A free-will vs determinism thread

[ASEI]

I have a rather unusual stance (or at least, no one I know seems to agree with me) on the whole free-will vs determinism debate. I was wondering what you guys think.

From a comment of mine on another blog:
People seem to attempt to justify the existence of free will on the basis of it's implications for accountability, but things don't exist just because they would have pleasant implications.

Free will has always seemed an incoherent concept to me. Once you get down to the basic nuts and bolts of human thought, the very fact that there are nuts and bolts (internal mechanisms) precludes the idea that we function independently of the factors which influence us.(and this still holds whether you're talking about observable physical mechanisms operating in view or supernatural spiritual mechanisms operating out of view)

The only function, on an elemental level, that takes no inputs and produces varying outputs is a random function. This is logically necessary. Otherwise, the outputs map to the inputs. The brain is made of an extraordinarily complex composite of these random or non-random functions. However, to the extent that our responses to the world are meaningful, they are deterministic. Random additions to the brain don't add anything but noise to the process of our thoughts.

That has always been my take on "free-will". It is yearning for a concept that requires the mind to remain an undefined mystery. The moment the mind has any definition, even in principle, the concept falls apart.

-----------
I think this debate will be important in the coming years. We are making strides in neuroscience all the time. And yet, a whole lot of good morality and law is based on the idea of free-will. I think we need to figure out a way of justifying it without reference to the concept, otherwise we may become trapped; having these institutions and morals attacked on the basis of the incoherence of free-will. Or trapped into demanding the incoherent idea and denying neuroscience and psychology in order to maintain them.

What happens when we can scan someone's brain, identify that he has a greater than average tendency for something (say, violence; or theft)? What happens if your specific nature, rather than your past actions, becomes a qualifying factor in society?

[gwiz]

My take is that unless Penrose is right and quantum effects are important, then everything is deterministic. However, it feels like we have free will, so that's the way to live your life.

I imagine that if a criminal tries the "I had no choice, it was determined that I did it" defence, the judge and jury could always reply "It is determined that we find you guilty and sentence you".

[Argos]

Originally Posted by gwiz

My take is that unless Penrose is right and quantum effects are important, then everything is deterministic.

Penrose and others are right. Quantum effects must govern the inner works of neurons.

However, it feels like we have free will,

I´m not sure about that.

[Neverfly]

If I read your theory correctly
You are stating that we have an Illusion of free will. Because we cannot effectively make our OWN choices as we are influenced by outside forces?

That makes no sense!

Of course people are influenced.. as they ALLOW themselves to be...

We have the ABILITY to have free will because we always have a CHOICE to make. However a person is influenced-by supernatural, family or intra brain chemical reactions... Yet CHOICE remains. they must Decide.

You are complicating a simple concept by over analyzing it in your mind i think, Perhaps based on the observation of General Behavior among people. Everyone has the ability to Practice free will- but most people do not do so.. Finding lame excuses or passing their decision making on to another- or Blaming another.

Just because we are in a setting that suprresses outtoward behavior- or because our brains are complex.. or because MOST people dont partake in OutRageous Free Will excercise (as that would be destructive most likely) Doesnt mean that we Dont Have the ability to make Choices- to say otherwise is to Deny Personal Responsibility.

[farmerjumperdon]

If there is no free will, then nobody is ever "guilty" of anything.

To get me to move off of free will, I would have to see proof that the world is perfectly deterministic. Hasn't that been proven false via quantum mechanics and chaos?

[Matherly]

Originally Posted by farmerjumperdon

If there is no free will, then nobody is ever "guilty" of anything.

To get me to move off of free will, I would have to see proof that the world is perfectly deterministic. Hasn't that been proven false via quantum mechanics and chaos?

I would like to address the second point first...

I do not believe that we can discount the possibility that the world is perfectly deterministic. For example, just because QM and Chaos show that WE cannot know when a specific atom will undergo decay does not mean that the decay is not governed by specific "rules". In other words, just because we don't know when the atom will decay doesn't mean that it won't decay at the exact moment it's "supposed to" (please forgive the inexact language).

To address the first point, it all depends on how you define 'guilty'. If free will does not exist, then you can only define "guilty" as an action which violates a rule or law. The fact that the "guilty" party was led to the infraction through an unavoidable chain of events is irrelivant because society will be led by an unavoidable chain of evets to punsh her/him.

[Neverfly]

Simply because a determing factor influences an intelligent individual- does not change the fact that they have CHOICE and a responsibility to make Wise Choices.
Simply because our Brain is a complex organ- or environment is a complex organ, does not prove that a person cannot make a CHOICE.

To say i dont have the ability to make choices- simply because my brain is complex- or because it has "nuts and Bolts" makes no sense whatsover.

if it had NO nuts and bolts- then it wouldnt exist-Then i would have no choices.. or anything else because i wouldnt exist!

[SeanF]

I believe I have free will.

If I'm right, I don't want to change my mind.

If I'm wrong, I can't change my mind.

So why worry about it?

