free will can be and often is associated with individuality, but this is a flase and misleading connection. Free will is truly linked to UNIQUENESS, which is an entirely different thing. Individuality does not exist, uniqueness does, and as unique entities in the cosmic game we are free to play it as we wish.

And to answer your question, I’m sure there isn’t free will (at least if we define free will as being related somehow to choice) because it’s a logical impossibility.

Could free will exist as a Paradox then?

If self is an illusion, and free will is associated with self, then free will is also an illusion. I’m not sure how to respond to your “uniqueness” ideas. Uniqueness seems to me to be just another word for individuality.


Free will as a concept related to choice can be shown to be a logical impossibility. I don’t see it as a paradox. I see it as an illusion: Our not-conscious brain tells our body and conscious mind to act, and our body and conscious mind obey because they must. The conscious mind creates an abstraction called “free will” to explain these harmonious but mostly hidden interactions.

I need a nap.

 

[Tsehakla]

B. Nothing causes a choice to be made. If this is true (and we don’t know if it is), then choices don’t have causes, which means you can’t claim that you caused the choice, which means free will is not possible.

That doesn't make much sense to me. If someone makes a choice then obviously they can claim to have caused a choice to be made, which means that the premise you started with, not the conclusion you are trying to reach, results in a contradiction and can't be true. Therefore, your trivial LEM tautology doesn't lead to any definite conclusion. Of course that doesn't mean your assertion is false, just that you haven't been able to prove it with the argument you are making.

 

[benzyme]

Uniqueness seems to me to be just another word for individuality.

humans are unique in that they are the only species of eukaryotic organisms with a prefrontal cortex. this has little to do with individuality (the collective species has this phenotypic trait), but more of a distinguishing characteristic. individuality implies an awareness, and many people aren't even aware of what a prefrontal cortex is, or that they even have one.

Free will as a concept related to choice can be shown to be a logical impossibility.

how can that be, if you claim computers can possibly be programmed to have it?

 

[gibran2]

Free will as a concept related to choice can be shown to be a logical impossibility.

how can that be, if you claim computers can possibly be programmed to have it?

I never claimed that computers can have free will. What I said was: If we define free will to simply mean the capacity/ability to make choices, then all things that can make choices, including computers, have free will.

But this is a very strange way to define free will, since there’s nothing free about it.

 

[Tsehakla]

Free will is the ability, but not the requirement of a being to chose between different outcomes.

That doesn’t quite make sense. If a being is presented with a choice and has the ability to choose, then a choice will be made. (Choosing not to do anything is often one of the possible choices.)

With that clarification, I am in agreement. We have the ability to choose. Agreed.

What joedirt wrote makes sense to me, what you have doesn't--if you accept that one can make a choice then it seems obvious that the outcome of whatever the choice is being made about is undetermined until that choice is made, which sounds like free will to me. (at this point I haven't seen your reply to the demonstration of why your logic regarding the inconsequentialness of determinism with respect to free will, although I suspect it is going to be a matter of faith ad not logical)

But my dog also has the ability to choose – if I have a toy in one hand and a treat in the other, he will make a choice. Does he have free will?

I don't know about your dog, but my cat appears to have free will--sometimes it goes up the bush after the bird, sometimes it doesn't, and its actions do not appear to correlate with anything in the environment. Ditto for: whether it sleeps on the bed with me, or not; eats or walks away from a flavour of food; etc.

And computers make choices – a conditional branch instruction will lead to different outcomes depending on the value of the condition. Do computers have free will?

No. I can download the source code for ~98% of the software on my system and both see and alter both the branch points and conditions that affect the flow of the program. There is nothing the program can do which hasn't been pre-determined by the programmer, or myself if I choose to alter it.

If the root of a plant encounters a rock, and the tip of the root is perfectly normal/perpendicular to the rock, the root will “choose” a direction around the obstacle. Do plants have free will?

I don't know. If there is such a thing as `plant spirits' then they may have free will, otherwise it seems most likely that they are responding to something in the environment such as moisture or nutrients or hormones or perhaps even random quantum fluctuations in whatever it is that stimulates plant cell growth. The only thing we can say for sure about plants is that they appear to be determined to grow if the environment is suitable.

My thermostat continuously monitors room temperature. Before the set temperature is reached, the thermostat chooses to do nothing. When the set temperature is reached, the thermostat “chooses” to turn on the heat. Does my thermostat have free will?

No. For pretty much the same reason that computers don't, the only difference is that their programming is hardwired at some point (specifically, at the sensor)

If that’s how you define free will, then that’s how you define it, but it seems to allow free will for any system that has the ability to choose.

You are taking "choose" out of context and turning it into something far to simplistic for any meaningful conclusions to be drawn.


Sorry if I appear to be picking on you, nothing personal, you just happen to have invoked "logic" as a basis for your argument and that is something I just happen to know about. Since you've been pretty clear about where you stand on the issue of free will I think it is fair that I should come clean...

