There is no free will Options

[Hey Hey]

1. The future does not exist so nobody can know it. Free will.

Not if God exists. This is what some people believe. I have no interest in pursuing their beliefs here, as there are better scientific possibilities to discuss.

2. We obey physical law, but physical law is limited in what it can determine (see Godel's Incompleteness Theorem and Turing's Undecidability). Free will.

Why do we have to determine the future pathway for the whole universe to understand the issue of free will? On a more local level there are possibilities. Consider the possible outcomes following an action. On a very local level (a human) we could map many of the possible outcomes easily and given time/computing power as near to an infinite number of outcomes as we want to explore. Quite far away from infinite outcomes would probably come the limited choices that we have as responses to our environment (not the grass out there, but our daily world or our internal world) and we would have mapped these. So, I put it to you, that on more local levels we will eventually be able to map all possible outcomes, given computing power (big in the future, I almost said unimaginably, but I am imagining it) and the limited responses that our brain can realistically achieve. If we can count to a big number (using a computer) then we can map to that number of possibilities. So we will be able to map our possible activity and hence no free will, just predictable output.

3. Statistical sea of quantum state collapses: so what? Our will makes us free.

Here's one for you. We have a thought or a neuronal event and need to translate that into something, for example, move a finger. Machines can already detect brain activity and determine what the response will be. Future machines will be able to VERY rapidly detect brain activity and determine VERY rapidly the response. Due to the sluggish transmission system we have (biological) versus the machine's system (electronic and beyond) the machine will be able to state what the action will be before it occurs. Thus us will have predicted the outcome of a brain event before the brain event can turn into an action. The machine has seen our future before our future and there is no free will. If our neuronal and muscular systems were fast enough, we would be able to see what we were going to do before we did it .

[Rick]

... and there is no free will. ...

OK, suppose I give up and concede that there is no free will: the slave hypothesis is correct. What are the implications?

Perhaps a slave will person should not try to quit smoking because he has no control over his future behavior: if he quits, he quits, and if he doesn't he doesn't.

That's not right, because as Flex correctly argues, a person always balances the equation to pursue his best interests, and therefore, he might reasonably try to quit smoking.

Therefore, the slave will hypothesis is a "reductio ad absurdum" because there is no way to distinguish between a universe in which slave will is the case and one in which it is not. Therefore the idea of slave will is absurd, and the free will argument is shown to prevail.

[Technologist]

Rick, you seem like a very rational guy, but I am having a hard time seeing where you are coming from with this Free Will argument.

Are you contending that their are uncaused causes? Is volition like Athena, springing forth from the head of Jupiter?

Resorting to mysticism and the concept of *soul* is the only way to attain any consistency when arguing in support of free will.

Clearly, a great deal of what makes me "me" comes from factors external to myself. The language I speak, my taste in music, my physical capabilities and urges; all of these can be traced back causally to factors external to my person. Accordingly, most aspects of our consciousness are indisputably determined, however the argument put forward by dualism is that there is a higher "executive level" that can over ride lower level "determined" processes. Rene Descartes coined the pineal gland the "seat of the soul" because he believe that human Will was projected into it from.....another dimension?

I would assert that Free Will demands nothing less than the adoption of dualism if one is to maintain a respectable degree of intellectual consistency. Please however observe my use of a conditional proposition, as even logic suffers from the need to be justified. Similarly, declaring the objective validity of either side of the free will dichotomy also doesn't seem appropriate. We must be upfront about the fact that we are engaged in acts of intepretation - interpretations that are dictated by values. For example, my particular values lead me to reconcile the existence of the opposing viewpoint with the opinion that everyone needs their existential comforts.

[Joesus]

interpretations that are dictated by values.

Values that are relative to the choice one makes in solidifying reality into form is not entirely subject to the form. In order for the form to be supported it has to have a greater support system which is formless and allows it to be interpreted equally with as much delusion as there are people to interpret it. That thought process begins before the form

[Hey Hey]

That's not right, because as Flex correctly argues, a person always balances the equation to pursue his best interests, and therefore, he might reasonably try to quit smoking.

