Free will Vs Determinism

[Tres Juicy]

Hi all,

 

I was thinking about this the other day and have just read the below article

 

http://www.newscient...in-control.html

 

"One argument goes as follows: the universe, including the bits of it that make up your brain, is entirely deterministic. The state it is in right now determines the state it will be a millisecond, a month or a million years from now. Therefore free will cannot exist."

 

New Scientist

________________________

 

I'd like to believe I have free will, but the logical conclusion for me is that determinism makes more sense.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

 

Edit: I changed my vote about 4 times and then added "undecided" as a category

Edited December 15, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[CaptainPanic]

I think the beauty of it is that something can be completely deterministic, but still be free will.

 

We haven't figured out what "consciousness" is anyway, and until then, we cannot fully describe any potential conflict between the two. At the moment, there is no conflict between the two, and I got a feeling that there never will be.

 

I think that choice itself is deterministic. That means that the decisions we make are fully determined by the laws of physics acting on the particles that make up our bodies. But then again, we ARE those particles, so it's us as well as just a bunch of particles. We make the choices, and at the same time, we will never violate any laws of physics.

[Tres Juicy]

I think the beauty of it is that something can be completely deterministic, but still be free will.

 

We haven't figured out what "consciousness" is anyway, and until then, we cannot fully describe any potential conflict between the two. At the moment, there is no conflict between the two, and I got a feeling that there never will be.

 

I think that choice itself is deterministic. That means that the decisions we make are fully determined by the laws of physics acting on the particles that make up our bodies. But then again, we ARE those particles, so it's us as well as just a bunch of particles. We make the choices, and at the same time, we will never violate any laws of physics.

 

While I agree with most of what you're saying, you have slightly avoided the question with your fancy joined-up thinking...

 

"I think the beauty of it is that something can be completely deterministic, but still be free will."

How? Surely that's just the illusion of free will?

 

"I think that choice itself is deterministic. That means that the decisions we make are fully determined by the laws of physics acting on the particles that make up our bodies."

 

So, you're going with determinism?

 

"But then again, we ARE those particles, so it's us as well as just a bunch of particles. We make the choices..."

 

Wait.. Free will then?

 

Surely it can't be both (a weird superposition "free-determinism")

 

Which side of the fence do you come down on Captain "confuse the hell out me" Panic?

[CaptainPanic]

Well, I observe that I have free will. I just decided to write this post, rather than do my work. I debated it for a moment, and made this decision. If free will is an illusion, then the illusion is complete and flawless. And therefore it is real to me, as an observer of myself. That's science, isn't it? You make an observation, to test a hypothesis. As long as the hypothesis holds, we say that's our best description of reality... There is always doubt (a good scientist is never certain), but in popular language, we call it real.

 

The hypothesis is that we have free will. I continuously test it, day in and day out, and I have no reason to drop this hypothesis and replace it for another.

 

So, based on all available observations, there is no reason to doubt that free will exists. The only thing we don't know is how we come to a decision when we're faced with a choice. And the determinist will say that it's just physics that leads to those choices. And I agree with that. At the molecular level, it's physics doing all the work. But at the macroscopic level, those are my thoughts. There are a lot of particles interacting with each other, and the combination of all those particles reacting, interacting... that's me.

 

If a thought is just the interactions of some molecules in my brain, so be it. It's both those interactions, and a thought. A steel bar is a bunch of atomic cores and electrons in a huge vacuum... and it's a very real and solid bar at the same time.

 

Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence.

Edited December 15, 2011 by CaptainPanic

[Tres Juicy]

Well, I observe that I have free will. I just decided to write this post, rather than do my work. I debated it for a moment, and made this decision. If free will is an illusion, then the illusion is complete and flawless. And therefore it is real to me, as an observer of myself. That's science, isn't it? You make an observation, to test a hypothesis. As long as the hypothesis holds, we say that's our best description of reality... There is always doubt (a good scientist is never certain), but in popular language, we call it real.