I believe I have free will because I have chosen to make both "good" and "bad" decisions in both my self-interest and the interest of others in situations where I am aware of the consequences of my actions. It really is a matter of faith though because for all I know I could be a figment of some enlightened or supreme being's imagination, or maybe you are a figment of my imagination and I'll wake up to find someone asking me if I had any good dreams.

 

[benzyme]

Free will as a concept related to choice can be shown to be a logical impossibility.

how can that be, if you claim computers can possibly be programmed to have it?

I never claimed that computers can have free will. What I said was: If we define free will to simply mean the capacity/ability to make choices, then all things that can make choices, including computers, have free will.

But this is a very strange way to define free will, since there’s nothing free about it.

if we can define it in terms of making decisions based on judgement calls, logic, and rational/irrational reasoning, then yes it is.
is someone else or some other force going to make the decision?

we can have this circular argument for pages and pages

 

[gibran2]

is someone else or some other force going to make the decision?

Yes - Ultimately, the laws of physics determine the outcome of all decision-making processes.

 

[benzyme]

but we can freely make decisions within the defined parameters of those laws.
perhaps we should call it 'semi-free will'.

 

[gibran2]

but we can freely make decisions within the defined parameters of those laws.
perhaps we should call it 'semi-free will'.

Now you're going in circles.

If the laws of physics ultimately and entirely determine decision-making processes, what about the process is "semi-free"?

 

[benzyme]

are you joking?
you're completely undermining the ability to freely make decisions.
I didn't realize physics was doing the thinking for me, then making the decisions. all this time I thought I was conscious
i.e. brain vs. mind

 

[gibran2]

are you joking?
you're completely undermining the ability to freely make decisions.

I don't undermine the process. Physics does!

(Consciousness is an entirely different subject, and is not necessarily related to free will. I have no doubt that we are conscious, and that our consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon.)

 

[benzyme]

no it doesn't, it actually permits it.

 

[gibran2]

no it doesn't, it actually permits it.

Please explain how physics allows for processes to occur that are not physical in origin.

 

[benzyme]

(Consciousness is an entirely different subject, and is not necessarily related to free will. I have no doubt that we are conscious, and that our consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon.)

aha

that violates the physics paradigm.
if you acknowledge that we are bound by the laws of physics, and consciousness occurs from
a neurochemical/electrical source, it cannot exist as a non-physical phenomenon.
that would be contradictory.

no it doesn't, it actually permits it.

Please explain how physics allows for processes to occur that are not physical in origin.

you're claiming that consciousness is non-physical

 

[Tsehakla]

not true, because computers follow instructions that are limited by on and off; can't be both at the same time. like I said, quantum computers haven't arrived yet. computer languages are based on logic instructions, give me an example of how one would program a computer to run on illogical instructions (computers denote redundancy and syntax errors).

...

both of these examples observe laws of physics, but have nothing to do with rational/irrational decision-making.

So you’re suggesting that rational/irrational decision-making lies outside of physics? That human decision-making violates the laws of physics?
(You're also suggesting, for reasons you don't explain, that a computer is not capable of making rational/irrational decisions. There's a class of applications called "expert systems" which do just that.)

That is not correct. Even the so-called "expert systems" are nothing more than programs which operate within the limits of pre-defined algorithms, the only way they can make apparently irrational decisions is when the code leads to a point where the programmer determined that there is no one choice out of the possible choices which is obviously best or correct, at that point the programmer may have chosen to randomly pick where the flow goes. The key points being, it was the programmer and not the program itself which chose the conditions under which the random choice is made and the available choices are limited by the results of previous computations--the program is unable to choose not to make a choice.

The situation with "artificial neural networks" is much the same. In that case the programmer has determined how or to what extent the pseudo-neuron mimics a real neuron, and can change how the system behaves by changing the rules which govern that mimicry.

 

[gibran2]

(Consciousness is an entirely different subject, and is not necessarily related to free will. I have no doubt that we are conscious, and that our consciousness is a non-physical phenomenon.)

aha

that violates the physics paradigm.
if you acknowledge that we are bound by the laws of physics, and consciousness occurs from
a neurochemical/electrical source, it cannot exist as a non-physical phenomenon.
that would be contradictory.

That would be a contradiction if I believed in materialism, but I don’t. I don’t believe that consciousness is a product of the brain or anything else physical. I believe that consciousness is all that exists, and that consciousness creates the appearance of physicality.

This has no bearing on the existence of free will. Even in the realm of pure consciousness, free will is an impossibility.

 

[benzyme]

That would be a contradiction if I believed in materialism, but I don’t. I don’t believe that consciousness is a product of the brain or anything else physical. I believe that consciousness is all that exists, and that consciousness creates the appearance of physicality.

This has no bearing on the existence of free will. Even in the realm of pure consciousness, free will is an impossibility.

so is showing evidence that consciousness exists in a nonphysical realm.

 

[Tsehakla]

my point is the human has greater decision-making ability than the flower.
if flowers were mobile and had a prefrontal cortex and hippocampus, they'd probably be battling for world domination.

They are battling us for world domination! It just so happens that we appear to be winning because our technology works faster than theirs--if we were to stop using technology they would most likely win.