Does Free Will Exist?

[Pedersen]

Okay, time to complete the trilogy on free will, since the others wound up touching on it a bit.

I'll put out my answer: I do not believe free will exists. Basically, to steal a phrase from Scott Adams, we are all "moist robots". We have very sophisticated organic chemistry which manages to use some sort of reasoning process to lead us to make decisions. However, make no mistake: That reasoning process is part of the programming we are following.

Free will does not exist. In order for it to exist, the processes that lead to the making of a choice would have to be divorced from the processes occurring within the body, existing somewhere else. Unless you believe that it is something other than our brains which are responsible for making the choices that our body carries out, free will cannot exist.

Before replying, please consider these other two threads:

• Critical Logic Failure: If your response is "I have free will because God says I do", then answer a couple quick questions: Is God omnipotent, omniscient, and the creator of everything? If so, there is a logical flaw in your argument that I address in this thread. Otherwise, I would enjoy hearing about your religion.
• Consequences Of Lack of Free Will: Are you telling me that we have to at least pretend we have free will, or else society will collapse, and therefore we have it? Check out this thread. I happen to agree with you. But that doesn't mean we have actual free will.

So, what are your thoughts? Do we have it? Or are we just moist robots?

[jayel]

Free will does not exist. In order for it to exist, the processes that lead to the making of a choice would have to be divorced from the processes occurring within the body, existing somewhere else. Unless you believe that it is something other than our brains which are responsible for making the choices that our body carries out, free will cannot exist.

Are you saying that because we have instincts we do not have free will?

How do you propose we exist if we are not designed to function and process things in a certain way?

Do you believe in God? If you don't, then you have only evolution and survival of the fittest to blame for what you apparently think is a bad situation (being a slave to our instincts). Could you have designed humans any better?

Just because God is omniscient and omnipotent doesn't mean that he controls everything we do just because He could. His omnipotence and us having free will are not mutually exclusive. I'm not sure where you heard otherwise.

[Pedersen]

I've moved some segments of your post around to avoid repeating my answers. I apologize if it ruins any of your arguments.

Are you saying that because we have instincts we do not have free will?

No, I'm saying that we all have the following things in common:

• I have a body.
• In that body is a brain.
• The brain is exclusively composed of physical matter.
• All physical matter is affected by other physical matter in some way.
• The brain is responsible for all decision making processes.
• The brain, being affected by physical matter, therefore has its decision making processes affected by physical matter.
• Any idea of free will relies on the brain being able to make a choice independently of outside influence.
• The brain is unable to completely ignore physical matter (its own or other) during decision making processes. If the electrical impulses move in one direction, one decision will be made. If they move differently, a different decision will be made.
• Since the brain is incapable of acting independently from the physical matter that composes it, and since the brain is purely physical matter, and since free will requires the ability to act independently of outside influence, there is no free will.

Do you believe in God?

His omnipotence and us having free will are not mutually exclusive.

Irrelevant. Since you've capitalized god, that tends to indicate a monotheistic line of thinking. I'll invite you to debate the critical logic failure in all monotheistic religions I'm aware of in the thread about that failure. And which I've covered fairly well there, I think.

If you don't, then you have only evolution and survival of the fittest to blame for what you apparently think is a bad situation (being a slave to our instincts).

Who said it was a bad thing? Us not having free will is neither good nor bad, it simply is. And is impossible for us to change. All we can do is let the amazing programming within our brains cope with this realization to the best of its abilities.

I'm not sure where you heard otherwise.

Probably from the same place you heard me say "Since we have instincts, we have no free will."

Again, though, if you wish to argue the religious aspect of free will, start with my arguments about the critical logic failure. Once those are debunked (and I've yet to find a way they can be), I'll entertain arguments that state something similar to "We have free will because God says so."

[Flyndaran]

What makes up a person? Nature, nurture, and chance. For free will to exist there must be a separate outside aspect of humanity divorced from the physical world yet able to influence it.
So unless you believe in souls, there is no logical reason to believe in free will.

[Slytovhand]

Yeah - there are a couple of holes in the arguments presented.

Though in general I follow the logic, there are some assumptions thrown in for good measure.

Firstly...

