Does Free Will Exist?

[Pedersen]

But that Critical Logic Failure is theology... and doesn't help me a lot anyway.

Yep, and that's why I tried to point it out. To me, at least, that's a done debate. If someone wishes to tell me that God says they have free will, and that's why they do, then I'd be open to hearing it after they've read that thread. Pointing out the same thing 5 times over four threads gets tiresome, as I'm sure you will agree

But... Why?? Ok, we need a definition of 'outside', and 'universe'. One that doesn't also mean 'multiverse' though. Let me ask a weird question.. how many dimensions does this universe have? After that, the following question is - do all 'laws' of the universe function fully in parts of the universe?

The problem is: How do you define outside of something like the universe? I don't have a good way. What I can say is this: If you're inside this universe, you are going to have to play by the rules of this universe (commonly known as the laws of physics). Failure to abide by them would produce some interesting side effects. Not the least of which is that, if the object somehow did violate the laws of physics as we understand them, most of human science would need to be rewritten.

I personally believe in a soul/spirit. I also believe that time and space are not real issues for the soul - it can jump around to the when and where however it feels, thus not being subjected to the problems we have. Given those 'laws' (which, of course, may not be, and it just another thing we haven't worked out yet), it means that the soul would not be subject to them. But (and why I said that as I did, Ped), that just opens up a whole can of worms that's even harder to make assertions for. Given lack of evidence in the first place that qualifies as even 'proof' in a trial, what hope then to try and understand how it works??? I mean, if I can't convince you even of the first premise, how the hell am I going to get to number 2??

Okay, the "we have souls/spirits" part I'd let slide for the sake of having a debate about some of the consequences. But the jumping around in time/space? Our souls are all Time Lords? Not so sure I can buy that. It's also possible I misunderstood you, so please elaborate.

sort of like ghosts being able to move things, yet can travel through walls

Fair enough. But I have to point out that either they are part of this universe (and therefore subject to the laws that we don't fully understand), or they are not part of this universe. And if they are not, then their connection to things which are a part of this universe would have to be subject to them. If they're not subject to those laws, then they would have a mechanism for making things happen in this universe that allows the laws of this universe to be violated. See above about minor side effects of that

Oh - and back to brain vs free will... Pedersen, if the brain reaches it's decision 10 seconds before conscious awareness, and also if free will is defined as rational agent exercising control.... why do we sometimes do competely stupid things like 'randomly' bang our fist into our heads, and other sort of psychotic stuff like that?? Here, I'm getting into Jung and Freud etc, and all those things hidden away in the Sub-conscious - archetypes, and complexes and all of that psychiatric stuff.

How many explanations would you like? There is of course the simplistic (an electrical misfire in the nervous system causes a twitch or series of twitches that result in a person hitting their head), through the complex (the person doing it actually derives some pleasure from the pain, and is not getting sufficient pleasure from the world at the moment, so the brain decides to give itself what it wants, and causes the hit). Of course, there are a myriad of explanations in between.

So, I will ask - at what point did 'free will' enter into the universe? Does it take a particular level of complexity? Was it always there, just waiting to be used? Can a sufficiently complex robot or android be said to have free will? Is it limited to particular neural pathways - or did that amoeba way back near the beginning have free will as well? Is it thus based only on the setup of chemicals and the like??

And I will ask: Did it enter into the universe? Or do we merely have an illusion of free will?

(ok, getting tired now, and a bit more incoherent want sleep - but shouldn't cos it throws out my patterns...)

And someday, I'll get my sleep schedule set nicely. I'm jealous of you for that.

This study show that subconsious is faster than consious, at least on easy and fast decisions....
Does that mean the decision takes place outside ourselves, though ? tis still my brain, ain't it ?

And yet, it is demonstrably not your self-awareness that is making the choice. To provide an analogy, let's assume for a moment that a full-on AI has been built, and it's the AI that's making those choices. Would you then argue that the computer has free will, even though we can explain every single branch that was taken on the CPU that led to those choices?

Just like your bain can cut out sounds on its own, filter out inputs that were deemed irrelevant through the lense of experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation
It's likely it does the same things with decisions. Particularly when that decision is push a button or not. You'll be aware of the decision only when it will reache importance enouigh to be sent to the conscious part of yourself, but it's still you. Nothing outside of you.

