Thread: The Illusion of Free Will

I think religion, as I understand it, is only of any use when people are young and impressionable. It gives us a basic tenet to carry through life.
When we discover that all major faiths share the same basic guidance (don’t kill, steal or cheat), the differences that lead to division, become untenable.

The basics are a useful guide to our future moral conduct, unless you suffer from some mental aberration or other. The whole purpose of life is to try and be a good person, and to impact others lives in a positive way, without dramatic interference in those lives.
Some might accept your involvement, others may not. No problem.

I do not require the promise of an afterlife to motivate me in this one. Sharing honest goodwill is enough. I conduct my life according to basic moral principles. I accept no blame for others shortcomings. Just do your best and move on.

I make no claim to get things right all the time, because sometimes life throws up difficulties that might try our patience. Sometimes others might not grasp the subtlety of your efforts. No matter, just move on.

Setting a good example for others, without using force is not so difficult. All it takes is the recognition of your efforts, and sometimes you are the only one who recognizes it!

Originally Posted by Iceman123

You have raised a very interesting philosophical discussion, however that is all it is. No scientific back - up whatsoever.

Who is in greater need of scientific backup, the person who says life unfolds deterministically according to the laws of physics, or the person who says that something called Free Will also exists somewhere in the picture (although we cannot point to exactly where it is or what it is) and it would allow history to play out differently if time were replayed?

Asking the determinist for scientific proof sounds similar to asking for proof that God does not exist, when Occam's onus is really on the Free Will advocate.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

The ramifications would be plain and as you note, our striving and participation would cease as any efforts would not make one damn bit of difference.

I do not believe striving would cease if Free Will were shown to be an illusion. We would just become aware that our striving is an emergent behaviour of a physical system that is following the rules defined by physics and its subset chemistry and its subset biology (and possibly its subset - cognitive consciousness - although that mystery remains a mystery at this stage).

It might even add a piquancy to the subjective experience of time unfolding if we were able to observe our behaviour from this more objective vantage as it materialises mysteriously (including the paradoxical subjective sensation of goal-driven striving in a world that is actually unfolding deterministically)

It may possibly add a dimension of spirituality rather than diminish it, as we are fearfully imagining.

I think we have a history of finding that the deeper we understand reality (like the scale of the universe for example) the more spiritually profound it becomes.

You seem to be drifting between different theories Looper? From the church to science, and some Ill defined form of soul or spirituality?

In reality there can only be a few options. Faith or religion is coming to a conclusion, because more sentient individuals move to scientific principles. That is simple logic.

Your mind seems uncertain. Are you really so confused? Is your religious faith really faltering or are you desperate to recover your original theory that free will cannot exist?

Given that other folk undoubtedly have choices, and exercise those opportunities, what else could explain our free will?

Originally Posted by Looper

Asking the determinist for scientific proof sounds similar to asking for proof that God does not exist, when Occam's onus is really on the Free Will advocate.

Good effort, but you have inadvertently reversed the positions.
Accepted belief is the existence of free will, using William’s razor firmly puts the burden of proof back into the determinists hands.
The principle of parsimony offers no support for your proposition.

Originally Posted by Backspin

Anything you do is your particles executing some kind of motion, and the motion of your particles in your brain and your body have no opportunity to allow you as a conscious being to direct them.

I have to disagree with the above. It seems to be bordering on nonsensical.
Perhaps the term free will is not the best in the context of this debate.
My contention is that actions/randomness where we have human interaction is entirely unpredictable and not pre determined. My mind and actions can change instantaneously to reflect current or changing circumstances.

I am not sure that particle physics has a place in this discussion nor would it make any difference was your contention correct. As intercession by human will in all actions and reactions is a part of life.
I am willing to be convinced otherwise but haven't been to date.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

My contention is that actions/randomness where we have human interaction is entirely unpredictable and not pre determined. My mind and actions can change instantaneously to reflect current or changing circumstances.

That's pretty much where I stand as well.

Originally Posted by Backspin

The laws of physics that we currently have available

?????

Originally Posted by Backspin

The laws of physics that we currently have available have no opportunity for intercession by human will. Anything you do is your particles executing some kind of motion, and the motion of your particles in your brain and your body have no opportunity to allow you as a conscious being to direct them.

What force that you could exert on your particles goes against or beyond those that emerge from the equation of physics ?