Do you believe in God? If you don't, then you have only evolution and survival of the fittest

Nope - there are a couple of other possibilities. Even if you do believe in 'God', it depends on exactly how 'God' is defined. Usually in such topics, they use Anslem's God - which is the standard Omniscient, Omnipotent and All Good. (yep - all with capitals too )

But that's a fairly Judeo-Christian version.

There are other variants of god in existence... including the one that created everything (such as via a Big Bang) and sodded off and left everything to fend for itself.

I'm a pagan... what's been presented here doesn't have much to do with my perspectives on things... Nor would it to a Hindu (Brahma is a god - the head of the gods!!).

Next...

The brain is responsible for all decision making processes....
Any idea of free will relies on the brain being able to make a choice independently of outside influence.

Massive jumps in assumptions there!

As Flyn pointed out, this presumes you have no place for a soul!

But let's also throw something else into the pit without bringing in such metaphysical concepts.

There's a philosopher out there (forgot his name) who came up with the idea of 'qualia' to explain 'redness' (as an example). 'Red' is a frequency of light. 'Redness' is our perception of it. It's not just that our rods and cones detect that frequency (yep - I know it's only 1 of them... not bothered with researching tonight...). But that doesn't say anything about how we actually 'experience' that red. There's a quality to 'red' that just doesn't get said by saying 220 Hz (or so...). This quality he called 'qualia', and it's non-physical.

This was a dualistic version of the mind, first espoused by Plato... (well, again, probably not, but he's credited as a big 'father' of it...).

if you wish to argue the religious aspect of free will,

As per my other comments at the beginning... only (as you point out) the monotheistic versions...


Umm - done... (sorry if it comes off crappy.. I did a 9 /2 hour shift today, and back here at work tonight for another 8 hrs).

Slyt

[MystyGlyttyr]

Eh. Either I do or I don't. And if I don't, I can't tell the difference because it doesn't change how my life is being lived. Whether it's my brain or my mind or me or God or whatever telling me to eat or to jump in the middle of some big asshole, it still happens, regardless. If it walks, talks, looks, and sounds like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

So to me, whether it exists or not is irrelevant, because it SEEMS to exist, therefore, my reality is that it does. Your reality may vary.

[Pedersen]

Yeah - there are a couple of holes in the arguments presented.

That's not a surprise, not to me. I view these sorts of questions as times I can find out if my logic holds water. If it doesn't, I can patch it or discard it, as needed.

These are good thought exercises for me, at the very least.

There are other variants of god in existence... including the one that created everything (such as via a Big Bang) and sodded off and left everything to fend for itself.

The majority of people who frequent this board tend to have religious beliefs best represented by the Judeo-Christian style belief systems. As a result, I wanted to head off those arguments before opening up this one.

So, fewer assumptions than you think. Part of why I asked people to debunk that one first if that was their belief system.

Massive jumps in assumptions there!

As Flyn pointed out, this presumes you have no place for a soul!

Hmm, it does remove a possibility of a soul. Then again, I'm not certain I believe in such a thing. So, let's modify it a bit:

Anything that exists in this universe is affected by other things that exist in this universe. If the soul exists and is part of this universe, then it functions according to the laws of the way this universe functions. As a result, it, too, will be incapable of acting independently of everything else, which means that it, too, cannot have free will.

Alternatively, the soul exists, but is not a part of this universe, but still manages to maintain a connection of some sort to the body in this universe. That connection, then, is subject to these same laws, which removes at least some capacity for free will, if not all of it (since the soul cannot override the laws of the universe unless it, too, is god).

Of course, that relies on the existence of a soul which is not actually in this universe. Once you will make that sort of assumption, you might as well start calling the tooth fairy and Santa Claus too, true, since they could exist outside this universe and just interact with it through mystical and unprovable connection, thereby granting money for teeth and toys for good girls and boys.

There's a philosopher out there (forgot his name) who came up with the idea of 'qualia' to explain 'redness' (as an example). 'Red' is a frequency of light. 'Redness' is our perception of it. It's not just that our rods and cones detect that frequency (yep - I know it's only 1 of them... not bothered with researching tonight...). But that doesn't say anything about how we actually 'experience' that red. There's a quality to 'red' that just doesn't get said by saying 220 Hz (or so...). This quality he called 'qualia', and it's non-physical.

