Free Will

[WWLabRat]

Free Will is an illusion. It does not exist. We are given liberty of ourselves, and ourselves are a finite organism with limited configurations; I can only use my arms the way that they were meant to be used; just because I have the choice between using any of my body parts does not mean I have free will, I have dominion of a finite system. We can only ever use ourselves were confined to; we may be able to take ourselves to particular activities but we can only interact with them in a number of ways. I guess free will is the illusion of having so much difference, and being able to choose between doing many different things, but only what yourselves are confined to. Freedom in limited space. I suppose it comes down to what you mean when you say "will".

 

I have to argue against this. Free will isn't an illusion, just ill defined. You say that we have freedom in a confined space, but I say that you are only confined to a space that you let yourself stay in. It's very much possible to change your circumstances and work your way out of that space. Even someone who paints themselves into a corner isn't confined. All they need to do is wait for what has already been painted to dry. Once that's done they can paint the remainder of the floor. Staying confined is just as much a choice as getting out of it. The only limitations we have are the ones we impose upon ourselves. That's not to say that when you break the rules and customs of a society that there won't be consequences, but you can really do anything you desire.

[cladking]

Consciousness and will must be considered as axioms.

 

The alternative for the human race is extinction.

 

Consciousness and free will are also experienced and become visceral knowledge.

[BusaDave9]

What is free will? It's thinking about the options and making a decision based on what you want. You are free to do whatever you want. Should I walk along the ridge with a view or cut through the gulley?

 

But isn't this just the most basic animal trait of seeking pleasure and avoiding pain? If you do something that you expect to enjoy over something that will make your uncomfortable is that free will?

 

Okay, so seeking pleasure and avoiding something that will hurt us is not really free will. Any animal will avoid pain although we and the higher animals may be better at predicting when something may hurt us.

 

So next lets consider a scenario not as obvious as seeking pleasure and avoiding pain.

We are handed 2 identical presents and are told one has valuables in it and the other has garbage. We can only keep one package. Which one do we pick? Now there is no evidence one package is better than the other. Our decision is as random as the flip of a coin. Is this free will? No, not if it's random.

 

What is free will? That's the real question that needs to be answered in this thread before anyone can answer if we really have it. I think defining free will is MUCH harder than deciding if we have it.

[WWLabRat]

I don't think it should be very hard to define free will. If an animals' most basic instinct is survival, then free will is what allows us to consciously choose the option that is counter-intuitive to our very survival.

[iNow]

The only limitations we have are the ones we impose upon ourselves. That's not to say that when you break the rules and customs of a society that there won't be consequences, but you can really do anything you desire.

What is free will? It's thinking about the options and making a decision based on what you want. You are free to do whatever you want. Should I walk along the ridge with a view or cut through the gulley?

IMO, these descriptions and assertions are a bit too facile to accurately portray the nature of the modern free will debate. You both speak about choice... about doing "what you want" and "anything you desire."

 

I suggest that's really not the point. The real question here is your belief that you have made a choice. Is that belief accurate... was a "choice" truly made... or is that belief inaccurate... there was no actual "choice" being made?

 

Research in neuroscience continues to show in study after study that our decisions are made well before they even enter into conscious awareness, on the order of several hundred milliseconds (which is like an eternity in nerve conduction time). Choice, however, requires the involvement of consciousness by definition.

 

So, if the decisions are made before they even enter conscious awareness (and we can repeatedly and consistently demonstrate this to be the case across different studies using different research methodologies), then the only logical conclusion is that our concept of "choice" is little more than an illusion... Much like our concept of free will itself.

[WWLabRat]

Yeah, the research is showing that we make up our minds before we are consciously aware, no argument there. But this could simply be that our subconscious mind is already anticipating the need to make a decision before the choices become apparent. Not sure that this would really point to a lack of free will, just advanced processing of a part of the mind that we don't yet *fully* understand.

[arc]

Not sure that this would really point to a lack of free will, just advanced processing of a part of the mind that we don't yet *fully* understand.

 

I think it shows more than anything that our programming by way of evolution is driving our biological day to day existence more than our emotionally compromised consciousness. I would assume it had something to do with our ancestors preoccupation about sex or other social distractions, so much so that they did not see all of the predators sneaking up on them. Those with a good subconscious "Auto Pilot" would be directed to look around a little more often and benefit from their subconsciously derived precognition.

[iNow]

So, if you stipulate that we're on "auto pilot," exactly how do you believe this is an argument in favor of the position that we are actively making choices or exercising free will? That's nonsequitur.

[Villain]

Research in neuroscience continues to show in study after study that our decisions are made well before they even enter into conscious awareness, on the order of several hundred milliseconds (which is like an eternity in nerve conduction time). Choice, however, requires the involvement of consciousness by definition.

