No free will

[CharonY]

I found a very interesting assay regarding free will in PNAS.

 

The abstract:

It is widely believed, at least in scientific circles, that living systems, including mankind, obey the natural physical laws. However, it is also commonly accepted that man has the capacity to make “free” conscious decisions that do not simply reflect the chemical makeup of the individual at the time of decision—this chemical makeup reflecting both the genetic and environmental history and a degree of stochasticism. Whereas philosophers have discussed for centuries the apparent lack of a causal component for free will, many biologists still seem to be remarkably at ease with this notion of free will; and furthermore, our judicial system is based on such a belief. It is the author’s contention that a belief in free will is nothing other than a continuing belief in vitalism—something biologists proudly believe they discarded well over 100 years ago

 

And a paragraph from the conclusions:

The reality is, not only do we have no more free will than a fly or a bacterium, in actuality we have no more free will than a bowl of sugar. The laws of nature are uniform throughout, and these laws do not accommodate the concept of free will. Some will argue that once we understand better the mechanistic details that underlie consciousness, then we will understand free will. Whatever the complexities of the molecular details of consciousness are, they are unlikely to involve any new law in physics that would break the causal laws of nature in a nonstochastic way.

 

While not radically new, the paper is very good read and also includes implications for the justice system (also note the follow-ups).

It is an open access article:

 

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/10/4499.abstract

[BJwojnowski]

This is quite interesting and profound. I have noticed that there is a survey on religion. The reason I mention this last sentence is that most of the eminent scientists of the twentieth century were religiously oriented. I myself have found the Bible addressing some of these issues metaphorically. For instance Ecclesiastes 3:15 "whatever is has already been, whatever will be has been before, and the Lord will call the past to account." This gives a very mechanistic explanation to events as they occur with the only caveat on what level of understanding one wants to understand the word "Lord". I also enjoy chess and there on an array of sixty four squares struggles over who will win give at least a little semblance of two players making informed decisions exercising their "free will" to hopefully dominate over the others.

[Genecks]

How is this news?

[ecoli]

moved to General philosophy. Just fits better here.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Maybe everything is predetermined, but does it matter? We cannot even come close to modeling the outcomes of individual behavior (we can't even make good simulations). If you can't predict what a person will do in a given environment, how can we debate on the finer points of free will?

 

And this idea of determinism flies in the face of stochastic, random process we believe occur on the quantum level. So even if you could model every atom in the universe, you would still have non-deterministic processes at work, so you couldn't predict how *our* universe will behave (perhaps just a hypothetical one)

Edited June 17, 2010 by ecoli
Consecutive posts merged.

[CharonY]

While it is not precisely news, the paper makes provides compelling arguments that are especially of interest for biologists. Essentially because it makes an intriguing argument by discussing it in the context of an important part of human societies. It is simply one of the more elegant and easy to read articles about this topic that I came across. In fact, one could post it as easily in biology, philosophy as well as ethics as it touches all these elements.

More to the point, the author also offers compelling arguments against stochastic effects as part of free will. The lack of predictive abilities does not per se lead to the conclusion that there may be a free will. Actions may not be determinable or even deterministic, however, it neither means that the individual in question had a the possibility to behave differently. The discussion in the light of the justice system is of special interest.

Also, from the biological side it is obvious that so far there is no mechanism or even theory that could account for something like free will. However much of our society is built around that concept.

Edited June 17, 2010 by CharonY

[ecoli]

If we abolish our Justice system because nobody is responsible for their actions, that too would be predetermined.

 

If you're running a computer simulation, the things in your simulation can't decide to stop following the rules of the program (if they appeared to, then it was part of the program to begin with).

 

Therefore, I really don't see what the issue is.

[Sisyphus]

We hold people responsible for their actions because holding them responsible affects their actions. There's no point in punishing a mindless object, because that wouldn't change anything. Punishment for rational beings, however, is a factor for rational beings to consider when making decisions, as long as rationality enters into it. (e.g., there's no point in making it illegal for a delusional person to believe their delusions, as that won't change anything.)

