Does Free Will Exist?

[DrT]

Oh - DrT..
Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

Err, no.

It was five pages of slight disgressions, a lot of misreading, plenty of time passed on taking appart the form arguments instead of focusing on their meaning, and plenty of 'if the rules of physics come into the process, there can be no free will'

and that last statement is still unexplained. We still don't know how the rules of a game supress all your liberties inside that game.

Well, you can make the argument that since there are rules (ie: things that cannot be done) then free will can't exist (ie: some decisions will simply not fit with reality). It's the allegory (or is it metaphor) of the prison that Pedersen formulated elsewhere.
However:
- you can still make the decision of doing something unrealistic. It won't work, but you were still free to try
-saying that the presence of rules denies the existence of free will goes further: it denies the existence of freedom itself.
-the fact that freedom in the game is denied by the rules of the game only applies if you can't leave the game. can't we can leave the universe/deny the grip the lwas of physics have on us ? at will ? isn't the door to the prison open ? Is that still a prison, then ? What keeps us inside the prison, if not ourselves ? Doesn't that mean were are free to chose to stay or go ? free, you said ?

That seems a more interresting discussion than the consequences of misreading and word-jumping.

[Slytovhand]

Oh - DrT..

Originally Posted by Slytovhand View Post
True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.
It's an empty presumption, with no argument backing it. How can you disprove empty ? It's the reason I ask Petersen to back it up, because right now it doesn't make enough sense to warrant any consideration.

Damn - my bad!! Actually, Laws of Universe and incompatibility with Free Will was argued, backed up, and that's why we're on page 5. It's not a presumption - it's a conclusion seeking counter. Certainly, it's packed full of stuff, rather than being 'empty'.

[Slytovhand]

Hey Ped.

I'll just throw in 2 cents...1c -

is that the "I" includes all of the physical pieces that make up a body

I won't go with that... you cut off a finger, aren't you still your 'self'? (yeah, I know, asking a question isn't a form of valid argument..) Or are you implying that everytime you lose a hair, or shed some skin, or cut off a nail, you are literally losing a piece of yourself? I was thinking that when you brought up something similar in MGM (not Metro Goldwyn Mayer, btw...)


2c -

Souls have free will.

still leaves us with the original problem - just moves it out of the boundaries of our understanding...

Thanks for the physics clarification. I wasn't exampling 'violations', but the point (as you succinctly put it) "but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables." My bad on the bad science

I presume I don't need to go through my argument anymore then??? Granted, I didn't say anything that either requires the notion of free will (just stating an initial proposition), though it leads on to the next argument for 'encouragement'... but, given you've basically stated it (a little differently to how I would), is there much point to continue??


ETA: 'Random' - Speaking of that... technicality - just because something doesn't have a 'purpose', doesn't mean that it doesn't have either a 'cause' or 'lacks order or predictability'... And if something does have a purpose, it would entail one of the other 3 (I'm thinking... sort of wracking brain to find counter-examples...)

[Pedersen]

There is a book by the physicist Evan Harris Walker called "The Physics of Consciousness" that deals with free will and neuroscience, how the brain makes decisions, and the nature of consciousness.

Thanks Boozy. It's now on my list of books to find/read.

Firstly, I wasn't thinking about all laws applying equally. So, there are 'laws' in place which dictate which other laws apply how strongly and where (for wants of better words). We already know this to be true - time isn't always 1 second/second - gravity affects it. Black Holes throw a real dent in the birthday parties one expects.

Actually, time is is always 1 second/second, so far as we can tell. What you are thinking of is the frame of reference phenomenon, where time will appear to pass at different rates to different observers depending on their location and speed relative to other phenomena. So, while you're right, I had to nitpick at that, primarily because it can affect other arguments you present.

Our mathematicians have 'proven' the existence of multiple dimensions, and I believe that various physicists are using those proofs to prove String Theory. So, our universe is still one great big pile of massively unknown phenomenon that we humans are gaping at like infants at a mobile... So it's not a matter of 'violating' the laws, but being in a different relation to the ones that we have a certain relationship with.

I will admit that it is possible that certain laws will affect you differently depending on other factors. For instance, the black hole thing you mentioned is not so much about gravity as it is about acceleration.

