Do people have free will?

You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice.
If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
You can choose from phantom fears and kindness that can kill;
I will choose a path that's clear-
I will choose Free Will.

"Those who know history get to watch other people repeat it. Once we know that the future is history, we can predict the present. A historical analysis of our own situation is the vital first step toward framing the future. Because when we understand the present, we are stalking the future, we have sneaked up as close to the future as we can get. The future is latent here, its seeds are all around us. The future is already here, it's just not well distributed yet."

-Bruce Sterling

http://polisci.ucsd.edu/faculty/schreiber.jpg

Professor Darren Schreiber’s research centers on emergence and complexity in political systems. He studied Politics, Philosophy, and Economics as an undergraduate at Claremont McKenna College. After college he attended U.C Davis School of Law, where he focused on civil rights litigation and had his first federal jury trial at age 23. He then specialized in federal litigation at the 100 year-old law firm of Neumiller and Beardslee. Unsatisfied with the intellectual life of a lawyer, Darren moved to academia. While earning his Ph.D. in Political Science at UCLA, Darren developed an agent-based computer simulation of the formation and dynamics of political parties. His dissertation research used functional brain imaging (fMRI) to study the neural substrates of political cognition and affect. He has shown that ideological sophisticates differ from political novices in their heightened use of the posterior cingulate, a brain region associated with automatic social evaluation. His long-term objective is to integrate his agent-based models of macro political dynamics with his computational model of political cognition in individuals in order to illuminate the emergence of political ideology in mass publics. Prior to coming to UCSD, he served as Research Director at the Center of Excellence in Cancer Communication Research at the Annenberg School of Communication, University of Pennsylvania.

What has that got to do with the price of tea in... wherever? To suggest that a certain part of our brain has a certain capacity and that leads to inevitable choices is an insult to the rest of the brain.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/04/01/images/George_Will_2.jpg

Momus, you're kind of taking a compatibilist/Hobbesian stance here (although it really needs to be rephrased as "freeDOM, but unfree wont"). To sum it up in ludicrously basic terms, the idea is that one does what one wants, but what one wants is pre-determined. As to whether that actually allows any of our actions to be free is another matter (I don't believe it does, but it is more difficult to defend an indeterminist libertarian stance).

With regards to romance, I feel that its extremely "unromantic" if one suggests that their close relationship is due to fate. Shouldn't it mean more to the other person that you CHOSE to be with them?

strangely, with your computer, you can probably download a free will somewhere.

Martin that's v interesting I think cos as I understand it, time can only go in one direction, or rather it's the measureable effect of a bunch of mathematical impossibilities precluding time flowing in either (or more than 2) directions. Not being a mathematician or physicist, I couldn't really say what the reasoning behind it is – suffice to say I saw it on the telly therefore it's a fundamental law...

Anyway, if time can only go one way then does that allow quantum physics to predict that what happens next is subject to randomness?

If our choices are governed by random movements of quantum particles, that still doesn't necessarily mean we don't have free will I think, because of chaos theory and probability: if there are a number of possible outcomes to an event and that event is played out as many times as you like, a certain proportion is more likely to be some ways than others. E.g. in 9,999 out of 10,000 universes, I decide not to pour boiling tea over my lap but drink it from a mug instead. (Of course there's still the vanishingly small chance that all the molecules in my tea will decide to jump out of the mug and into my lap of their own accord.)

I agree w/Martin re: the mind being the key. It's debated whether the mind is even something contained in ourselves, so given that, it's hard to know precisely how we affect ourselves or other people.

Like the weather, our understanding has gone from there being some greek dude who controls the sun and stuff, to the earth spinning around and different air pressure doing shit, but until we know enough to actually have complete control over weather, weather still goes on no matter whether we call it apollo or the earth's rotation and we still have to deal with it. if that makes any sense.

I guess there is still a question of how much the collective determines the individual. Still, I have read warnings of reading too much into the "dualism" of collective vs individual, and about how for all intents and purposes, each level of consciousness operates by its own particular logic, and can't "be explained" by any other level. Yet, one *can* use reductionist methods, for example, to explain how chemicals react, and in turn, produce neural and other physiological impulses, so it's tough to just say "we can rule ourselves completely independently of other forces. And of course, a sociologist might tell you that *none* of our actions are independent of contextual behavior (tho I'm not personally sure this actually rules out freewill, at least in our abilities to make decisions).

