Poll: Free will and our mental processes.

[Daverson]

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: Technically No, but due to a mixture of Quantum Dynamics and Chaos Theory, you might as well. As someone much smarter than me famously said:

If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't.

Of course, that would mean that free will wouldn't be so much "free" as "random", but, who knows, maybe the soul lies between the lines of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal?

 

[Johnny Impact]

The answer is in how we define freedom.

True unlimited freedom would be omnipotence. Whatever you wish happens instantly and without restriction. I think we can agree, whatever supreme supernatural being might possibly exist, none of us here on the forum has that kind of freedom. There are pretty strict limits we fleshbags simply can't overcome.

Freedom of a reasonable level of self-determination within an environment, or even to change our environment, is a better proposition. Most modern nations will let you do pretty much anything you set your mind to and are physically capable of doing without hurting others. Want to climb the Swiss Alps? You can do that. Want to own your own business? You can do that. Don't like your home nation and want to emigrate? You can probably do that.

In that respect, I'd say yes, we have free will.

Certainly there are obstacles to overcome. We are of course tied down by physical needs. We can only climb the Swiss Alps after we've secured our basic requirements of shelter and a steady source of food, acquired and banked enough extra income to finance a trip to Europe, and so forth. It still comes down to choice. We choose to save our extra money for the trip rather than spending it on something else.

No doubt someone will argue environmental influence essentially destroys free will and makes our responses predetermined. I consider that argument invalid, because what is the alternative? What is a mind without an environment to shape it? What meaningful decision can an unborn baby make?

 

[stroopwafel]

People are self-aware(it is what separates us from animals) and can consciously reflect on their thoughts and behavior, as such we have a definite free will. Exposed to emotions and circumstances perhaps, but free none the less. I usually see it only brought into question by lawyers trying to make up excuses for their client.

 

[II2]

It's kinda a moot point...

If Free Will DOES NOT exist:

The act of sentient and self aware discussion regarding the notion is still, as with everything you do, predicated on an impenetrably complex (Nerve cells in mammal brain ≈ # Stars in Milky Way) biochemical supercomputer's solutions derived from the tug-of-war gradient that governs behavior and choice through the mess of hyper-threaded neural circuitry in your brain. Nature and Nurture, whichever > influence, both speak with the same vocabulary of chemical neurotransmitters passed from one neuron to another in the synaptic gap (which is where you can look for the human soul, if such a thing exists). Both nature and nuture are subject to change via emergent epigenetic mutation and neuroplasticity. We are - essentially - elaborate artifacts of a larger system of physics and chemistry, as is everything we will ever do.

If Free Will DOES exist:

The examination of the subject STILL becomes a purely academic expedition into epistemology, at present lacking the computational power to approach creating accurately predictive models of the factors discussed above. Thus, all consideration of the subject leans towards a scientific and academic dissection of the problem on the side of rational disbelief and/or a an examination of philosophical or theistic principle tackling the same topic. Neither can proceed past the the shortcomings of our understanding, technology and own minds. Finally, even if free will COULD be proven, the same act of proving it would be both self fulfilling and pointless. The discussion, thought and research would end up being as affirmatively important to common consensus as breathing to prove you breath.

/my 0.02

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, the best thing about fishing is that if you go out onto the lake and you don't take a phone or anything, get the lines out there, and relax...nobody can find you. You're completely untouchable by the entire world...provided you have a fishing license. IF you don't, well then the park authorities can touch you if you catch anything. But aside from that, nothin'. You have the whole world to yourself, and if you don't like waiting you can bring a book and pretty much hear or FEEL if you've got a bite. BTW: I love subtle humor.

 

[WoW Killer]

I don't know. I think its simply a remnant of the 'soul' era. But think of it this way, if free will is false, then it has to be defined in such a way that it is false. People will still argue for free will under that definition so take that for what you will.