There are a few autonomous functions that require no input from the brain being required to make choices. Respiration is one and heartbeat is another.
Everything else requires a decision making process where the will of the individual is required to produce inputs.
You clearly experience physical difficulty going to the bathroom. Free will can determine if you should get up and empty your bladder, remain supine and swamp the bed.
Physics has no impact on this or other basic bodily functions.

I kept this simple, in terms even you could understand. you’re welcome.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

Accepted belief is the existence of free will, using William’s razor firmly puts the burden of proof back into the determinists hands.
The principle of parsimony offers no support for your proposition.

The deterministic position says that reality unfolds according to the laws of physics.

The Free Will position says that reality unfolds according to the laws of physics and also there is something called Free Will which is a power possessed by cognitive organisms that can alter the unfolding of this reality.

Which of these 2 propositions is the more parsimonious?

It sounds like you are substituting parsimony with popularity.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

My contention is that actions/randomness where we have human interaction is entirely unpredictable and not pre determined.

I think think this issue of predictability is where people are repelled by determinism

But pre-determinism does not imply pre-dictability since the computational power required to calculate the prediction is by definition many orders of magnitude more complex than the system itself and is therefore purely imaginary.

We are guaranteed by the same laws of physics to be immune from our futures being predictable, even if they are pre-determined.

I think this can lend some succour to those reluctantly exploring the admittedly daunting idea that the future may be caused in a deterministic way by the state of the present, and the consequences this has for instinctively familiar sensations like subjectively experienced Free Will.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

As intercession by human will in all actions and reactions is a part of life.

I think the verb intercession is perfect in this instance. The idea of the intercession of Free Will in the unfolding of reality seems analogous in some ways to the historical notions of the intercession of God.

Originally Posted by Looper

The deterministic position says that reality unfolds according to the laws of physics.

The Free Will position says that reality unfolds according to the laws of physics and also there is something called Free Will which is a power possessed by cognitive organisms that can alter the unfolding of this reality.

Which of these 2 propositions is the more parsimonious?

My free will position is the most parsimonious by a long way.
Quoting parts of theoretical physics which we do not yet understand does not simplify the position.
We do not even understand the make up of the universe - we are about 85% short.
Entanglement we are clueless about.
As we stand today anyone who states that they understand Quantum mechanics does obviously not understand quantum mechanics.

Your arguments are interesting, however theorists can make compelling arguments that the chances of us existing in a simulation are far greater than the odds of our perceived reality being correct.

It’s all very entertaining but, back to Occam and our current thinking wins the day.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

My free will position is the most parsimonious by a long way.

We agree that the world at the macro level is described by physical systems that behave according to the laws of physics.

Chemistry is a subset of physics and behaves deterministically as far as we can tell. (feel free to disagree at any point as the following list unfolds)

Biology is a subset of chemistry and behaves deterministically as far as we can tell.

Neurology is a subset of biology and behaves deterministically as far as we can tell.

Animal consciousness appears to be a process that arises from activity within large aggregations of neurons. The chemistry and biology of neurons is well understood and they appear to follow the rules that underwrite all of the above.

The human mind is an evolutionary extension of the animal mind and so determinism proposes that it also operates within the deterministic parameters already set out.

So far, so parsimonious.

Are you saying that the human mind adds in something called Free Will that can cause physical processes to unfold in a way that is non-deterministic?

If so how does this increase the parsimony of the description?

Originally Posted by Iceman123

We do not even understand the make up of the universe - we are about 85% short.
Entanglement we are clueless about.

Are you saying that there is lots of stuff in the Universe that we don't yet understand like quantum physics and Dark Matter so the material basis of our mysterious Free Will and its ability to intercede in the deterministic world could be hiding somewhere in those shadows?

It is early days for Free Will I will admit, but that does sound like the beginnings of the familiar God of the Gaps arguments that traditional religions have been using (with diminishing returns) to keep God afloat in recent years.

Originally Posted by DrWilly

Your post is a mastabaury aid…

Quantum outcomes in physics cannot be predicted whilst under observation, therefore cannot be reduced to be deterministic. Not everything can be put in that convenient pigeonhole.

If all the components of the human mind are reducible and thus proven to be deterministic, that does not follow that when acting in unison they perform in a deterministic fashion. I think we are a long way from proving that hypothesis.

Originally Posted by DrWilly

I think you need to look into the meaning of the phrase scientifically proven.

