Does free will actually exist? Opinions please.

[Darth Hoth]

Here's my perspective. Our bodies are essentially chemical machines; in principle, everything we observe about ourselves reduces to some aggregate of many chemical reactions taking place. This precludes "free will" in the sense that all that occurs is physically necessary.

"Free Will" and "choice" are illusions created by the emergent phenomenon commonly known as consciousness. The mind operates on a completely deterministic, but very complex set of chemical reactions, however, physiological processes are better described by chaos theory than standard reductionist models, are highly variable on even small and very precise scales, and highly dependent on the state of prior conditions. Thus, while there is no ability to predict human behavior unless one is willing to accept large confidence intervals, the system itself is no less deterministic than weather patterns.

Only good science can make everyday life on Earth sound more horrific than Hell as most luridly described by religion.

With regards to what science tells us of the world we live in, I pretty much agree with the above, though my educational background is not such that I could have described it as elegantly as that. However . . . I really, truly do not believe it in the core of my being, though I know that rationally speaking, I should. Else, I doubt I would be able to function in everyday society.

[Simon_Jester]

For a suitable definition of "me," the fact that "I" am a deterministic process that can be predicted by outside agencies isn't really all that disturbing, I think. Nor does it leave one with no room for poetry.

The real problem is that people want to view themselves as existing somehow outside the universe, rather than being one with it...

[lordofchange13]

*reads other peoples long winded descriptions,cracks fingers*....No, free will does not exist. any Omega point that was to examine a given human would be able to predict every action the human would "choose" to take.

[Formless]

Thank you for taking a complex argument that people have debated for years (possibly in vain) and collapsing it into a one line soundbite like some fucking soap commercial.

We don't need guys like you spamming up SLAM, idiot.

Edit: Oh, okay, ninja'd. I see your "omega point" ( ) and raise you THE GODDAMN UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE. Learn some physics, dolt. You can't just propose omniscience as a counterpoint when its existence is physically impossible. Actually, come to think, I stand by what I said BEFORE I saw your edit.

[Surlethe]

What's an "Omega point"?

[Kanastrous]

It's a Jesuit concept (well, a concept developed by a Jesuit) suggesting that the universe is developing toward a point of maximum complexity and intelligence.

[Simon_Jester]

*reads other peoples long winded descriptions,cracks fingers*....No, free will does not exist. any Omega point that was to examine a given human would be able to predict every action the human would "choose" to take.

Why does predictability mean free will does not exist?

If I can predict that you will choose not to jump off a cliff, does that mean that the power to make the decision was somehow denied to you? Are you more free when I can't tell whether or not you'd decide to jump off a cliff, or eat a handful of rocks, or do something similarly insane?

Also, define your terms- what is an "Omega point," and why should we care what it can or cannot do

EDIT: Another way to ask the question is: Why do you define your freedom in negative terms, in terms of what others can not know about you?

[Formless]

Edit @ Surlethe: in addition to what Kanastrous said, in context he's clearly using it to imply some kind of intelligent entity with omniscience (hilariously, does this entity have free will? ). Which ignores the points Alyrium already made in this thread about the fundamental uncertainties in both human behavior and even other natural phenomena.

[lordofchange13]

It's a Jesuit concept (well, a concept developed by a Jesuit) suggesting that the universe is developing toward a point of maximum complexity and intelligence.

I use the term Omega point in place of what most debaters on the subject would use: Sufficiently informed computer.

[Kanastrous]

Maybe there's a good reason that 'most debaters' use terms according to their widely-understood definitions.

[lordofchange13]

Edit @ Surlethe: in addition to what Kanastrous said, in context he's clearly using it to imply some kind of intelligent entity with omniscience (hilariously, does this entity have free will? ). Which ignores the points Alyrium already made in this thread about the fundamental uncertainties in both human behavior and even other natural phenomena.

My understanding(though limited may it be) does not allow the phrase fundamental uncertainties to exist. The Omega point is used as a combination of Quantum precise measuring systems as well as the most effective computer program that can exist is used. I did not say it is Intelligent, it is but a device that is suppose to predict the outcome of any model it observes.

[lordofchange13]

Maybe there's a good reason that 'most debaters' use terms according to their widely-understood definitions.

If i was to say a sufficiently sophisticated computer, then some one would ask "what does a sufficiently sophisticated computer mean? can my laptop doe it,a super computer, a Jovian Brain?". I will beat them to the punch and use a phrase that means the absolute upper limit of sophistication.