The way I think is thus: "free will" as a term only came about when we, humans, made it up. We invented the concept. As such, we get to define what it means. There's no inherent meaning; we choose it. So to choose a meaning which is obviously non-existent or false seems pointless to me. The argument is basically:

1: Free Will = Magic
2: Magic doesn't exist
3: Therefore Free Will doesn't exist

And there's nothing wrong with that mathematically. Definitions are definitions. If you want to define "chalk" to mean "coagulated milk" then you're not wrong to say "chalk is cheese". Words mean whatever you want them to mean.

I'd rather see a definition of "free will" as one that's useful to us in some way. For instance, in the legal system we give different sentences to people under 16 as we do people over 16. We give different sentences to the insane as we do people of sound mind. Isn't it better to define free will in terms of those kinds of things, which actually exist?

 

[Headsprouter]

This discussion is kind of pointless. Nobody can come to any sort of conclusion here. Ther only "proper" way of operating this thread is to have a series of unquoted posts until eventually, we run out of people.

If the scientists can't work it out as of now, we sure as hell can't.

Whatever you think, people certainly feel guilty and responsible for their actions, and people place responsibility on others to chiggity-check themselves before they wreck themselves.

That may be evolutionary, and less prominent in a species with our intelligence level that lived in solitude, but because of that, and this, I lean towards soft determinism. Both sides have merit, they really do.

We're all going to lean towards making ourselves happy, and we'll be happy in doing so, so who cares? It's fulfilling either way.

So nope. No freewill.

"By my definition."

Even so, do you really want to believe that every murderer and rapist on the planet was completely hands-off-the-wheel when it came to their crimes?

If we go around saying people don't have control over their actions, there will be serious consequences. Don't give the would-be psychos an excuse.

[EDIT]: Lol, I just went and quoted someone when I said we shouldn't quote anyone in order to operate the thread "properly". Ah me. Well, that's just human nature isn't it?

I'd say the most socially compatible perspective (and one that seems to have evolved into our minds) is free will.

 

[Arakasi]

I don't know. I think its simply a remnant of the 'soul' era. But think of it this way, if free will is false, then it has to be defined in such a way that it is false. People will still argue for free will under that definition so take that for what you will.

I'd rather see a definition of "free will" as one that's useful to us in some way. For instance, in the legal system we give different sentences to people under 16 as we do people over 16. We give different sentences to the insane as we do people of sound mind. Isn't it better to define free will in terms of those kinds of things, which actually exist?

Definitions that debunk an idea are still useful in that they debunk that idea. And the legal system operates as if there is that kind of free will, in fact one of the Supreme Court judges in America said something about if it were ever shown there was no free will (he/she obviously doesn't accept these arguments) that the entire legal system would be threatened. Sam Harris made a good point, why, if we find a murderer who had a tumor which caused him to murder, do we treat him any differently to someone who simply had a normal brain that caused them to murder?

If the scientists can't work it out as of now, we sure as hell can't.

Many scientists, such as neuroscience Sam Harris, and acclaimed psychologist Steven Pinker do believe we've worked it out, but that people just aren't willing to admit it.

The scientific mode of explanation cannot accommodate the notion of uncaused causation that underlies the will... A random event does not fit the concept of free will any more than a lawful one does, and could not serve as the long-sought locus of moral responsibility.

Either our wills are determined by prior causes and we are not responsible for them, or they are the product of chance and we are not responsible for them. If a man's choice to shoot the president is determined by a certain pattern of neural activity, which is in turn the product of prior causes?perhaps an unfortunate coincidence of bad genes, an unhappy childhood, lost sleep, and a cosmic-ray bombardment?what can it possibly mean to say that his will is "free"? No one has ever described a way in which mental and physical processes could arise that would attest to the existence of such freedom.

