• Brendan Golledge
    130
    I saw an argument a while ago:

    1. Everything in nature is either determined or random
    2. Free will is neither determined nor random
    C. Free will does not exist.

    This seems like a good argument to me. It seems to me that neither a deterministic algorithm nor a random number generator have free will. If we are entirely composed of such elements, then we cannot have free will, because all of our choices could be decomposed into elements that are not free. Therefore, I concluded a while ago that belief in free will is the same as belief in the supernatural.

    Free will in principle seems to be outside the scope of mathematical/scientific description, because the laws of a system describe how a system must be, but the "free" in "free will" means that we are not forced or predetermined to do anything, and thus free will could not be described by any kind of law.

    My father said once, however, that he thinks that the randomness of quantum mechanics might somehow contribute to free will. I didn't like the idea at first because of the above argument, but after thinking it over, it does sort of make sense. I will discuss some other ideas relating to free will first, however.

    Even if our choices were fully determined, in practice, the processes leading to our choices are extremely complex, so that nobody would ever be able to predict with certainty ahead of time what a person might do.

    Also, I've heard from computer programmers that it is generally impossible to know in advance what the result of a computation will be. The fastest way to find the result of a computation is to just do the computation. Therefore, whatever computations are going on in our heads, it is generally impossible for anyone (including ourselves) to know what we will settle on before we have settled on something. This is another point that explains why we have the experience of free will, even if it might not technically exist.



    Now, for the problem of a system that has both deterministic and random elements. I imagine that the human mind is mostly deterministic, but that the exact manner in which we perceive events may have some randomness in it due to quantum effects that might take place at the level of individual neurons. Also, even if the external circumstances are actually determined, due to our limited knowledge, they appear somewhat random to us.

    As an example of how human behavior on a certain level is deterministic, a person who gets punched in the face will almost certainly experience either fear or anger rather than joy (meaning that the emotional response is not random). So, our emotional responses are fairly easy to predict. And our emotional responses get our thinking processes started. So, for instance, a punch to the face triggers pain, which perhaps triggers fear when the person realizes he's being attacked, which triggers thought processes aimed at avoiding a potential second blow, which are then followed by actions.

    However, the exact manner in which an event is perceived or acted on might be somewhat random. What if a certain state of mind might cause one neuron out of a thousand to behave in an unpredictable manner (it may or may not fire), due to quantum fluctuations which are truly random. Maybe this might have some minute effect on the final result, such as by noticing or not noticing the color jacket of an attacker, or the exact position of the next footstep.

    Another interesting thing about the human mind is that it can think about itself. We can think about what our values are or what the outcomes of previous choices were, and thus value things differently than we did in the past. So, as an analogy, we are like a computer program that has some capacity to rewrite its own code.

    So, I think of our control system as something like a mostly deterministic algorithm, but with the special property of having access to its own source code, and with some small degree of true randomness somewhere in the process. So, the result might be that when we have many experiences, we typically respond to them in a predictable way, but one day we might randomly have a change of heart and become a somewhat different person. Now, if this "randomness" comes from predetermined external circumstances, then it only appears to be random. But if it comes from quantum fluctuations in our own minds, then it truly is random. Now, I don't know if this is consistent with what theists would think of free will, but it would explain how it might be possible that a person might make an unusual choice which maybe not even God himself would be able to predict*.

    *If God is like a computer programmer, then he might choose on purpose to add a true random number generator (like what appears to be the case for quantum particles), or maybe add a special type of thing called "Free will" which is neither determined nor random, and in either case, he would not be able to predict what would happen before it happened. This would not diminish from his omnipotence, because he chose on purpose to make it this way. In a similar way, you wouldn't say that a programmer was necessarily incompetent for adding a random number generator to his code. Now, if God exists outside of time, it might be the case that he still has foreknowledge, not because he's writing the books of our lives for us, but because he can finish reading the book before we have finished writing.

    Of course, this is all just speculation. It was just interesting to me that you can come to some idea that's similar to free will using only reasonable speculation from known physics.
  • Outlander
    2.2k
    How does free will relate to circumstance? If you were born before the advent of technology or perhaps even books, you don't have access to on-demand entertainment and the like, and so, you do not have a choice but to be bored for prolonged periods at a time. If you're born in the middle of a desert continent in times before efficient forms of travel, you might have the will to go swimming, but such will is wasted as it would basically be impossible.

    I have the freedom to hold "will" for or against anything, but if my circumstances or other factors do not permit, such will is essentially in name only, rather matters not and for some intents and purposes may as well not even exist.

    I'm sure most if not all people have the will to eat something they find tasty for their next meal, however based on many factors ranging from finances to mobility, may not ever occur.

