What is left for free will?

Originally posted by JerryH
If so then where is free will?

I think that before you make any proclamations about free will, you should first define what you mean by it. There are various definitions/meanings, and most people are quite fuzzy about what they mean.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
that doesnt remotely begin to explain freewill it just reaffirms your belief that it exists.

my view (the non existence) of freewill doesnt involve being a slave, as there is nothing to be a slave of. only that we are all part of a chain reaction. we never really have a choice because we are only ever going to choose one option. every decision we ma ...[text shortened]... , shall i do a or b. what changes in us to mean that we wont just keep making the same decision?

Wisdom, discernment and experience.

You keep trying to lose weight. So you change your eating habits. That doesn't work as well as you'd like, so you change your diet. That works, but it's just too slow. So then you decide to get yourself off the couch and start exercising. Now you're seeing some better results.

It's just the way life works. (For most people. Some people get in a rut of doing the same thing, expecting different results.)

So next time you need to lose 5 or 10 pounds, you hit the gym a bit sooner in the process, knowing you need to do the work to get the results.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Wisdom, discernment and experience.

You keep trying to lose weight. So you change your eating habits. That doesn't work as well as you'd like, so you change your diet. That works, but it's just too slow. So then you decide to get yourself off the couch and start exercising. Now you're seeing some better results.

It's just the way life works. (Fo ...[text shortened]... you hit the gym a bit sooner in the process, knowing you need to do the work to get the results.

to understand if free will exists you need to look at the moment a decision is made.

if a person is sat in room with two identical buttons (a and b). the man has to press a button. if he presses the correct button he wins a prize.

which button does he choose? how does he arrive at the decision, what actually happens in his head?

the man is actually sat inside a time machine. every time he pushes the button time is rewound a couple of seconds and the man (unaware he's doing it again) makes the choice again and pushes a button and time is reset again.


does the man keep making the same decision? does he ever make a different decision? if he makes a different decision, what changes in his thought process and why?

Originally posted by stellspalfie
hey, dont turn it back on me! i was asking you how it works. ive already said that i dont believe in freewill, i cant see how its possible.

dont you agree that for freewill to exist that running the same situation over and over we must make different decisions on occasions. if we never make different decisions and repeat the same one over and over c ...[text shortened]... hink you would make the same decisions if time was repeated over and over (without you knowing)?

Quantum fluctuations would suggest that many of our decisions are random. I don't see it that way. Given the exact same circumstances, as you say, a moment of time relived, I think most of the time we would choose the same choice. But you cannot point to this and say there's no freewill. We (should) take a lot of things into consideration when deciding a course of action. Will you walk or bike to class or will you get a ride with Bob? Many factors come into play. How late are you? Do you need to make other stops before class? Oh, wait, here comes Bob now, I'll just ask him now, while he's right here. We might be angry about an earlier altercation and say "Nah, screw it, I'll just walk. I don't need anybody."

I say we have freewill, simply because we have these kinds of choices. Our actions aren't limited by circumstances. Choosing the same choice every time might merely mean that, as a member of Homo sapiens sapiens, we use our thinking brain to decide and in weighing the facts, we come to the same conclusion most of the time (regarding the exact same decision to make, in the exact same time frame). Any number of factors, though, could exist to change our minds. Remembering something else we have to do, our current mental state, some annoying random distraction... but because we have freewill, we have the ability to adapt to this changing environment and still choose a course of action that yields benefit no matter what circumstances try to get in our way.

If I went through my day doing errands, seeing friends, meeting people and whatnot, and I started thinking that I had no choice in these activities, I feel I'd become a haggard old crone with an attitude in short order. But even if I have a mighty list of things to contend with when I start my day, how that day ends is entirely up to me.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Quantum fluctuations would suggest that many of our decisions are random. I don't see it that way. Given the exact same circumstances, as you say, a moment of time relived, I think most of the time we would choose the same choice. But you cannot point to this and say there's no freewill. We (should) take a lot of things into consideration when deciding ...[text shortened]... st of things to contend with when I start my day, how that day ends is entirely up to me.

I think most of the time we would choose the same choice.

the key point here is if we make the same decision 'all' the time or 'most' of the time. if the answer is 'all' then we have no freewill. if the answer is 'most' of the time then we need to explain why. if we rewind the guy in the room (we can give him more buttons if you want to give him multiple options like a real-life situation). why would the guy choose a different button? as time has been rewound all the variables are set to exactly the same position, nothing new has been introduced. so how could he possibly make a different choice?

if you accept that the man is always going to make the same decision and that we will always make the same decision, then we can never deviate from the path we are on. therefore we have no freedom, we never really choose.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
that doesnt remotely begin to explain freewill it just reaffirms your belief that it exists.

my view (the non existence) of freewill doesnt involve being a slave, as there is nothing to be a slave of. only that we are all part of a chain reaction. we never really have a choice because we are only ever going to choose one option. every decision we ma ...[text shortened]... , shall i do a or b. what changes in us to mean that we wont just keep making the same decision?

Edit: “every decision we make is the result of everything that has happened before us.”