 

[thespyisdead]

we are "free" to chose our next actions, so no one can really tell whether free will exists or not, because it just might all be an illusion

 

[Adventurer2626]

We have free will in-so-much as no one is preventing us from acting according to our nature. Who we are is a complex interweaving of our genetics and environmental factors that is constantly learning and adapting to form our "consciousness." Out of all of the possibilities of the universe only one path will be picked. In that sense predestiny, fate, etc. exist but what that specifically is, is not determined until it happens. We will only ever make decisions that seem the best to us at the time. We don't make decisions that we think are bad at the time unless we think something good can come of it later on. So we can only pick one thing. There are options and choices everywhere but inevitably there is only one right one for us. Our fates are predetermined, but they're predetermined by us. By how many hours you slept last night. By the weather outside. By your blood sugar level. All these things weigh in. But it's you that pushes the red or the blue button. So technically no but it might as well be yes because we're still at the wheel of our lives.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

So nope. No freewill.

"By my definition."

Even so, do you really want to believe that every murderer and rapist on the planet was completely hands-off-the-wheel when it came to their crimes?

If we go around saying people don't have control over their actions, there will be serious consequences. Don't give the would-be psychos an excuse.

[EDIT]: Lol, I just went and quoted someone when I said we shouldn't quote anyone in order to operate the thread "properly". Ah me. Well, that's just human nature isn't it?

I'd say the most socially compatible perspective (and one that seems to have evolved into our minds) is free will.

That's not the consequence from "no freewill". Because determinism is only logical. So of course criminals get punished, that's a necessity for our communities to work. But neither the prosecutor nor the criminal had any free will in this.
It's just logical action-reaction.

That's a important point most people don't grasp when they hear "no freewill". This doesn't mean we can punish someone for their deeds - actually if we do or don't it doesn't matter, it was determined from the get go anyway, since there is no freewill.
To simplify it: The bigbang started everything, the rest is just a logical cascade of causalities leading into each other. So everything that happens, has to happen.

 

[Headsprouter]

That's a important point most people don't grasp when they hear "no freewill". This doesn't mean we can punish someone for their deeds - actually if we do or don't it doesn't matter, it was determined from the get go anyway, since there is no freewill.
To simplify it: The bigbang started everything, the rest is just a logical cascade of causalities leading into each other. So everything that happens, has to happen.

Whether this is true or not, it still seems to me that it's a overall shitty attitude to have. It's like religion and culture, sure they get in the way, sometimes, but damn, they're a couple of things that can grant you a really motivating outlook.

That whole "It doesn't matter whether we do or don't punish someone" doesn't motivate you to take any action at all. It's a fatalistic attitude that inspires little else than sitting on one's behind.

People being people, they will grasp it the way most people do, and they will use it as an advantage. "Everything fell into place, so why am I being blamed for shooting that family?"

Go for the most socially compatible approach. Place all the blame on the people, and little on the world around them. It's the safest way. It's not punishment I'm concerned about, it's blame, and if we can place it. Because blame and guilt evolved to stop people from doing things in the first place. So maximum blame/guilt equals less crime. People should direct all of their anger inward. Women do it more than men, and who're criminals less?

Violent Sociopaths, however, can't be helped. But that's an entirely different argument.

If the scientists can't work it out as of now, we sure as hell can't.

What you say about this statement is certainly true, but I've given a set of reasons (actually, moreso the same reason backed up more and more) why this just isn't an attitude people were ever meant to have.

Evolution, n' shit, there's a reason we feel bad for hurting people's feelings. A damn good one, too, and all that self-directed anger is a good thing...but we can all have too much of a good thing, and then, suicide and depression.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Whether this is true or not, it still seems to me that it's a overall shitty attitude to have. It's like religion and culture, sure they get in the way, sometimes, but damn, they're a couple of things that can grant you a really motivating outlook.

That whole "It doesn't matter whether we do or don't punish someone" doesn't motivate you to take any action at all. It's a fatalistic attitude that inspires little else than sitting on one's behind.

People being people, they will grasp it the way most people do, and they will use it as an advantage. "Everything fell into place, so why am I being blamed for shooting that family?"

Go for the most socially compatible approach. Place all the blame on the people, and little on the world around them. It's the safest way. It's not punishment I'm concerned about, it's blame, and if we can place it. Because blame and guilt evolved to stop people from doing things in the first place. So maximum blame/guilt equals less crime. People should direct all of their anger inward. Women do it more than men, and who're criminals less?