My belief is that we do make consciously independent decisions, but that both subconsciously and super-consciously, there is a lot going on we have no direct control over.

Likewise, the opposite of free will isn't fate, it's determinism, and I don't think they're at all the same thing. Which is to say, I think that in a significant way, the things we do and decided are the result of processes beyond our conscious control, as Dominique says; but that doesn't mean that there's a set of "outcomes" that are destined to occur.

I'm going to be crossing the street outside my apartment to get coffee later. Why? Because I want coffee, that's why, and I think part of that is a result of my brain "wanting" coffee at a level below my "deciding" to get it. So the decision isn't entirely conscious. The street is busy, and there's always the possibility that I could get hit by a car; but that's something random, and not the result of the kind of decision-making determinism being alluded to here.

i mean, you don't really get born and then decide, age 0 "oh right in this life i'm going to be liberal maybe but be slightly rude to gay folks", your thoughts and actions are the product of the interactions of the environment you're in, and your brain and body make-up. Growing up in a different place would affect how you think and act, for example. Getting a brain damage would affect how you think and act.

I think "free" really applies in another sense that other people cannot always predict you, and only you and you alone controls your actual thoughts and actions, even though YOU yourself isn't necessarily.

Or even stretch much further back...There was (probably) a Big Bang and 14 billion years of a resulting train of events, of which one of the current end points is phil d. crossing the street outside his apartment to get coffee.

however, how you got to this point is kind of irrelevant if that makes sense. (i'm thinking in a similar manner to object oriented programming and "intelligent agent" architectures now)

like, basically, your action is output your "free will" module, that takes "perceptions" as input, which are fed from "environment" objects.

and your "free will" module itself undergoes some genetic algorithm that also mutates with every perception received.

maybe i'll turn off my computer JUST TO PROVE MY FREE WILL. it'd prove it even more if i cut off my hand, but i don't care that much about free will, so that's not going to happen.

Of course, how we choose to act given the information that free will doesn't exist is up to us.

-- Momus (nic...), February 23rd, 2006.

i cant read this without hearing circus music in the background! and i am not at the circus!

only if one is claiming that other species don't have free will!

kenan - thats a really shitty understanding of AA

Let's start with, say, one.

It's a long time since I studied the free will/determinism debate in college, but I remember being struck that many philosophers seemed to have as background to their thinking an idea that - because humans are self-conscious and could comment on life - they are somehow separate from the universe, unlike other species.

"by the power of Grayskull!"

Let's start with, say, one."

Genetics. But the problem with deterministic concept is establishing causality (which, let's face it, cannot really be done).

http://tim.movementarian.com/wp-content/big-bong-hit.jpg

do pkd androids dream of electric sheep?

Have to disagree that there are endless ways to prove everything is fated. There is not yet a single "proof" of how or why the universe began (ie causality). Furthermore, there are numerous conflicting ideas about the nature of spacetime, and our ability to discern what it actually "is", much less why it is there and where it is going. I think most physicists agree the universe is expanding, but not everyone knows if it will do that forever, if it will one day just stop, or if it will contract back into the big crunch! You could argue that the only thing we are lacking is add'l knowledge to confirm our "fate", but remember, Einstein thought the same thing, and he was wrong about quantum uncertainty and the universal "dice".

Let's hold hands and jump together down the rabbit hole.

The existance of determined actions does not disprove the existance of free will. Nothing inherent in the idea that this action is determined precludes that that action was freely willed. I do not, as a matter of course, will my heart to beat or my eyes to blink. It is just as certain I do not will the content of my genes, my past history, or the rate at which the sun burns hydrogen.

Free will, to the extent it exists, obviously exists in a limited domain. To disprove free will it is required to prove that no action can fall into that domain, due to the inherent determinacy of all actions. There was a time in the nineteenth century when materialism confidently predicted that the laws of physics would allow us to prove the determinacy of all actions. That prediction died with Hesienberg and the development of quantum mechanics.