Diversion from the main topic here, and I apologize: What happens with a black hole, to the best of our understanding, is that the matter that comprises the black hole is so densely packed that not even light can escape the vicinity of the black hole. However, obviously light still exists, so there is a point past which the gravitational pull of the black hole has weakened enough that light is able to escape. This location is called the event horizon. In order for a matter to cross the event horizon, it must be moving at the speed of light.

Very closely related: The faster an object moves, the slower time passes for it relative to other objects. The closer the velocity is to the speed of light, the slower time passes for all matter moving at that velocity. Furtheremore, the closer to the speed of light, the more massive the object becomes. The more massive the object becomes, the more energy that is required to accelerate the object. This results in a minor issue: It is impossible to accelerate matter to the speed of light, since to do so would require infinite energy. However, it's possible to accelerate it to very very close.

And the point of all this? For matter at that velocity, we would perceive time moving very slowly inside of that matter, while it moves normally to us. The laws are not violated, but they do seem to affect objects differently depending on other variables.

Now returning to the regularly scheduled thread

And since you asked the question, very quickly... 'we' have a 'soul'. We aren't really the soul, cos there's lots we're cut off from, or not aware of (obviously), but it 'resides' in an area (for want of a better word) outside of time and space. It, for whatever reason, drops 'spirits' down to the various bits of the multiverse - in different times, dimensions, places - presumedly to gain XP and go up a level...(well - to learn directly instead of merely indirectly... because...well.... because... why do people go climb mountains???) These 'spirits' are a better term for 'us', and they are the 'us' that can drop bodies and experience multiple physical lifetimes worth of experiences.

This actually isn't totally out there. I've thought similar things in the past, but not in quite those terms. More like "The universe broke itself into a thousand million little pieces, each of which was sent to learn something about itself. We are the universe, still learning." So, not as far out there as you might have thought.

Why don't we remember?--SNIP--

Actually, pretty coherent for a bunch of mystic mumbo-jumbo crap

Seriously, it is a fairly coherent thought, and seems to hold well together. But, I'll be honest, I see nothing in there that requires (or even encourages) the notion of free will.

Now, Pedersen, I have to ask you a question. It's been asked before, but not quite answered. What is this 'I' that is spoken of in this thread?? The self?? Is it merely a physical construct from the workings of the brain - so the brain and mind are one and the same? Are they different fish? Does the brain have anything to do with the self at all??

Actually, I'm not quite sure. The simplest definition, and the only one I can feel 100% comfortable in saying is true, is that the "I" includes all of the physical pieces that make up a body, including the brain. It might include more, but I don't know. And I, personally, am not convinced it does.

As I stated, it was probably my fault for not expressing my argument right, nevertheless let's get finished:

Yes, let's. Since your entry into this particular debate, the single best contributions you have been able to make have required other people saying "Look, what you're describing is impossible, but just so you'll stop parroting these same ideas over and over, we'll pretend they can happen and would you please get on with it already?"

Quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to argue something logical with someone who insists on using repetition to back his position, even when he is shown (repeatedly) that what he is repeating is either logically or physically impossible. Then when the argument is dismantled line by line, he claims that I misread what he typed.

So, yes, I agree, let's get finished.

-you jumped from 'new idea are activated through random event' to 'decisions are random'. That was wrong: a decision may include an idea generated randomly, that doesn't make the whole process random.

Except for the simple fact that by your own definitions and descriptions of the process, any idea that can make it into the conscious brain can only come from these random processes. As a result, the brain ... oh hell, you know what? I really am tired of it.

Here, I'll give it to you on a silver platter. I realized this this afternoon. A method does exist whereby free will can exist, does not violate the laws of physics, and even allows for some variety of spirituality. I realized it thanks to Slyt, actually, who managed to bring souls back into this debate (not that I necessarily agree with it, but I can not prove this method false).

Here's that method:

• Souls exist.
• Souls have free will.
• Since they have that free will, they must be able to decide independently of anything in our universe. Therefore, they must exist outside of it.
• Since they exist outside of it, they must have some connection to our universe, to be able to direct our bodies to act according to their decisions.
• That connection, on the side of the universe that holds our bodies, is subject to the laws of physics.
• The souls would be unable to start an electron moving, or stop it. What they could do is control the seemingly random motion of the subatomic particles. Not stopping it or starting it, just altering the direction the particles take. Since this motion is, at this time, believed to be random, it is entirely possible that some outside force is controlling it.