That's not right either, or a person would not have started smoking in the first place if he wanted to pursue his best interests. Starting smoking could be viewed as a mimicking activity (part of the reason for advertising) and trying to quit could be acting on information that, for example, suggests it will kill you - a psycho- reflex. Your "In your best interests" argument is redundant - consider sacrificing your life to save a drowning child - purely species orientated and nothing to do with your own best interests.

Therefore, the slave will hypothesis is a "reductio ad absurdum" because there is no way to distinguish between a universe in which slave will is the case and one in which it is not. Therefore the idea of slave will is absurd, and the free will argument is shown to prevail.

Thus your "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" statement did not impress.

[Joesus]

Thus your "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" statement did not impress.

Ergo, your will is free...

[Hey Hey]

Thus your "Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur" statement did not impress.

Ergo, your will is free...

No, just reactive.

[Joesus]

No, just reactive.

At lesser states of consciousness and without the ability to witness thoughts and feelings, life could appear to be reactive, but we all have a choice.

[Hey Hey]

No, just reactive.

At lesser states of consciousness and without the ability to witness thoughts and feelings, life could appear to be reactive, but we all have a choice.

"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child."
Richard Dawkins

[project-2501]

No, just reactive.

At lesser states of consciousness and without the ability to witness thoughts and feelings, life could appear to be reactive, but we all have a choice.

"What are all of us but self-reproducing robots? We have been put together by our genes and what we do is roam the world looking for a way to sustain ourselves and ultimately produce another robot child."
Richard Dawkins

Well Said.
I 'believe' fully in the 'human-robot-deterministic' idea. However I do not think this explains what I would say are higher cortical functions such as artistic abilities, musical and such other similar creative systems, maybe some explaination for such phenomonae should be investigated.
I think that once understood fully these ideas would perphaps show evidence for some sort of human 'will'
whether free or not.

[Flex]

"Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process."

What do sociology, philosophy, and economics have in common? All of the disciplines use the same tools to come to some conclusion. To say that individuals function based on the "will to live" or the "will to power" is to cut out the underlying economic fact that ALL individuals function around incentives--when are philosophers going to realize that all of their musings could be better analyzed with the help of economics?

[Technologist]

I think that once understood fully these ideas would perphaps show evidence for some sort of human 'will' whether free or not.

It seems undeniable (from my perspective) that human will exists. The real issue revolves around either providing the term *free* with an intensional definition or, conversely, rejecting such a possibility outright.

[Technologist]

What do sociology, philosophy, and economics have in common? All of the disciplines use the same tools to come to some conclusion. To say that individuals function based on the "will to live" or the "will to power" is to cut out the underlying economic fact that ALL individuals function around incentives--when are philosophers going to realize that all of their musings could be better analyzed with the help of economics?

Yes, those lame fuddled philosophers just don't seem to get it, do they Flex?

[Technologist]

Flex: when are philosophers going to realize that all of their musings could be better analyzed with the help of economics?

The concept of economic subsumption was strongly focused on by Sartre with his *death of consciousness*, and much later by Derrida and his post-structuralism. Most philosophers do not discount the usefulness or validity of economics when addressing mundane sociological considerations, but ambition usually carries them beyond this threshold.

[Flex]

Flex: when are philosophers going to realize that all of their musings could be better analyzed with the help of economics?

The concept of economic subsumption was strongly focused on by Sartre with his *death of consciousness*, and much later by Derrida and his post-structuralism. Most philosophers do not discount the usefulness or validity of economics when addressing mundane sociological considerations, but ambition usually carries them beyond this threshold.

Clearly you have a backround in philosophy--are you familiar with Vincent C. Punzo's Reflective Naturalism?

[Technologist]

I've seen that particular work referenced on a number of occasions, but I have not yet had the good fortune of getting my hands on a copy. C'est la vie. When you've been an intellectual for any extended period of time you tend to become well acquainted with the pleasure and pain of perpetually incomplete knowledge.

I do subscribe to a naturalistic ethic, if that is what you are curious about.

[Flex]

I've seen that particular work referenced on a number of occasions, but I have not yet had the good fortune of getting my hands on a copy. C'est la vie. When you've been an intellectual for any extended period of time you tend to become well acquainted with the pleasure and pain of perpetually incomplete knowledge.

I do subscribe to a naturalistic ethic, if that is what you are curious about.