 

So, if the decisions are made before they even enter conscious awareness (and we can repeatedly and consistently demonstrate this to be the case across different studies using different research methodologies), then the only logical conclusion is that our concept of "choice" is little more than an illusion... Much like our concept of free will itself.

 

There are always going to be huge assumptions for a statement like 'decisions....before entering concious awareness' to be made. How do they measure concious awareness for one?

[Delta1212]

If free will does not exist, then we can kill any one and use the twinkie defense to say that my brain did it and not me and therefore be absolved of my actions

And we can use the Twinkie prosecution and say that we have to lock you up and don't have any choice in the matter, whether you're at fault or not.

[iNow]

There are always going to be huge assumptions for a statement like 'decisions....before entering concious awareness' to be made. How do they measure concious awareness for one?

You would have to read the studies, as each would describe this in their methodology sections. Since you're interested, the references section at the link below is pretty robust and you can look at a few. The page itself also gives a fairly useful overview of some of the points to which I've alluded.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

[Villain]

You would have to read the studies, as each would describe this in their methodology sections. Since you're interested, the references section at the link below is pretty robust and you can look at a few. The page itself also gives a fairly useful overview of some of the points to which I've alluded.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science. There is always going to be a subjective/philosophical element and our preconceived ideas are going to influence the outcomes. The Benjamin Libet experiments for one have a number of points that can be attacked and I don't see someone coming up with a conclusive answer to something as ill defined as free will, ever .

[Moontanman]

 

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science. There is always going to be a subjective/philosophical element and our preconceived ideas are going to influence the outcomes. The Benjamin Libet experiments for one have a number of points that can be attacked and I don't see someone coming up with a conclusive answer to something as ill defined as free will, ever .

 

 

An argument from incredulity?

[iNow]

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science.

If you have a specific criticism to make of a specific study, then make it, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy and not an acceptable form of argument.

 

The Benjamin Libet experiments for one have a number of points that can be attacked...

Two things. One - Be specific. What flaws do you see, and why? Two - That's not the only study out there, so attacking some bits of just one study hardly negates the larger conclusions from the field of research.

[pears]

 

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science.

 

If you have a specific criticism to make of a specific study, then make it, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy and not an acceptable form of argument.

 

I'm not commenting on the content of what was said since I know next to nothing about neuroscience, but I don't think that's a poisoning the well fallacy, rather a general statement that simply requires further information or backup.

[iNow]

I'm not commenting on the content of what was said since I know next to nothing about neuroscience, but I don't think that's a poisoning the well fallacy...

With genuine kindness, I encourage you to make a correction in your current thinking, then.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

In general, "to poison the well" means to pre-provide any information that could produce a biased opinion of the reasoning, positive or negative.

 

It can be done subtly or quite blatantly. A subtle way of poisoning the well would be to use particular adjectives in introducing something that would influence people who are about to hear an argument. In a more blatant display, someone can make an outright personal attack in an introduction. For example, asking people to remember that a person has been in prison before listening to their statements; the well is now "poisoned" because people are likely to distrust a person making an argument knowing that they're a convict, regardless of the reasoning that they put forward.

Now, let's look again briefly at Villain's comment where, instead of addressing anything specific about any of the studies or work done, he broadly biases toward the negative the entire field of neuroscience (using adjectives to influence how people might perceive it).

 

 

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science.

So, I share again... If he has a specific criticism to make of a specific study, then he should make it, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy and not an acceptable form of argument.

[WWLabRat]

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science. There is always going to be a subjective/philosophical element and our preconceived ideas are going to influence the outcomes. The Benjamin Libet experiments for one have a number of points that can be attacked and I don't see someone coming up with a conclusive answer to something as ill defined as free will, ever .

With genuine kindness, I encourage you to make a correction in your current thinking, then.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well

 

 

Now, let's look again briefly at Villain's comment where, instead of addressing anything specific about any of the studies or work done, he broadly biases toward the negative the entire field of neuroscience (using adjectives to influence how people might perceive it).

 

The problem with neuroscience is that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science.

 

So, I share again... If he has a specific criticism to make of a specific study, then he should make it, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy and not an acceptable form of argument.

 

Like Pears said, I'm not so sure that this could be classified as "poisoning the well". Sure, at first glance the snip that you quoted would indicate the poison, but he did go on to state a study. Rather than state that it's poisoning the well, it would be better to just state that Villain needs to cite specific points within the study that support the stance.

 

EDIT:

In addition to this, based on the RationalWiki link you provided, it seems that the Poisoning the Well fallacy would be more appropriate in a debate where a person's character is being called into question.

