My recent ideas of free-will/predeterminism. Options

[zhenka11230]

Our wills are prone to influence by external factors, be it parents or culture or just experiences, as is clearly evident through psychology and other sciences. But is free will a hopeful thought or reality? Is there at least a fraction of choice that can be genuinely called free will or is everything predetermined?

Now i do not deny that the process of decision making takes place and that we are in fact in control of our bodies, at least to some extent. Just the fact that i am writing this seemingly proves this but can the fact that i can decide and plan(as allowed by my frontal lobes) constitute for the notion of free will?

I propose the following thought experiment. Imagine a reality, a copy of this one, an alter reality which came into existence just now. Before now, it was one with this reality but now there is a copy. Now imagine that the two realities exist independent of each other with no causal relationship happening between the two. Now the question is - is the alter reality ever going to be different from this one or is it going to be identical? If it stays identical then everything is in fact predetermined, if not, then can we say that free will does exist to some extent?

It is possible that it will remain identical, because even though we do seem to have an ability to think, plan and decide, whose to say that it is not determined completely by outside factors and our experiences. Perhaps, given the same circumstances, we would decide identically, every time, resulting in an alter reality which would be identical.

Now if the alter reality does in fact diverge and become different, at least to some extent, then another philosophical question arises - what made it change? Why, given the same circumstances, a difference emerged? If the reason for the change is a simple random accident, of perhaps quantum level, then can we still say that we have free will? I think not, because with the quantum accident, the circumstances would change, which would lead the person to come up to a different decision and free will could not be clearly distinguished from predeterminism of circumstances. For free will to be clearly proven, we would need an alter reality whose circumstances remain the same.

I will argue that it is very hard to imagine a reality with identical circumstances and yet people coming to different decisions. But does it make sense to say that everything is predetermined? I think determined is a better word because decision process does in fact take place and no one knows or can predict the decisions of people due to butterfly effect, and yet i think people would come up to the same decision every time given the same circumstances.

Let us assume now that the copy of this reality would in fact diverge, yet the circumstances would not change(like quantum mechanics variations). Again i ask the question - what made that change in decision process of people or a person? There has to be a reason for that other choice, or is it complete accident? Only the former would constitute for free will because randomness is not a conscious decision. And what would be that reason for a different choice?

Now let us imagine that the alter reality is identical to the current reality + one hour and that it doesn't really exist but is simply a simulator of this reality. Meaning that it is perfect prediction of this reality 1 hour ahead. Imagine that we can observe that alter reality on tv and look at ourselves in an hour and thus to some extent know our future. That would surely change how we would act.

Perhaps free will is simply a kind of butterfly effect of circumstances. There are soo many circumstances and so many factors for a decision that perhaps the brain can even come up to different decisions every time it is informed of identical circumstances.

In conclusion i think there is no will separate from circumstances. I think if we change circumstances, the decision will change but if they remain identical, the choice of each individual on the planet will also remain identical.

[Hudzon]

It is established that no one has an entirely free will.

Really now?

By whom, you?

[zhenka11230]

It is established that no one has an entirely free will.

Really now?

By whom, you?

I think it is more then established by science and common sense on top of that.

[Hudzon]

Oh yes, I love it how your whole counterpoint is based on referring to two quasi-authoritarian sources while at the same time not giving any actual empirical evidence.

Although, I suppose you could make "blind submission to non existent authority" as a case against free will. At least you'd prove that you don't have it.

That'd be a start, no?

[zhenka11230]

Oh yes, I love it how your whole counterpoint is based on referring to two quasi-authoritarian sources while at the same time not giving any actual empirical evidence.

Although, I suppose you could make "blind submission to non existent authority" as a case against free will. At least you'd prove that you don't have it.

That'd be a start, no?

If this is the only comment you can come up with to the whole essay i wrote, then why post at all? To insult me? I was convinced that there is no 100% free will long time ago so to me its like 2+2 but of course i may be wrong, you are right.

It is so simple to prove that it doesn't exist as entirely free if there is at all free will. For example you are influenced by hunger, alcohol, lack of sleep, any other emotion or countless outside stimuli. I think its just laughable to assume that u can come up to decisions completely uninfluenced by the enviorment.

Anyways that premise is not at all the point of the essay.

[Hudzon]

Anyways that premise is not at all the point of the essay.

The issue here isn't the essay. The issue here is that you've opened your essay by proclaiming a currently debated topic as a scientific fact. Which it is not.

And when I questioned the logic behind it, not once but twice, you proceeded to ignore the question only to dismiss it as "nonsense" and an "insult".

If disagreeing with your point of view is an insult, then why start a debate at all? To become insulted?

It is so simple to prove that it doesn't exist as entirely free if there is at all free will.

Go on, try. You'll earn worldwide fame along the way for being the first to do so.