Actually, I'd recommend re-reading that Wall Street Journal article. To quote:

Moreover, the more factors to be considered in a decision, the more likely the unconscious brain handled it all better, they reported in the peer-reviewed journal Science in 2006. "The idea that conscious deliberation before making a decision is always good is simply one of those illusions consciousness creates for us," Dr. Dijksterhuis said.

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)

If you take the definition of free will offered by Pederson (the ability of the self to influence its actions), then it's relatively easy to point out when this function was first seen: look at the animals and see which one was able to resist its instincts first.

Correction: I did not say "influence its actions", I said "control its actions". If all you can do is influence yourself, well, you're not really in control, are you? And, without that control, how much free will can you actually be said to have?

the laws of physics are not accurate. That's why there's actually more than one set of them (quantic, relativity, chaos, etc). Each set is limited to a particular area of observation, which must be defined and accepted before using a particular set of physic. An again: they are accurate to a certain degree of error.

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.

The laws of physics do not change, and are absolutely 100% precise in their operation. Our understanding of those laws, though, does change and improve over time. Our understanding is inaccurate, but getting better. Which is why I said "the laws of physics", not "our understanding of the laws of physics."

Most of the rest of what you said is based on this erroneous conflation of ideas, so I won't respond to it. That would be beating a very dead horse. With one minor exception:

Fact is: they can be predicted within a certain degree of accuracy. Because we know of conditions which 'favors' their apparitions. That doesn't mean all of them are predicted, or that the predictions are correct. Hell, look at the discrepency between the weather report and real life, would you ? Then consider all these events of nature that are supposedly quantified and understood, and how often the prediction is wrong.

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!

Consider this: Out there in the world wide web, it is certain that some websites will try to install spyware on your computer. It is also certain that some of those websites appear legitimate. And of all websites, you have no 100% reliable way of knowing if the one you are about to click on is legitimate or not. It's not random, but it is unpredictable at this time.

I hope that helps with making the distinction.

[DrT]

Actually, the evidence is being gathered that shows that free will does not exist. I'll repost a link to a study that shows the brain reaches a decision up to 10 seconds before our consciousness becomes aware of it. Other studies are out there showing the same thing. The proof is growing that, however much we may not like it, we actually do not have free will.

This study show that subconsious is faster than consious, at least on easy and fast decisions....
Does that mean the decision takes place outside ourselves, though ? tis still my brain, ain't it ?

I don't need to think about moving each group of muscle when I walk either, or when I breathe. But I can stop. At will.
Whether or not hte idea of it is formed before it reaches my conscious mind doesn't change the fact that it's my idea. From myself.

Free will is actually not that hard to define. Free will is the ability of a rational agent to exercise control over its actions and decisions. The question of whether or not we, as humans actually have that ability is the central point of my question..

So since I having control over the actions of breathing, does that prove I have free will ?

It's funny how you seem to want to dissociate the brain/body complex from the self. You tell me that since the brain/body complex takes the decision before I know it, I don't have free will.
But that complex, it's me. Henceforth: I know I'm going to make that decision, but I'm not aware of it yet. I let the basic function of my brain take care of that, because it's so frigging boring.

Just like your bain can cut out sounds on its own, filter out inputs that were deemed irrelevant through the lense of experience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habituation
It's likely it does the same things with decisions. Particularly when that decision is push a button or not. You'll be aware of the decision only when it will reache importance enouigh to be sent to the conscious part of yourself, but it's still you. Nothing outside of you.

It's just like this other enormity:

So, I will ask - at what point did 'free will' enter into the universe? Does it take a particular level of complexity? Was it always there, just waiting to be used? Can a sufficiently complex robot or android be said to have free will? Is it limited to particular neural pathways - or did that amoeba way back near the beginning have free will as well? Is it thus based only on the setup of chemicals and the like??

Free will, if it can be at all qualified, is a function. This question is about as meaningful as 'at what point did breathing come into the universe?'

If you take the definition of free will offered by Pederson (the ability of the self to influence its actions), then it's relatively easy to point out when this function was first seen: look at the animals and see which one was able to resist its instincts first.
That'll give you a brain complexicity threashold after which free will, in its simplest expression, can be found.

Now back to the basics, I spose:

And therein comes the fundamental question: The nature of that decisional machinery. Put all the fluff on top of it that you wish, but the final question is about the machinery itself. Is that machinery subject strictly to the laws of physics? If so, free will does not exist. If it is not, though, then free will is possible.

