Does Free Will Exist?

[DrT]

This confuses "random" with "we don't know". They are, most definitely, not the same thing. Consider, for example, a plane crash. At the time of the crash, we don't know the root cause of it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be random. It's only after investigation that we are able to find out the cause, and only then that we discover that it wasn't random.

random: cannot be predicted.

you may want to assume that everything can be put into mathematical equations and predicted. But do not forget: these math your are using will be based on assumptions.

there is always a marging of error in science. Those ignoring it paid enough of a price for it.

Since randomness is the source of free will, doesn't that mean that free will itself is random? And doesn't that mean that, instead of free willed beings, or programmed automatons, that we are just randomly moving through our lives, bouncing off one another?

you want me to disagree with the randomness of life ?
I won't. A great many unfathomable things happened in my life for me to disagree with that.

we are free willed being moving randomly through our lives. Able to steer our boats on the river of life to a certain extend, but never really able to take it exactly where we want to.

[Slytovhand]

Edit: was typing up when Ped posted....



Ah.. but that's still working on a human 21st century understanding of things... which is where the whole argument about free will came in the first time (which is why we've conveniently bypassed anything esoteric).

If you were 'God', would you know the exact position and speed of those subatomic particles? How about how light actually works?? That's the sort of level of predictability we're looking at - and why. Not so much can we determine it, but is it knowable.

So - sure, your engineers may not know why - but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it.. and that reason is ascertainable.

[Pedersen]

because it went there

Indeed it did. And I didn't go far enough, my bad. I think XKCD describes it extremely well.

did you just say that subatomic particles and waves are not random ? light is a particle AND a wave, but can't be both at the same time. When is it one or the other ? when it suits the observer.

Actually, from research that I've read, the general opinion is leaning towards them not being random. Rather, what appears to be random is controlled by mechanisms we do not yet understand. That is a very far cry from random.

position of electrons are not set. We know the areas where they PROBABLY are, within a certain interval of confidence...

This is due to limitations in the devices that can measure these things, not due to inherent randomness in their position.

even engineers talk in 'interval of confidence'. you won't find one that will tell you: there's a hundred percent chance this bridge will hold. They'll tell you that it's safe within the safest marging or error.
there's always a random chance than, well, it will fall and they won't know why.

This confuses "random" with "we don't know". They are, most definitely, not the same thing. Consider, for example, a plane crash. At the time of the crash, we don't know the root cause of it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be random. It's only after investigation that we are able to find out the cause, and only then that we discover that it wasn't random.

I'll stand with my random, thank you very much ;p

You're more than welcome to be as wrong as you wish

Seriously, though, more and more research is showing that less and less is actually random. Although, here's something else for you to ponder:

Since randomness is the source of free will, doesn't that mean that free will itself is random? And doesn't that mean that, instead of free willed beings, or programmed automatons, that we are just randomly moving through our lives, bouncing off one another?

[DrT]

Why are we talking 'biology' (or not, as the case may be?? )

because it went there

Either way, doesn't it go deeper than mere neurons? Down to actual atomic and subatomic particles and waves... stuff that isn't random?

did you just say that subatomic particles and waves are not random ? light is a particle AND a wave, but can't be both at the same time. When is it one or the other ? when it suits the observer.

position of electrons are not set. We know the areas where they PROBABLY are, within a certain interval of confidence...

And no, DrT, I don't agree with the use of the word 'random'... unexplained. Unpredictable to current sciences. etc. But truly random.. nope - don't buy that! Not when, our wonderful little bunch of scientists are able to calculate so much with physics out there in the stars (or, at least, getting closer and closer to calculating).
The only thing (at the moment) that is considered 'random' is at the level of quantum mechanics... and even that they're thinking it isn't truly random - but follows rules and laws we haven't ascertained yet.

Well, no actually.

very soon as you start doing physics to a certain level, you multiply assumptions, and work on proability, interval of confidence, etc. Random is put aside and encased into these, and ignored otherwise nothing would get done.

even engineers talk in 'interval of confidence'. you won't find one that will tell you: there's a hundred percent chance this bridge will hold. They'll tell you that it's safe within the safest marging or error.
there's always a random chance than, well, it will fall and they won't know why.