There, you have it on a silver platter. Provided you believe the first two premises, the rest follow easily.

I was going to wait a few days to see if somebody else figured it out. But, as I said, I've hit my endurance level. Carrying both sides of the debate is a very draining experience.

[DrT]

As I stated, it was probably my fault for not expressing my argument right, nevertheless let's get finished:
-you jumped from 'new idea are activated through random event' to 'decisions are random'. That was wrong: a decision may include an idea generated randomly, that doesn't make the whole process random.

-fractal indeed is a bad idea, thus let simply state that a decision is reached through the interaction of a large quantities of decisional loops, treating different inputs through different channels. these channels ironed through experience. To these lets add the randomly generated ones.

The conscious mind review these loops, or actually: reviews the ones that the inconscious mind deems appropriatly important for the conscious mind to care about. As an idea, hence a series of loop, gains importance, it is travelled more frequently (ie: in the mass of ideas, there's a few that you lilke the most: you discard the others, focus on these, review them more (loop more) and once a loop reached critical mass, it takes precedence over the others.
The critical mass is aquired by reviewing that loop the most.

-the 'why not' thing as not being random.... A new idea was born through that random even, since it's new you can't figure out a reason to do it, you do it.

Random electron firing: tis the background noise of the EEG.

True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.

It's an empty presumption, with no argument backing it. How can you disprove empty ? It's the reason I ask Petersen to back it up, because right now it doesn't make enough sense to warrant any consideration.

[Pedersen]

no. that is not what I wrote.

It distresses me that I have to help out your arguments by stating things like "For the sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct, and blah happens" and then, after doing that, I have to explain your argument to you, it really does.

So, let's examine what, exactly, you wrote (again):

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain.

In this sentence, the word "random" is used as an adjective. It is, therefore, modifying the word "activation". The definition of random is "a lack of order, purpose, cause, or predictability" (from Wikipedia). Activation is used as a noun, in this sentence. Activation is defined as "the execution of an operation" (from McGraw-Hill). "of decision loops" is a prepositional phrase. In this sentence, it used to state what is being randomly activated. "within the brain" is a prepositional phrase as well, and is stating the location of the random activations. "new" is an adjective modifying "ideas/concept", which is the subject. "are created" is the verb.

Therefore, in this sentence, you have very clearly, using the accepted rules of the English language, stated the beginning of your supposition. Namely, that through a process which lacks order, cause, purpose, or predictability, the execution of the operation of decision making is commenced. Furthermore, since you did not modify "ideas/concept" with the word "some", you are making the statement that all "new ideas/concept" are processed through the "random activation of decision loops within the brain".

This also means that any new idea must go through the same process. If I have the idea to write my new idea down, it must, therefore, have gone through the random activation process.

So yes, that is very much what you said. If it is not what you meant, then please clarify. Ah, I see you did:

I said that in the mess that is the decision making process, which is not a loop, but a combinaison of a multiple loop (think fractal), some loops will be activated at random: ideas and concetps will be linked in way that were unfathomable and random (or not undertood yet, if that pleases you). some loops.


No.
Again, it's not what I wrote.
Though random loops are indeed created and add to the decision process, the conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them.

Ah, I'm sorry, you didn't. You've now added in the qualifier "some" to "loops". Since that was never in dispute, that does not truly help your position. I also see that now you are choosing to add in the idea of "fractal loops". Changing your terms is acceptable, since I see this as refining your position. Telling me that I have misread your argument after changing your terms, though, is not.

Oh, and something else to ponder: Fractal is probably not a very good choice to add to your position. Fractal indicates something which is self-similar, regardless of the level of detail. This means you can zoom in on it infinitely, and always see something that has very similar appearance and structure.

And, finally, we have a disturbing hole in the remaining bit of your "clarification": "The conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them". Above, you have posited that the decision making processors are randomly activated, which asserts that the conscious mind has no control over their actual activation. You have also provided no potential mechanism for their operation (not even logically) that would allow the rational agent in question control over them. All of this combines to prevent the rational agent from having the ability to possess free will. It is, instead, enslaved to random activation of decision making processors and their (opaque) operations.