Edited October 26, 2013 by WWLabRat

[iNow]

Rather than state that it's poisoning the well, it would be better to just state that Villain needs to cite specific points within the study

Thanks. Already did that. Twice.

EDIT:

In addition to this, based on the RationalWiki link you provided, it seems that the Poisoning the Well fallacy would be more appropriate in a debate where a person's character is being called into question.

It's really the same thing, just applied to a topic instead of a person, but if makes you both feel better, let's call it a genetic fallacy then.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy

 

The genetic fallacy creates a fallacious argument that is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence. It is also a line of reasoning in which a perceived defect in the origin of a claim or thing is taken to be evidence that discredits the claim or thing itself. The fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.

It's exactly the same structure of fallacy, just a different subject.

 

Speaking of subjects, let's please return to the subject of the thread if we could...

[arc]

So, if you stipulate that we're on "auto pilot," exactly how do you believe this is an argument in favor of the position that we are actively making choices or exercising free will? That's nonsequitur.

 

I didn't say it was an argument in favor, quite the contrary. But your misunderstanding leads me to several observations. We view these two states as somewhat separate with the subconscious directing the conscious, but how much. Our breathing is subconscious yet we can control it at will if we choose. But then research shows the conscious as just an illusion.

 

Here's a good one; According to the research when you consciously decide to control your breathing it was your subconscious that ultimately made this decision.

 

I think this process may simply be that the subconscious is providing a "prompt" to the shared mind's conscious decisions that previously not long ago was considered entirely free will. My view on this is from an evolutionary why and how perspective. The need to react quickly to danger would seem to be a diver in this and a reason to keep the conscious from the initial but not necessarily the following portion of the process. An animal that shows any indecision in reaction to a predator will not likely procreate. A instinctual subconscious prompt of specific instructions to the conscious would give an edge for survival. An information packet, so to speak, of critical information.

 

Since the subconscious has always been there, it is the original "mind" after all, it possessed the compact thought process that would seem ideal to be refined through evolutionary means. A subconscious mechanism. I see this simply as a survival trigger device, and as the conscious mind grew the subconscious just continued its roll as a gate keeper. Prompting every thought in the unified subconscious/conscious mind, a stamp of approval if you will, from the original mind. This could be why the research shows the results that they do, a slight delay between the prompter and the prompted.

Edited October 26, 2013 by arc

[Villain]

If you have a specific criticism to make of a specific study, then make it, but poisoning the well is a logical fallacy and not an acceptable form of argument.

 

Two things. One - Be specific. What flaws do you see, and why? Two - That's not the only study out there, so attacking some bits of just one study hardly negates the larger conclusions from the field of research.

 

Was there an argument to poison?

 

I have mentioned general problems with neuroscience, I really didn't think it necessary to go further since they are on the wiki page that you linked and I presumed that you'd read it. Secondly I don't find any studies convincing enough to even warrant debunking in the first place, even the broadest definition of free-will is not going to include instinctive reactions.

[WWLabRat]

 

Was there an argument to poison?

 

I have mentioned general problems with neuroscience, I really didn't think it necessary to go further since they are on the wiki page that you linked and I presumed that you'd read it. Secondly I don't find any studies convincing enough to even warrant debunking in the first place, even the broadest definition of free-will is not going to include instinctive reactions.

 

Clearly you believe that there was an argument, else you wouldn't have stated anything in opposition.

 

The problem that you mentioned with neuroscience is "that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science." In what way is neuroscience not a pure science? Science is the process by which we seek factual and practical knowledge. You mention a specific study, but refuse to point out what it is that you find wrong with it? To me, it seems like you haven't bothered to do any research on the matter. Every study, no matter how inconsequential it may seem is worth debunking. If Libet's study doesn't "even warrant debunking in the first place", then why mention it in your previous post?

 

How does free will not include instinctive reactions? If a person's natural instinct is to survive and keep from harm, what causes people to smoke, shoot guns, drink alcohol, drive cars, all of which are dangerous things to do, but everyday there's people doing each of these, sometimes all of them in one day. Granted I'm guilty of doing each of these, never all at the same time, but done nevertheless. It a conscious decision on my part to do any of these. Could I quit smoking tobacco? Yeah, and have before, but I find it calming. Could I quit drinking alcohol? Again, I could, but I do it to prevent me from being nervous when talking to females I'm interested in. I could quit driving, but that would require that I move closer to work so that I'm not hiking 40 miles to and from work everyday. And finally, I could easily stop using firearms, but it helps me to remember my time in the military and the simplicity of it when compared to my civilian life (another discussion for some other time).