I'll stand with my random, thank you very much ;p

[Slytovhand]

Why are we talking 'biology' (or not, as the case may be?? )

I thought the argument was theological? (or was that the other thread??)

Either way, doesn't it go deeper than mere neurons? Down to actual atomic and subatomic particles and waves... stuff that isn't random?

And no, DrT, I don't agree with the use of the word 'random'... unexplained. Unpredictable to current sciences. etc. But truly random.. nope - don't buy that! Not when, our wonderful little bunch of scientists are able to calculate so much with physics out there in the stars (or, at least, getting closer and closer to calculating).

The only thing (at the moment) that is considered 'random' is at the level of quantum mechanics... and even that they're thinking it isn't truly random - but follows rules and laws we haven't ascertained yet.

Question - was the state of the universe (size, shape, duration, etc) determined before the Big Bang?

Answer that, and you get closer to the 'Free Will' argument.

[DrT]

So, yes, biology makes the choices.

calling it biology gives the illusion of an outside entity. it's like saying the computer doesn't do the calculation, electronic does.

Unfortunately, genetically identical in a multicellular organism is impossible for a number of reasons.

it doesn't change my argument, so let's put this aside for now

However, let us assume (for the sake of argument) that it actually is possible. That, somehow, we have two genuinely identical dogs. If such is possible, and if the dogs have been identical since birth, and if the dogs have had 100% identical experiences throughout their lives (none of which is actually possible, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is), if everything about these dogs lives and physical makeup is actually genuinely identical, then they will respond identically to the same input.

That is your assumption. You will not be able to prove it, neither will I be able to prove the opposite to its full extend.
There is not room in your reasoning for randomness. I'll bring that up later.

Try it from a different angle: By our understandings, the brain is responsible for decision making. Any decision that occurs is solely subject to the brain. as a result, if we have two genuinely identical brains, and give them the same criteria for a decision, then the electrical impulses that we eventually perceive to be a decision will follow the same pathways and provide the same result. Unless, of course, you are stating that the free will portion of the brain actually exists outside the brain? And, if so, I have to ask: Does it float nearby, or does it go off on its own on occasion?

you're oversimplifying the workings of a brain, and thus missing the aspect that actually governs the free decision.

Let's look at decision making as a network of interacting neural loops, talking to each other.
That's you, weighing the several possibility for your actions.

One neural loop will finally take over and you'll make a choice.
You tell me that this taking over can be predestined, I will infer it cannot.

1-these are not 2 loops, or 10, but millions. They are all subjected to random impulses from other parts of the neural system, and in a body they are also subjected to signals from the endocrine system (blood). Thus one need to account for random change in the networks.
Unless you can predict randomness (and I invite you to Vega), then you can't predict the decision that will be taken.

2-one good example to back up my randomness argument: inovation.
how, in a network that is set, can you have innovation. We are talking today through a medium that was absolutely uninimaginable 50 years ago. How can it be possible, in a set neural network kind of life ?
These are random inputs. Whether or not the neural network accepts, dismisses, builds on these random inputs give it free will.

Actually, a great deal is known about the function of the brain. Not all of it is known, but a lot of it is. And the more we learn, the more it looks like the brain is very much just a very powerful neural network.

Wrong.
A great deal is known about neurons.
Network of neurons ? well, no.
Check the work done in Australia on the 'rat brain'. This actually a bunch of rat neurons in a petri dish, that can somewhat learn (at least within the definition of the experiment). The scientists in charge of that experiment, and their competitors, will not be able to explain to your how it learns.
They can tell you how to make it learn faster or slower, maybe. but giving you a model of exactly how ? No.
Neither can they predestine the decision making of that bunch of cells, because they can't predict random impulses.

So if they can't figure out cells in a flat petri dish, they're clueless in front of a highly hierarchic, fractal, neural network like the brain.

[Pedersen]

biology makes the decision for us ? Biology is the science of the living. How can that make decisions?

define:biology: characteristic life processes and phenomena of living organisms; "the biology of viruses"

So, yes, biology makes the choices.