Really ?
Why ?
Because the laws of physics are accurate and thus will be able to accurately predict the workings of the machinery, ergo being able to predict the decision ?

well, a few points:
-the laws of physics are not accurate. That's why there's actually more than one set of them (quantic, relativity, chaos, etc). Each set is limited to a particular area of observation, which must be defined and accepted before using a particular set of physic. An again: they are accurate to a certain degree of error.
Look at the randomless events you point out:

that we have now understood enough to know they are not random: rainstorms, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and solar flares. There's lots more.

Well, I think you have to share this certitude with a ton of people at several agencies, because there had been some major issues lately with these 'not random' events.
Fact is: they can be predicted within a certain degree of accuracy. Because we know of conditions which 'favors' their apparitions. That doesn't mean all of them are predicted, or that the predictions are correct. Hell, look at the discrepency between the weather report and real life, would you ? Then consider all these events of nature that are supposedly quantified and understood, and how often the prediction is wrong.

in this vein:
-decision making is at its simplest expression a loop: I am able to consider my decision before I take it (unless it's such an unimportant one that I let my lower brain take charge of that, but anyway it will do the same thing, I just won't be aware of it).
Can the time at which this loop will end (the decision is taken) be determined accurately, and if so what is the marging of error ?
This marging of error will add up, as the loops add up (ie: the decision becomes more complex and requiers more inputs to be considered).
At the end, you end up with infinity, ergo the decision cannot be predicted.

So indeed, you might be able to predict with a certain degree of accuracy (was it 70% in the paper you mentionned?) that I will push a buttun at a certain time.
Just like I can predict with a certain degree of accuracy that the next time you will walk, your muscles are going to move in a certain order.

That is, unless you wish it not to be so.

The laws of the universe are not accurate, Pedersen. They are approximations we use to better understand our environment and make the best of it.
ergo the statement:
"Is that machinery subject strictly to the laws of physics? If so, free will does not exist."
Is just another simplification based on inaccurate presumptions.

[Slytovhand]

DrT... yep, I agree with you that separating brain and body is utter.... horsehikey??? (yeah, ummm, ok.... Can we get a working defintion of 'horsehikey'?? ) But, while there is support that the mind is in/part of/is the brain, that's all it is - support. I don't believe that's all there is to it, and I would suspect that there are many in the scientific (including neuroscience field) who would agree. Well, for that matter, I've seen them state this outright. Of course, that's just some.....

As a matter of fact is has everything to do with it. Since the brain/body complex is the support for the mind, and free will would be a function of said mind, not understanding the support means all definite conclusions drawn on free will are false on principle.

How do you get this?? We don't understand something, thus all conclusions by definition must be false?? It's not possible that we can draw an accurate conclusion (especially in this case, because there are only 2 options - true or false) just by taking a particular stance on it??? Or are you emphasising the 'definite' bit in there? Does X version of God exist? There's a massive lot of people currently alive who are correct.. and will always be correct, no matter how much it can't be - and possibly never will be - proven.

Besides, once again, we're not talking about humans (per se), but the structure of the universe as a whole (with 'humans' and 'free will' being part of a sub-set. Sort of like we're discussion theology or philosophy, not neuroscience).

It may be an over-simplification (neurons firing being logical), but it's also true (yeah, ok, for any given value of 'true' ). Yes, it massively more complicated than that, as a whole. But how did life start? A couple of molecules got together.... and kept having those get togethers... (which brings us back to 'free will'... I'll ask that in a tick..)

DrT, I'm curious as to what background you come from... psychology, psychiatry, neuorsci, or what? And thus, what grounds you argue here from. The 'innovation, etc' made me think of this. Oh, yes, of course I'll use over-simplifications... it's a fratching site, not American Journal of Science. Besides, I'm obviously not Professor X with a long list of letters after my name (well, not the "Professor X" bit ...). And I'm not sure that 'free will' would fall under any of those categories anyway... isn't it pure philosophy?

Sorry Pedersen...

But that Critical Logic Failure is theology... and doesn't help me a lot anyway.

But...

...in order for the soul to be immune from the physical laws of this universe it must exist outside of this universe.

Why?? Ok, we need a definition of 'outside', and 'universe'. One that doesn't also mean 'multiverse' though. Let me ask a weird question.. how many dimensions does this universe have? After that, the following question is - do all 'laws' of the universe function fully in parts of the universe?

