Thread: Does free will actually exist?

I will admit to a confusion in my mind as to what 'Neverfly' is saying here.

I am of the opinion that at any juncture where we have choice we have free will.

I do not understand any religious connection or even if that was implied...

I would like for a explanation of what you mean by 'free will'... I obviously think choice is part of that answer.

As I claim to be less than predictable and show choice... sometimes wrong...

Originally Posted by Neverfly

David, the definition of Free Will is that it IS divine.

I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with your definition, my friend. As my, admittedly old, dictionary defines it, free will is 'done of one's own accord, voluntary.' This is the American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, page 532. The online version of Miriam-Wbster gives the definition of FREE WILL as <1> voluntary choice or decision <2> freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention. Your definition appears to be otherwise.

If you are arguing that people have the Illusion of free will, then you are not arguing in favor of Free Will as it's properly defined.

I am arguing no such thing.

Free Will as properly defined requires a supernatural source- a soul or a God Given ability to choose and make decisions OUTSIDE of the physical influences that are a part of the Natural world and causal determinism.

Might I ask were you get your definiton from? Even Wikipedia <gasp> says Free Will is the apparent ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. By the way, when you start talking about 'causal determinism' it brings to mind Laplace's demon.

Exchange my use of the word, "predictable" with "Casually determinate" and you are back to square one. That was bad wording on my part.

I'm affraid that I can not accomdate your request. "Casually determinate" appears very much like an oxymoron to me..."Casually" means 'subject to, resulting from, or occurring by chance or accidentally' while 'determinate' means 'having defined limits; definitely settled or conclusively determined (a.k.a. definitive'; whereas, 'predictable' means, generally, 'to declare or indicate in advance; especially : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason'. Your perdiction would be conclusively determined by chance while mine be the result of scientific reason.

All current evidence strongly suggests that our minds and brains are casually determinate and there is no evidence that they are casually indeterminate. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it.

I'm affraid I'll need a citation regarding this, please.

Lastly,
e.g.: "The bible is true Because God says it is."
"God is true because the Bible says he is."
"The bible is true because the bible says it is the true word of God."
You claiming that it is "Twoof" does not make it so. Demonstrate with clear and hard evidence that it is true or withdraw the claim.
Saying it is true because it is true is about as convincing as umm... well... it's not convincing at all.

Well, I could ask that you present 'clear and hard evidence' that it is false. "Free will" is a philosophical question where as 'casual determinism' is a scientific theory that is not held by all. In philosophical arguments, the concept of determinism in the domain of human action is often contrasted with free will. The argument called indeterminism negates deterministic causality as a factor and opposes the deterministic argument. Determinism should not be confused with self-determination of human actions by reasons, motives, and desires, nor with predestination, which specifically factors the possible existence of God into its tenets; moreover, determinism explicitly does not suggest that prediction is possible, whatever the means- this is a separate, epistemological question.

Tell me, pleaase, do you hold with the prevailing scientific opinion has been that the current state of the universe is the result of a process described by the Big Bang? Determinism would say that the 'state of the universe' today is the results of the BB....the cause-and-effect scenario. Would you agree with this? If you do, would you explain the First Cause to me, please. (If you don't but think you can explain the First Cause, please do.)

Originally Posted by Neverfly

David, the definition of Free Will is that it IS divine. ...

I agree. The Free Will vs. Predestination debate is religious is its origins and religious in its concerns. There is nothing scientific about this debate. If we have Free Will, then we are responsible for our own actions. If our actions are predestined, then it is unfair to punish us when we sin because we have no control over our actions and are helpless to change them. And the big one: Why does God allow evil?

As for the issue of predictability, this is my take. If events are predictable, then they are clearly not under the influence of Free Will. They are Predestined. However, the lack of predictability does not imply Free Will. Many physical systems are governed by the laws of statistics. You may not be able to predict the behavior of any particular individual. However, group dynamics may be as predictable as a laser beam passing through a diffraction grating.

What this gets down to is that much of what people think of as "free will" is self-deception. For good or bad, demographers and other social scientists know with buttons to push to get groups of people to do pretty much what their employers want. To the extent that this is a problem, any reasonably intelligent observer of the human condition sees this problem getting worse rather than better--at least in the US.

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

Well, I could ask that you present 'clear and hard evidence' that it is false.