OTOH, the difficulty of proving free will is the difficulty of establishing what a will is in observable terms, because one's will is a property of one's mind (as opposed to one's actions) and minds are not observable or measurable in the way nerves or muscles can be observed to act.

The idea of free will is nothing but a theory to account for a perception. It happens to account for that perception satisfactorily, but is unprovable, just as the theory of a creator god accounts for the existance of a universe satisfactorily, but cannot be proved or disproved.

I happen to think that the theory of free will is the most parsimonious theory available. The biggest problem with the theory that brain activity equals mind activity is our inability to explain how synaptic actions create a mind or the perception of a will, which precludes the possibility of establishing whether the synaptic activity that creates the mind is deterministic or random.

All that we can establish without question is that the existance of a brain is a necessary condition for a body to exhibit the activities associated with a mind or a will. This gives us correlation, but not causality.

I'm not sure Heisenberg's experiment is a good reference point because it helps define the line between what can be predicted and what cannot. You could claim that indeterminate circumstances are left to "fate" while determinate ones are "free will," but then you're just left wondering whether one has an influence on the other.

I deem it irrelevant and will continue acting, learning, and sometimes failing as usual.

Of course, how we choose to act given the information that free will doesn't exist is up to us."

Most who put humans on that pedestal do not ascribe the species to a "squirming littoral ancestry."

Also. Look. I just chose to respond to you.

Of course, how we choose to act given the information that free will doesn't exist is up to us.

-- TOMBOT

TOMBOT OTM in the (excellently expressed) first para.

However he contradicts himself in the second para. If free will doesn't exist, then it follows that how we choose to act given this information is not up to us, as we have no choice in the first place.

What this actually means in practice, for the determinist, is that those who do not believe in free will have been caused by some factor or factors to have this false belief. This is where we get into the question: what are the reinforcing or rewarding factors that allow us to believe in free will? I can think of several. The most important must surely be that it preserves a sense of self. The determinist does not belief in the self or inner agent as a discrete or continuous entity - which is quite confronting. One cannot really embrace determinism without felling a little vertigo, for a while at least.

Liberation from the burdon of complete free will brings releif. You don't have to blame yourself for all of your shortcomings. (not being famous!)

The key to whether free will exists is whether the future already exists or not - is the universe like a movie with the past present and future all predetermined - but why would we be watching the movie in sequence and not seeing it all at once? Thats why I think the future is not predetermined. I think its like a live tv show. Time is always passing as a result of the big bang's initial impulse that set it in motion. The fabric of space-time is expanding, and I think that is why there is this "sequence of events" we call time. Of course I am no astrophysicist but you see how science could really solve this problem some day?

However he contradicts himself in the second para. If free will doesn't exist, then it follows that how we choose to act given this information is not up to us, as we have no choice in the first place.

OH MY GOD
HOW DID I NOT NOTICE WHAT I WAS DOING

Parsimonious as in 'least complicated expanation'?

Surely the most parsimonious explanation is that events just happen (which could be one definition of 'fated')?

The problem I have with free will is understanding where and how it's demonstrated:

- You decide to turn off your computer/raise you hand/respond to a comment.

-But where did that decision come from. Did you decide to decide? If so, did you decide to decide to decide...and so on.

- As far as I can see, 'deliberate actions' seem to happen as spontaneously as 'unwilled ones'.

- so maybe the simplest way of looking at it is that all events happen without any ghost concept of free will? (as you perhaps alluded to unconsciously by saying that you 'happen to think').

Of course there's another way of looking at what free will is altogether. Suppose (just suppose) the entire universe IS a physical system that can be adequately described by equations and laws of causality and whatnot. Given that you, your brain, etc. are all part of this system of causality, you are exerting your 'will', whatever that is.

Everything has a cause, and if we could factor in all the events that have happened to a person since their birth, and combine them with that person's genetic factors, we could say with certainity what they're going to do in a given situation (the only exception would be random factors, and randomness isn't will)

At a very simple level, we do this already. We say that someone's actions are 'typical' of them, or that something they did seemed 'out of character', because we already have a loose picture of their internal machine (though clearly not a good enough one in the latter case).