Thought of that, actually, a long time ago. Getting true telepathy would make for some fascinating insights into human perception, I think. However, all of those perceptions are still going to be governed by the laws of this universe. This means that your perception of red will still be dictated by the way that subatomic particles and waves interact within your eyes, resulting in the creation of various electrical signals in your brain, which finally results in the programming that exists in your brain stating "I see red now".

The "qualia" is a useful concept, and I'm glad for the word. But I don't really see how it affects my fundamental statement that we have no free will. Our own unique perceptions don't actually get altered by it. If anything, our choices are directed by the qualia of our perceptions, which tends to reinforce the lack of free will concept, at least to me.

Umm - done... (sorry if it comes off crappy.. I did a 9 /2 hour shift today, and back here at work tonight for another 8 hrs).

What? You only did 17 1/2 hours over a day and a half, and you dare to whine and give a half-assed answer? What a slacker

[Slytovhand]

couple of things come to mind... as I read this while also supposed to be working

A) - fair enough about limiting to J-C religions... makes life easier But... it does then halt a stack of argument, which is not exactly relevant to the discussion. The debate is on free-will in general, not free will in a Judeo-Christianic universe.

B) - you sort of assume you understand how the universe actually works with all of it's laws. Is it not possible that there are things 'outside' this universe that cannot be directly affected by it, but are able to affect things 'inside' it??

C) - qualia wasn't about free will - it was about a non-physical mind. And if there is a non-physical mind, it affects the assumptions based on the brain and thoughts.


D) - well, since I was awake a 5am or so yesterday, and it's now 3:45am... that 17 1/2 hours is more over 1 day (granted, crossing 2 days... only had about 5 hours between 1 job and the other... oh - didn't throw in the 2 hours stuck in peak hour traffic!!!! Not happy, Jan!

[Pedersen]

couple of things come to mind... as I read this while also supposed to be working

And slacking off more at work. With only 17.5 hours in 24. Man, such a whiner!

A) - fair enough about limiting to J-C religions... makes life easier But... it does then halt a stack of argument, which is not exactly relevant to the discussion. The debate is on free-will in general, not free will in a Judeo-Christianic universe.

Ah, somewhere I've miscommunicated. I'm pointing out the critical logic failure thread for anybody who tries to use the "I have free will because God says I do". If your religion does not have that particular failure, I'd be delighted to hear about it, and debate the existence of free will. Just be prepared for me to use the secular world in my side of the debate.

B) - you sort of assume you understand how the universe actually works with all of it's laws. Is it not possible that there are things 'outside' this universe that cannot be directly affected by it, but are able to affect things 'inside' it??

No, I do not assume to know the laws, except to know that they exist, and that anything inside this universe is subject to them. The exact nature of those laws is not, actually, important or interesting (with one possible exception I will mention in a moment), simply because the laws govern the interaction of everything in the universe. Therefore, if we are things that exist in this universe, we are subject to the laws of this universe.

If there is a component that exists outside of this universe, then that component exists under one of two conditions:

1. That component is not in any way bound by the laws of this universe in how it interacts with other members of this universe. This gives it the ability to break various physical laws at will. By any definition I am aware of, this results in that component being, on some level, a god.

2. That component is bound, at least in part, by the laws of this universe. This removes its ability to act independently of this universe, which also necessitates the lack of free will.

Oh, that exception I mentioned? If there is a law that states something similar to "The other laws are upheld except for the conditions in a human brain, in which case anything that happens there can happen independently of the rest of the universe." The existence of such a law would seem to be disproven by the fact that head trauma can cause severe personality changes.

C) - qualia wasn't about free will - it was about a non-physical mind. And if there is a non-physical mind, it affects the assumptions based on the brain and thoughts.

Not so much, really. In part because I'm stating that I don't believe in the existence of a non-physical mind. All of the evidence I've seen in this world points to the mind being a purely physical entity.

Consider the personality changes that can come from severe head trauma or various medications (both legal and illegal).Consider that some drugs can be used to control behavior, even to the point of preventing it (for instance, OCD can sometimes be controlled with medication, as can depression, bi-polar disorder, the list goes on). If the mind has a non-physical component, shouldn't those drugs fail to affect it?

D) - well, since I was awake a 5am or so yesterday, and it's now 3:45am... that 17 1/2 hours is more over 1 day (granted, crossing 2 days... only had about 5 hours between 1 job and the other... oh - didn't throw in the 2 hours stuck in peak hour traffic!!!! Not happy, Jan!