 

The hypothesis is that we have free will. I continuously test it, day in and day out, and I have no reason to drop this hypothesis and replace it for another.

 

So, based on all available observations, there is no reason to doubt that free will exists. The only thing we don't know is how we come to a decision when we're faced with a choice. And the determinist will say that it's just physics that leads to those choices. And I agree with that. At the molecular level, it's physics doing all the work. But at the macroscopic level, those are my thoughts. There are a lot of particles interacting with each other, and the combination of all those particles reacting, interacting... that's me.

 

If a thought is just the interactions of some molecules in my brain, so be it. It's both those interactions, and a thought. A steel bar is a bunch of atomic cores and electrons in a huge vacuum... and it's a very real and solid bar at the same time.

 

Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence.

 

 

"Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence."

 

Annoyingly, I have to agree - even though that leaves my question not only unanswered but rendered moot to a degree.

[CaptainPanic]

"Which side of what fence? My point is that there is no fence."

 

Annoyingly, I have to agree - even though that leaves my question not only unanswered but rendered moot to a degree.

LOL

 

But don't worry... this is SFN, and someone will disagree with us any minute now. Discussions generally don't reach consensus so easily at all. There is no question so moot that it gets no discussion.

[Tres Juicy]

LOL

 

But don't worry... this is SFN, and someone will disagree with us any minute now. Discussions generally don't reach consensus so easily at all. There is no question so moot that it gets no discussion.

 

 

It is a difficult question to answer and the consensus we've reached is somewhat ambiguous...

 

It will be interesting to get everyones opinion

[StringJunky]

You are in a sailing yacht (freewill) in the middle of the ocean in a gale force wind (determinism). I think that's the analogous level of influence between the two standpoints imo and it's not really a dichotomy as your poll suggests.

Edited December 15, 2011 by StringJunky

[Appolinaria]

You are a sailing yacht (freewill) in the middle of the ocean in a gale force wind (determinism). I think that's the analogous level of influence between the two standpoints imo.

 

Ella Wheeler Wilcox, isthatyou?

[StringJunky]

Ella Wheeler Wilcox, isthatyou?

 

Damn...was I beaten to that one?

[Appolinaria]

"One ship drives east and another drives west

With the selfsame winds that blow.

'Tis the set of the sails,

And Not the gales,

That tell us the way to go.

Like the winds of the sea are the ways of fate;

As we voyage along through life,

'Tis the set of a soul

That decides its goal,And not the calm or the strife."

 

E.W.W.

[Tres Juicy]

Damn...was I beaten to that one?

 

 

It still works

[StringJunky]

"One ship drives east and another drives west

With the selfsame winds that blow.

'Tis the set of the sails,

And Not the gales,

That tell us the way to go.

Like the winds of the sea are the ways of fate;

As we voyage along through life,

'Tis the set of a soul

That decides its goal,And not the calm or the strife."

 

E.W.W.

 

Very nice...I can see the parallel. Obviously struck a chord in you. That's the way it is I think but the wind wins more times than the sail in real life.

[Appolinaria]

Very nice...I can see the parallel. Obviously struck a chord in you. That's the way it is I think but the wind wins more times than the sail in real life.

 

The wind always knows what's best...

Edited December 15, 2011 by Appolinaria

[JustinW]

So the question in this thread is between whether or not we have a choice on our own or that the reason we make that choice is, because in reality it's the only choice? Determinism by definition is making a choice because there is no other. I found it interesting in the link that was provided in the 1st post. The psychologist had asked people to make a voluntary movement and observed that there brain sent the message for movement before they were concious of the decision. I could understand using this to base an argument against free will if the brain signaled before he asked for the movement, but as soon as he asked, the brain already new what it's job was. And to say that we only choose our actions because there are no other options would make 2/3 or more of our reality fiction. If given three options, by definition of determinism, 2 out of the three would be imaginary. Not to mention determinism or fate or whatever you want to call it is kind of supernatural. If there is a determined path, then a higher power with infinitely more insight than us would have to determine that path. Now that I look at it that way, those who don't believe in a creator of some sort should automatically believe in free will.