You appear to believe that the state of the universe 10.000 years ago fixes everything you do during your life. However, if we are to accept that earlier states of the universe can be seen as fixing all later states, then equally, later states can be seen as fixing all earlier states. So, in your opinion what exact agent is ontologically special about the past, as opposed to the present and the future? I see no support in physics for the idea that the past is “fixed” in some way that the present and future are not, or that it has a certain ontological power to constrain our actions that the present and future do not have.
Since I do not see the past as special, even if the universe was indeed deterministic the relationships of determinism could well lead us towards a deterministic world in which each part bears a full or partial determining relation to other parts, but in which no particular spacetime has a special and thus stronger determining role than any other.
The universe is highly predictable in some cases but not deterministic, and it could be deterministic yet highly unpredictable. If the universe was indeed a deterministic chaotic system, its evolution over a long time period should mimic a random process that would lack predictability or computability in an appropriate sense, whilst we human beings, which we have nearly identical initial states, we would have radically divergent future developments within a finite timespan. So the main characteristic of our world would be randomness, and the main characteristic of us human beings would be our Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions. In this context, I define as “free will” our personal and collective SDIC; and I think that every decision we make is the result of the evaluation of the mind as regards both the given conditions and the way we want to set up the conditions we want to create
😵

Originally posted by stellspalfie
if you accept that the man is always going to make the same decision and that we will always make the same decision, then we can never deviate from the path we are on. therefore we have no freedom, we never really choose.

So what do you mean by 'free will'? Do you mean 'random decisions'?
I think Suzianne is a compatibilist - as am I. Basically, when I say 'free will', I mean that my brain makes decisions based on its makeup and past experience etc and whether or not my brain operates deterministically is unimportant.
If 'free will' to you means 'random decisions' then I don't know why anyone would desire such a state of affairs.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “every decision we make is the result of everything that has happened before us.”

You appear to believe that the state of the universe 10.000 years ago fixes everything you do during your life. However, if we are to accept that earlier states of the universe can be seen as fixing all later states, then equally, later states can be seen as fixin ...[text shortened]... rds both the given conditions and the way we want to set up the conditions we want to create
😵

i agree that the brain makes and evaluation. the evaluation is just a linear process that is dictated by external and internal conditions. in a closed system the brain will go through the evaluation and always come to the same result (if time was replayed over and over).

so the only way a brain could come to a different result is if it doesnt exist in a closed system and variables can change. so where does the change happen, what causes the change? the only option i can think of is the seemingly random quantum fluctuations in energy.

if we accept an element of randomness in the universe we still have a problem for freewill. a variable has changed. the brain evaluates, the variable alters the path and the brain comes to a new result. its still a linear process in which the brain was only going to come to a fixed result. a series of inputs always results in the same output.

i think freewill implies choice, when really it is just a way of describing a brains ability to process and reach more positive effecting results than negative or the reverse.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what do you mean by 'free will'? Do you mean 'random decisions'?
I think Suzianne is a compatibilist - as am I. Basically, when I say 'free will', I mean that my brain makes decisions based on its makeup and past experience etc and whether or not my brain operates deterministically is unimportant.
If 'free will' to you means 'random decisions' then I don't know why anyone would desire such a state of affairs.

'free will' implies we have freedom to choose what we do. i dont believe we 'choose' freely. we are incapable of making any other decision than the one we make in any give moment.
satan is a great example. a christian will say 'satan became evil because he had free will and he chose that path'. i would say satan had no choice, the physical make-up of his brain combined with the input it receives dictate the output. so its not like satan can actually choose to be good or evil. just like we cannot really choose if we are going to have cheese or ham, we are going to have whatever the design of brain, combined with inputs dictates out output will be.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i agree that the brain makes and evaluation. the evaluation is just a linear process that is dictated by external and internal conditions. in a closed system the brain will go through the evaluation and always come to the same result (if time was replayed over and over).

so the only way a brain could come to a different result is if it doesnt exist ...[text shortened]... rains ability to process and reach more positive effecting results than negative or the reverse.

If the decision making system can be indeed viewed as deterministic, it should be viewed as bi-directionally deterministic, where a specification of the state of the conditions and its parameters at a time t determines how things go after t and also how things go before t. To think of the past as done, over, fixed and beyond our control is false. If it holds that, according to determinism, these past states determine everything we do in our lives, then it is equally true that the state of the world herenow determines everything that happened in the past. What do you think?

Furthermore, methinks the brain has the potential to make freely different decisions, and indeed it makes them. When a variable has changed –or when the mind wants to change a variable and acts so–, the mind re-evaluates, the path is different and the mind comes to a new result that is a product of the re-evaluation of the mind. It ‘s still a linear process in which the mind was only going to come to a fixed result Thanks To Its Free Will For Re-evaluation Alone (because for sure it is free either to re-evaluate not at all, or to re-evaluate differently or to re-evaluate the same as previously), which in turn determines everything that happened in the past and everything that will happen in the future. Without the random initiation of the activation of the Sensitive Dependence on Initial Conditions (free will), there would be no decision making system and thus no decision at all.
Determinism, as you imply, requires a world that has a well-defined state/ description at any given time, and laws of nature that are true at all spacetimes. You offer a well-defined description, but still you must define how and why the decisions are forced, because a lot of decisions are not at all forced –they are simply a product of SDIC/ free will. In this context, my questions are the following:

Is the decision making process system governed by genuinely stochastic, indeterministic laws or by no laws at all, and thus its apparent randomness is in fact real randomness? Or the system is governed by underlying deterministic laws, but is chaotic?

