Some define free will that way, as simply a choice not being determined exactly by prior physical state. The alternative is randomness, producing non-deterministic outcomes.If it's generally believed that free will can't exist in a deterministic world — Jerry
Don't see how that follows, so perhaps not understanding. Wind causes a leaf to flutter. How does this broader anthropomorphism in any way imply otherwise?Well part of the problem is that Free Will is purported to explain animal decision making only (not simple physical systems), thus terms like "non-deterministic world" implies that somehow nothing causes anything. — LuckyR
This makes it sound like 'pondering' and 'physical and electrical state of the brain' are necessarily mutually exclusive, sort of like 'computing' and 'transistor switching' are similarly exclusive, instead of one consisting of the other.Remember it is Determinism that tells us that what we perceive as decision making every single day is, in fact an illusion and that in reality "decisions" are not the product of pondering, rather are determined by the physical and electrical state of the brain before the supposed "decision" is made.
It would look just like the one you see.What would a non-determinant world look like? — Jerry
This makes it sound like 'pondering' and 'physical and electrical state of the brain' are necessarily mutually exclusive, sort of like 'computing' and 'transistor switching' are similarly exclusive, instead of one consisting of the other.
Consider some hypothetical world, a world I would call deterministic because it follows these principles: it obeys certain laws/rules/regularities, such that an outcome follows directly from previous states, these laws/rules/regulations do not change and that they are unbreakable. This is like our universe, governed by regularity, but what I'd like to ask is to consider an alternative foundation—that is, instead of a world where the bedrock objects are (for example) elementary particles which follow forces described by the laws of physics, consider that the bedrock objects are agents, and the laws that govern them describe how these agents make choices. — Jerry
In other words, freedom must be, by definition, impossible to explain, otherwise it is not freedom. — Angelo Cannata
I'm trying to take this apart. To 'do different' seems to simply mean that a choice is present. My typical example is crossing the street. One can go now, or 'do different' and wait for a gap in the traffic. Watching the traffic is the significant portion of the external input of which you speak.I am arguing that the free will I'm talking about—which is generally the ability to "do different", make choices that can alter your future—is dependent on prior physical state, as there has to be some input from the external world that may trigger an internal thought or decision. — Jerry
I don't see where free will comes into play here, vs doing the exact same thing without it. That's the part I'm trying to nail down. Having choice and having free will are not the same thing, but you seem to define it as simply having choice. Of course we have choice, else we'd not have evolved better brains to make better choices.free will (the ability to choose a path from multiple outcomes) is possible despite the external macro world (i.e. not the quantum realm in which things seem indeterministic) being deterministic
Well, it would be if physics was classical, but it isn't, so I cannot agree with a statement that macro-scale things are determined. They're just not. The existence of our solar system is a chance occurrence and would very likely not happen from an identical state of the local universe 10 billion years ago.Let me ask you directly: given that the macro-scale universe is causally determined
1) Yes, it is not only possible, but critical to be able to select from choices. As I said above, we'd not have evolved brains to make better choices if this were not so. If that is your definition of free will, then we have it, deterministic physics or not. It is kind of a Libertarian definition.do you think it's possible to still have the ability to choose different paths (free will)?
Irrelevant, and thus no, at least given that definition.Is the quantum phenomena involved in your assessment?
But the subsequent 'pondering' is also describable as physical and electrical state of the brain. They're just a little bit later. This is of course presuming that 'pondering' is a function of the brain, which plenty of people deny.Just to be clear, the ANTECEDENT brain state is what I describe as the physical and electrical state of the brain. While pondering occurs (obviously) DURING decision making (assuming there is, in fact decision making). Thus they are different entities, but are not mutually exclusive. — LuckyR
Given said determinism, agree. It doesn't mean that decision making is not going on, that choices are not being made. That would be fate, something different than determinism.Long story shory, in Determinism antecedent state X always leads to resultant answer Y, never Z.
There you go. That definition says that there can be no free will given deterministic physics, and it even goes so far as to imply that truly random acts are the only example of free will.In Free Will antecedent state X can lead to resultant answer Y or Z depending on the decision making process which occurred.
This I guess depends heavily on how you define 'I'. If animals are self-contained and make their own choices, but humans are special and have a supernatural 'mind' or 'soul' or however you frame it, then the animal is free willed, but the human body is possessed by this supernatural entity. The body becomes an un-free avatar to the possessing entity, which refers to itself as 'I', and thus 'I' (the supernatural thing) is doing the choosing, and yes, it is free. The avatar on the other hand is not free since it is reduced to puppetry. I see no reason why a free creature would yield its fate to an external agent like that, or how the two would find each other.It seems to me that what we tend to mean by free will is not that our actions are not determined (random), but rather that, free from external determination to at least some degree, I determine my actions. — petrichor
As opposed to what, choices made in your sleep? In the end, almost all decisions are made subconsciously since that is the portion in charge of actually making any decision. The conscious part seems to be an advisory role, and is often the originator of the significant choice eventually made. I say 'significant' for choices like where to plant the tree, and not more common choices like which key to press next on the piano, which requires decisions far faster than the conscious portion of mental process can handle.And importantly, this determination is made consciously.