What we sometimes think of as free will -- "I'm going to stop smoking" -- is really just a battle between our two internal machines. The animal one, which is addicted to nicotine, is heavily weighting the decision-making algorithm to make sure it includes getting some tabs. The (newer in evo. terms) thinking machine is using all its recent inputs about smoking-is-bad etc to try and skew the machine the other way and stop smoking.

Where would "free will" come into this?

As for "what we choose to do with this knowledge", you could just say "what our decision machines come up with when fed this input will be interesting to watch".

-- Mädchen, February 23rd, 2006 6:10 PM.

well, it took a while - but it was worth the wait.

This is the nub of the matter. But you are doing no more than asserting the conclusion, which, when it is offered as proof, is a logical fallacy.

The simple fact is that we shall never be able to "factor in all the events..." etc. So you are left with a scientific-sounding theory that is theoretically testable, but no one could ever perform the test. This places it squarely in the realm of belief, equal to all the other untestable beliefs out there.

(the only exception would be random factors, and randomness isn't will)

Well, randomness certainly isn't predestination, either. You began your post by stating that "everything has a cause". If you allow randomness, you negate your initial statement, for randomness is not caused. When you insert randomness into a causal chain, the chain is broken. Once you admit randomness, you also gravely undermine your assertion that all outcomes can be known by their antecedant causes, too (which underlies your "if we could factor in..." assertion).

Just accept that the free will vs. determinism debate is unprovable from either side. As they say, you pays your nickel and you makes your choice. Except if your choice is to choose that you had no choice in the matter.

but no one could ever perform the test.
That's true, but nobody can ever perfom the test of watching evolution happen. But by taking simpler versions, and extrapolating from the evidence of the larger scale, we arrive at a result nearly as sound as performing the test, no?

for randomness is not caused
Thinking about that, I suspect I didn't actually mean true randomness at all, rather things like the roll of a dice -- which is indeed caused, yet which, if we knew everything about the situation of the dice -- angle it began its fall, air forces surrounding it etc -- we'd know which way it was going to land. So no, I didn't mean to have true randomness in my causal chain.

unprovable from either side
Well, so is God, but that doesn't make the choices equivalent. Where could "free will" come from? What could it actually mean apart from "decisions entering into a closed causal chain from outside"?

Free will v. determinism has a similar imponderability. Among other things, if you take the position of unswerving determinism, you end up with a chain of causes reaching back to... well, to either the beginning of time, or... heck, this is getting us nowhere!

And yes, surely the chain of causes stretches back to the beginning of time?

Since space, matter and time are a continuum and exist together, the only way for time to have a beginning is for space and matter to have a beginning, which leads to the Obvious Question: where and out of what did they all come from in the first place? Since there could be no Where, no What and no When - no anything - how could all this Something arise from Nothing?

The longer you think about this, the more you are likely to consider the question to be utter gibberish, but that question is also completely unavoidable, which can lead to a rather uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.

Either the universe is a continual infinite loop of big bang to collapse or Spinoza-like (not that i kno nearly enough Spinoza) we're looking at it the from the wrong angle and the universe is the only thing that has ever existed, and we're merely internal parts of it.

Un-derailing though: what is the definition of "free will"? Is there one that isn't completely illogical?

You could theoretically devise a universe simulation computer programme, which starts with simple elements and evolves 'life' through a number of rules.

You could arrive at a point where the programme evolves self-conscious
'humans'. They could think they are making free will decisions. They culd also feel that they are separate from the universe. Some of their decisions could even be a surprise to the programmer.

But it still wouldn't be free will.

cogitor ergo sum - i am thought therefore i am.

Free in what sense? Free from what? From determinism? No, of course not. Then again, do we need to be? From other wills? Generally, yes, and that's what matters. The alternative to free will is duress. The will of another imposed on you, as per gunpoint.

Likewise, the opposite of free will isn't fate, it's determinism

Free will is not only compatible with determinism but requires it. Free will---or a will of any kind, for that matter---requires determinism. Every action is a result of the past, hence the world is inherently deterministic. If your actions aren't a response to the past, they would be arbitrary, not willful.

2. Other people are right that neither determinism nor pure free will is right.

3. I'm a recovering alcoholic who is too drunk to read rest of thread.

4. Que?