[lordofchange13]

If I can predict that you will choose not to jump off a cliff, does that mean that the power to make the decision was somehow denied to you? Are you more free when I can't tell whether or not you'd decide to jump off a cliff, or eat a handful of rocks, or do something similarly insane?

No your example does not work, you are a human, thus fallible. But If you WERE infallible, it would still not make since, I never had a decision to make in the first place. If i were to relive this event over and over i would always jump off the cliff, if my memory,physical limitations, and environment all stayed the same then i would jump. I really hate to use this word but: We are all FATED to take a particular path, no matter what.

[Simon_Jester]

Edit @ Surlethe: in addition to what Kanastrous said, in context he's clearly using it to imply some kind of intelligent entity with omniscience (hilariously, does this entity have free will? ). Which ignores the points Alyrium already made in this thread about the fundamental uncertainties in both human behavior and even other natural phenomena.

My understanding(though limited may it be) does not allow the phrase fundamental uncertainties to exist. The Omega point is used as a combination of Quantum precise measuring systems as well as the most effective computer program that can exist is used. I did not say it is Intelligent, it is but a device that is suppose to predict the outcome of any model it observes.

So, you define "Omega point" to mean "a thing that can predict anything." And then you tell us that because a thing that can predict anything would be able to predict what you do, you do not have free will.

That's one of the most tortured pieces of circular logic I've seen in months. "I do not have free will, because my actions can be predicted by a thing that can, by definition, predict anything, whether it is physically possible for that thing to exist or not."

Maybe there's a good reason that 'most debaters' use terms according to their widely-understood definitions.

If i was to say a sufficiently sophisticated computer, then some one would ask "what does a sufficiently sophisticated computer mean? can my laptop doe it,a super computer, a Jovian Brain?". I will beat them to the punch and use a phrase that means the absolute upper limit of sophistication.

Except you failed. Instead of using a phrase that means "the absolute upper limit of sophistication," you used a phrase that doesn't mean anything at all, because it was made up by a noble gibberish-merchant most people have never heard of.

If I can predict that you will choose not to jump off a cliff, does that mean that the power to make the decision was somehow denied to you? Are you more free when I can't tell whether or not you'd decide to jump off a cliff, or eat a handful of rocks, or do something similarly insane?

No your example does not work, you are a human, thus fallible. But If you WERE infallible, it would still not make since, I never had a decision to make in the first place. If i were to relive this event over and over i would always jump off the cliff, if my memory,physical limitations, and environment all stayed the same then i would jump. I really hate to use this word but: We are all FATED to take a particular path, no matter what.

How is this incompatible with free will?

Suppose that I will predictably not jump off the cliff. Knowing the circumstances, you (even poor not-omniscient you, although an omniscient being could do it too) will know that I will not jump. It is a fact that I will not jump.

Doesn't that mean that I will predictably decide to not jump? How does the fact that my action can be predicted from knowing the circumstances that motivate it (including the state of my brain) mean that I do not have free will?

Does the fact that I won't jump somehow indicate that I am compelled to not jump, that I would secretly prefer to jump but am forced not to do so, against my will? So that "FATE" is compelling me to do things willy-nilly, whatever I may think about them? That would be a lack of free will, but it doesn't match up with the way I experience the world. If I decide not to do something, and don't change my mind, I don't do it- I don't find myself dragged kicking and screaming into doing it by an external force.

Does the fact that I won't jump prove that I'm a mindless zombie, who cannot desire or will to jump or to not jump? Again, that would be a lack of free will, but it doesn't match my experience of the world; when I'm standing near a cliff I know damn well whether or not I desire to fall off of it, thank you very much.

For that matter, LoC13, I want you to put your cards on the table: define free will. What definition of "free will" are you using, such that you can claim that only an intrinsically unpredictable being could have it?

[lordofchange13]

the dictonary on my lap states that Free will means: the human doctrine that human action exspresses personal choice and is nto soly determained by Physical or divineforces. My belief is that human action is it self a reaction to the forces of their environment. So by my understanding Free will does not exist, the omega point was just to be an example of how an observer should theoretically be able to predict another action with out fail.

[Simon_Jester]

... "the human doctrine that human action exspresses personal choice and is nto soly determained by Physical or divineforces."

I should hope your dictionary can spell it better than that.

However, the point of my argument is that this is a stupid definition, one which does not hold philosophical water. What does it mean to say that "my" actions are independent of physical forces? For that to make sense, I must somehow exist outside of the universe, unaffected by it, and yet able to affect it by my decisions.