Violent Sociopaths, however, can't be helped. But that's an entirely different argument.

You still don't get it and also you start to put mouths and intention into my words i've not written down. That's why i won't continue this discussion. Reread what i wrote and think about it again, because you're clearly missing my point by a few lightyears.

 

[Headsprouter]

Whether this is true or not, it still seems to me that it's a overall shitty attitude to have. It's like religion and culture, sure they get in the way, sometimes, but damn, they're a couple of things that can grant you a really motivating outlook.

That whole "It doesn't matter whether we do or don't punish someone" doesn't motivate you to take any action at all. It's a fatalistic attitude that inspires little else than sitting on one's behind.

People being people, they will grasp it the way most people do, and they will use it as an advantage. "Everything fell into place, so why am I being blamed for shooting that family?"

Go for the most socially compatible approach. Place all the blame on the people, and little on the world around them. It's the safest way. It's not punishment I'm concerned about, it's blame, and if we can place it. Because blame and guilt evolved to stop people from doing things in the first place. So maximum blame/guilt equals less crime. People should direct all of their anger inward. Women do it more than men, and who're criminals less?

Violent Sociopaths, however, can't be helped. But that's an entirely different argument.

You still don't get it and also you start to put mouths and intention into my words i've not written down. That's why i won't continue this discussion. Reread what i wrote and think about it again, because you're clearly missing my point by a few lightyears.

You sure you're not looking at my point the wrong way?

In your original post, you said why Determinism was the correct perspective, I said why this wasn't the right attitude to have, and that it was by your definition. I at no point said you were wrong.

Second post, you tell me why my vision of the consequences were wrong, saying criminals will still be punished.

This is true, research has shown punishment works to condition a subject, Pavlov, Skinner n' shit. Classical, Operant conditioning, all that good behaviourist stuff. Yes, it's logical and has been proven to be so.

You talk about whether the perspective is true, and I talk about whether the perspective works in creating a good society. We encourage people to direct anger inward because it's "socially acceptable". Either that or to find a socially acceptable release. Freud (or somebody, I think it was Freud, it's definitely some psychodynamic theory kind of stuff) said that a person who loved to cut flesh might find a socially acceptable release for that. "I'll become a surgeon!"

But I'm getting off topic, again.

"What will be will be" is something that is only ever said to someone right before something is about to occur, or any time afterwards. If I say "just let the world decide!" at all times people tend to just sit around a do nothing if they really take that advice to heart.

Sometimes a fatalist attitude is blamed for a culture not ascending in worth. Remember when I said there were advantages to certain cultural and religious perspectives? Fatalism hasn't been praised as one of them, and determinism, as you speak of it, is fatalism.

So what I'm saying to you, as I interpret what you are saying, is "Yes, but people can't think that way! It's not even programmed into us!"

And don't accuse me of putting word in your mouth, I quoted your words once, and I merely paraphrased. Geez...

At least tell me why I'm wrong.

 

[WoW Killer]

Definitions that debunk an idea are still useful in that they debunk that idea.

That's if they manage to encompass that idea. I'm not convinced any formal definitions of free will have correctly personified what the term is supposed to mean intuitively. There's certainly no comfort to be found in non-determinism; surely choice is more about reasoning than it is about rolling dice.

And the legal system operates as if there is that kind of free will, in fact one of the Supreme Court judges in America said something about if it were ever shown there was no free will (he/she obviously doesn't accept these arguments) that the entire legal system would be threatened. Sam Harris made a good point, why, if we find a murderer who had a tumor which caused him to murder, do we treat him any differently to someone who simply had a normal brain that caused them to murder?

For one thing I think the legal system is more about preventing crime than it is about retribution. You punish people out of consistency, but it's the threat of punishment rather than the punishment itself which is the beneficial part for society. There's less crime overall because of the deterrent, so free will or not, we're better off with the system in place.