[Tres Juicy]

So the question in this thread is between whether or not we have a choice on our own or that the reason we make that choice is, because in reality it's the only choice? Determinism by definition is making a choice because there is no other. I found it interesting in the link that was provided in the 1st post. The psychologist had asked people to make a voluntary movement and observed that there brain sent the message for movement before they were concious of the decision. I could understand using this to base an argument against free will if the brain signaled before he asked for the movement, but as soon as he asked, the brain already new what it's job was. And to say that we only choose our actions because there are no other options would make 2/3 or more of our reality fiction. If given three options, by definition of determinism, 2 out of the three would be imaginary. Not to mention determinism or fate or whatever you want to call it is kind of supernatural. If there is a determined path, then a higher power with infinitely more insight than us would have to determine that path. Now that I look at it that way, those who don't believe in a creator of some sort should automatically believe in free will.

 

 

"determinism or fate or whatever you want to call it is kind of supernatural"

 

No, not at all. Determinism says that the state of things as they are now directly affect

the way they will be in a given time frame. It's all down to physics and not in any way supernatural.

Picture the demolition of a building, a charge is placed at the base of the building and detonated. Given enough information we could potentially model the entire collapse with 100% accuracy - Charge detonates with X force in Y direction causing piece 1 to travel in direction B at velocity C (not The C) hitting piece 2, piece 2 travels.... and so on....Cause and effect.

 

 

"If given three options, by definition of determinism, 2 out of the three would be imaginary."

 

This is an interesting point though... Once the choice has been made the others are imaginary... I'll have to think about this.

 

"Now that I look at it that way, those who don't believe in a creator of some sort should automatically believe in free will."

 

No, I don't think this is true at all.

 

Also oddly, it's the people who do believe in a ctreator that are the ones who tend to go with free will. After all, its in the Book.

[dimreepr]

"determinism or fate or whatever you want to call it is kind of supernatural"

 

No, not at all. Determinism says that the state of things as they are now directly affect

the way they will be in a given time frame. It's all down to physics and not in any way supernatural.

Picture the demolition of a building, a charge is placed at the base of the building and detonated. Given enough information we could potentially model the entire collapse with 100% accuracy - Charge detonates with X force in Y direction causing piece 1 to travel in direction B at velocity C (not The C) hitting piece 2, piece 2 travels.... and so on....Cause and effect.

 

 

"If given three options, by definition of determinism, 2 out of the three would be imaginary."

 

This is an interesting point though... Once the choice has been made the others are imaginary... I'll have to think about this.

 

"Now that I look at it that way, those who don't believe in a creator of some sort should automatically believe in free will."

 

No, I don't think this is true at all.

 

Also oddly, it's the people who do believe in a ctreator that are the ones who tend to go with free will. After all, its in the Book.

 

I think "free will" needs definition. Whilst I have made a choice to write this, that choice had lots of boundaries, set by my culture, friends and family. Plus the presure on my time and my needs (food etc.) and my fear that I'm talking rubbish in the eyes of my peers. My aparent free will has been moulded. Then stir into the mix my reactions to hormones, drugs and different foods, So how free is my will.

Edited December 16, 2011 by dimreepr

[Tres Juicy]

I think "free will" needs definition. Whilst I have made a choice to write this, that choice had lots of boundaries, set by my culture, friends and family. Plus the presure on my time and my needs (food etc.) and my fear that I'm talking rubbish in the eyes of my peers. My aparent free will has been moulded. Then stir into the mix my reactions to hormones, drugs and different foods, So how free is my will.

 

 

Another good point - although the examples you've mentioned could be attributed to determinism

 

"My aparent free will has been moulded"

If free will is an illusion - but the illusion is perfect - is it still free will?

 

It will still feel like free will

Edited December 16, 2011 by Tres Juicy

[dimreepr]

Another good point - although the examples you've mentioned could be attributed to determinism

 

"My aparent free will has been moulded"

If free will is an illusion - but the illusion is perfect - is it still free will?

