Free will?

[Gjallarhorn]

Its still your will. And do you need an outside force to make yourself move? lol no.

Actually, you do. You need sensory input to trigger the unconscious to make the decision to move.

 

[idav]

Seems to come from the subconscious. Reaction typically precedes conscious awareness and emotion.

Ok but consciousness does appear to have a say. Consciousness is the last chance to reject the influences before it becomes manifest.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Then you wouldn't call it free will, would you? If the will precedes the conscious knowledge of that will, you wouldn't claim to have willed it, would you? It would be like throwing a coin, looking at the result, and then claiming that's what you guessed.

I'm seeing a couple of issues with the discussion so far, stemming mostly from two distinct viewpoints.

The first viewpoint is one that believes in the existence of a you that is fully and entirely in physical reality only. That there is no part of you that could possibly exist outside of physical reality at any one time.

The other viewpoint I see, is of course, that there is some part of you that exists in other realities or dimensions, or in some sort of other existence. Some might call this the soul or spirit.

When discussing free will, I feel that one or the other assumption must be made. Detecting or proving the existence of a self or a portion of the self outside of physical reality, using physical tools is quite simply, impossible. It's like trying to measure distance with a thermometer. The tools we have simply are inadequate for the job. Because of this, there are many different ideas of what the soul or spirit might entail, but it is often assumed that it has or is some sort of consciousness. If that is true, then it must be true that the part of you that exists outside of physical reality has some sort of will or can have some kind of effect. I'm under the impression that a common view is that this part of you either communicates or controls the physical you. Either the ghost in the shell, or perhaps it's co-pilot, or even the headquarters that it's in radio contact with. Now, given that all of this is true, given these assumptions, it can be implied that as this part doesn't exist in a physical reality, it isn't affected by time. If this part of you has a will, it then could, in theory, express that will (the Original Will, if you will....), which somehow (perhaps magic?) affects the physical you, the physical reality, which results in the Detectable Will, which then results in the Conscious Will.

Of course, there will be many differences in the mechanics or in how others might *actually* view the soul/spirit/body relationship...

Now, assuming that we all exist as purely physical beings in a physical reality only, then you would be correct, in saying that due to the initial Detectable Will happening before the Conscious Will, it's a simple matter of cause and effect and the actions we take are then ultimately inevitable.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ok but consciousness does appear to have a say. Consciousness is the last chance to reject the influences before it becomes manifest.

Yes, it appears to. No idea why though.

Now, assuming that we all exist as purely physical beings in a physical reality only, then you would be correct, in saying that due to the initial Detectable Will happening before the Conscious Will, it's a simple matter of cause and effect and the actions we take are then ultimately inevitable.

Then the question comes down to whether the soul is determined or, alternatively, random. In either case, I don't see "free will". I see a robot and a lunatic.

 

[idav]

Yes, it appears to. No idea why though.

I don't think consciousness is powerless. The subconscious does try to hide things so I recommend reading the fine print before making decisions.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Then the question comes down to whether the soul is determined or, alternatively, random.

Clarification?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Clarification?

Assuming there is a soul which may or may not be linear, there are two (technically three) options for how it acts.

1.) It acts according to a set of laws or logic which govern it's behavior or

2.) It doesn't.

In the first case, the soul would be determined, regardless of being timeless. In the second, the soul would be random.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Assuming there is a soul which may or may not be linear, there are two (technically three) options for how it acts.

1.) It acts according to a set of laws or logic which govern it's behavior or

2.) It doesn't.

In the first case, the soul would be determined, regardless of being timeless. In the second, the soul would be random.

*shrug* I wouldn't know how it acts. I doubt if I could even comprehend it - my puny physical brain is no match for a non-physical existence

Why should it not be possible that it could exist in such a way that it's will is expressed in a non-random lawlessness or illogic-ness?

 

[skywrath32]

Actually, you do. You need sensory input to trigger the unconscious to make the decision to move.

no what i mean is do you need an outside force for you to decide on your own? whats the difference between man and robot? Robots have a script to follow even if you say that they can output random things while us dont have any, we just do things out of our decisions.

 

[methylatedghosts]

no what i mean is do you need an outside force for you to decide on your own? whats the difference between man and robot? Robots have a script to follow even if you say that they can output random things while us dont have any, we just do things out of our decisions.

Where do those decisions come from? That's what Gjallerhorn is getting at. In a purely physical existence, the platform used in the decision-making process is the brain. In the brain there are countless neurons, and even more connections between them. Sensory input activates certain neurons, which activate others, which activate others, which activate others etc etc etc. At some point, you will do something, that is the result of neurons acting upon neurons acting upon neurons. In a cause-and-effect existence, effects are caused, and causes affect. You are the sum total, the total effect of every cause you have experienced, and you act accordingly.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Where do those decisions come from? That's what Gjallerhorn is getting at. In a purely physical existence, the platform used in the decision-making process is the brain. In the brain there are countless neurons, and even more connections between them. Sensory input activates certain neurons, which activate others, which activate others, which activate others etc etc etc.

Not exactly. First because neural "activation" isn't a very accurate description of neural processes. Second, what you describe above seems quite linear (although perhaps you did this to simplify things), while coordinated neural activity is not.