So it's not really a problem for me if the naive version of free will doesn't exist. But I do think we're better off with a relativist concept. We might not be able to successfully argue that any single person is properly in charge of their actions, but I think there are good arguments to be made that one person can be more in charge than another. That example of the murder-inducing tumor is a little contrived, but lets say there was a child that caused a friend's death through some sort of play-fighting; would you charge them with manslaughter the same as an adult? I'm happy to regard a child as less culpable than an adult. With hard determinism, shouldn't you punish both the child and adult the same?

 

[loa]

I think "free will" is, just like "sentience" an entirely man made concept, born out of a struggle to give meaning to what we can not understand and I think the dichotomy of "it either does or doesn't exist" may be a bit misleading.
You know, like asking if purple is blue yes or no without knowing of the color spectrum.

 

[Arakasi]

Definitions that debunk an idea are still useful in that they debunk that idea.

That's if they manage to encompass that idea. I'm not convinced any formal definitions of free will have correctly personified what the term is supposed to mean intuitively. There's certainly no comfort to be found in non-determinism; surely choice is more about reasoning than it is about rolling dice.

And the legal system operates as if there is that kind of free will, in fact one of the Supreme Court judges in America said something about if it were ever shown there was no free will (he/she obviously doesn't accept these arguments) that the entire legal system would be threatened. Sam Harris made a good point, why, if we find a murderer who had a tumor which caused him to murder, do we treat him any differently to someone who simply had a normal brain that caused them to murder?

For one thing I think the legal system is more about preventing crime than it is about retribution.

Yes. I shall come back to this.

You punish people out of consistency, but it's the threat of punishment rather than the punishment itself which is the beneficial part for society. There's less crime overall because of the deterrent, so free will or not, we're better off with the system in place.

Agreed, to an extent.

So it's not really a problem for me if the naive version of free will doesn't exist. But I do think we're better off with a relativist concept. We might not be able to successfully argue that any single person is properly in charge of their actions, but I think there are good arguments to be made that one person can be more in charge than another.

We can decide whether or not the person's brain is the cause of their actions or not, as that is the most important thing to preventing future crime.

That example of the murder-inducing tumor is a little contrived, but lets say there was a child that caused a friend's death through some sort of play-fighting; would you charge them with manslaughter the same as an adult? I'm happy to regard a child as less culpable than an adult. With hard determinism, shouldn't you punish both the child and adult the same?

In short, no. To put it the long way, to me there are three purposes of the legal system, this system I will call the PRP (it sounds like 'perp' aka 'perpetrator', get it?) system:
1. Protection - Protect individuals from other individuals that would do them harm.
2. Rehabilitation - To get an individual from a state where they would harm others, to a state where they would not.
3. Prevention - To ensure that crime not only isn't worth committing (due to apt punishment) but to make sure that the conditions which breed crime are not allowed to exist.

From these three goals we can take the example of the child, is there intent? No. So without intent there is no need to protect (as it was an accident, it would be better for there to be safety regulations), there is no need to rehabilitate (though the child may require counseling, it is not likely that they will cause harm again), and there is no need for further prevention (as it was an accident).
As a result the situation of child differs from someone else who commits murder, where they need to be removed from society for society's protection, they need to be rehabilitated so that they won't do it again, and the system needs to be changed to not allow people like them to rise.

 

[FPLOON]

Well, I tell you this much... If I had "complete" free will, I would be a self-aware Haruhu Suzumiya...

Anyway, my mind tells me I have a limit to my free will that fluctuates depending on where I am at said given time... Despite times of arguing with my own mind, the "limit" ordeal is always the one thing we both can agree upon at any given time...

Other than that... I don't know... and I probably already know the answer, but lacks the "free will" to admit it to myself...

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

You sure you're not looking at my point the wrong way?

In your original post, you said why Determinism was the correct perspective, I said why this wasn't the right attitude to have, and that it was by your definition. I at no point said you were wrong.

Second post, you tell me why my vision of the consequences were wrong, saying criminals will still be punished.