Since the rest of your argument is based on your misreading of my argument (it may be my fault, I may not have expressed myself properly, hopefully this clarification helped) I'll stop there.

Actually, I would have to posit that your position was misstated, not misread. In fact, you can now even say "woops, that was bad, let me try again" and start from scratch. I'm flexible like that.

The main point here is that since some of our decisions are the fruit of ideas created in an unfathomable and random fashion, and that we are free to act upon them or not (at random, or not, I may after all decide to do something on the simple premise of 'why not?' and that's pretty close to random), we have free will.

"Why not?" is as far from random as you can get. "Why not" indicates that you have no reason not to do something, which means you have given it thought. That makes it deliberate, which is quite definitely the antithesis of random.

To Boozy/Slyt: I'll respond to you guys in a bit. Got to get out and do errands. So, to accept a challenge: Just quickly, cause I'm not at work

[Slytovhand]

I know what Ped is going to say, so I'll just jump in and say it now...

firstly, Dr T, what precisely is your definition of the word 'random'? Because it quite clearly isn't the one that Pedersen or I are using, as we've both pointed out (a few times).

actually, you have yet to prove that 'physics rules the universe' and 'free will' are incompatible.

True, but it is a presumption that has been thrashed out, and yet to be disproved, nor even effectively countered.. hence why this thread is now on page 5.

@Boozy - cool! I'd imagine there have been further publications on it, but it would be interesting reading (if brain-wracking...). I'd also be thinking it would be pretty damn hard to prove 'random electrong firings' in a working brain... certainly not with today's technology. I'm interested, though, in "doesn't come to any conclusions" - does it make counter arguments?

[Boozy]

There is a book by the physicist Evan Harris Walker called "The Physics of Consciousness" that deals with free will and neuroscience, how the brain makes decisions, and the nature of consciousness.

Neuro-physics is still a science in its infancy. Currently there exists a theory that random electron firings affect decision-making in the brain, but this is far from proven. The book makes a good case for it, but doesn't come to any conclusions.

Edited to add: I finally managed to find the book in my library. The publication date is 2000, and this is the last thing I've read on the subject. I felt I should add the caveat that my information is not up-to-date.

[DrT]

Since we seem to agree on the majority of physics, I'm going to let that go, and instead focus on the "logical" argument you present.

actually, you have yet to prove that 'physics rules the universe' and 'free will' are incompatible. I would think that is important, since it's the concept you're basing your entire argument on

Okay, so now the brain has decision loops. If we analyze this terminology choice, we find that the brain has at least two places responsible for all decision making. And these places are run in loops. Now, something running in a loop tends to run the same way each time. Breaking out of any given loop is a central theme of quite a few stories. So, it's reasonable to assume that the loops in the brain fit the "classical" definition of loops, and will provide the same output each time they are run. However, I'll be generous, and assume that by "decision loop" you mean "decision making processors", which take available inputs, perform some work on them, and produce some output.

more or less, with one important point: it's able to feedback on it's latest output an modify the decision process the next time around according to the new data.

Now, you are asserting that those decision making loops are activated at random.

no. that is not what I wrote.

I said that in the mess that is the decision making process, which is not a loop, but a combinaison of a multiple loop (think fractal), some loops will be activated at random: ideas and concetps will be linked in way that were unfathomable and random (or not undertood yet, if that pleases you). some loops.

So, now the rational agent will be subjected to random joinings of random ideas due to action on a subatomic level. The rational agent is unable to choose which ideas to explore next. Instead, random action governs what it will ponder next. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

No.
Again, it's not what I wrote.
Though random loops are indeed created and add to the decision process, the conscious mind may or may not accept to act upon them.

Since the rest of your argument is based on your misreading of my argument (it may be my fault, I may not have expressed myself properly, hopefully this clarification helped) I'll stop there.

The main point here is that since some of our decisions are the fruit of ideas created in an unfathomable and random fashion, and that we are free to act upon them or not (at random, or not, I may after all decide to do something on the simple premise of 'why not?' and that's pretty close to random), we have free will.