Bah. You make it sound like you're having to do too much work. Personally, I think you're just whinging, and need to get back to work! (we really need a tongue in cheek icon here somewhere)

[Slytovhand]

Personally, I think you're just whinging,

yeah - but I'm a nice guy...

[Kusanagi]

From a religious standpoint -

God or gods may know what I'm going to do before I do it, but I do not, therefore I have free will.

From a non religious standpoint -

Two people in identical circumstances can make different choices. How many times have you made up your mind on a spur of the moment decision that shocks even you? Therefore, I have free will.

[Pedersen]

God or gods may know what I'm going to do before I do it, but I do not, therefore I have free will.

Which quite neatly ignores the entire rest of the argument. The individual's ignorance of future choices is irrelevant when the choices are forced upon you by an outside force. I've gone over it lots in this thread, and request that you re-read what I've said.

If God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the all-creator, then we cannot have free will, no matter how much we would like to believe otherwise.

Two people in identical circumstances can make different choices. How many times have you made up your mind on a spur of the moment decision that shocks even you? Therefore, I have free will.

Except for a couple of minor details:

1. It is not possible for two people to be in precisely identical circumstances (subatomic version). We are each composed of many particles, each of which combines to produce larger and larger structures until we see human beings. Each of those particles is capable of moving in a different way. Furthermore, we exist on a ball of particles that is moving through space at high speed. The long and the short of this is that, in order two people to be in precisely identical circumstances, the matter that composes these two people would have to occupy the same points in space time, and furthermore, they would have to doing the exact same things (moving in the exact same directions, at the exact same speeds, etc).
   
   Ergo, it is not possible for two people to be in precisely identical circumstances. That covers the subatomic version of it.
2. It is not possible for two people to be in precisely identical circumstances (non-subatomic version). Two people have unique experiences while growing up. Even twins, raised in the same household, will have their own experiences while growing up. These subtle variations during this time can have long ranging impacts on future decisions.
   
   This results in different interpretations of the same circumstances, which can result in radically different resulting actions. If they were in identical circumstances, they would have had identical backgrounds (which we have already established is impossible), and this would result in the same decisions being made.
3. Your statement about making decisions that surprise myself is true. I've done it, and I know others have as well. However, this only lends credence to the lack of free will arguments. After all, if you have free will, then all decisions would be made and understood by you. You would know why you chose to do something. Instead, many people do not know the source of their actions, they just do them.

All of that combines to say: Free will does not exist.

I want to be proven wrong, I really do. But these arguments don't do it.

[Kusanagi]

From the religious aspect, it doesn't ignore anything. I have read the other threads you posted, and there have been plenty of biblical and theological scholars that have debated this point. As your beliefs are yours and my beliefs are mine. I am Christian, so I would be describing this from a Biblical standpoint. I do not know enough about the beliefs of other religions well enough to be able to make an arguement based on their own belief systems, however.

1) God is Omnipotent
2) God is Onmipresent
3) God is Omniscient

The main points of your argument are this:
God knows what we're going to do before we do it, therefore we don't have free will.
If God DOESN'T know what we're going to do before we do it, he is not omnisceint and therefore, not God.

These would be true, unless of course you assume that God is no longer maintaining and active role in His creation (a point I can't believe nobody brought up.)

People claim acts of God all the time which may or may not be chance, as it's up to individuals to decide for themselves. There are definately a few events in my own life that fit that category. However, from a Biblical perspective, with the exception of a few instances listed in the Bible, the last "hands-on" approach that would have drastically altered His creation would have been the Flood and there will not be another until Revelations occurs.

That's the strictly Biblical view on it, which opens up a while new series of debate outsite the scope of this discussion.

If God has adopted a hands-off approach and let his creation and all within it proceed naturally, (which would coincide with Theistic Evolution) free will DOES exist because God is letting things run the course. Even if he knows what's going to happen before it happens, it doesn't mean that he is directly influencing our own decisions on the level that most free will dissidents believe.

I will concede that this falls into the "illusion" of free will concept, but once again, using religious methods, the existance of free will cannot be proven or disproven.

However, you must acknowledge if you accept the idea of God or gods, they by their nature would have processes that defy logic and would forever be beyond human understanding. This is where the faith element comes into play, and this is common across ALL religions, not just Christianity. His answer to the free will question may just be beyond the understanding until such a time as He decides to reveal it to us, if ever.

