A challenge to show me wrong

[idav]

In any situation, knowledge of the root cause helps to take control.

That is an interesting note. Many times we are caused to do things because of incorrect knowledge. If we were actually aware of everything we might know where we were headed and can presumably alter our course. Just knowing seems to alter things.

 

[Copernicus]

You guys are getting carried oway with all the logic, the fact that each of you created an account on this website and are posting things is a sign of free will, you chose to do that because it suited you not because some influence from past events or anything like that.

First of all, it is better to be carried away with logic than its lack. Secondly, you need to define what you think "free will" is. Many of us take the position that free will is not only compatible with determinism, but somewhat incomprehensible without it. You cannot choose to do anything if nothing causes you to make a choice. It is your greatest desire that compels a choice, and you do not choose what that is. As the OP pointed out "There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused."

In the end all we have are our choices and if you sit there and say that we dont have that, well then your just saying that we dont exist

Nobody is saying that we don't have choices. You haven't really read the OP, have you?

 

[idav]

As the OP pointed out "There are only two ways actions take place; completely randomly, or caused."

There has to have been something uncaused to start the chain. If the universe came about by something uncaused, does that make it random? I'm under the impression that uncaused exists even if we haven't really figured out how.

 

[Copernicus]

There has to have been something uncaused to start the chain. If the universe came about by something uncaused, does that make it random? I'm under the impression that uncaused exists even if we haven't really figured out how.

But the question here is not about first causes, but free will and determinism. Random events do seem to occur, but free will is usually about freedom to make a choice, not random behavior.

A popular view of free will promoted by many believers is that God gives us free will in order to discover whether we will do what he wants freely. If we were to be absolutely convinced that he existed, then we might try to deceive him by doing what we thought he wanted us to do by a feeling of compulsion rather than free choice. Or something like that. The idea of heaven and hell, which is also a popular idea with many Christians, suggests that we are supposed to fear the consequences of bad behavior anyway. The argument makes sense to believers and is perhaps better expressed by them than me.

 

[idav]

But the question here is not about first causes, but free will and determinism. Random events do seem to occur, but free will is usually about freedom to make a choice, not random behavior.

These "random" events are not really random but multiple options in a casual chain. Having more than one option in probability is what makes the idea of free will a potential. We would have to be able to influence from that level and tests show that the observer does have influence.

A popular view of free will promoted by many believers is that God gives us free will in order to discover whether we will do what he wants freely. If we were to be absolutely convinced that he existed, then we might try to deceive him by doing what we thought he wanted us to do by a feeling of compulsion rather than free choice. Or something like that. The idea of heaven and hell, which is also a popular idea with many Christians, suggests that we are supposed to fear the consequences of bad behavior anyway. The argument makes sense to believers and is perhaps better expressed by them than me.

Freely making a decision makes it a little more fair to punish but some people believe in a determinist god who knows all actions that will take place. The argument from freewill does seem to require some sort of spiritual perspective, we'd have to dig into our very inner workings to answer it.

 

[Koldo]

These "random" events are not really random but multiple options in a casual chain. Having more than one option in probability is what makes the idea of free will a potential. We would have to be able to influence from that level and tests show that the observer does have influence.

By what means do you select between A and B?

 

[Copernicus]

These "random" events are not really random but multiple options in a casual chain. Having more than one option in probability is what makes the idea of free will a potential. We would have to be able to influence from that level and tests show that the observer does have influence.

Idav, who claims that observers have no influence? Choice is determined by which action the chooser/observer believes with attain the most highly-valued outcome. Random events are just that--uncaused. That is what it means for something to be fully "random".

Freely making a decision makes it a little more fair to punish but some people believe in a determinist god who knows all actions that will take place. The argument from freewill does seem to require some sort of spiritual perspective, we'd have to dig into our very inner workings to answer it.

I can see no way in which making reference to a "spiritual perspective" explains anything at all about free will. Look, getting drunk can alter your judgment. Alcohol in the bloodstream causes people to make different choices than they do when sober. What is so spiritual about that?

Oh, wait! Is that why the call it "spirits"? :thud:

 

[idav]

By what means do you select between A and B?

By influencing a multiple probabilistic event. Multiple events would be probable from the same cause. Granted we are not very good at going against that which causes us so we have very little of that ability if any. The tests that I've seen with our influence on complex machines is in thousandths of a percentile but enough to know something is happening. However the fact that an observer will collapse a probalistic wave down to one, not only shows that we have the influence but it also shows that we influence rather deterministically.

I posted this in another thread but it was a bit off topic.
Quantum mind

The problem is that in quantum mechanics there are a multiple set of probabilities within a given wave function that all have the same cause.

In the Copenhagen interpretation, quantum mechanics can only be used to predict the probabilities for different outcomes of pre-specified observations. What constitutes an "observer" or an "observation" is not directly specified by the theory, and the behavior of a system after observation is completely different than the usual behavior. During observation, the wavefunction describing the system collapses to one of several options. If there is no observation, this collapse does not occur, and none of the options ever become less likely.
Unlike classical mechanics, in quantum mechanics, there is no naive way of identifying the true state of the world. The wavefunction that describes a system spreads out into an ever larger superposition of different possible situations. Schrödinger's cat is an illustration of this: after interacting with a quantum system, the von Neumann/Wigner interpretation holds that the wavefunction of the cat describes it as a superposition of dead and alive. The standard interpretation, given by the Copenhagen interpretation is that the Geiger counter has already collapsed the wavefunction.