I personally believe in a soul/spirit. I also believe that time and space are not real issues for the soul - it can jump around to the when and where however it feels, thus not being subjected to the problems we have. Given those 'laws' (which, of course, may not be, and it just another thing we haven't worked out yet), it means that the soul would not be subject to them. But (and why I said that as I did, Ped), that just opens up a whole can of worms that's even harder to make assertions for. Given lack of evidence in the first place that qualifies as even 'proof' in a trial, what hope then to try and understand how it works??? I mean, if I can't convince you even of the first premise, how the hell am I going to get to number 2??

That connection must be (at least in part) a piece of this universe, and is therefore subject to the same physical laws this universe has

...some of those same physical laws... or at least, what applies and what doesn't is already built into the basics.... we don't know what applies and what doesn't though... I'd say gravity isn't one of them. Electro-magnetics... thinking no again. (And, from that, if they aren't subject to those laws, but are able to influence them - sort of like ghosts being able to move things, yet can travel through walls - then perhaps they can move molecules in a brain..????)

The self?? Doesn't that just throw out my previous paragraph then??

Dragnets... and multiple universes and dimensions....


Oh - and back to brain vs free will... Pedersen, if the brain reaches it's decision 10 seconds before conscious awareness, and also if free will is defined as rational agent exercising control.... why do we sometimes do competely stupid things like 'randomly' bang our fist into our heads, and other sort of psychotic stuff like that?? Here, I'm getting into Jung and Freud etc, and all those things hidden away in the Sub-conscious - archetypes, and complexes and all of that psychiatric stuff.

Now - back to my ticks... life eventually evolved from a few molecules. We know this - it didn't have a lot of choice in the matter - cos before that there was only dust, space and energy. As it slowly evolved, it got more and more complex. On this planet, in recent history, a species evolved that seemed to be able to make decisions that were not merely based on stimulus/response mechanisms.

So, I will ask - at what point did 'free will' enter into the universe? Does it take a particular level of complexity? Was it always there, just waiting to be used? Can a sufficiently complex robot or android be said to have free will? Is it limited to particular neural pathways - or did that amoeba way back near the beginning have free will as well? Is it thus based only on the setup of chemicals and the like??

(ok, getting tired now, and a bit more incoherent want sleep - but shouldn't cos it throws out my patterns...)

[Pedersen]

A definition... yes, probably a good idea... Ped????

Free will is actually not that hard to define. Free will is the ability of a rational agent to exercise control over its actions and decisions. The question of whether or not we, as humans actually have that ability is the central point of my question.

Don't get me wrong, I have a belief in free will, it's just that Pedersen doesn't like my reasoning, so I'm keeping my arguments in this material universe... (unles otherwise dictated - eg 'qualia').

Slyt, I'm kinda disappointed, though I do understand what you're saying. Allow me to re-quote from my original post:

• 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.

I did not attempt to restrict this one to the materal universe, though I'm sure I've come across that way. It's only when the argument comes from someone whose religions encompasses those descriptors that I want people to not bother in this thread.

Before letting you cheer and jump in, I'll tell you my summation of how I feel right now, and then let you explain to me why I'm wrong

I'm not sure I believe in the soul, or an equivalent by a different name. However, I will admit that it could exist. If so, and if the soul is the cause of us having free will, then in order for the soul to be immune from the physical laws of this universe it must exist outside of this universe. From this, we can observe that the soul must, somehow, be connected to the physical body in this universe. That connection must be (at least in part) a piece of this universe, and is therefore subject to the same physical laws this universe has. I think that, through now, we are likely to be in agreement.

Now, if that connection will be governed by the same physical laws, then any information passing through that connection will also be governed by the same physical laws. The soul would find itself limited in the same ways the body is, due to having to deal with our laws of existence. With the same limits, it would be incapable of exerting free will.

As a matter of fact, you put it right: before defining the existence of free will, one definition lacks: the self.

Actually, the very simple definition of free will (which I quoted from wikipedia, if that helps at all) has no requirement that we have a definition of self. As such, since that's the definition I'm going with (the simplest I can find, I might add), I'm not going to cover the concept of self. I find it to be redundant for this discussion.

The inputs of my environment give the necessary data to take the decision, but the decisional machinery is within myself.

And therein comes the fundamental question: The nature of that decisional machinery. Put all the fluff on top of it that you wish, but the final question is about the machinery itself. Is that machinery subject strictly to the laws of physics? If so, free will does not exist. If it is not, though, then free will is possible.