What it seems to require is a mechanism that amplifies the external (non-physical) input into something that makes a measurable physical difference. Has any such mechanism been found? I did a whole topic once on where evolution would take you if such a mechanism were available, and there was also available the external entity from which the signals could be received.This seems to require that antecedent physical causes (or perhaps any causes) do not fully determine which choices I will make.
:up:Why do you want to introduce freedom in a system? — Angelo Cannata
Why do you all like to speak theoretically and hypothetically without any examples? Not a single example here. How can one relate all this with reality, the world, life and so on? How can one understand what do you actually have in mind? What is your frame of reference, the context in which you are referring to free will?Consider some hypothetical world, a world I would call deterministic because it follows these principles: it obeys certain laws/rules/regularities, such that an outcome follows directly from previous states, these laws/rules/regulations do not change and that they are unbreakable. — Jerry
Just to be clear, the ANTECEDENT brain state is what I describe as the physical and electrical state of the brain. While pondering occurs (obviously) DURING decision making (assuming there is, in fact decision making). Thus they are different entities, but are not mutually exclusive.
— LuckyR
But the subsequent 'pondering' is also describable as physical and electrical state of the brain. They're just a little bit later. This is of course presuming that 'pondering' is a function of the brain, which plenty of people deny.
Long story shory, in Determinism antecedent state X always leads to resultant answer Y, never Z.
Given said determinism, agree. It doesn't mean that decision making is not going on, that choices are not being made. That would be fate, something different than determinism.
In Free Will antecedent state X can lead to resultant answer Y or Z depending on the decision making process which occurred.
There you go. That definition says that there can be no free will given deterministic physics, and it even goes so far as to imply that truly random acts are the only example of free will.
Firstly, if antecedent state X ALWAYS leads to resultant state Y, there can't be decision making going on since there are no other choices to choose between, it's always going to be Y. — LuckyR
What I'm getting at, is I believe you can create a formal system that, in its axioms, defines the "laws of choice" that act on its fundamental objects, agents. These laws would of course be unchanging, unbreakable, and, in some sense, determine the proceedings of phenomena in this world. If this is indeed a possible world, what I have described is a deterministic world with the concept of free will embedded in the system, at the axiomatic level. — Jerry
This is a non-sequitur. There are other choices available. There is still a choice being made, and it is Y. It being entirely deterministic or not seems to have nothing to do with the fact that a choice is being made, and by something capable of considering alternatives.Firstly, if antecedent state X ALWAYS leads to resultant state Y, there can't be decision making going on since there are no other choices to choose between, it's always going to be Y — LuckyR
Agree, and furthermore, if said 'agent' actually knew said future, it wouldn't really be an agent any more than is a rock, which sort of brings up a contradiction of an omnipotent omniscient being powerful enough to alter what it knew was going to happen. Either way, the being could not be both omnipotent and omniscient.An agent who doesn't know what the future holds can still undergo a process of "decision making" even if that agent is fully deterministic and it will always make the same decision given the same starting state. — flannel jesus
Have we lost Jerry? — noAxioms
That's why it is nonsense to discuss about freedom in any philosophy that wants to be a system, a systematic philosophy.
Freedom is a psichological, emotional, human need, so it is good for non systematic philosophies, like nihilism, or postmodernism. In systematic philosophies it just creates contradictions. — Angelo Cannata
Well, I was looking for you or LuckyR to come up with an example of something having choice, but not free choice, will, but not free will. What distinction does the word 'free' make in either case? Both of you seem to equate them rather than hold them distinct.we both agree (I think) that we have the power to choose from alternate options, and so possess free will, — Jerry
An event is just that, one thing, and it doesn't have outcomes.Is it not possible for an event to have multiple possible outcomes, particularly in our reality? — Jerry
What alternative is there besides 'random'?And if it is possible for an event to have multiple possible outcomes, must it necessarily be random? — Jerry
That doesn't seem at all obvious to me. An agent who doesn't know what the future holds can still undergo a process of "decision making" even if that agent is fully deterministic and it will always make the same decision given the same starting state.
A deterministic chess program for example, which looks at a number of legal moves and decides which one it "likes" more based on some position-rating algorithm
There are other choices available. There is still a choice being made, and it is Y. It being entirely deterministic or not seems to have nothing to do with the fact that a choice is being made, and by something capable of considering alternatives.
Your definition of 'choice' seems to be different than the usual one, which is a selection between multiple options. You apparently think the alternative options are not open to being chosen, rather than your processes having the option, but rejecting them.
Going to court and pleading 'not-guilty because physics made me do it' doesn't stand up. Your criteria for making the selection is what made you do it, and it is that criteria for which you are responsible
but to an outside observer who has true insight (in this example of Determinist universe), would see that as Determinists claim, the idea of choice (and thus a true decision) is an illusion. — LuckyR
you're presenting as if the program and the algorithm are two separate entities — LuckyR
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.