 

[idav]

I can see no way in which making reference to a "spiritual perspective" explains anything at all about free will.

I was suggesting that maybe it takes something spiritual to account for something that isn't explained naturally. Magic perhaps lol.

 

[Copernicus]

... However the fact that an observer will collapse a probalistic wave down to one, not only shows that we have the influence but it also shows that we influence rather deterministically...

The "observation" is not literally made by an observer, but by an inanimate detector that us "observers" examine after the fact. We ourselves don't actually cause the wave collapses. Wave collapses take place independently of observation by sentient beings.

 

[Koldo]

By influencing a multiple probabilistic event.

By what means do you influence such multiple probabilistic events?

 

[idav]

By what means do you influence such multiple probabilistic events?

The link I provided gives a little insight into the issue and I am not really as qualified as the scientists mentioned to hazard a guess.

The founders of quantum mechanics debated the role of the observer, and of them, Wolfgang Pauli and Werner Heisenberg believed that it was the observer that produced collapse. This point of view, which was never fully endorsed by Niels Bohr, was denounced as mystical and anti-scientific by Albert Einstein. Pauli accepted the term, and described quantum mechanics as lucid mysticism.[1]
Heisenberg and Bohr always described quantum mechanics in logical positivist terms. Bohr also took an active interest in the philosophical implications of quantum theories such as his complementarity, for example.[2] He believed quantum theory offers a complete description of nature, albeit one that is simply ill suited for everyday experiences - which are better described by classical mechanics and probability. Bohr never specified a demarcation line above which objects cease to be quantum and become classical. He believed that it was not a question of physics, but one of philosophy.
Eugene Wigner reformulated the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment as "Wigner's friend" and proposed that the consciousness of an observer is the demarcation line which precipitates collapse of the wave function, independent of any realist interpretation. Commonly known as "consciousness causes collapse", this interpretation of quantum mechanics states that observation by a conscious observer is what makes the wave function collapse.

 

[Koldo]

The link I provided gives a little insight into the issue and I am not really as qualified as the scientists mentioned to hazard a guess.

How does this influence create free will?

It seems to me the observer doesn't have direct control over the influence it exherts.

 

[idav]

How does this influence create free will?

It seems to me the observer doesn't have direct control over the influence it exherts.

As I had stated it is very minimal influence if any. It is only obvious that it is 99.9 % deterministic but there is room for improvement hopefully. The question would be why an observer makes only one path possible and whether the observe can alter the wave function by will giving rise to choice..

 

[Koldo]

As I had stated it is very minimal influence if any. It is only obvious that it is 99.9 % deterministic but there is room for improvement hopefully. The question would be why an observer makes only one path possible and whether the observe can alter the wave function by will giving rise to choice..

Even if an individual is able to alter the wave function and give rise to choice he is still making it in accordance with his will, don't you agree?

And if an individual can not will what he wills, then he is forced to act based on a will he didn't choose to have. Therefore if it is our will that is able to determine our choices then we could not have done otherwise in the past because our will was the way it was. We could only have done otherwise if our will was different, and considering we are not in control of our will it was out of our control to do otherwise.

I also don't rule out the possibility of chance making a difference in our actions. If, for some reason, our actions are randomly selected within a small group whenever we make choices we still don't have control over which choice is going to be selected.

 

[idav]

Even if an individual is able to alter the wave function and give rise to choice he is still making it in accordance with his will, don't you agree?

I don't doubt that to be an issue. It becomes a bit more complicated when it is our own cause and will that produce multiple simultaneous options. With the argument of determinism we would choose based on the whatever has the most influence. That argument doesn't follow in an environment where the strongest influence still gives rise to multiple possibilities.

 

[Koldo]

I don't doubt that to be an issue. It becomes a bit more complicated when it is our own cause and will that produce multiple simultaneous options. With the argument of determinism we would choose based on the whatever has the most influence. That argument doesn't follow in an environment where the strongest influence still gives rise to multiple possibilities.

And how do we select between those multiple possibilities?

If it is not our caused will then it is chance or some other factor out of our control.

The biggest problem with how people usually understand 'free will' is that, for it to make sense, there has to be a way for us to be in control of our choices without making use of our caused will.

 

[idav]

And how do we select between those multiple possibilities?

I have admitted my lack in understanding to answer this in detail. I pointed to the problem and gave references to what the likes of Einstein say about it. First step is we are trying to understand how it is we influence it then we might have a better understanding as to whether or not it gives us the ability to make a decision that is uncaused.

 

[Willamena]

The biggest problem with how people usually understand 'free will' is that, for it to make sense, there has to be a way for us to be in control of our choices without making use of our caused will.

There is: what you call "caused will" isn't will. Will has no cause.
Edit: I should say, no cause other than "you" ("me"), which is a thought.

I think it boils down to, what is a "cause"?

 

[idav]

There is: what you call "caused will" isn't will. Will has no cause.

I think it boils down to, what is a "cause"?

The word 'will' is important also. As you point out, true 'will' would not have a cause. Some confusion can set in when our will has influence but that is beside the point. Will is actually when the desired answer is the cause. Will means choosing your path rather than your path choosing you. We might be influenced to what we want our path to be but we wouldn't even have a choice without probability being an issue. It is against our will when there are no options and subject to determinism with no discretion.