I actually just got the book a little while ago myself~ I have a feeling it will be pretty dated (the only copy I could find had to be shipped from Germany, which was odd considering Punzo was a professor at like the University of Sait Louis). My dad actually recommended that I read it. He had a jesuit education, and he read it in college so I am interested to see what the curriculum was like

[Hey Hey]

... and there is no free will. ...

OK, suppose I give up and concede that there is no free will: the slave hypothesis is correct. What are the implications?

Perhaps a slave will person should not try to quit smoking because he has no control over his future behavior: if he quits, he quits, and if he doesn't he doesn't.

That's not right, because as Flex correctly argues, a person always balances the equation to pursue his best interests, and therefore, he might reasonably try to quit smoking.

Therefore, the slave will hypothesis is a "reductio ad absurdum" because there is no way to distinguish between a universe in which slave will is the case and one in which it is not. Therefore the idea of slave will is absurd, and the free will argument is shown to prevail.

Rick , I found this discussion of Susan Blackmore's book The Meme Machine, as part of a greater debate at: http://www.thegreatdebate.org.uk/ModernTheoryCH.html. As you are a supporter of her work I thought you might like to be be reminded of her opinion of free will.

Susan Blackmore, in her 1999 book The Meme Machine comes to remarkably similar conclusions. She makes the case that human beings are products of both natural and memetic selection; 'We humans are simultaneously two kinds of thing: meme machines and selves . . . Our bodies and brains have been designed by natural selection . . . In addition, because of our skill with language and our memetic environment, we are all repositories of vast numbers of memes' and argues that the idea of an inner self is a 'selfplex' - a collection of memes creating the illusion of self -

'I' am the product of all the memes that have successfully got themselves inside this selfplex - whether because my genes have provided the sort of brain that is particularly conducive to them, or because they have some selective advantage over other memes . . .

She goes on to argue that the illusion of self gives rise to a number of other illusions, including free-will, consciousness and foresight. For her, even human creativity is best understood as the product of memetic evolution; 'the generative power behind this creativity is the competition between replicators, not a magical, out-of-nowhere power such as consciousness is often said to be . . . Replicator power is the only design process we know of that can do the job, and it does it. We do not need conscious human selves messing about in there as well.'

[Technologist]

She makes the case that human beings are products of both natural and memetic selection;

Very nice, this thread has run the gamut from Schopenhauer to Blackmore.

[Addressing those with futurist proclivities such as myself, couldn't it be said that 'homo sapiens sapiens' is the vector species for the paradigm shift from genetic to memetic evolution? But I digress.]

My palate isn't entirely satisfied with the reductionist flavor of a Blackmore, but a framework built around the concept of *selection* does have its usefulness. With that said, the *meta-meme* is a long way from meeting the rigorous standards necessary to be considered "scientific".

[Technologist]

Another interesting functionalist philosopher of the mind (for those who are interested in supporting a devaluation of the self) is a German by the name of Thomas Metzinger.

Metzinger on Free Will:

The Forbidden Fruit Intuition

We all would like to believe that, ultimately, intellectual honesty is not only an expression of, but also good for your mental health. My dangerous question is if one can be intellectually honest about the issue of free will and preserve one's mental health at the same time. Behind this question lies what I call the "Forbidden Fruit Intuition": Is there a set of questions which are dangerous not on grounds of ideology or political correctness, but because the most obvious answers to them could ultimately make our conscious self-models disintegrate? Can one really believe in determinism without going insane?

For middle-sized objects at 37° like the human brain and the human body, determinism is obviously true. The next state of the physical universe is always determined by the previous state. And given a certain brain-state plus an environment you could never have acted otherwise — a surprisingly large majority of experts in the free-will debate today accept this obvious fact. Although your future is open, this probably also means that for every single future thought you will have and for every single decision you will make, it is true that it was determined by your previous brain state.