No, you couldn't.
You are saying I must prove you wrong? I think not. I cannot prove a negative or prove that something does NOT exist. If you make a claim, the onus is on YOU to support the claim. Not for me to prove you wrong. You have the burden of 'proof' and remember: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

Tell me, pleaase, do you hold with the prevailing scientific opinion has been that the current state of the universe is the result of a process described by the Big Bang?

Of course I do.

Originally Posted by David E. Eaton Sr.

Determinism would say that the 'state of the universe' today is the results of the BB....the cause-and-effect scenario. Would you agree with this? If you do, would you explain the First Cause to me, please. (If you don't but think you can explain the First Cause, please do.)

I agree with it.
And I cannot tell you what the "First Cause" was because I do not know.
Your question is like the "Prove me wrong" fallacy above.
My inability to tell you what no one knows does not lend any credence whatsoever to you deciding it could be anything you desire.

David, I must ask that you learn how to use the quotation function properly. Your posts are exceptionally difficult to respond to because you do it as you do.

For the stuff that you included with my quote but is your response: I will list out the replies to each bit without cutting and copying your replies.
Definition:
According to most dictionary's; My honors English courses etc: I defined Free Will as Defined In Philosophy as well as English.
Merriam Webster includes a LACK of Divine intervention as the majority of the USA is religious- This is to exclude ANY outside force since most people believe in a deity and would consider a deity to be similar to Fate or Determinism because of their ludicrous beliefs in sky elves.
The definition is:
Free will - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention
MY definition that I gave: Free will is Separate from determinism- and in most any scientific philosophy- lacks a deity or a God as absurd, so excludes the bit about GOd as a source of choice and rather, makes it clear that the SUPERNATURAL must be responsible for free will since it cannot be free if it can be determined.
It's amazing how you read it- copy and pasted it- and MISSED IT completely. Let me try again:
"freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes"
One more time..."freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes"

Wikipedia covers EVERY possible definition out there...
Free will - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Even so- the VERY FIRST ONE is the one you claimed that wiki (gasp...) doesn't claim. How odd- I saw it right away considering it was umm... FIRST...
Incompatibilism is the position that free will and determinism are logically incompatible, and that the major question regarding whether or not people have free will is thus whether or not their actions are determined.
How did you miss that too? If I was a suspicious person, I'd question your honesty, right about now...

I meant to say Causality. I mistyped.

You need a citation... Really? Alrighty then...
EVALUATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BRAIN-DAMAGED PATIENT, December 21, 1957, Tobis et al. 165 (16): 2035

Warning: PDF Download
Measuring Cation Activity of Living Brain

Nonfatal Traumatic Brain Injuries From Sports and Recreation Activities

Warning: PDF Download and you may need to register:
Arch Intern Med -- Sign In Page

Regional Brain Metabolic Correlates of

Warning: PDF Download and you may need to register:
Arch Intern Med -- Sign In Page

Free abstracts:
Arch Intern Med -- Excerpt: A History of the Electrical Activity of the Brain: The First Half-Century, Dec 1962, Kelly 110 (6): 932

Arch Intern Med -- Abstract: Brain Synapses: An in Vitro Model for the Study of Seizures, February 1972, Escueta and Appel 129 (2): 333

These above are all from Established and Peer Reviewed Medical Journals.

Modelling schizophrenia using human induced pluripotent stem cells : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Neuroscience: Brain buzz : Nature News

Learning-related feedforward inhibitory connectivity growth required for memory precision : Nature : Nature Publishing Group

Articles from chemistry peer reviewed and posted in article form by journalists.

I can do this all day long.

Hey guys, I don't mean to complicate the issue, but in thinking along the lines of thought experiments like Schrodinger's cat in the box and the actual double slit light experiment I find myself considering the many worlds theory that everything that can occur or be expressed DOES occur or IS expressed as infinite universes/realities. Now it's not my theory and I don't really hold a position on it, but for argument's sake, if this theory were valid then every possibility that can occur does occur and would in fact be predestined. Every possible past present and future event would be "out there". Free will on the other hand might then be considered to be that part of a person's ego, consciousness stream, awareness of a succession of "nows" or whatever you want to call it, determining (consciously or unconsciously) which path it will take or focus on through all that.

Of course, this also means that there would be a near infinite number of 'expressions' of each of our own awareness somewhere "out there" following different paths. This concept was basically what led to several popular television shows and movies starting I believe in the eighties. Shows like Quantum leap and Sliders to name only two. Of course such themes are also used quite often on other shows such as Star Trek.

