How do you exactly define 'free will'?

[Paradox22]

The empirical realizations of Wheeler's delayed-choice thought experiment, the solutions to Einstein's equations in general relativity that allow future states to determine past states, and the capacity for observers to force past states to be determined by choice (the latter is the most contentious in its most popular form, i.e., that of Penrose & Hameroff, and less contentious models such as Stapp's are only relatively superior given the severe lack of evidence other than possibilities).

Thanks, Legion, for all the info. You have definitely schooled me, exposing my unfamiliarity with the literature/science. I have not yet looked up the things to which you refer, but am anxious to do so.

It also contradicts quantum physics and leads to paradoxes in the general theory of relativity. Is your belief dogma, religion, ignorance, or a sophisticated interpretation of modern physics the nuances of which resolve the apparently obvious indeterminacy of physics?

Let me just clarify that I am not what they refer to as a "hard" determinist, which is an antiquated view that is not consistent with quantum mechanics. Ever since I read about the later, I have adopted what could be called quantum determinism. I had never read about any of the things you mention so I am perfectly comfortable admitting that in light of later theories/discoveries, I may be left with a vision that is just as problematic/outdated as an unqualified hard determinism. Please let me know if you know of a good article that explains some of the above. I can't afford to go back to school or buy a textbook, nor do I have the time.

One more thing. Please be nice. Suggesting that my belief in some form of determinism is justified by religious dogma, is insulting and clearly wrong. From the rest of your comments, its clear that you find that the problem with my philosophy is based on ignorance, not some form of religion or spiritualism, both of which are inconsistent with any sort of determinism. School me, but please don't patronize me.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thanks, Legion, for all the info. You have definitely schooled me, exposing my unfamiliarity with the literature/science. I have not yet looked up the things to which you refer, but am anxious to do so.



Let me just clarify that I am not what they refer to as a "hard" determinist, which is an antiquated view that is not consistent with quantum mechanics. Ever since I read about the later, I have adopted what could be called quantum determinism. I had never read about any of the things you mention so I am perfectly comfortable admitting that in light of later theories/discoveries, I may be left with a vision that is just as problematic/outdated as an unqualified hard determinism. Please let me know if you know of a good article that explains some of the above. I can't afford to go back to school or buy a textbook, nor do I have the time.

One more thing. Please be nice. Suggesting that my belief in some form of determinism is justified by religious dogma, is insulting and clearly wrong. From the rest of your comments, its clear that you find that the problem with my philosophy is based on ignorance, not some form of religion or spiritualism, both of which are inconsistent with any sort of determinism. School me, but please don't patronize me.

Well-spoken. And I apologize for sounding (nay, being) patronizing. This subject has come up many, many times within a few weeks alone and I tire of it, and am impatient and short where I should not be. I am uploading some sources you may find interesting, two of which are fairly non-technical. See attached

 

[Paradox22]

Wow! Thanks for the info. Was more than I could have expected or asked for. I am intrigued with the two books,in particular:
"Mind, Matter, and Quantum Mechanics"
and
"Is Science Compatible with Free Will"

"Competing theories of the mind–brain connection seem always to have
a logical gap, facetiously described as “. . . and then a miracle occurs”. The
model arising from Heisenberg’s concept of matter has no miracles or special
features beyond those inherent in Heisenberg’s model of physical reality
itself. The theory fixes the place in brain processing where consciousness
enters, and explains both the content of the conscious thought and its causal
efficacy."
( from Mind,Matter, Quantum Mechanics,pg4)

The first sentence in the above quote represents my previous view that at some point, theories of free will come down to an inability to fill the gap with something that cannot be supported by science. I did not envision how the Heisenberg uncertainty principle could "fill the gap" and provide a scientific explanation of some sort of free will. This source, in particular, has me very excited and I am eager to read more of it.

I wonder how often it is that people change their strongly felt, or long standing views as a result of comments made in these forums.

Thanks again

 

[Thief]

By such a measure, I don't think we have established that free will exists, or even that it can conceivably exist.

Of course you can.
If I give you something to do....but you are given to your impulses....
I might return to find you doing anything but what I did ask!

I say....it's the defining measure that we are not altogether animals.

 

[JerryL]

Nope. Not determined by conditions.

OK. Determined by random. That' works as well. No "will".

 

[JerryL]

Why that condition?

So we can at least pretend to talk about the same thing.

If someone wanted to redefine "free will" as "the sound tupperware makes when you unseal it", you can understand why it would be confusing, yes?