As a scientifically well-informed person you believe in this theory, you endorse it. As an open-minded person you find that you are also interested in modern philosophy of mind, and you might hear a story much like the following one. Yes, you are a physically determined system. But this is not a big problem, because, under certain conditions, we may still continue to say that you are "free": all that matters is that your actions are caused by the right kinds of brain processes and that they originate in you. A physically determined system can well be sensitive to reasons and to rational arguments, to moral considerations, to questions of value and ethics, as long as all of this is appropriately wired into its brain. You can be rational, and you can be moral, as long as your brain is physically determined in the right way. You like this basic idea: physical determinism is compatible with being a free agent. You endorse a materialist philosophy of freedom as well. An intellectually honest person open to empirical data, you simply believe that something along these lines must be true.

Now you try to feel that it is true. You try to consciously experience the fact that at any given moment of your life, you could not have acted otherwise. You try to experience the fact that even your thoughts, however rational and moral, are predetermined — by something unconscious, by something you can not see. And in doing so, you start fooling around with the conscious self-model Mother Nature evolved for you with so much care and precision over millions of years: You are scratching at the user-surface of your own brain, tweaking the mouse-pointer, introspectively trying to penetrate into the operating system, attempting to make the invisible visible. You are challenging the integrity of your phenomenal self by trying to integrate your new beliefs, the neuroscientific image of man, with your most intimate, inner way of experiencing yourself. How does it feel?

I think that the irritation and deep sense of resentment surrounding public debates on the freedom of the will actually has nothing much to do with the actual options on the table. It has to do with the — perfectly sensible — intuition that our presently obvious answer will not only be emotionally disturbing, but ultimately impossible to integrate into our conscious self-models.

Or our societies: The robust conscious experience of free will also is a social institution, because the attribution of accountability, responsibility, etc. are the decisive building blocks for modern, open societies. And the currently obvious answer might be interpreted by many as having clearly anti-democratic implications: Making a complex society work implies controlling the behavior of millions of people; if individual human beings can control their own behavior to a much lesser degree than we have thought in the past, if bottom-up doesn't work, then it becomes tempting to control it top-down, by the state. And this is the second way in which enlightenment could devour its own children. Yes, free will truly is a dangerous question, but for different reasons than most people think.

[Hey Hey]

[Addressing those with futurist proclivities such as myself, couldn't it be said that 'homo sapiens sapiens' is the vector species for the paradigm shift from genetic to memetic evolution? But I digress.]

Genetic evolution still occurs:

Science 9 September 2005:
Vol. 309. no. 5741, pp. 1662 - 1663
DOI: 10.1126/science.309.5741.1662
Prev | Table of Contents | Next
News of the Week
EVOLUTION:
Are Human Brains Still Evolving? Brain Genes Show Signs of Selection
Michael Balter
Two reports on pages 1717 and 1720 of this issue conclude that two genes thought to regulate human brain growth have continued to evolve under natural selection until recently--and perhaps are doing so today. And on page 1693, another team reports further evidence of the action of natural selection in people: A gene expressed in microglia, immune cells of the nervous system, produces a protein found only in humans.

Also, genetic manipulation of humans is now occurring. Isn't that genetic evolution (but not natural selection, of course)? One big solar flare and a large quantity of memes could disappear, even on iMacs .

[Technologist]

Weird. It seems as if the forum is having a problem with the links I'm providing... Ah well, if you'd like to check these out you can just google them:

Book Review - Being No One

The Edge Bios - Metzinger

Metzinger's home page

[Rick]

There is a flaw in the argument about each (discrete) brain state being determined by the previous brain state and the state of sensory inputs, and that flaw is in ignoring the continuity of time. Brain states are not discrete in time. One brain state does not lead to a "next" discrete state. Therefore, while perhaps not incorrect, the determinist argument will need to be reformulated to take into account a continuous (infinite) brain state definition.

Slave willers also make the argument that our experience determines our brain state and therefore our choices aren't free, but that ignores the fact that our choices determine our experiences, so there is a self-involved feedback loop in operation. Determinism may be the physical case, but free will is compatible with determinism.

Free will does not require anything mystical or even consciouness to exist. Intelligent robots, should they ever be built, will also have free will for the same reasons we do: Turing undecidability and self-directed feedback with the world-interface.

[Technologist]

errrghhhh...I'm not sure if this is on my end, or if there is something wrong with these forums...

Anyway, I wanted to provided the readers of this thread with a link to Chalmers' "Online Papers on Consciousness". With over 2500 papers it is probably the most comprehensive (and free) philosophy resource on the web.