Well, that's my contribution anyway.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

Hey guys, I don't mean to complicate the issue, but in thinking along the lines of thought experiments like Schrodinger's cat in the box and the actual double slit light experiment I find myself considering the many worlds theory

(Cough*)
You mean, "Hypothesis."
A "theory" is a model that is supported by observational evidence.

Originally Posted by Pyraxus

that everything that can occur or be expressed DOES occur or IS expressed as infinite universes/realities. Now it's not my theory and I don't really hold a position on it, but for argument's sake, if this theory were valid then every possibility that can occur does occur and would in fact be predestined. Every possible past present and future event would be "out there". Free will on the other hand might then be considered to be that part of a person's ego, consciousness stream, awareness of a succession of "nows" or whatever you want to call it, determining (consciously or unconsciously) which path it will take or focus on through all that.

Of course, this also means that there would be a near infinite number of 'expressions' of each of our own awareness somewhere "out there" following different paths. This concept was basically what led to several popular television shows and movies starting I believe in the eighties. Shows like Quantum leap and Sliders to name only two. Of course such themes are also used quite often on other shows such as Star Trek.

Well, that's my contribution anyway.

That does sound like a definition of Free Will.
But without any evidence to support a separate consciousness from the physical brain- It's still moot.

Originally Posted by Neverfly

(Cough*)
You mean, "Hypothesis."
A "theory" is a model that is supported by observational evidence.

Thank you Neverfly for the clarification. I should have referred back to my copy of "In search of Schrodinger's cat" by John Gribben. I just did and he refers to it as "the Many worlds interpretation".

So anyway, thinking further on this subject and the two mentioned experiments, particularly the double slit experiment using electrons, it seems to me that all these possibilities exist more as "virtual realities" Or as Mr. Gribben puts it "Ghost particles". So perhaps in that perspective, instead of having many actual tangible worlds, all these possibilities exist purely in a virtual or "potential state" still possessing all the predestined qualities but the act of observation on our part and our supposed "free will" is then perhaps what collapses the wave function into that which we consider "reality". In effect we (the total of all observing agents) would still be choosing (again consciously or unconsciously) which "potential reality" we manifest.

It's just my attempt at making some sense of the observed "realities" of the double slit experiment. And if the results of that experiment aren't thought provoking and intriguing then I don't know what is.

A wave Function is essentially used to describe the fact that we cannot accurately identify two states at the same time- creating uncertainty.
Is the cat dead or alive? It's considered 'both' until verified and thus; the wave function collapses. The state of the cat does not change depending on observation.
It doesn't collapse on it's own because we observed it- It's Us that created the concept of the wave function simple because we did not know what state to describe.
In the example of Schrodinger's cat- the cat IS one or the other, whether verified or not.
The wave function is nothing ethereal or special nor is it set apart from our own descriptive language.

The double slit experiment is utterly beyond me and maybe MisterMe can shed some light on that one. But I will point out that I think if our "free will" was going to interact with physics, there would be no physics.
Wave/particle duality has nothing to do with the concept of free will.

Free will is just an illusion. The whole thing is recorded like in a hologram. Just look at a well made hologram. It can be shown that everything that falls into a black hole is recorded like a hologram on the event horizon.

If this is a recording and if reality is a fabrication, then it has to be rewound to some point in time where you are inserted. Even if you make free decisions, if everything is being recorded, then we would have the option of choosing whatever life we what for reincarnation/re-insertion. After being inserted in a particular spot in the same manner as before, we would make the same decisions and behave the same way. That's how The Oracle knew Neo was going to tip over the vase in the Matrix, because the world is made of data and is recorded as it is processed. But since The Oracle knows what is going to happen, she can choose to say things to change it's outcome. Or perhaps she is just re-reading her script. I truly believe that the Oracle was changing things. Without her advise, the participants would not have acted the same.

I heard on public radio that some physicist had discovered self-correcting code in data at the atomic level that is like the self-correcting code in web browsers and such. I haven't had the chance to figure out exactly what he was talking about.

For the religous folks, I've read that without free will, there would be no heaven or hell, since everything you would do is fated.

My personal philosophy is to that we are carried by the current, with a limited view downstream. We can only try to avoid hazards as best we can. If they were not avoidable, then we shouldn't beat ourselves up about our hang-ups anymore since they truly were unavoidable.