For example you are influenced by hunger, alcohol, lack of sleep, any other emotion or countless outside stimuli. I think its just laughable to assume that u can come up to decisions completely uninfluenced by the enviorment.

Free will isn't about being "not influenced" by the environment, it's about "not being completely controlled" by the environment.

Your short term desires in the next hour are influenced by the degree of hunger you feel, in the same manner that your decision on whether or not to sit in a chair is dependent on whether there actually is a chair in the room. Yes, the environment affects us, but free will isn't about choosing your environment, it's about acting on the environment that you are given.

If I feel hungry, I can go and eat. Or I can shove a banana up my nose and jump out of the window. Either way, the choice is mine.

[zhenka11230]

Anyways that premise is not at all the point of the essay.

The issue here isn't the essay. The issue here is that you've opened your essay by proclaiming a currently debated topic as a scientific fact. Which it is not.

And when I questioned the logic behind it, not once but twice, you proceeded to ignore the question only to dismiss it as "nonsense" and an "insult".

If disagreeing with your point of view is an insult, then why start a debate at all? To become insulted?

It is so simple to prove that it doesn't exist as entirely free if there is at all free will.

Go on, try. You'll earn worldwide fame along the way for being the first to do so.

For example you are influenced by hunger, alcohol, lack of sleep, any other emotion or countless outside stimuli. I think its just laughable to assume that u can come up to decisions completely uninfluenced by the enviorment.

Free will isn't about being "not influenced" by the environment, it's about "not being completely controlled" by the environment.

Your short term desires in the next hour are influenced by the degree of hunger you feel, in the same manner that your decision on whether or not to sit in a chair is dependent on whether there actually is a chair in the room. Yes, the environment affects us, but free will isn't about choosing your environment, it's about acting on the environment that you are given.

If I feel hungry, I can go and eat. Or I can shove a banana up my nose and jump out of the window. Either way, the choice is mine.

Point Taken. I am human, all too human ; )
I guess i should edit the essay.
Thanks for correcting me.

[Hudzon]

Heh, you got me in my debating mood though, so I'll answer the rest of your points.

First of all, I disagree with determinism, but not only on the grounds of free will, but on the grounds that as far as I recall there are certain things on the quantum level that can't be predicted (at least today). While, as you said, this does nothing to prove or disprove the notion of free will, it does show that the concept of determinism is fundamentally flawed.

Now, as to your point with the diverging universes. Let us consider the following situation:
1) The subject is presented with a Challenge by the environment (eg hunger).
2) The subjects environment allows him for two choices on how to solve the challenge: Choice A and Choice B. (eg eating junk food or eating healthy food)
3) The universe diverges into N separate universes.
4) In each Universe: The subject considers Choice A and Choice B.
5) In each Universe: The Subject makes the choice.

Therefore the question is: assuming that the subjects choice isn't random and that there are no other random variables in play, will the choice he makes in each universe be the same or not?

My Answer: If we assume that there are no random variables at play, it is reasonable to assume that the Subject's thought patterns in all of the universes will be the same (note: unless someone can prove that they are different?). If the though patterns are the same, then it is logical that he will reach the same conclusion in all of the universes, therefore making the same choices.

However, my question is: what does this really prove?
While the thought experiment shows that the outcome is no different in any universe, does it give us any insight on whether the said outcome was predetermined in advance or chosen by the Subject?

In other words, whose not to say that the subject freely made the same decision over and over in each universe on his own accord?

[zhenka11230]

Heh, you got me in my debating mood though, so I'll answer the rest of your points.

First of all, I disagree with determinism, but not only on the grounds of free will, but on the grounds that as far as I recall there are certain things on the quantum level that can't be predicted (at least today). While, as you said, this does nothing to prove or disprove the notion of free will, it does show that the concept of determinism is fundamentally flawed.

Now, as to your point with the diverging universes. Let us consider the following situation:
1) The subject is presented with a Challenge by the environment (eg hunger).
2) The subjects environment allows him for two choices on how to solve the challenge: Choice A and Choice B. (eg eating junk food or eating healthy food)
3) The universe diverges into N separate universes.
4) In each Universe: The subject considers Choice A and Choice B.
5) In each Universe: The Subject makes the choice.

Therefore the question is: assuming that the subjects choice isn't random and that there are no other random variables in play, will the choice he makes in each universe be the same or not?

My Answer: If we assume that there are no random variables at play, it is reasonable to assume that the Subject's thought patterns in all of the universes will be the same (note: unless someone can prove that they are different?). If the though patterns are the same, then it is logical that he will reach the same conclusion in all of the universes, therefore making the same choices.

However, my question is: what does this really prove?
While the thought experiment shows that the outcome is no different in any universe, does it give us any insight on whether the said outcome was predetermined in advance or chosen by the Subject?

In other words, whose not to say that the subject freely made the same decision over and over in each universe on his own accord?

Good point mate : )