 

If anything, that's dependent on determinism (or at least statistical determinism of reasonable confidence), as determinism is just another way of saying that it happens the way it does for a reason. The alternative is that it doesn't happen for any particular reason, i.e. it is random.

 

"Free will," however you choose to define it, need not be a physical phenomenon. It is a subjective, metaphysical phenomenon that emerges from the physical, whether that be deterministic or random. Humans can weigh options and make decisions based on many outside factors. That's what counts. Whether that's a strictly deterministic process or not isn't especially relevant.

Edited June 17, 2010 by Sisyphus

[Realitycheck]

You can't realistically prove that EVERYTHING is caused by something, therefore free will exists by default. Anybody can exert choice just for the sake of it at any time for no reason at all, and likewise their choices can be driven by quantitative selection processes at any time.

[pioneer]

Free will is the ability to make choices without subjective cost. The choice is subjectively free of charge. For example, one might have the will power to kill, but it could result in a high cost, such as guilt. That would be an example of will and choice, but not free will, since there would be a price for that particular choice.

 

Free will is the ability to freely choice between options without any subjective cost or value added one way or the other. If I put an apple and orange on a table, and you could freely pick either without prejudice or compulsion that is free will. If you prefer one over the other, you still have will and you have choice, but not free will; one is good and the other yucky so there is a price to pay for one choice. In this case, something beyond free will is making the choice for you, unconsciously like an animal.

 

Free will is a skill that is learned. The default is not free will, but will and choice with subjective price or cost. One way to develop free will is to challenge your personal biases. Each bias restricts free will, since the opposite choice have a cost. Once you know the source of the bias, you can become objective to it. The cost went down. Next, you challenge group bias to allow even more free choice. Once that is neutralized, choices are more free.

[Realitycheck]

That is a really complicated definition of free will, really smacks of semantics.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Free will exists when you pick one color over another, or one television show over another, choices in which the importance of the choice is trivial and cannot be chalked up a process. Of course, I would extend it even further to situations in which we are motivated by specific reasons to follow a certain path. I mean, one doesn't have to eat the apple because it is there and you are hungry, you still have the choice, but as defined by the op, there are plenty of situations in which we make decisions that are guided by nothing but chaos or meaningless criteria.

[ydoaPs]

Determinism is not at odds with free will. In fact, free will depends upon some level of determinism. It doesn't make much sense to speak of someone making a choice when the choice is based on the roll of the dice.

 

Let's just take some elementary thought about what free will is for a moment. Free will is the ability for 'you' to contemplate multiple options and choose one output. For any 'you' to be distinct from 'Bob' or 'Ashley' or 'him' or 'her', there must be some regularity; there must be a pattern in the choices(otherwise the phrase 'out of character' is rather meaningless, no?). In fact, that is exactly what we see in practice. If you spend enough time around someone you can pretty well predict their choices given a set of circumstances.

 

How do we make choices? A basic overview of psychology(and just common sense) reveals that our choices are quite unsurprisingly based upon factors including our beliefs, values, and past experiences. These can be seen as some of the inputs into the decision generating algorithm we call Free Will.

 

Some of you are probably screaming at your computer: BUT WHAT ABOUT QUANTUM MECHANICS!?! IT INTRODUCES RANDOMNESS! Ah, but the neurons in the brains are classical structures, so QM is really irrelevant. In fact, we have a pretty good idea of how the relevant part of the brain(the neocortex) functions. If you're interested in the functions of the neocortex and how we can use what we know about it to make truly intelligent machines, you should read 'On Intelligence' by Jeff Hawkins(he also has a good lecture called 'Computing Beyond Turing' available on YouTube).

 

So, we can see that Free will:

1)produces a predictable pattern of results

2)requires known inputs

3)functions in a classical rather than quantum computation device

 

That sounds pretty deterministic to me.