This is true, research has shown punishment works to condition a subject, Pavlov, Skinner n' shit. Classical, Operant conditioning, all that good behaviourist stuff. Yes, it's logical and has been proven to be so.

You talk about whether the perspective is true, and I talk about whether the perspective works in creating a good society. We encourage people to direct anger inward because it's "socially acceptable". Either that or to find a socially acceptable release. Freud (or somebody, I think it was Freud, it's definitely some psychodynamic theory kind of stuff) said that a person who loved to cut flesh might find a socially acceptable release for that. "I'll become a surgeon!"

But I'm getting off topic, again.

"What will be will be" is something that is only ever said to someone right before something is about to occur, or any time afterwards. If I say "just let the world decide!" at all times people tend to just sit around a do nothing if they really take that advice to heart.

Sometimes a fatalist attitude is blamed for a culture not ascending in worth. Remember when I said there were advantages to certain cultural and religious perspectives? Fatalism hasn't been praised as one of them, and determinism, as you speak of it, is fatalism.

So what I'm saying to you, as I interpret what you are saying, is "Yes, but people can't think that way! It's not even programmed into us!"

And don't accuse me of putting word in your mouth, I quoted your words once, and I merely paraphrased. Geez...

At least tell me why I'm wrong.

1. Determinism isn't about "perspective" it's a logical construct. The principle of cause and reaction is basic and Determinism is just taking that concept to it's logical conclusion. If every reaction had a cause, there's a chain of cause-reaction pairs leading back to the first cause, let's simply call it Bigbang for now.

2. I give you that it's similar to fatalism, but: It's a neutral position. "What happens, happens" doesn't mean, don't care about what happens. It's just that the Cause-Reaction machinery is all set up and running, so obviously whatever happens had to happen because all the causes & reaction before hand, but that's just a statment done from OUTSIDE the system.

3. On the inside of the system, we poor souls dabble around: This is the part where the "Illusion of free will" comes into play. We think we're free to choose between Pepsi and Cola in the supermarket, but our expiriences, genes, mood, tastes and what not actually determine what we're going to buy, there's a logical process behind it. So we have to go on as we always did. Strive for peace, perfection and/or happiness or whatever goals we have. Follow the biological + evolutionary pressure.

4. Back to the point with the criminals. There will be people that steal, there have to be people that punish those who steal. From outside of the system, it's all logical. How all those things like society, the thiefs reasons to steal or the need for punishment of criminals came to place be could be traced through following all the cause.
Again: It's a neutral position. Determinism doesn't say don't care about that criminal. It says: It had to happen, that this criminal steals and it had to happen that this officer arrested him.
But from inside the system we can't KNOW beforehand and that's exactly why we have to just go on.

That's why alot of people already said: Determinism has no influence over our daily lives, because we're not capable of predicting the future. We can only verify/falsify what already happened. Still, there's no free will.

5. Read Post #44 and #48 by II2 and Arkasi respectivley. There's also a scientific part to this. The Quote from Harris is a really good one. Either we're not free or there are random occurences, in which case we're still not free but bound to a galactic RNG. Our brain does not cause causes. Thought's are processes of our synapses which on the other hand react on the environment & chemicals, which are again influenced by our genes etc.
On this note: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism is a good way to get a broad overview about the topic.

6. I hate determinism. I hate that we apparently have no free will. In a summer 2 or 3 years ago i spent roughly 30-40 hours per week for 2 or 3 weeks discussing Determinism with 2 friends of mine. Some discussion lasted like 12-14 hours in one go.
But it's just the most logical concept there is. I acknowledge the principle of action-reaction, thus i've to acknowledge determinism, even though i hate it. I hope quantum phsysics maybe shake things up abit and experiments like the "double-slit" still leave room for discussion.

Sidenote: Determinism acutally gives the theorethical possibility of knowing everything that happens and has happened in the universe. If you have the knowledge about every particle in the universe and can observe every cause->reaction, then you can 100% predict the future - and the past.