[Delvo]

OK, Neverfly, yes we ponder our choices and make decisions... but exactly what is THAT process? It's a lot of chemical reactions and tiny electrical currents. Cehemistry and electricity, unlike quantum mechanics, are rather predictable: given one starting condition, only one result is possible. So it seems that, given the location and charge state and such of every atom in our heads while we're "thinking", only one outcome is possible for where (and with what charge, momentum, and whatever else) those atoms will end up when we're done... in which case, even if we don't know it ahead of time, there's only one decision we were ever going to reach...

[Doodler]

Personally, I think the answer lies somewhere between the two. Strict determinism is impossible, strict free will is something of an impossibility as well.

While I'm not of the belief that every Planck instant of our lives is planned in advance, I think there is a set of rules by which certain elements of the universe interact. Protons and Electrons bond to form elements, matter and anti-matter annihilate one another, I tend to prefer fish and steak to ham or vegetables. The behaviorial characteristics of any given object can be determined, but the exact expression of those characteristics is dependent on external variables that can be predicted with only a modest degree of certainty in an open system. If the universe were completely determinant, time would be a fifth wheel on the whole operation. The fate of a person or particle can only be predicted within a very specific time frame, after which, too many unforseen variables change the conditions under which the observed subject operates.

To me, its possible that the pre-BB universe was perfectly determinant. Time is meaningless in a system where the predicted behavior of the entire universe is known to the nth degree. But something blew open the system and chaos reigns.

[Frog march]

freewill is a mystery, a chip of the old block that is God.
To understand what God's free will was would be difficult, the final uncrossable frontier.

we and other animals have free will and yet the Univers is completely deterministic, even the quantum stuff, it is a mystery.

[Argos]

Some physical stresses and discomforts [like hunger or cold] seem to induce one´s behavior [like they do to other animals], as well as mental processes. One´s Will could well be influenced by physical/environmental inputs in a subtle level. So, whether we have absolutely free will or not is an open question.

[Gerrsun]

So people who are chemically 'forced' to believe in a supernatural being versus people who are chemcially 'forced' to not believe in a supernatural being?

The implication is that a certain amount of chemicals added to an athiest's brain would make them 'willingly' accept the existence of God?

If true, a prosthyletizer's dream! No more swords. No more door to door. Just a lil injection.

Interesting.....

[TrAI]

I guess that, at present, I would say the question of wheter or not humans have free will is kind of like the question of the existance of god(s), it can not be answered or proved, either answer would not change anything anyway, the question is really irrellevant...

Humm... I wonder, what do one call someone that believes the question is both impossible to answer, meaningless, and the answer would change nothing...

[Argos]

Originally Posted by TrAI

I guess that, at present, I would say the question of wheter or not humans have free will is kind of like the question of the existance of god(s), it can not be answered or proved, either answer would not change anything anyway, the question is really irrellevant...

The hypothesis [or conjecture if you will] that physical processes influence human consciousness and, ultimately, will, could be tested, methinks.

[korjik]

Originally Posted by SeanF

I believe I have free will.

If I'm right, I don't want to change my mind.

If I'm wrong, I can't change my mind.

So why worry about it?

I think that this is the best arguement I have ever seen on this issue. I seriously need to remember it.

[Fazor]

Hmm, this is strictly conjecture, so feel free to rip it to bits, but I would think that if everything was strictly deterministic, we wouldn't have problems like alcoholism and obesity and drug-addiction (etc.), for this reason:

If our "choices" aren't really choices, but instead goverend stricktly by biology and quantum physics/processess, then why would the body allow repeated behavior that is self-destructive? If, at the simplest level, a cells goal is to replicate/survive, why would it build connections to a destructive behavior that will destroy the well being of said organism? Is it a molecular defect? I don't know.

[antoniseb]

So far there is no test that I know of that can determine whether we have free will or simply the illusion of free will. Certainly our current view of the chaotic nature of complex systems is supportive of there being a lack of absolute determinism, but there is no way to set up absolutely identical test cases and run them. So, as with many posters above, I will find my path on the presumption that my choices are worth pondering.

[Matherly]

Originally Posted by Fazor

Hmm, this is strictly conjecture, so feel free to rip it to bits, but I would think that if everything was strictly deterministic, we wouldn't have problems like alcoholism and obesity and drug-addiction (etc.), for this reason:

If our "choices" aren't really choices, but instead goverend stricktly by biology and quantum physics/processess, then why would the body allow repeated behavior that is self-destructive? If, at the simplest level, a cells goal is to replicate/survive, why would it build connections to a destructive behavior that will destroy the well being of said organism? Is it a molecular defect? I don't know.

Well, to use Scott Adams' analogy- think of a human being as a 'meat robot' programed to seek pleasure. Sometimes the programming is quite advanced and the meat robot will forgo current pleasure in order to achive a greater pleasure in the future. Sometime the programming is simplistic and directs the robot to find immediate please.

Both extremes, and the broad levels between them, have a non-zero chance of finding another robot and creating a third meat robot who's programming is a combination of the first two. The exact probiblity of reproduction is a bell curve, weighted in the middle. So, the extreems (i.e. self-destructive) do not reproduce often, but it can occur.

As with all analogies, it's clumsy and there are hole in it. But you can kinda see how it could work.

[Fazor]

Ah, compelling explination. But it makes me wonder what would cause the deviation in "programming" if the rules of physics are constant, and all humans evolved from the same organism whic