Methinks it may well be true that there are some deterministic dynamical systems that, when viewed properly, display a genuinely stochastic process behavior. However, the same system, when viewed at a higher degree of precision, does not cease to look random and instead betray its deterministic nature, whilst finally, if we simply look at the system in an idle status, there is no obvious way to maintain that it may be a truly random process rather than a deterministic dynamical system. So, where the “free” or the “forced” will can be found?
😵

Originally posted by stellspalfie
i think freewill implies choice, when really it is just a way of describing a brains ability to process and reach more positive effecting results than negative or the reverse.

I don't get it. What do you mean by 'choice' if not 'a way of describing a brains ability to process and reach more positive effecting results than negative or the reverse.'
You seem to be saying:
1. A deterministic system is not choice.
2. A non-deterministic system (partially or wholly random) is not choice.

I think the mistake many people make is to imagine a soul or consciousness separate from the brain and then consider input from that to be 'choice' but refuse to go into the question of how said soul makes decisions. But this merely hides the problem, it does not resolve it.

Originally posted by stellspalfie
[b]I think most of the time we would choose the same choice.

the key point here is if we make the same decision 'all' the time or 'most' of the time. if the answer is 'all' then we have no freewill. if the answer is 'most' of the time then we need to explain why. if we rewind the guy in the room (we can give him more buttons if you want to give h ...[text shortened]... can never deviate from the path we are on. therefore we have no freedom, we never really choose.[/b]

Actually, that last sentence sounds like the epitome of free choice to me. My choice cannot have been otherwise because otherwise is not what I wanted to do.

Originally posted by black beetle
Edit: “every decision we make is the result of everything that has happened before us.”

You appear to believe that the state of the universe 10.000 years ago fixes everything you do during your life. However, if we are to accept that earlier states of the universe can be seen as fixing all later states, then equally, later states can be seen as fixin ...[text shortened]... rds both the given conditions and the way we want to set up the conditions we want to create
😵

You appear to believe that the state of the universe 10.000 years ago fixes everything
you do during your life. However, if we are to accept that earlier states of the universe can be
seen as fixing all later states, then equally, later states can be seen as fixing all earlier states.

Woo... I would like to see the workings on this because I don't think it's necessarily true.

The arrow of time, the chain of cause and effect is important.

Consider a chain of mathematical operations, we start with initial inputs, and then
run a series of mathematical operations on them.
The result of each stage will be the result of all the operations performed on the
inputs in sequence and will be identical no matter how many times the sequence is
run. However at no point is the current result dependent on the next result, only
on the previous results. Influence propagates only one way.

"I see no support in physics for the idea that the past is “fixed” in some way that the
present and future are not, ....."

Well this will very much depend on which [if any] candidate GUT is actually correct...
However, if we have a universe that is deterministic with randomness, then we could model
that as being like a chain of mathematical operations where the next operation to perform
is chosen probabilistically from a set of possible operations, with the probabilities dependent
on the current state of the system. The current state of the system will be dependent on
the sequence of past states and chosen operations performed on them while the future
states are as yet undetermined. In such a system the past can [in theory] be known absolutely
while the future is as yet undetermined and can only be known probabilistically.
In practice from inside such a universe it may very well not be possible to determine the
past absolutely but there is a difference between what is and what can be known.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Actually, that last sentence sounds like the epitome of free choice to me. My choice cannot have been otherwise because otherwise is not what I wanted to do.

Ahh, but did you have the ability to choose what you wanted?

Defining free will as being able to do what you want [within the laws of
physics] simply moves the problem to whether or not you were free to
choose what you wanted.

Originally posted by twhitehead
So what do you mean by 'free will'? Do you mean 'random decisions'?
I think Suzianne is a compatibilist - as am I. Basically, when I say 'free will', I mean that my brain makes decisions based on its makeup and past experience etc and whether or not my brain operates deterministically is unimportant.
If 'free will' to you means 'random decisions' then I don't know why anyone would desire such a state of affairs.

The problem is, free will from Christianities stand point, and what Suzianne argues for
isn't compatibilist.
Because they need/want people to be completely free to choose to believe in the
bible god or not.

If my ability to believe is based on my mental make up and past experience ect...
Then I am not completely free to choose to believe in the bible god.
If my mental make up and experiences don't allow me to believe based on faith
then I can't believe in the bible god without sufficient evidence and I can't freely
choose to believe and thus am [according to Suzianne] doomed without having
any choice in the matter.

The Christian 'free will' argument requites libertarian free will, not compatibilist free will.