That is not a definition of "free will" I find satisfying. I believe myself to be part of the world around me, thank you very much. I don't see a contradiction between the idea that my actions are affected by physical forces and the idea that my actions are my "personal choice."

So I think your argument remains foolish, because it's based on a foolish definition of "free will," a childish fantasy that is ultimately hollow, a fantasy of being able to affect reality without being affected by it- the idea that the "real me" is this ethereal thing floating around somewhere that isn't part of the interplay of cause and effect that governs everything else.

And yet I maintain that I have free will- I make my own decisions, no one else makes them for me, and physical forces are in no way overriding my will or my desire to have things happen.

[madd0ct0r]

query - can the omega point entity look at a radioaactive atom and predict exactly when it will decay?

if not, uncertainty creeps in.

[Formless]

Edit @ Surlethe: in addition to what Kanastrous said, in context he's clearly using it to imply some kind of intelligent entity with omniscience (hilariously, does this entity have free will? ). Which ignores the points Alyrium already made in this thread about the fundamental uncertainties in both human behavior and even other natural phenomena.

My understanding(though limited may it be) does not allow the phrase fundamental uncertainties to exist. The Omega point is used as a combination of Quantum precise measuring systems as well as the most effective computer program that can exist is used. I did not say it is Intelligent, it is but a device that is suppose to predict the outcome of any model it observes.

So basically when challenged on the assertion that an omniscient being of any kind (intelligent or not) can exist due to demonstrable physical principles of the universe... you just repeat and elaborate on your beliefs.

Are you here to provoke discussion, or are you just here to provoke?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Edit @ Surlethe: in addition to what Kanastrous said, in context he's clearly using it to imply some kind of intelligent entity with omniscience (hilariously, does this entity have free will? ). Which ignores the points Alyrium already made in this thread about the fundamental uncertainties in both human behavior and even other natural phenomena.

My understanding(though limited may it be) does not allow the phrase fundamental uncertainties to exist. The Omega point is used as a combination of Quantum precise measuring systems as well as the most effective computer program that can exist is used. I did not say it is Intelligent, it is but a device that is suppose to predict the outcome of any model it observes.

Which is just bullshit. Fundamental uncertainties do in fact exist. Even with quantum precise measurement, guess what, you cannot compensate for Heisenberg, and variability in the system is independent of scale. Even on the subatomic level.

[Surlethe]

Edit @ Surlethe: in addition to what Kanastrous said, in context he's clearly using it to imply some kind of intelligent entity with omniscience (hilariously, does this entity have free will? ). Which ignores the points Alyrium already made in this thread about the fundamental uncertainties in both human behavior and even other natural phenomena.

It wasn't actually obvious before he clarified that it was a device for illustrating his position.

So basically when challenged on the assertion that an omniscient being of any kind (intelligent or not) can exist due to demonstrable physical principles of the universe... you just repeat and elaborate on your beliefs.

Stop strawmanning him. He made no existence claim. Are you somehow unable to comprehend even mangled subjunctive?

[evilsoup]

Simon_Jester, please define what you mean by 'free will', then.

I think you will find that you can't, and that the concept of 'free will' is meaningless, inconsistent noise (or obviously wrong, like lordofchange13's dictionary definition).

It's not so much that physical forces limit your decisions (though they do); but rather that 'you' exists as a result of deterministic (maybe the wrong word, given quantum uncertainty, but you know what I mean) forces. The 'you' that makes those decisions is a wholly determined thing.

P.S. you remind me of those weakly-Christian people who recognise that the God of the Bible almost certainly doesn't exist, and who redefine 'God' to mean 'love' (or some other wishy-washy bullshit). So they're effectively not Christians, but they cling to having something called 'God' in their life, even if it's not really 'God' as most people would define Him.

[Formless]

Stop strawmanning him. He made no existence claim. Are you somehow unable to comprehend even mangled subjunctive?

How is that a strawman, exactly, when his argument hinges entirely on the presuppositition that there can exist an entity that can perfectly predict the behavior of any system, human or otherwise, it observes? That de facto requires perfect information about said system. Moreover, he is talking about human behavior, and human behavior is an open system; ergo you need perfect information about the whole universe to have perfect information about human behavior for his argument to work. Ergo, an Omega Point is an omniscient being for the purposes of his argument.