Now, by all appearances, you are clinging to the idea that behavior at the subatomic level that is currently called random is sufficient to show that free will must exist. For me, the interesting part is that, over the millenia, we have found that things once thought to be random are anything but. Here's a short list of things that once were thought to be random, or controlled by the gods, that we have now understood enough to know they are not random: rainstorms, droughts, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, and solar flares. There's lots more.

As human knowledge expands, we find, more and more, that what we thought was random is actually very controlled. We have yet to learn how to predict happenings at the subatomic level, so we call them random. Considering that everything else appears to be governed by strict laws which dictate what will happen next, it seems rather foolhardy to claim that this one area, and only this one area of study, is truly random. Nothing else is, why should that area of study be?

You're making the mistake of seeing only half the problem:
There is no evidence that they don't exist, either.

Hence the rational answer is not to consider them unexistant, but to shelf the issue until further data is gathered

Unless you have a dragnet that is approximately 15 billion light years across and capable of catching objects down to the subatomic level, you will find it quite impossible to prove that something does not exist. Now, I have no proof that such a dragnet doesn't exist, but I can safely say that its characteristics make it extremely unlikely, with a level of certainty approaching that of mathematical proof. With that level of certainty, I will say that you don't have such a dragnet.

Of course, I could be wrong. But you will be the one claiming that such a net exists, and that you have it. It is now up to you to provide the proof.

True, our scientists don't understand how the brain works. That has nothing to do with the concept of free will. It doesn't matter if we understand or not. The universe isn't suddenly going to implode due to our lack of knowledge.

I had another discussion last night which went in a similar vein. We were debating whether or not someone could actually go past their limits. I still say no. And every time we think someone does go past their limits, it simply means we have failed to measure their limits accurately.

To explain using an analogy: Take a random glass from your kitchen. Fill it with water. Before you fill it, you don't know how much water can go into that glass. But you cannot put more water in than it can hold. That is its limit, its capacity. Just because you don't know the limit does not mean you are not governed by the limit.

Science is much the same way. We don't know everything about the universe, to be sure, but we are very much governed by the limits it places upon us.

This simplification is the reason of the overt use of shortcuts in this discussion. As I metaphored above, it's like saying a supercomputer is a pile of calculators processing 2+2.

Actually a supercomputer (regardless of the size), is even more basic than that it. It is nothing more than a pile of circuits which understand three things (at most): AND, NOT, OR. That's it. Absolutely everything that a computer does is boiled to those three operations. And it doesn't matter how big or how small the computer is. It just uses those three pieces.

The bottom line is that in light of the evidence gathered, no viable conclusion can be reached. More data needs to be input before the most likely answer can be drawn.

Actually, the evidence is being gathered that shows that free will does not exist. I'll repost a link to a study that shows the brain reaches a decision up to 10 seconds before our consciousness becomes aware of it. Other studies are out there showing the same thing. The proof is growing that, however much we may not like it, we actually do not have free will.

[DrT]

Question, DrT... are you equating the mind with the brain? I don't. The brain is in the physical universe, and as such, is forced to follow along physical principles. It's electro-chemical, so has to follow those little universal dictates.

In my book, the brain/body complex (because separating one from the other is utter horsehikey) is the physical support for the mind.

True, our scientists don't understand how the brain works. That has nothing to do with the concept of free will. It doesn't matter if we understand or not. The universe isn't suddenly going to implode due to our lack of knowledge.

As a matter of fact is has everything to do with it. Since the brain/body complex is the support for the mind, and free will would be a function of said mind, not understanding the support means all definite conclusions drawn on free will are false on principle.

And I mean the brain as a 'logical' engine to say that it has neural pathways which 'information' (ie, electrical impulses) go down. Certain impulses will go down certain pathways at certain times. For it to work, the impulse must go down the entire pathway. It can't just stop halfway and the job's already done.

This simplification is the reason of the overt use of shortcuts in this discussion. As I metaphored above, it's like saying a supercomputer is a pile of calculators processing 2+2.
It's so much more complicated than that, it gets ridiculous to make inferences and definite conclusions.

As for accounting for innovation, surprise or illogical behaviour - that actually falls back to "lack of evidence isn't proof against". In particular - I haven't tried to account for it. It's only been recently that it's been even suggested, as Pedersen and I have been looking at atomic and subatomic levels of explanation (or even non-physical.. but he won't budge on that ). So, if you really want an accounting, that I think we can do quite easily!