In a cause-and-effect existence, effects are caused, and causes affect.

Yes, but there is little evidence that such "existence" accurately models reality. For decades now, the difficulty of causes vs. effects has been known. For many years, however, the possibility that the model is utterly wrong has beeen explored.

You are the sum total, the total effect of every cause you have experienced, and you act accordingly.

And there isn't much research supporting this view within the past few decades.

 

[PolyHedral]

Can you make a formula to predict the next action of a person?

Sure. It would be fantastically complicated, and take a lot of computing power to evaluate, but one does exist.

Yes, but there is little evidence that such "existence" accurately models reality. For decades now, the difficulty of causes vs. effects has been known. For many years, however, the possibility that the model is utterly wrong has beeen explored.

It can't be utterly wrong. It's still valid in the vast majority of circumstances - the only one I can think of where it isn't is one involving quantum entanglement.

 

[MD]

Where do those decisions come from? That's what Gjallerhorn is getting at. In a purely physical existence, the platform used in the decision-making process is the brain. In the brain there are countless neurons, and even more connections between them. Sensory input activates certain neurons, which activate others, which activate others, which activate others etc etc etc. At some point, you will do something, that is the result of neurons acting upon neurons acting upon neurons. In a cause-and-effect existence, effects are caused, and causes affect. You are the sum total, the total effect of every cause you have experienced, and you act accordingly.

If information is conveyed through quantum processes in the brain (as I think they are) then the link between cause and effect is a lot less pronounced than claimed.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

It can't be utterly wrong. It's still valid in the vast majority of circumstances - the only one I can think of where it isn't is one involving quantum entanglement.

Actually, when it comes to natural systems (even outside of biology), the "cause/effect" dichotomy breaks down very quickly. This is because "cause" is a conceptual phenomenon, not anything which corresponds to reality in the way other forces do. And it doesn't take much for a system to become sufficiently complex such that distinguishing causes vs. effects is arbritrary. In fact, that's one of the defining features of a complex system: modelling it requires an arbitrary choice of dependent vs. independent variables. Much of the time, of course, the problem is more a matter of isolating the effects on the system along with the inherent (internal) complexity of the system. But (and this is especially true of biological systems) the ubiquity of "strong" synchronization in natural phenomena make reduction to linear causation either impossible or arbitrary.

 

[Willamena]

It can't be utterly wrong. It's still valid in the vast majority of circumstances - the only one I can think of where it isn't is one involving quantum entanglement.

From a valid epistemological standpoint, as Hume demonstrated, effects precede causes.

 

[Skwim]

95 posts and still no convincing or even decent arguments for free will.

Anyone surprised?




​

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

95 posts and still no convincing or even decent arguments for free will.

As it turns out, faith need not be religious:

The truth is, we can only operate in the world as the forces of determinism have led us to operate.

But whence comes this understanding of the "forces" governing reality? Lengthy study of complex systems, physics, and/or cosmology (i.e., specialist literature rather than wiki links, abstracts, and online summaries)?

Unfortunately, I don't have the resources you do, and only have brief re-caps and soforth to go on.

But selective reading of "brief re-caps and so forth" is certainly enough to be convinced of what one believes in the first place. Creationists are not the only ones who search for whatever "scientific" sources might confirm their beliefs, even if they don't actually read the source itself. All it takes is a dogmatic approach and a "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" attitude, and this need not come from religion.

 

[skywrath32]

Sure. It would be fantastically complicated, and take a lot of computing power to evaluate, but one does exist.

based from my research, no such things exist but a technology that can read people's mind before the person executes the action exists.

 

[skywrath32]

Where do those decisions come from? That's what Gjallerhorn is getting at. In a purely physical existence, the platform used in the decision-making process is the brain. In the brain there are countless neurons, and even more connections between them. Sensory input activates certain neurons, which activate others, which activate others, which activate others etc etc etc. At some point, you will do something, that is the result of neurons acting upon neurons acting upon neurons. In a cause-and-effect existence, effects are caused, and causes affect. You are the sum total, the total effect of every cause you have experienced, and you act accordingly.

I believe that you are talking about the result of your thinking but what im saying is the root of your decision. eg. Will I choose x or y? There isnt a outer force needed for your decision.
And anyway I read an article, If evolution is right on all aspects including the animal who can adapt survives, Then free will exists coz surviving is living and living is choosing freely and deliberately.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I believe that you are talking about the result of your thinking but what im saying is the root of your decision. eg. Will I choose x or y? There isnt a outer force needed for your decision.
And anyway I read an article, If evolution is right on all aspects including the animal who can adapt survives, Then free will exists coz surviving is living and living is choosing freely and deliberately.

You seem very confused.

Free will is the ability to choose otherwise. Now let's take the only two options available: your decision is lawful or it is random. If your decision is lawful, there is no ability to choose otherwise, because it happens according to laws, much like a computer. If your decision is random, then "you" had no control over the decision anymore than a random number generator "chooses" its result.

You are saying that free will requires no outside force, which would imply that you are talking about the second option of randomness. Otherwise it does require an outside force: computers need inputs in order to create outputs.

Free will, as a concept, is nonsensical.