 

If you're interested in Free Will and whether it conflicts with determinism, I suggest reading 'Freedom Evolves' by Daniel Dennett.

[Mr Skeptic]

I'd go with: Free will is the property of an agent, where their actions are mostly controlled by themselves, and no by any specific circumstances, another agent, or a specific group of agents. Free will is a combination of deterministic and random (or pseudo-random) processes.

[John Cuthber]

I think I'm predestined to believe that I have free will.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

There was a bathroom stall in my dorm that had "CHOOSE DETERMINISM" carved in the door.

[padren]

1) We cannot within the objective universe possess free will

2) We cannot model the objective universe within ourselves, only a limited perception of it

3) We cannot create a model of the universe internally that doesn't operate on the concept of free will.

 

As we will only know the universe through our model, we will always know it as if we had free will, even though objectively we do not.

 

 

I think point (1) has been discussed a lot already, point (2) is also fairly well covered in general. As to point (3) I would elaborate to say that it cannot be possible to be fully introspective - that we are only aware of calculations that surface in the conscious mind, but how those calculations are generated will always be part of the subconscious. If we were to suddenly become conscious of those subconscious elements, we would have to use some part of our mind to do it - a part we could not be aware of within yet more deeper parts bringing it to mind.

 

As we cannot know fully how we form our thoughts and can only know them on the surface, we model these conscious thoughts through the notion of "preference" or personal choice - ie; Free Will.

I don't think it can really be any other way. Even if an AI calculated the best course of action, when queried it would have to respond "That is what my subprocesses determined as the optimal result" since it would be limited by the same barrier against infinitely recursive internal reflection.

[Genecks]

I believe in determinism and free will.

 

I think that some people were given a bad hand in life, didn't have the right growing environment, and became criminals. The judicial system, in that case, is more of a degrading feature of human society than anything else. But it's beneficial when those whom have become "self-aware" of their actions decide to commit a crime. There are people who learn to overcome their environment and how it determines their lives; and then there are those who succumb to it.

 

And becoming self-aware and overcoming the deterministic effects of one's environments helps a person make his/her own choices in life.

 

Now, when there are forces of higher intelligence and awareness directly and actively acting upon people and their lives, this would obviously be a deterministic system. As such, you can't really expect free will to be in play that much.

 

I think in absolutes and extremes. For this universe to be in existence as I sit here in type... well, that just means to me something had free will or something like that to make all of this. Call it the Tao, Big Bang, God, etc... Something did something... Crazy universe we live in.

Edited June 18, 2010 by Genecks

[DrDNA]

Is this guy talking about free will in people or free will in plants?

 

Anthony Cashmore, Ph. D.

Robert I. Williams Professor of Biology

 

http://www.bio.upenn.edu/faculty/cashmore/

 

"My research interests concern the mechanism by which plants respond to light. Plants use several different photoreceptors to enable them to sense the quality and quantity of light in the surrounding environment. In response to this information they adjust their growth and development accordingly.............."

 

 

...because if he was talking about free will in plants, an area in which he seems to be an expert, I might be more inclined to accept his conclusions.

[Chriton]

I do not believe there is such a thing as Free Will.

Our Genes determine what we are and what we do, would we walk off a cliff for no reason?

Would we kill for no reason?

We are predetermined to survive and propagate, that is what our genetic makeup is.

We, as a species are not important, just the survival of our Genes, so free will is not an option, the majority of us Humans follow what our Genes tell us to do, they are the driving force of our lives.

Free Will? Perhaps we think we have it, but only if it helps us survive and pass on our Genes.

From the begining we have had no free will, we are just another experiment of the DNA, which might not work.

Edited June 19, 2010 by Chriton

[Mr Skeptic]

There was a bathroom stall in my dorm that had "CHOOSE DETERMINISM" carved in the door.