It's funny how you are a smug atheist all over the board whoever religion comes up but now you are pumping the brakes when free will comes up.

Originally Posted by Backspin

It's funny how you are a smug atheist all over the board whoever religion comes up but now you are pumping the brakes when free will comes up.

That statement, in response to a specific challenge, proves that at least one other dimension exists.

You seem to be living in that dimension alone.

Originally Posted by Backspin

It's funny how you are a smug atheist all over the board whoever religion comes up but now you are pumping the brakes when free will comes up.

I do not accept that the two are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Looper

Are you saying that the human mind adds in something called Free Will that can cause physical processes to unfold in a way that is non-deterministic?

Our lives are not deterministic. Life can exist within the bounds of physics without it having to be deterministic.

Originally Posted by Troy

Our lives are not deterministic. Life can exist within the bounds of physics without it having to be deterministic.

I agree with that, but Looper does not. Here’s me thinking he lives in the same century as the rest.

Originally Posted by Iceman123

If all the components of the human mind are reducible and thus proven to be deterministic, that does not follow that when acting in unison they perform in a deterministic fashion.

Originally Posted by Troy

Our lives are not deterministic. Life can exist within the bounds of physics without it having to be deterministic.

I would be interested to hear more on these ideas.

I do not have a strong conviction either way on the question of the existence of Free Will.

Like most people I have a strong visceral sense that my free will is a reality. However subjective human feelings are often far different from factual reality.

Some people who have spent a long time doing meditation (scrutinising the fabric of their own consciousness) have eventually reached the opposite conclusion, that the 'self' is nowhere to be found inside the human cognitive apparatus and is essentially an illusion. I wish had the time and patience to make the same exploration to come to my own conclusions.

Physical systems at the macro level behave in a deterministic way and in theory the next state of any system is determined exactly by its state in the present moment. Living organisms and sentient living organisms are examples of these systems.

So the scientific view would seem to suggest that the deterministic model of consciousness is worthy of taking seriously despite how counter-intuitive it is.

I do not have the visceral sense of the absence of free will that a small number of serious meditators have reported, but I don't believe that the consequences for humanity if it were true is as bleak as we imagine. I think there are some spiritual, moral and social benefits on the balance sheet of the proposition. I think an exploration of the consequences is a worthwhile philosophical activity.

In any case, the bottom line is that consciousness remains a fundamental mystery. Despite our subjective familiarity with it we have no explanation of what it is or what is the physical basis of its manifestation or how to detect its presence (other than to point to the neural correlates).

The sensation of Free Will is part of consciousness, so it remains robustly armoured by mystery against attack by determinists as long as the enigma of consciousness endures.

Originally Posted by Troy

Our lives are not deterministic. Life can exist within the bounds of physics without it having to be deterministic.

Which is to say, you believe that you could have chosen differently which is the essence of the debate.

If we look at life as just 90 years of falling dominos, I don't see how it can be different. In 2012, with the information and experiences I had, there was no way I was ever going to choose Bitcoin over gold. No way in hell.

Originally Posted by Backspin

In 2012, with the information and experiences I had, there was no way I was ever going to choose Bitcoin over gold. No way in hell.

Yep, you used your free will to make the decision based upon your experiences. Now what was your point?

Originally Posted by Backspin

Which is to say, you believe that you could have chosen differently which is the essence of the debate.

If we look at life as just 90 years of falling dominos, I don't see how it can be different. In 2012, with the information and experiences I had, there was no way I was ever going to choose Bitcoin over gold. No way in hell.

You being childish on big bikes, and smiling at flabby hookers, does not really give you the knowledge, understanding or experience to make financial decisions.

Sometimes your free will can choose the appropriate option. Sometimes you just get lucky, even when you ask yourself the wrong question!

Originally Posted by Iceman123

Yep, you used your free will to make the decision based upon your experiences.

On that basis would you say that a sufficiently powerful Artificial Intelligence (or Artificial General Intelligence (able to learn from its experience) to be more precise) could be said to have free will, like humans do, if it is connected to an android body which is able to interact with the world in the same way that a biological human body interacts with the world?

I recommend the novel Machines Like Me for an entertaining story based on this idea. It is not Ian McEwan's finest novel but any Ian McEwan novel is a good read.

Or to flip it the other way, are we performing a calculation when we exercise our free will to make a decision?