    "I think therefore I am" comes to mind for some reason. Say someone is born with a genetic deposition to, I don't know, be incredibly prone to anger or is perhaps unable to "feel" as typically imagined ie. does not feel emotion the way most do (is a sociopath). They still have the capacity to have a will to further their understanding of what and why people feel the way they do and perhaps can, distantly, grasp the concept if they put enough effort into it. Someone with a theoretical hardwired anger problem can, if done fervently, will themselves to be mellow and easygoing. It's just significantly more difficult.

    If you have a neuro-typical brain, your "choices", thoughts, or "imagination" is your will. Seems free enough in the closed confines of one's own head, of course that doesn't mean if I will to do 1,000 pushups I'll be able to actualize said will into the real world.

    I recently obtained some fresh catfish filets from my local supermarket the other day. I chose to add said foodstuff to my "cart" because of the following reasons to the best of my knowledge: A.) A TPF moderator suggested to try catfish. B.) I was fond of catfish growing up and haven't had any for some time. C.) I recently engaged in tasting different kinds of fish and posting said dishes in the Shoutbox and happen to enjoy doing so. D.) There are only about 5-6 different kinds of fish available at this supermarket with said fish happening to be in stock at the time of my order. So many things are responsible and relevant to each of those reasons, each can be analyzed and as a result produce dozens and dozens of further side reasons/cause and effect chains to the point they can no longer be kept track of or reasonably assumed to be actual contributing factors. Regardless, I still could have easily removed the catfish and opted for salmon instead. The fact my local supermarket doesn't have prehistoric Acondylacanthus fish in stock and I happened to have wanted to try some, or any other sort of cause-effect dynamic outside of my control, shouldn't be a deciding factor in whether free will exists or not. Does it?

    Many things outside our control can limit our final actions and their ultimate outcomes, but will is desire and while the reason one may desire one thing and not the other is likely based on a torrent of things outside our control, even before we were born, one still has the agency to determine the difference between what was expected, what actually occurred, and whether or not the latter serves or opposes the original, free desire or thought, and to what degree.
  • NOS4A2
    9.3k


    Note the passive voice: everything in nature is determined. Determined by what? If human behavior is determined then it needs to be determined by something other than ourselves, or else it is determined by us, which entails free will.

    To get around this determinists often posit an abstraction of ourselves to be the determiner of our actions. But it's just a roundabout way to say we determine our actions. For example, if our behavior is determined by our "emotional responses", then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our emotional responses. If it is determined by neurons, then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our neurons. If it is determined by a "certain state of mind", then it is determined by ourselves, because we are our states of mind.

    We have to consider the ultimate source of our actions, and rarely is this source something other than ourselves. If the source of our acts and behaviors are an abstraction of ourselves, then it is invariably determined by us, unless some other force in the world can be shown to produce such an act.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    Good OP. Sometimes a beheaded cranium lasts alive for a few seconds. The "seat" of consciousness is the brain, complex matter. A structure like that can be said to have necessary AND random aspects, and I agree the random movements within the brain can be the expression of truly free will. But old Kant was in a bind when said nature was separate from consciousnss, the latter of which sees only appearances. Consciousness is shrouded in ever escaping darkness but to live is be united, to be organism. Sight is the gift that reaches out to expreience beyond it things and other beings. Free will is the core experience of consciousness. Animals may only have partial structures of it
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    1. Everything in nature is either determined or random
    2. Free will is neither determined nor random
    C. Free will does not exist.
    Brendan Golledge

    You have claimed that Item 1 is true without justification. Perhaps you think it is self evident, but I disagree.

    Item C is wrong. The correct conclusion is that free will is not in nature. It isn’t clear to me that’s the same thing as saying it doesn’t exist.
  • Patterner
    1.1k

    I'll add that I disagree with #2. If the 'free' means free from determinism, and will is random, then it is free from determinism.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    I'll add that I disagree with #2. If the 'free' means free from determinism, and will is random, then it is free from determinism.Patterner

    I’m OK with your way of looking at it. To tell the truth, I don’t even really know what it means.
  • Patterner
    1.1k

    I've never heard that there is a general consensus regarding from what free will is supposed to be free. But if it's physicalist determinism, then will is free if it is random. I think that's what means by "free".
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    I've never heard that there is a general consensus regarding from what free will is supposed to be free. But if it's physicalist determinism, then will is free if it is random. I think that's what ↪Brendan Golledge means by "free".Patterner