Nah, I dismiss a little study done on a little sample of humans that got published in a little journal
I'm talking experimental animals, genetically identical.

Unfortunately, genetically identical in a multicellular organism is impossible for a number of reasons.

First, cell death. We are unable to control when individual cells die in an organism. As a result, two animals which are clones of each other will have different cellular life/death cycles. This will result in small, subtle differences throughout the body. These small differences can easily result in changes in the neural pathways of the brain. For these purposes, I'm only discussing post birth.

Second, pre birth: The cellular division can (and will) result in differences that we cannot see, and sometimes that we can see, even in cloned animals.

It is impossible to have a pair of multicellular organisms be completely identical.

However, let us assume (for the sake of argument) that it actually is possible. That, somehow, we have two genuinely identical dogs. If such is possible, and if the dogs have been identical since birth, and if the dogs have had 100% identical experiences throughout their lives (none of which is actually possible, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is), if everything about these dogs lives and physical makeup is actually genuinely identical, then they will respond identically to the same input.

Try it from a different angle: By our understandings, the brain is responsible for decision making. Any decision that occurs is solely subject to the brain. As a result, if we have two genuinely identical brains, and give them the same criteria for a decision, then the electrical impulses that we eventually perceive to be a decision will follow the same pathways and provide the same result. Unless, of course, you are stating that the free will portion of the brain actually exists outside the brain? And, if so, I have to ask: Does it float nearby, or does it go off on its own on occasion?

Computer neuronal network do not have an automatic feedback loop. they do not question their decisions without an outside input making them question it.

Neural Networks: Unsupervised learning In unsupervised learning we are given some data x, and a cost function which is to be minimized which can be any function of x and the network's output, f. The cost function is determined by the task formulation. Most applications fall within the domain of estimation problems such as statistical modeling, compression, filtering, blind source separation and clustering.

Whether or not they have automated feedback loops depends on how they are built.

Now, let's face it Pedersen: neither you nor I know how the brain works.
Not a scientist in the world does.

Actually, a great deal is known about the function of the brain. Not all of it is known, but a lot of it is. And the more we learn, the more it looks like the brain is very much just a very powerful neural network.

[DrT]

And it's before we actually have our first thoughts. In order for our brain to have a thought, the brain must exist. In order for the brain to exist, the first neural pathways must already be laid down. So, no, we don't make ourselves. Biology makes us. And biology is what makes our decisions for us.

Woa.
biology makes the decision for us ? Biology is the science of the living. How can that make decisions?
don't drop words like that, would ya ?
But you refer to the biological programming, hence the neuronal network. see below.

Which neatly ignores one little fact: Identical twins are not identical at the genetic level.

Nah, I dismiss a little study done on a little sample of humans that got published in a little journal
I'm talking experimental animals, genetically identical.

Look very far inside. They wound up having different perceptions of the same experiences because at a cellular level they are different. Their neural pathways were formed differently from the beginning. This resulted in them experiencing identical events in a different fashion, which results in them being individuals that act differently to the same stimulus.

I agree: their neuronal pathways are different, because they formed differently. you infer that this change was done by an outside influence. I'm saying this changes comes from within, idenpendantly of outside influence.

Unfortunately, no. Not unless computers which use neural networks and thus change their behavior in response to differing inputs are classified as having free will.

Computer neuronal network do not have an automatic feedback loop. they do not question their decisions without an outside input making them question it.

Humans, and high animals, are wired in such a way that the decision is questionned whether or not outside inputs changed.


Now, let's face it Pedersen: neither you nor I know how the brain works.
Not a scientist in the world does.
You are basing your absence of free will theory on the assumtion that the brain is a data processing machine which workings can be defined and set.
This is not the case.
It processes data, but the output is not predictable (as I said, two identical subjects will not reprogram themselves at the same speed). there's always a variation, that remains unexplained.

Through the same fact, though, my opinion cannot be proved. I personnaly tend to believe that the plasticity of the brain lies within: the neurons in a network can reinvent themselves. one neuronal network will question the relevance of another, which in turn can question the first. This loop is inside, and gives us free will.