 

It will still feel like free will

 

I'm not sayimg its an illusion I'm saying I have free will but within movable boundaries. Take for example the news from holland about the catholic church. It would seem to be strong evidence as to the limits of free will. The forced abstenance seems to have the effect of perverting they're thinking.

 

Another good point - although the examples you've mentioned could be attributed to determinism

 

"My aparent free will has been moulded"

If free will is an illusion - but the illusion is perfect - is it still free will?

 

It will still feel like free will

 

I'm not sayimg its an illusion I'm saying I have free will but within movable boundaries. Take for example the news from holland about the catholic church. It would seem to be strong evidence as to the limits of free will. The forced abstenance seems to have the effect of perverting some of the priest's thinking.

Edited December 16, 2011 by dimreepr

[immortal]

My thought,

 

Free Will is not an Illusion, it is the failure of the Self to recognize that it is the doer of all events happening in the universe rather than just the doer of the actions of its own body.

[JustinW]

"determinism or fate or whatever you want to call it is kind of supernatural"

 

No, not at all. Determinism says that the state of things as they are now directly affect

the way they will be in a given time frame. It's all down to physics and not in any way supernatural.

Picture the demolition of a building, a charge is placed at the base of the building and detonated. Given enough information we could potentially model the entire collapse with 100% accuracy - Charge detonates with X force in Y direction causing piece 1 to travel in direction B at velocity C (not The C) hitting piece 2, piece 2 travels.... and so on....Cause and effect.

 

 

"If given three options, by definition of determinism, 2 out of the three would be imaginary."

 

This is an interesting point though... Once the choice has been made the others are imaginary... I'll have to think about this.

 

"Now that I look at it that way, those who don't believe in a creator of some sort should automatically believe in free will."

 

No, I don't think this is true at all.

 

Also oddly, it's the people who do believe in a ctreator that are the ones who tend to go with free will. After all, its in the Book.

If determinism is the reality then the choice has already been made, lik e you said Tres, by cause and effect. And any alternative is just wishful thinking on our part. Looked at that way I agree there would be nothing supernatural about it. It is kind of ironic how free will and religion fit together.

 

Sure your options are molded by circumstance. But your free will can't be. If you are walking down the street and have to change your direction to keep from getting run over, your options are then weighed upon by circumstance. But your options are only molded because you want to survive. You still have the free will to make the decision to stay on the road and die. So it is your choice to weigh the options. The boundaries are the illusion because you have the option to accept those boundaries or change them.

[jaekwon]

In the topic below I try to prove that free will is necessarily possible with Turing machines.

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/63883-incompleteness-theorem-of-physics/

 

The theorem, which is derived from Godel's Theorem of Incompleteness, states that "there exist physical phenomena that cannot be explained from laws derived from empirical observations".

I define free will as your ability to affect those unexplainable, un-model-able physical phenomena.

[FrankQuietly]

There is usually a third category you missed out, compatibilism. The idea that you can have free will and determinism. I thinks its a load of cods wallop myself, a complete cop out fence sitting position. But it is often argued for by the great and the good so should really be included in your poll.

[ydoaPs]

There is usually a third category you missed out, compatibilism. The idea that you can have free will and determinism. I thinks its a load of cods wallop myself, a complete cop out fence sitting position. But it is often argued for by the great and the good so should really be included in your poll.

 

How is the idea that determinism and free will are entirely compatible a "cop out"? Furthermore, in what way could adding randomness possibly help the situation?

[FrankQuietly]

From what I have read compatibilist positions describe the ability to choose within a deterministic world using manipulations of language, or regressive arguments. I havent seen a convincing account for how choice can exist in a truly deterministic world. The two things seem to lead to instant contradiction. Although I must confess I have not read very many compatibilist arguments, I havent liked any of the ones I have read.

 

The cop out comes from the desperation I sense in those that are concerned the free will problem destroys their beautiful ethics, and they clamour against contradiction to defend the ability to choose in a clearly deterministic universe.