[Slytovhand]

Just quickly cos I'm not at work (Ha! I challenge anyone else to use that line!! )

Firstly, I wasn't thinking about all laws applying equally. So, there are 'laws' in place which dictate which other laws apply how strongly and where (for wants of better words). We already know this to be true - time isn't always 1 second/second - gravity affects it. Black Holes throw a real dent in the birthday parties one expects.

Our mathematicians have 'proven' the existence of multiple dimensions, and I believe that various physicists are using those proofs to prove String Theory. So, our universe is still one great big pile of massively unknown phenomenon that we humans are gaping at like infants at a mobile... So it's not a matter of 'violating' the laws, but being in a different relation to the ones that we have a certain relationship with.


And since you asked the question, very quickly... 'we' have a 'soul'. We aren't really the soul, cos there's lots we're cut off from, or not aware of (obviously), but it 'resides' in an area (for want of a better word) outside of time and space. It, for whatever reason, drops 'spirits' down to the various bits of the multiverse - in different times, dimensions, places - presumedly to gain XP and go up a level...(well - to learn directly instead of merely indirectly... because...well.... because... why do people go climb mountains???) These 'spirits' are a better term for 'us', and they are the 'us' that can drop bodies and experience multiple physical lifetimes worth of experiences.

Why don't we remember? Well, there are a couple of answers for this. Firstly, it's the spirit doing the reincarnating, not the soul, so we don't get to synchronise with the mother ship and download all available data - it wouldn't be worth it... for the second reason. Secondly, in order to experience something as a human, you must experience it solely as a human. You can't do the "what's it like to be a bird?" while still thinking those human thoughts. You can't really find out what it's like to be a prisoner while knowing that you can step out that door anytime you want. Although, having tasted freedom, you can appreciate what imprisonment is really like... which is why the spirit will recall some information. We humans have really strange tendencies. Some are really obvious to see the cause of, others not so. Why do some people have phobias for no apparent reason? Or interesting feelings towards people and places? Or particular habits?? And why, for such people as myself, have certain things going through the head that fall into the category of 'memory'?? Some do get past life recall. But the death process is pretty harsh for most who become attached to the physical body (given #2 above). So too is the birth process. But... there are techniques which one can do which can help in general, and one of the end results of doing those techniques past life recall vastly better - because it confronts the things in us that 'we' want to forget. Humans are very good at trying to forget things. So good, it's become automatic!!


Now, Pedersen, I have to ask you a question. It's been asked before, but not quite answered. What is this 'I' that is spoken of in this thread?? The self?? Is it merely a physical construct from the workings of the brain - so the brain and mind are one and the same? Are they different fish? Does the brain have anything to do with the self at all??

[Pedersen]

Since we seem to agree on the majority of physics, I'm going to let that go, and instead focus on the "logical" argument you present.

Sure.
New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain.

Okay, so now the brain has decision loops. If we analyze this terminology choice, we find that the brain has at least two places responsible for all decision making. And these places are run in loops. Now, something running in a loop tends to run the same way each time. Breaking out of any given loop is a central theme of quite a few stories. So, it's reasonable to assume that the loops in the brain fit the "classical" definition of loops, and will provide the same output each time they are run. However, I'll be generous, and assume that by "decision loop" you mean "decision making processors", which take available inputs, perform some work on them, and produce some output.

Now, you are asserting that those decision making loops are activated at random. Since they are random, the rational agent (i.e.: the self) is unable to choose which decision making processor will handle making the decision, thereby removing a fairly critical aspect of the decision making process, and thereby reducing the level of "free will" that is even possible.

All of this ignores the nature of the decision making processors, though. These are items that are not under the conscious control of the rational agent. As such, the decision making processor must act without the oversight of the rational agent. Again, this limits the amount of free will that is even possible.

For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

So, now the rational agent will be subjected to random joinings of random ideas due to action on a subatomic level. The rational agent is unable to choose which ideas to explore next. Instead, random action governs what it will ponder next. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

You will thus be faced with novel ideas (the marriage of known concepts in a pattern you never considered before), and the only thing that will keep you from chosing to accept them, act upon them, write them down, is you. you are free.

Actually, by your own statements above, the only thing preventing me from acting on them is the random action at the subatomic level. If the random action does not provide me with the idea to write the idea down, then I am unable to contemplate that idea. Again, reduction in the amount of free will possible.