 

A poor choice... people who believe in determinism have very little motivation. Likewise, people who believe everything is random and unpredictable can't do anything because they feel too helpless. Belief in free will is the best choice.

[ydoaPs]

A poor choice... people who believe in determinism have very little motivation. Likewise, people who believe everything is random and unpredictable can't do anything because they feel too helpless. Belief in free will is the best choice.

 

A belief in a working Free Will necessitates a belief in at least some level of determinism.

[jimmydasaint]

 

"Free will," however you choose to define it, need not be a physical phenomenon. It is a subjective, metaphysical phenomenon that emerges from the physical, whether that be deterministic or random. Humans can weigh options and make decisions based on many outside factors. That's what counts. Whether that's a strictly deterministic process or not isn't especially relevant.

 

My thoughts exactly, so I won't reiterate the above post entirely. What matters is that we think that we have choice. The program called Life v1.1 still runs.

 

Even if we are driven by powerful genetics, social and behavioural factors with experience as a modulator, it would be a comfort to know that we have an override switch; a way to reprogramme ourselves into a new way of thinking. I think it can be done.

 

Trinity: Please just listen. I know why you're here, Neo. I know what you've been doing... why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer. You're looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn't really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It's the question that drives us. It's the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.

http://www.quotegeek.com/index.php?action=viewcategory&categoryid=686

Edited July 19, 2010 by jimmydasaint

[StringJunky]

My thoughts exactly, so I won't reiterate the above post entirely. What matters is that we think that we have choice. The program called Life v1.1 still runs.

 

Even if we are driven by powerful genetics, social and behavioural factors with experience as a modulator, it would be a comfort to know that we have an override switch; a way to reprogramme ourselves into a new way of thinking. I think it can be done.

 

We can...it's called neuroplasticity.

[Genecks]

Is this guy talking about free will in people or free will in plants?

 

Anthony Cashmore, Ph. D.

Robert I. Williams Professor of Biology

 

http://www.bio.upenn.edu/faculty/cashmore/

 

"My research interests concern the mechanism by which plants respond to light. Plants use several different photoreceptors to enable them to sense the quality and quantity of light in the surrounding environment. In response to this information they adjust their growth and development accordingly.............."

 

 

...because if he was talking about free will in plants, an area in which he seems to be an expert, I might be more inclined to accept his conclusions.

 

The cactus is "alive."

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjCH7maKf90

 

[Sisyphus]

A poor choice... people who believe in determinism have very little motivation. Likewise, people who believe everything is random and unpredictable can't do anything because they feel too helpless. Belief in free will is the best choice.

 

Those aren't three answers to the same question. Determinism and randomness are possible descriptions of objective reality. Free will is a subjective experience. "Free will" is meaningless as a supposed alternative to determinism or randomness.

[StringJunky]

I think freewill is a function of self-consciousnness...the ability to imaginatively visualise our own presence as though from an externalised perspective. By this ability we can differentiate ourselves from our surroundings in real-time, imaginatively create new possible paths and therefore potentially alter the course of our future actions ...If we have the ability to conceptualise multiple possible future paths we must make a choice which one to follow...from the need to choose springs freewill..

 

A long term drug addict in the face of normally overwhelming internal urges and surrounded by like minded peers who are consciously or subliminally through their very presence trying to break his resolve manages to cognitively change his addictive behaviour to a different more personally and socially productive one is a perfect demonstration of freewill in my opinion...if we didn't have freewill we wouldn't be able to go against the grain..we wouldn't be able to change our habitual or environmentally-induced personal habits. We don't always just respond in a preset 'programmed' way to our environment and urges, like most animals: we as a species have the ability to proactively alter them if we choose, with sufficient resources and determination. In reality I think there is a reciprocatory relationship between our environment and ourselves...I sense more than a hint of the Nature v Nurture parallel here but like that one this discussion has no inherent dichotomy.. Determinism is the driving force but Freewill is the force that steers it.