As for the scientific parts of your arguement, all three do just as much to prove the existance of free will as it does to prove the case against it.

At the current time, there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existance of free will because the idea of free will being part of a programming ingrained in our minds, therefore making it predictible, is only a theory and not one that will be proven in our lifetimes. Now, this may change in the future as computing power and scientific processes become more defined, but this will not happen until the first true AI is concieved, if that ever happens.

Due to the laws of scientific method, the arguements you give in those points are not indicative of the lack of free will because it is a principal that cannot be tested. You will never be able to duplicate a single set of circumstances at an atomic level, or any other level for that matter. Once again, in the future this may change, but only after leaps in advancement in artificial intelligence and modelling using quantum mechanics that make the Genome project look like a kindergarden cutout. In short far beyond what will be achieved while we are alive.

Since the scientific method cannot be used to prove or disprove free will in this case, as of this point in time it's a matter of opinion wether it exists or not. You have stated that you believe free will doesn't exist. I have stated I believe it does. Looking at religious arguements and scientific ones, we both see evidence for our lines of thinking.

Wether it's the result of God influencing me to have Taco Bell for lunch or a system of eons that have shaped my thought process to be craving a Volcano Taco right now, to me it doesn't matter.

Except I'm hungry.

[Pedersen]

From the religious aspect, it doesn't ignore anything.

Actually, you are ignoring the very definitions of the words being chosen. I have covered this particular topic over in this thread.

I'd love for those points to be refuted. They haven't been. And simply stating

These would be true, unless of course you assume that God is no longer maintaining and active role in His creation (a point I can't believe nobody brought up.)

or:

If God has adopted a hands-off approach and let his creation and all within it proceed naturally, (which would coincide with Theistic Evolution) free will DOES exist because God is letting things run the course. Even if he knows what's going to happen before it happens, it doesn't mean that he is directly influencing our own decisions on the level that most free will dissidents believe.

does not refute the points I made over there. Even better:

However, you must acknowledge if you accept the idea of God or gods, they by their nature would have processes that defy logic and would forever be beyond human understanding.

That simply goes for the "mysterious ways" argument. Go see the other thread for my own debunking of it. Again, refute my points. I'll be glad to accept an actual refutation. But "mysterious ways" is a cop out for "I'm trying to defend the indefensible, and I know it, so I'll just claim that God has the answer."

As for the scientific parts of your arguement, all three do just as much to prove the existance of free will as it does to prove the case against it.

Ah, very well, let me provide some actual research for you to ponder: URL=http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB121450609076407973.html]The brain reaches a decision up to 10 seconds before our consciousness becomes aware of it.[/URL] For starters. And that's the first one I could remember. More research is coming out right now that backs up the notion that free will is non-existant. If you'd like, I'll find more.

Wether it's the result of God influencing me to have Taco Bell for lunch or a system of eons that have shaped my thought process to be craving a Volcano Taco right now, to me it doesn't matter.

Except I'm hungry.

Man, for that alone I'd be pissed at whatever god there might be. Then again, I really don't like Taco Bell food

[Slytovhand]

hmmm.... we're back to this argument again.... Sorry - I should have responded earlier.

I've got to agree with Pedersen on some of the arguments presented. "God's maintaining an active role" doesn't come into it at all. God is either omniscient, or not. It is Pedersen's argument that omniscience runs contrary to free will, as if it's known, there is no way out of it. Doesn't matter if he's hanging around and actively involved in the running of the universe or not. I'd actually say, that if God was taking an active role in the universe still, it would indicate a lack of omniscience, and gives more credence to free will (otherwise - why intervene???)


Now, Pedersen..."mysterious ways"... bleh! What's wrong with "God does stuff that we'll never understand"??? Makes perfect sense to me! After all, that's pretty much part of the definition of divinity, isn't it??? So, saying it's a cop-out is just as much a cop-out if you can't prove it!

Also, AI will never prove free-will (or lack thereof). Why would it?? Just because you can point to specific programming or electronic processes, doesn't automatically mean you've found freewill (or it's lack). That would be assuming that 'free-will' is a physical thing (back to what is the 'mind' argument).


I haven't tried Taco Bell.... (next thread - does the Devil truly exist? )