Since this all process happens within you brain/body complex, and is integrated to the environment's stimuli, the only this remaining to chose this or that pattern of though is your conscious mind.

As it turns out, though, thanks to the random action and random ideas that occur, it seems that the conscious mind is quite unable to do anything on its own other than wait for the right random subatomic motion to allow it to conceive of doing something.

With all the reductions in even the possible amounts of free will that come about as a result of your argument, it sounds more like we have no free will, as opposed to actually having it.

I'd have to say that your "logical proof" only serves to strengthen my position on the lack of free will, not weaken it.

I'm thinking that once again, someone here is using the term 'random' to mean 'we don't understand it yet'.

No, Slyt, I decided to pretend for a bit, and state that, for the sake of his argument, truly random does exist. Not just "we can't measure it", but genuinely, truly, random. I think you'll see it didn't really help his case very much.

And Ped and I have both asked the question which has yet to be touched on (other than in 'simplistic' terms) - what about true AI?

I've read and re-read this thread about four times now, and I can't find it. I'm pretty sure that I saw DrT state that, since the entire mechanism would be known and understood, then even a true AI would not have free will. Since I can't find it, I can't prove it, though.

Pedersen, a question (and that's all it is at this moment in time...). Do you think it's possible for other parts of the universe to not be affected by all of the laws that we are, but are bound by other laws. And, while doing so, are able to interact with this part of it? If we take this as a premise, would that mean that any entity (or whatever may be defined as one) be able to have free will, or is just as limited as ourselves?...5:34 am, at work... not thinking )

I've never been to other parts of the universe, so I can't speak with any degree of certainty, unfortunately. However, I do believe that the actual laws of phsyics hold across the universe (not our understanding of those laws, since I think we've got a lot of things wrong that we will find out about eventually), but the actual laws? Yes, I believe they hold across the universe.

As such, I believe that any entity which interacts with our universe must be limited by those laws. And if an entity were to find ways to violate some of those laws, I think things would get very ugly very quickly.

Time Lord souls?? Well, no TARDIS, no Daleks, and no companions... but yes, I can see a place for it, and it serves... though obviously with qualification. But I can appreciate that non-believers would see me as a total and utter looney

Nah, just having a different set of spiritual beliefs. Of course, I now have to ask: Your beliefs seem to allow souls to move through space and time at will. Are they actually attached to our bodies then? Or does the body function for a while without the soul? Furthermore, does this mean that we should be able to remember things from the past?

[Slytovhand]

what what what what what?????

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

Now, I admit, after reading this, I thought to myself "maybe I have a misunderstood on the word 'random'", so I did a google:define. And guess what... nothing came up that I didn't really expect. (well, ok, stuff on bands and all... oh, and the sheared carpet...)

I'm thinking that once again, someone here is using the term 'random' to mean 'we don't understand it yet'.

No, the brain doesn't do 'random activation of decision loops'. Otherwise, pretty much everyone would be insane. Just imagine where those thought processes would lead us if they were truly random. Common sense truly wouldn't be common - it would be random.

There is quite clearly a pattern involved. There is some basis behind the firing of neurons, and some specific reason as to what will go where. Humans are complex little beings, so it makes psychology pretty much a pain in the butt (but only cos that's where a lot of ppl keep their sense). But that doesn't mean we and our psyches are random.

And Ped and I have both asked the question which has yet to be touched on (other than in 'simplistic' terms) - what about true AI?

New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).

I thought that was because of our experience and our genetics?? And genetics is how the brain started out (or is that in debate??) and our experience is now 'randomly' imprinted into the brain.

Which does bring us back to the question I asked but was brushed aside as being an 'enormity'... at what point do we get free will? When we have 1 cell in the womb? A brain? A fully-formed brain? When we start to think? When we start to experience? When we can interpret that experience? Because... at one point or another, the brain hasn't existed except in potential. It is genetics (which is determined by genetics. And thus, we can (perhaps will, but I'm not holding my breath) figure out just how those experiences get imprinted into the brain. Since the 'mind' and 'us' is now being defined as a purely physical construct, and that 'me' is made up of genetics and experiences, which then brings it down to genetics and genetics - because it is those genetics which will define not only how the brain is made, but how the brain will be made...and changed. This is part of the rules that you have to play by.

Free will being a function of the brain?? That's only by your definition, and only because you are choosing to define it that way.