 

Everyone has free will to make choices for themselves. There's not a shred of evidence that exists to show otherwise: when people don't do things that they're supposed to, when someone breaks the law, when you go to vote... They are all choices that are made by you, not for you. Even slaves, though told what they had to do each day still had the choice of whether or not to overthrow the master or to continue to do their bidding, lest the slave receive punishment.

[Mr Monkeybat]

Philosophers often like like to set up a dichotomy between "free will" and determinism. But i think that any meaningful use the terms "free will" and "choice" requires determinism. To me if I make a choice of my my own free will then I make an assessment of the consequences of my actions based on my past experiences and innate preferences this choice is all part of a deterministic chain of events and judging the outcome of my actions also requires deterministic consequences of my actions. Theoretically someone who knows me well enough will be able to predict the decisions I make but so what? Being random is not making any real kind of choice its just going to the casino, randomness is the enemy of free will and the ability to choose. If there is some randomness in my head making me unpredictable that's not a decision that's just a pair of dice making you do stupid things.

[WWLabRat]

But within a deterministic world, 100% of the time, given a choice, you will always make the exact same one. It states that the only way the world could possibly be is that things happen the exact same way that they did; the world would not exist as any other possible reality. Now, from someone in the future looking to the past, this looks apparent. In order for them to look back from their present and see things when compared to their existence, there was only one way that it could progress. The Choices that were made weren't choices as they could see, they had to happen that specific way for the world to progress in the way that it did for him to be able to look back on it the same way.

 

Conversely, from the present, or the past, looking forward, there are an infinite number of possibilities of what the world could be like in the time of that future observer. Each splice of time gives a chance for a change in what is being done. Of the hundreds of things you say and do each moment, something could change that could alter what happens down the line. Time, in this view, isn't so much a line as it is a series of vectors with the degree of the angle indicating to what degree that choice, that moment, impacts the next series. If I had time right now, I would find or make an image to show what I mean.

 

So, in essence, a deterministic world is only possible when looking to the past. The only thing that can be certain, provided a one way flow of time, is that the past happened the way it did and from our current frame, there's no other possible choice that someone could have made to make the world appear the way it does now.

[Bill Angel]

 

Research in neuroscience continues to show in study after study that our decisions are made well before they even enter into conscious awareness, on the order of several hundred milliseconds (which is like an eternity in nerve conduction time). Choice, however, requires the involvement of consciousness by definition.

 

So, if the decisions are made before they even enter conscious awareness (and we can repeatedly and consistently demonstrate this to be the case across different studies using different research methodologies), then the only logical conclusion is that our concept of "choice" is little more than an illusion... Much like our concept of free will itself.

Solving puzzles like in chess or crosswords require problem solving. If our minds worked like computers wouldn't we always work out such puzzles in a consistent and predictable manner? How well one does solving such puzzles can depend on how tired one is, ones preoccupations while solving them, whether one has encountered a similar puzzle before, etc. I'm inclined to believe that if our minds functioned like computers and lacked free will, such issues related to variations in problem solving ability would not occur. An interesting topic for scientific investigation would I think be the connection between free will and pattern recognition as it pertains to recreational games and puzzles.

[Villain]

 

 

The problem that you mentioned with neuroscience is "that most of the time it's not really science, or at least not pure science." In what way is neuroscience not a pure science? Science is the process by which we seek factual and practical knowledge. You mention a specific study, but refuse to point out what it is that you find wrong with it? To me, it seems like you haven't bothered to do any research on the matter. Every study, no matter how inconsequential it may seem is worth debunking. If Libet's study doesn't "even warrant debunking in the first place", then why mention it in your previous post?

 

 

Look guy, I mention philosophy in the very post that you quote, philosophy is not a science.

 

In my last post I also point out that the critiques are on the very wiki page that iNow linked.

 

 

 

How does free will not include instinctive reactions? If a person's natural instinct is to survive and keep from harm, what causes people to smoke, shoot guns, drink alcohol, drive cars, all of which are dangerous things to do, but everyday there's people doing each of these, sometimes all of them in one day. Granted I'm guilty of doing each of these, never all at the same time, but done nevertheless. It a conscious decision on my part to do any of these. Could I quit smoking tobacco? Yeah, and have before, but I find it calming. Could I quit drinking alcohol? Again, I could, but I do it to prevent me from being nervous when talking to females I'm interested in. I could quit driving, but that would require that I move closer to work so that I'm not hiking 40 miles to and from work everyday. And finally, I could easily stop using firearms, but it helps me to remember my time in the military and the simplicity of it when compared to my civilian life (another discussion for some other time).

 

I wouldn't put instinctive reactions at the head of list of free will attributes, if you feel that that is a make-or-break criteria then perhaps you should look into the study. I certainly don't correlate flicking my wrist with any meaningful free will type decision, if you do then good for you.