No, you can't, since you'll again use over simplifications.
It will sounds very good, but you'll simply get into the working of the calculators, not the supercomputer. Worse, you will use data gathered that doesn't allow definite conclusions, put only the most likely explanations, as our dabbling on electrons and atoms showed.

The bottom line is that in light of the evidence gathered, no viable conclusion can be reached. More data needs to be input before the most likely answer can be drawn.

Don't take it wrong, I enjoy talking about this, but we both stand on a pile of presumptions drawn from partially understood phenomena, and truly the only other way out of this (besides walking away until further data is brough) is to add more presumptions on top of the pile so that we don't fall on our faces.

[Slytovhand]

Question, DrT... are you equating the mind with the brain? I don't. The brain is in the physical universe, and as such, is forced to follow along physical principles. It's electro-chemical, so has to follow those little universal dictates.

True, our scientists don't understand how the brain works. That has nothing to do with the concept of free will. It doesn't matter if we understand or not. The universe isn't suddenly going to implode due to our lack of knowledge.

And I mean the brain as a 'logical' engine to say that it has neural pathways which 'information' (ie, electrical impulses) go down. Certain impulses will go down certain pathways at certain times. For it to work, the impulse must go down the entire pathway. It can't just stop halfway and the job's already done.

As for accounting for innovation, surprise or illogical behaviour - that actually falls back to "lack of evidence isn't proof against". In particular - I haven't tried to account for it. It's only been recently that it's been even suggested, as Pedersen and I have been looking at atomic and subatomic levels of explanation (or even non-physical.. but he won't budge on that ). So, if you really want an accounting, that I think we can do quite easily!

Btw.. who says I don't think we do have it??? I'm just throwing up arguments that Ped won't automatically invalidate

[DrT]

About as big a pile of presumption as you use, when comparing the brain with a computer. You simply take a big shortcut to say that the brain will be understood some day as a logical engine, I refuse to take that step. We are both weighing the argument with a ton of presumption as to the workings of the brain, no facts.

Taking your analogy with computer: what we know of the brain is like telling a savage that this tiny calulator will tell you the answer of 2+2 if you type it in, now look at this supercomputer (which is really just a pile of calculators, right?), see how the processor on the memory card warms up with I play this image, and this other area warm up while I play a sound, now tell me how it works.
The savage won't have a clue, so don't the scientists faced with the brain.

And regarding the human brain as a processing mechanism following the logical flow, tells that to a Vulcan.
This humorous parenthesis was aimed at the fact that neither of you can account for innovation, surprise, illogical behavior.

As I said above: can't prove it exists, can't prove it doesn't, simply because the facts are not sufficient to reach a viable conclusion. Until then you'll continue to think you don't have free will, I'll keep on saying I do, but neither of us will be proved right or wrong until that savage figures out how the computer works.

[Slytovhand]

Aren't you making just as big a pile of presumptions? It's easy to say that there are 'random' events happening, but as Ped has said a number of times, just because we don't understand the full mechanisms at this moment in time, doesn't mean that it is actually 'random' in the true sense of the word (rather than just 'unlikely' or 'less frequent' or even 'highly improbable'... or obviously 'not conforming to a set of regulated or defined patterns').

Let's face it, true 'random' is lotto balls (which, even then, isn't random anyway). And that's clearly not how the brain, or mind, works. We have input, and we have an ascertainable, logical output. Sometimes it comes up with some really weird stuff - but that's only in comparison to what we 'expect'. Since we can validly 'expect' something, then 'random' doesn't come into it...

Yes, we can compare the brain with a computer... maybe not the current generation of computers, but the analogy is still good. There are bits of wiring and all, and processors, and processes that follow logical flows. They both take input, grind through the metaphorical gears, and give output. That output isn't random, and our scientists are slowly getting to see exactly what paths are taken and how they interact. The lights go off, and the little needles wobble - and they can say that emotions get stimulated in the Hippocampus, while vision lights up the frontal lobe.

And sort of lastly... while you may use the term 'undefinable', for the purposes of this discussion, it needs definition...

[DrT]

If we are the sum of our experiences, it doesn't mean the experiences take the decisions for us.
It's our take on these experiences, mixed in with a little emotional background at the time of decision, and maybe that little grain of randomness in ourselves that does this. And is that not me ?