Just type *chalmers* and *free will* into google and it's the second link from the top. Free will is right around the middle of the table of contents section with 85 articles.

[Joesus]

All this intelligence.. and all dependant on the current authority.
I guess if you didn't have the internet to point to a link you'd have to actually think for yourself.

[Flex]

All this intelligence.. and all dependant on the current authority.
I guess if you didn't have the internet to point to a link you'd have to actually think for yourself.

Oh come on are you going to tell me that you think for yourself? I sure as hell know that nearly everything I know I did not discover and learn on my own. Hell even half of my opinions I am sure were previously fabricated, I may just not remember the sources.

Would you say that there's more violence now-a-days than say in the 60s and 70s? (your answer to this will give me a good idea about to what extent you do not think for yourself)

[Technologist]

Joesus: All this intelligence.. and all dependant on the current authority.
I guess if you didn't have the internet to point to a link you'd have to actually think for yourself.

Well aren't you a rambunctious little bugger! Do you always treat your new guests in such a derogatory manner?

The fact of the matter is that knowledge is beholden to no one. All sources of authority should be subject to the same level of scrutiny. If one does not possess cowardice in his heart, then the world of information is his oyster. I am not above taking anyone's idea if it has merit and claiming it as my own.

And just for the record, my perspective is anything but mainstream. It is unfortunate that you see stereotypes in everything. Perhaps you should try getting to know people better before casting judgement.

[Technologist]

The really ironic part is that I am not even a fan of Chalmers. I find his philosophy of mind to be rather fluffy and verbose, but this won't stop me from acknowledging that his directory is one of the greatest public access philosophy resources ever put up on the web.

[Flex]

Don't be offended by Joesus (or as I now like to call him Jesus) Technologist, s/he in my opinion is one of the most intellectualy dependent individuals I have heard on this forum thus far aside from myself that is.

Once again I will pose the question:
Joesus would you say that there's more violence now-a-days than say in the 60s and 70s? (your answer to this will give me a good idea about to what extent you do not think for yourself)

[Joesus]

Well aren't you a rambunctious little bugger! Do you always treat your new guests in such a derogatory manner?

I treat everyone with equality and consider my freedom of thought and expression as something that is inherent in everyone, but not used with very much freedom by very many.
If you took my response to the idea of posting links as a mainstream point of reference personally then I would have to say you are easily threatened by what others think.
I would have to say that this is an issue amongst alot of people, in that they will react if they think they are being threatened in light of an opposing thought.

The fact of the matter is that knowledge is beholden to no one. All sources of authority should be subject to the same level of scrutiny. If one does not possess cowardice in his heart, then the world of information is his oyster. I am not above taking anyone's idea if it has merit and claiming it as my own.

I agree that knowledge is universal. In this case you didn't present the material as your own nor did you present your familiarity with the subject since you left all content in the failed link and simply gave your errrghhhh perspective.
I'd be more than interested to hear your experience of it rather than passing on someone elses, it has more of a resonance of truth (relative to experience) when one speaks from their own experience.

And just for the record, my perspective is anything but mainstream. It is unfortunate that you see stereotypes in everything. Perhaps you should try getting to know people better before casting judgement.

What better way to get to know someone than by presenting yourself and seeing whether they are ready for you or not. I'm not one for pretending to be something I'm not.
And Just for the record I didn't judge you, that would be something I would find difficult to do without knowing you, I only expressed what I felt about people pasting links as a reference for their beliefs.
In my own experience I find beliefs unstable ground. One has to develop a stable relationship with beliefs for them to manifest something permanent. This requires discipline and focus rather than random gathering of thoughts from outside sources.
If you want to demonstrate that your perspectives are beyond mainstream then I'd say perspectives come from experiencing many things and finding growth in ones relationship with the world. This leads to one being the creator of ones reality rather than a victim to it.

Once again I will pose the question:
Joesus would you say that there's more violence now-a-days than say in the 60s and 70s? (your answer to this will give me a good idea about to what extent you do not think for yourself)

You said you were going to call me Jesus..

I would say there is just as much violence within mankind as there has ever been in any age. The destructive forces are the same product of the struggle within humanity to overcome compromise.