Sub-atomics?? I seriously doubt that they are truly 'random'... just another example of "we don't know, probably won't".

Weather?? Meh, I'm betting we get that one in the next 50 years... if not 20.

Pedersen, a question (and that's all it is at this moment in time...). Do you think it's possible for other parts of the universe to not be affected by all of the laws that we are, but are bound by other laws. And, while doing so, are able to interact with this part of it? If we take this as a premise, would that mean that any entity (or whatever may be defined as one) be able to have free will, or is just as limited as ourselves?...5:34 am, at work... not thinking )

Next, yes, I am thinking that most of our science is going to be re-written Well, certainly a nice chunk of physics might get a bit of a kick. But then, how was the science of sociology prior to humanity walking this earth??

Time Lord souls?? Well, no TARDIS, no Daleks, and no companions... but yes, I can see a place for it, and it serves... though obviously with qualification. But I can appreciate that non-believers would see me as a total and utter looney

Ooh... dropping that hot coffee into my lap was predestined since the beginning of time...cool

Oh, and I'd say free will entered the universe when we did - but 'we' isn't merely a physical body!

What, you have rotating shifts... sucky! I have standard times, just all graveyards.

[DrT]

Simple: The laws of physics governs everything, from the smallest sub-atomic particle up through the the largest structures, everything that can be found in this universe is governed by it.
Free will requires that you are able to choose. Everything in the universe works in a pre-defined way. You are unable to make a choice to do anything unless physics allows it to happen.

True, if I decide to fly away in the sun, I can't.

But if I decide to go left instead of right, neither choice is influenced by physics.
It's like in any game: you have rules. you're able to do what you want within these rules, but not get out of them.
the decisions you take, as long as they stay within these rules, are free.
That is free will.
You may call it something else, in order to take into account the fact that it is restricted to the rules of physics, but nevertheless the only thing deciding which keyboard key to type, right now, is me. And only me.

That's not saying that physics has a conscious mind: It's saying that if, in order for you to make a choice, this one specific sub-atomic particle has to go left at this precise instant, and it goes right, you are not able to make the choice.

Indeed, if I take a bullet to the head, physics say I can't use the neurons that just got shattered...
change of rules, but is it really change in free will ? Tis like changing the game you play.... you're still free to do whatever within that new game.

I think you seem to consider free will as the ability to do anything, absolutely anything.
That may not be that. You still have to be within the realm of reality and obey it's rules (y'know, stuff falls down, air doesn't conduct electricity, women are evil...) I spose for you it means you're not free to chose.

Two points here.
First, you are again conflating two concepts. This time, you are conflating "random" with "we don't know".

Fair enough. I'd allow we don't know if it's really random

I mean on a conceptual/logical level. Random action beyond the control of the conscious mind is your argument that free will exists. Show me a series of logical steps that would allow the existence of free will using random motion, and don't forget to include the effect of the laws of physics in your proof.
Go.

Sure.
New Ideas/concept are created through random activation of decision loops within the brain. For a reason yet unknow, as you think about something (ie: activate several neuronal loops within your brain), orther patterns will shoot up and join the mess, at random (cause the electron was here instead of there).
You will thus be faced with novel ideas (the marriage of known concepts in a pattern you never considered before), and the only thing that will keep you from chosing to accept them, act upon them, write them down, is you. you are free.
Since this all process happens within you brain/body complex, and is integrated to the environment's stimuli, the only this remaining to chose this or that pattern of though is your conscious mind.

[Pedersen]

Ok, let's say there are set principles by which the universe is governed are set. Fair enough.
How is that contradictory to free will ?

Simple: The laws of physics governs everything, from the smallest sub-atomic particle up through the the largest structures, everything that can be found in this universe is governed by it.

Free will requires that you are able to choose. Everything in the universe works in a pre-defined way. You are unable to make a choice to do anything unless physics allows it to happen. That's not saying that physics has a conscious mind: It's saying that if, in order for you to make a choice, this one specific sub-atomic particle has to go left at this precise instant, and it goes right, you are not able to make the choice.

But do we know what favored the apparition of these factors ? And the factoors at their source? Pretty sure that if we gathered the brain power to dig deep enough, it would boil down to 'this electron went that way instead of this way, and I have no clue why it did that, it could have been both ways and there is no way to figure out the outcome'. Or something along those lines.
And that is random.