As a matter of fact, you put it right: before defining the existence of free will, one definition lacks: the self.

What am I ?
I am the sum of my experience and my genetic background. I also include a undefined quality, which allows me to add different observations and experiences into more than the simple addition of their value: I can innovate. Create new out of nothing. This is what got me down from mu tree all the way to the front of this computer desk.
The inputs of my environment give the necessary data to take the decision, but the decisional machinery is within myself.

You're making the mistake of trying to compare the brain to a computer. But a computer can only process 0 and 1, yes or no. A human will tell you maybe. or 3. or 42. As long as the process for this random generation of unfathomable answers is not understood, that ability for man (or animal actually since they also act in unfathomable ways) to innovate, you won't have that evidence you think you're possessing.

Fact is: the evidence is far from being complete, yet you make conclusions based on it. This is the best way to get it wrong.

There's no evidence that either of these things exist, so, rationally, I have no basis for believing in them other than the simple wishing they were true.

You're making the mistake of seeing only half the problem:
There is no evidence that they don't exist, either.

Hence the rational answer is not to consider them unexistant, but to shelf the issue until further data is gathered

[Flyndaran]

Hit the nail on the head there.
And looking at the wikipedia page, I think we're in for the long haul.

Me I tend to believe that the only thing keeping me from doing any action (material considerations aside) is myself. And since I can change my mind at will, and even convince myself to make that change in mind, have lil debate and everything in me noggin, without any outside intervention, I have free will.

Simplistic, yes, but efficient.

That assumes that your mind as it is today has nothing to do with your past. Unless you sprang fully formed from the ground, that assumption is incorrect.
You owe who you are, what you are, and how and what you think to your past environment, and genetics.
You say you choose to alter your plans. Your interpretation of the situation has no influence? Your ability to see a more beneficial action had no influence? Your childhood practice at forcing yourself to ignore the desires for immediate gratification for the greater benefit down the line had no infulence?

What made the choice? You and only you did? What is I made of? It is the illusion of sense of self that arises from the melding of numerous modules or parallel processors of the brain. This conglomeration is literally structured by your genetics and environment.

I like the illusion of free will just as much as anyone. But I like the illusion of a lot of things, that I still disbelieve based on the evidence at hand.

Not believing in an afterlife doesn't make me any less of the nice guy that I am. Not believing in free will doesn't make me any less human.

There's no evidence that either of these things exist, so, rationally, I have no basis for believing in them other than the simple wishing they were true.

[DrT]

I think a definition would clear up quite a bit of confusion I'm having with everyone's counter arguments for free will.

Hit the nail on the head there.
And looking at the wikipedia page, I think we're in for the long haul.

Me I tend to believe that the only thing keeping me from doing any action (material considerations aside) is myself. And since I can change my mind at will, and even convince myself to make that change in mind, have lil debate and everything in me noggin, without any outside intervention, I have free will.

Simplistic, yes, but efficient.

[Slytovhand]

A definition... yes, probably a good idea... Ped????

Don't get me wrong, I have a belief in free will, it's just that Pedersen doesn't like my reasoning, so I'm keeping my arguments in this material universe... (unles otherwise dictated - eg 'qualia').

[Flyndaran]

Interesting view there, Flyn..esp that free will assumes an outside force....

Also - yes, there is actual evidence for those other 3 things you mentioned - but evidence alone doesn't convict.

Aside from whatever you consider evidence rather than anectdotes...

What do you consider free will? What stops me from bludgeoning my girlfriend? I would say it's my biology and upbringing making it a non-issue. I'm inherently a non-violent person and was raised in a manner to enforce that nature.
Do you see free will as the ability to analyse a situation and make informed decisions based on one's priorities and limitations? I see that as the very definition of intelligence that every animal uses to the best of its ability.

I think a definition would clear up quite a bit of confusion I'm having with everyone's counter arguments for free will.

[Slytovhand]

Interesting view there, Flyn..esp that free will assumes an outside force....

Also - yes, there is actual evidence for those other 3 things you mentioned - but evidence alone doesn't convict.

[Flyndaran]

I'm a rationalist atheist. To assume free will is to assume an outside force able to direct, but not be affected by, this reality.
I am, mostly, my brain, a physical object that took its programming from biology and environment.
I would like to believe in free will, but I would also like to believe in an afterlife, fairies, and magic. No evidence for any of them.