[Pedersen]

Who programmed it? ie: who made the neuronal pathways that we will follow to arrive at a decision.
They weren't made before we were concieved. Two twins (ie: same genetic makup, same deck of card to start with) will have different though processes. If the programming (neuronal pathway) was not made before we were concieved, then it's after.

And it's before we actually have our first thoughts. In order for our brain to have a thought, the brain must exist. In order for the brain to exist, the first neural pathways must already be laid down. So, no, we don't make ourselves. Biology makes us. And biology is what makes our decisions for us.

-Plasticity: our mind is plastic. The neuronal pathways in our brain are not set.

You are correct. Computer programs have a similar concept available to them called a "neural net", which strengthens some pathways and weakens others. I doubt you're saying that those programs have free will, though.

Then, take two dogs.
Twins.

Which neatly ignores one little fact: Identical twins are not identical at the genetic level.

Why? How can their programming be different is the outside influence was identical? Look inside.

Look very far inside. They wound up having different perceptions of the same experiences because at a cellular level they are different. Their neural pathways were formed differently from the beginning. This resulted in them experiencing identical events in a different fashion, which results in them being individuals that act differently to the same stimulus.

If I can reprogram myself, don't I have free will?

Unfortunately, no. Not unless computers which use neural networks and thus change their behavior in response to differing inputs are classified as having free will.

[DrT]

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.

Well, lesse if I can go against the moist robot argument:
- you infer we are following a programming. Who programmed it? ie: who made the neuronal pathways that we will follow to arrive at a decision.
They weren't made before we were concieved. Two twins (ie: same genetic makup, same deck of card to start with) will have different though processes. If the programming (neuronal pathway) was not made before we were concieved, then it's after. What has influence on these pathways? The pathways themselves (us, our senses, etc). Outside influence is coded through our perception of it, hence our pathways. These pathways can ignore this or that signal from the outside, because they were formed that way, by themselves.
We made ourselves.

How? By our own decisions. Consciously or not, we made them.

If we made ourselves, through decisions that did not involve any outside influence, we have free will.

-Plasticity: our mind is plastic. The neuronal pathways in our brain are not set. It is felt as a change of mind, and it is the fruit of a feedback loop in our brain which can alter the decision process because of outside parameters, but more importantly BY ITSELF.
No, I won't dig the paper out of the net. I probably don't suscribe to the journals they are published in.

But here's an example: Pavlov's dog.
1- a dog in a cage. A sound is made (S), shortly after food is brough (F). In response to food, the dog salivates (SL). Completely unconscious reaction (this is important, because you take away the possibility of the subject faking it).
S -> F -> SL
2- after a few times, a sound is made, and salivation happens. without the food. Dog learned that sounds means food, so he cut the middle man
S -> SL.

So far the robot hypothesis holds. One can program such as learning algorythm.

Now, continue the experiment:
3- after a while, as the sound is emitted but the food keeps on not showing, salivation stops.
How?
Well, the neuronal pathways dissociated the food from the sound, so solivation didn't happen.
So, who did the reprogramming? Itself. The neuronal pathway is able to change, by itself.

Now that does attack the robot hypothesis, but one can still say that the brain is programmed to ignore the sound if after a given time the food doesn't come.

Then, take two dogs.
Twins. Lived in identical cages their whole life. Same environment. Same feeding time. Everything.
repeat experiment. Measure the time it takes for them to dissociate sound from food (ie: stop salivating in response to sound).

It won't be the same lengh of time.

Why? How can their programming be different is the outside influence was identical? Look inside. Throughout their lives, their pathways got programmed differently as they took different decisions, consciously or not.


If I can reprogram myself, don't I have free will?

[Slytovhand]

OH... OK.....

[Pedersen]

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!

Nothing's wrong with it per se, until it becomes used as a cop-out. Saying "Using the words we've made up as a people makes illogical things happen, but I still believe those illogical things. Therefore, it's God moving in mysterious ways" is a total cop-out.

Saying "I do believe in God, and I believe God has a plan. I don't understand that plan, though. Therefore, God moves in mysterious ways" is markedly different.

One indicates issues with logic, and the other indicates statements of belief. Hence, my cop-out remarks.

[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? )

[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

[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.