Two points here.

First, you are again conflating two concepts. This time, you are conflating "random" with "we don't know".

An excellent example of this would be reproduction. Go far enough backwards in history, and you will find that humanity did not understand that a sperm had to fertilize an egg. As far as people could determine, a woman getting pregnant after having sex with a guy was a random event. One way of expressing this would be "We don't know why some women get pregnant after sex and others do not." I think you'll agree that, by now, we very clearly understand that it is not a random occurrence.

Now, the same applies to many other fields of study. We have a great many things where we have to say "We don't know, and we don't even know how to know." That does not make them random. It just makes them unmeasurable to us at this time. There is a very large gap between those two concepts, and it would behoove you to stop conflating them.

Oh, that second point? I'll accede to the idea that random motion at the sub-atomic level exists. Not just that we don't know how to measure it, but that it's actually random. Here's your challenge from that point, though: Explain to me how it is logically possible that conscious choice can result from random action beyond the control of the conscious mind. No, I do not mean explain the physical mechanics, since neither of us has the background to either explain it, or necessarily understand the explanation presented.

I mean on a conceptual/logical level. Random action beyond the control of the conscious mind is your argument that free will exists. Show me a series of logical steps that would allow the existence of free will using random motion, and don't forget to include the effect of the laws of physics in your proof.

Go.

[DrT]

In other words, there is a part of your brain that is making the decisions for the conscious portion of your mind, and the more complex the decision, the more likely it is that you should go with the part that you are unaware of and unable to control, which does directly against the idea that you are actually in control (and, therefore, have free will)

At least according to that one person.
Actually, since I mistrust journalists talking about science ( a pet peeve of mine I spose), I went to the source instead
The studies mentionne din the article have little in common, if anything at all. I can send the materials, but I won't put them on the forum as it would be publishing (and I think that's a tad illegal). However I obtained them legally and I can share them through Email. I do recommand you to do that before reading the next part, however your can jump directly to the end about physics.

What it reveals, in my reading, is that:
-The Haynes study shown that a decision is encoded in the brain 10s before being sent to the motor neurons. In that experiment, it means that the subject decided to push the right or left button 10s before actually doing it (since they were faced with images flipping 2/s, I can't blame them), and that decision was taken about 12 s after the beginning of the experiment.
As far as awareness, I'm not sure. The person may have been aware of which button they'll push before actually deciding to do it, and it would all have been a conscious choice (I can put myself in the shoes of the student being tested and imagine doing just the same). Unfortunately there is no mention of that possibility in the paper.
-The Dijksterhuis study, as you may see from the discussions it started (the comments), is more vague and has nothign to do with brain waves. You may find out that following your gut instinct (which happens to be a conscious decision) is better than deliberating the option for a long time, I'd rather be prutend. No talk of free will anywhere there.

Here is the gravest factual error you make, so I must correct it: You are conflating two different concepts, and using that conflation to bolster a weak argument. The concepts are:

• The laws of physics.
• Our understanding of those laws.

Ok, let's say there are set principles by which the universe is governed are set. Fair enough.
How is that contradictory to free will ?
These principles, or rules, are not controlling entities. They're just rules. Like: I can't fly by just deciding to do so. I gotta play by the rules of gravity and invent a place that fucks gravity up the ass with bells on.
Gravity is not going to grow an arm and bring my plane back on the ground even if it's still working fine. gravity doesn't take decisions, it's just a rule, not a conscious being.

Playing by the rules is not the same as having your decisions taken by them. So enlighten me here.

I must correct you here. I never said these events were predictable. I said we knew that they were not random. There is an enormous difference between the two, as any mathematician, physicist, chemist, mechanic, etc, can tell you. Heck, we've got great examples just from computers, the most deterministic thing we know of!

ACtually, no.
We know how they happen, ie: we know which factors will favor their apparitions.
But do we know what favored the apparition of these factors ? And the factoors at their source? Pretty sure that if we gathered the brain power to dig deep enough, it would boil down to 'this electron went that way instead of this way, and I have no clue why it did that, it could have been both ways and there is no way to figure out the outcome'. Or something along those lines.
And that is random.