Are you just hung up on his use of the word "observe" when he openly denies that there are fundamental uncertainties in predictions stemming from fundamental limitations on observation (Heisenburg and Chaos Theory?)? Its not as if a debater must intend or comprehend the implications or assumptions of an argument they put forth for those implications or assumptions to be a critical weakness in said argument.

[ThomasP]

the concept of 'free will' is meaningless, inconsistent noise (or obviously wrong, like lordofchange13's dictionary definition).

I think that this hits the nail on the head; the discussion has centered on not only a poorly-defined term, but one which may not have any meaningful definition in the first place.

I have an idea of what "free will" means in my head, but when I try to describe it objectively, I can come up with some mish-mash of words about "choice" and "decisions" and "independent of other causes" but beyond that, I find it very difficult to say what it actually means.

Can I make choices independent of my brain's activity? Independent of the people in my life, or the institutions I interact with every day? Independent of the molecules that make up my body? My objective side says "no, of course not", and yet internally I still feel capable of choice. Does "make choices" even make sense beyond my built-in intuitions that I'm a freely-choosing entity?

Debate over "realness" aside, the belief that we're freely-choosing entities obviously has some use in the real world. Free will is socially useful, as in punishing criminals for their actions. It's personally useful, in that having an internalized "locus of control" can lead to greater happiness and performance by some measures.

If my thoughts and "free will intuitions" are a product of deterministic behavior (never mind for the moment the possibility of emergence or nonlinear complexity as adding something "different"), and in truth I have no choice, but my internal experience suggests that I do and that affects my quality of life, does it matter whether it's "real" apart from that usefulness?

If a violent criminal is punished for his actions, does it matter whether he willfully chose, in the classical sense, to be violent or was a product of malfunctioning neurochemistry? (It might for the sake of how punishment is handled, as punishment for rehabilitative purposes as opposed to punishment to "teach a lesson", but I don't think in either case we'd dispute that it's the violent outcomes that matter, rather than how they were arrived at internally.) Viewing crime as a product of neurological aberrations is perhaps more humane than historical methods of justice, but we're still pointing to a person and holding him accountable for his behavior; is that another kind of "free will", where both the conscious and unconscious facets of a person can be said to "choose"?

I don't really have much to add beyond my half-baked thinking out loud, but I don't think there is any simple easily-grasped answer to be had simply because the concept itself is so vague and necessarily intuitive.

[Kuroneko]

Why would you need to "make decisions independent of brain activity" for there to be free will? The brain and its operation is an essential part of you. What you're asking for is for you to make decisions apart from yourself. You are not coerced by brain operation, you are (mostly) its operation.

Whether or not you're a product of deterministic physics (or indeterministic physics or something supernatural) is completely irrelevant. Those issues affect how "you" is defined, not what decision is or is not "free." Your decisions are free to the degree to which they're not coerced by external influences, and coercion is a concept that makes sense in any of those possibilities.

Even in a completely mind-body dualistic world, your decisions are still partly a product of the sensations you experience, the origin of which is external to you. So there is never a complete independence of external influences, but that does not mean that the concept of 'being coerced' lacks meaning or utility. Similarly, in a completely deterministic universe, 'you' are a physical subsystem, and hence your behavior is partly a product of internal states and partly of external inputs.

[Surlethe]

Oh Jesus, I can't believe I have to explain this to you. Read these again:

So by my understanding Free will does not exist, the omega point was just to be an example of how an observer should theoretically be able to predict another action with out fail.

If i was to say a sufficiently sophisticated computer, then some one would ask "what does a sufficiently sophisticated computer mean? can my laptop doe it,a super computer, a Jovian Brain?". I will beat them to the punch and use a phrase that means the absolute upper limit of sophistication.

My understanding(though limited may it be) does not allow the phrase fundamental uncertainties to exist. The Omega point is used as a combination of Quantum precise measuring systems as well as the most effective computer program that can exist is used. I did not say it is Intelligent, it is but a device that is suppose to predict the outcome of any model it observes.

I use the term Omega point in place of what most debaters on the subject would use: Sufficiently informed computer.

Unless he wants to correct me, which is fine, the obvious interpretation is, "Given perfect information about the entire universe, we'd be able to predict what people can do, so there's no free will in the usual sense." Which is pretty much what everybody has already agreed. He's not saying anything about whether that kind of information is possible. It's fine to argue about his misunderstanding of quantum mechanics, but do note that you created this strawman of his argument before he mentioned anything about that.

But I'm not hung up on any of that. What I'm really hung up on is you being a jackass and opening up full-bore on a newb without having the decency to actually plumb his position and try to understand it first.