 

[LuisDantas]

Of course you can.
If I give you something to do....but you are given to your impulses....
I might return to find you doing anything but what I did ask!

I say....it's the defining measure that we are not altogether animals.

You realize you are proving my point?

 

[Thief]

You realize you are proving my point?

No....(or did you state the idea before me?)

 

[Willamena]

So we can at least pretend to talk about the same thing.

If someone wanted to redefine "free will" as "the sound tupperware makes when you unseal it", you can understand why it would be confusing, yes?

It's no less confusing than, "Something a computer wouldn't do or can't have."

 

[idea]

I've never viewed free will as being non-deterministic, neither do I see it being connected with random causality. To me, free will is determining your own actions, so it is actually deterministic. If something just randomly happens - that does not seem like free will, there's no will involved in that.

 

[Thief]

I've never viewed free will as being non-deterministic, neither do I see it being connected with random causality. To me, free will is determining your own actions, so it is actually deterministic. If something just randomly happens - that does not seem like free will, there's no will involved in that.

You left out the word...choice.
Choices come your way at random.
Do you make denial in response to your own feelings?
Or do so because you thought you should?

If your hand does anything at all....
It's because you thought you should ...or because you felt like it.

 

[idea]

Choice is not random - it comes from who you are... to randomly pick something out of convenience etc. is not really to choose it... When you choose who or if to marry, will this be random? or thoughtful? If it is not a thought out, informed, premeditated choice, I do not see how that would be free will?

 

[JerryL]

It's no less confusing than, "Something a computer wouldn't do or can't have."

If you define "free will" as "the sound tupperware makes when you break the seal" then yes, free will exists.

If you have a definition of free will which would allow that a computer has it: then likely yes, free will.

But I don't think most people actually believe something compatible with such a definition when they say "free will". In this case: I do not. I don't see that a computer has "freedom". It does what the physics of its design dictate it must.

That's why we can replicate what a computer does over and over on the same computer. Same input. Same output. It is clearly deterministic.

 

[Thief]

If you define "free will" as "the sound tupperware makes when you break the seal" then yes, free will exists.

If you have a definition of free will which would allow that a computer has it: then likely yes, free will.

But I don't think most people actually believe something compatible with such a definition when they say "free will". In this case: I do not. I don't see that a computer has "freedom". It does what the physics of its design dictate it must.

That's why we can replicate what a computer does over and over on the same computer. Same input. Same output. It is clearly deterministic.

Have you ever said 'no' to yourself?.....even in a circumstance where most people would say....
OH hell yes!

 

[idea]

Free will is a matter of causality - what is the original cause that everything can be traced back to? For computers, the original cause is the programer, so most people would say computers do not have free will. ... To have true free will would require an eternal entity that has no beginning, that is self-existing without any original cause to trace all of it's actions back to. Is there part of us that is an eternal entity with no beginning? no original outside cause?

 

[Thief]

Free will is a matter of causality - what is the original cause that everything can be traced back to? For computers, the original cause is the programer, so most people would say computers do not have free will. ... To have true free will would require an eternal entity that has no beginning, that is self-existing without any original cause to trace all of it's actions back to. Is there part of us that is an eternal entity with no beginning? no original outside cause?

As a created entity....no.
We are born.

Some would say the body in terms of structure began billions of years ago.
But that much is not really 'you'....is it?

 

[Willamena]

Free will is a matter of causality - what is the original cause that everything can be traced back to? For computers, the original cause is the programer, so most people would say computers do not have free will. ... To have true free will would require an eternal entity that has no beginning, that is self-existing without any original cause to trace all of it's actions back to. Is there part of us that is an eternal entity with no beginning? no original outside cause?

There is no original cause for free will apart from the individual. As computer AI might someday become an individual, it may certainly qualify as engaging free will.

 

[JerryL]

Have you ever said 'no' to yourself?.....even in a circumstance where most people would say....
OH hell yes!

I'm sure I have.

 

[Willamena]

But I don't think most people actually believe something compatible with such a definition when they say "free will". In this case: I do not. I don't see that a computer has "freedom". It does what the physics of its design dictate it must.

From the perspective of physics, so do humans. Fortunately, free will needn't be seen from the perspective of physics.

 

[JerryL]

There is no original cause for free will apart from the individual. As computer AI might someday become an individual, it may certainly qualify as engaging free will.

FWIW: My computer exclusion was discussing current, common computers. Not a hypothetical future computer or some "we aren't sure how it does what it does" experimental piece of silicon somewhere.