    Except I don’t think deterministic and random are the only two choices. I don’t think there’s any empirical way to determine whether or not the universe is deterministic. I think it is clear that it’s not random.
  • Patterner
    1.1k
    Except I don’t think deterministic and random are the only two choices. I don’t think there’s any empirical way to determine whether or not the universe is deterministic. I think it is clear that it’s not random.T Clark
    I agree. And looking back, I see that I wrote while too tired, and was on too many sites. I explained myself badly. Perhaps I'll be able to do better tomorrow. Lol

    But I agree that physical determinism and random are not the only two choices, and I think consciousness and free will are proof of another.
  • Corvus
    3.4k
    1. Everything in nature is either determined or randomBrendan Golledge

    Some things in nature is unknown e.g. the origin of the universe. Therefore the premise is unsound.
  • Corvus
    3.4k
    2. Free will is neither determined nor random
    C. Free will does not exist.
    Brendan Golledge

    Free will is unknown, therefore Free will is unknown. (A tautology, but true statement.)
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    I am earthbound, but not housebound. Freedom has limits and contexts. "Free will" is a philosopher's nonsense that has no place in life, and "determinism" likewise.

    "Waiter, don't bother to show me the menu, just bring me the meal I am predetermined to eat."
    "Sir, the menu is free although it is also predetermined, but the food is not free and the prices are predetermined. Pay what you are predetermined to pay, and then I will know what I am predetermined to bring."

    Human freedom marks the distinction between reacting and responding. When I am reacting to a post, I am not free, but being controlled by my habits and by the post, But when I respond, I am free to accept or reject the meaning conveyed, and move the dialogue on.
  • Brendan Golledge
    130
    Note the passive voice: everything in nature is determined. Determined by what? If human behavior is determined then it needs to be determined by something other than ourselves, or else it is determined by us, which entails free will.NOS4A2

    Speaking as someone who has studied physics, when I first saw the argument, I thought it was obvious that nature was "determined" by the laws of physics. All natural laws described by physics prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics are deterministic laws. You can take the equations of parabolic motion taught in high school as an example. If you know the initial conditions of the ball, then you know when and where it will end up.

    You have claimed that Item 1 is true without justification. Perhaps you think it is self evident, but I disagree.T Clark

    If you spent a lot of time studying natural sciences, you would probably realize that all the models we use are either deterministic (almost all of them) or random (quantum mechanics, or statistics when the underlying fundamentals are too complicated to calculate).


    Also, the "free" in free will means that it's not forced by anything (or that's what I imagine it means)
  • NOS4A2
    9.3k


    Speaking as someone who has studied physics, when I first saw the argument, I thought it was obvious that nature was "determined" by the laws of physics. All natural laws described by physics prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics are deterministic laws. You can take the equations of parabolic motion taught in high school as an example. If you know the initial conditions of the ball, then you know when and where it will end up.

    How does physics, or natural laws described by physics, determine your actions? Do equations of some law of motion decide which direction you will walk, for example?
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Proofs of freewill and proofs of determinism are as reliable as proofs for and against the existence of God. One may be sure that that they are unreliable without even reading them, because of unenlightened's famous principle: "No arrangement of words, howsoever cunning, can oblige the world to be thus and not so."
    Thought experiments can only be useful when one already knows precisely what one is talking about. They are therefore of little value to philosophers, who are only called in when folk discover that they don't quite know what they are talking about after all.
    To reject unenlightened's principle is to believe in the efficacy of magic spells.
  • T Clark
    13.9k
    If you spent a lot of time studying natural sciences, you would probably realize that all the models we use are either deterministic (almost all of them) or random (quantum mechanics, or statistics when the underlying fundamentals are too complicated to calculate).Brendan Golledge

    I'm an engineer and I'm reasonably familiar with physics. When I was younger I was a strong materialist and believed in determinism, but I've grown out of that. Since then, I've come to realize that causality, materialism, and objective reality are metaphysical concepts, by which I mean they are neither true nor false. They have no truth value. This is a discussion we've had many times here on the forum, so I'm not interested in going any further into it now. I did start a discussion many years ago - Deathmatch – Objective Reality vs. the Tao - that addresses the issue.
  • Brendan Golledge
    130
    The issue addressed at the top of the OP is that if we are composed of entirely naturalistic particles, then we are a product of the laws that govern those particles. This is relevant to the discussion of free will.

    Since then, I've come to realize that causality, materialism, and objective reality are metaphysical concepts, by which I mean they are neither true nor false. They have no truth valueT Clark

    It sounds absurd to me that those things have no truth value at all. If that were the case, then why does science work? Either the efficacy of science and technology are one big coincidence and we are all deceived, or causality, materialism, and objective reality are accurate descriptions of how most things work.


    Proofs of freewill and proofs of determinism are as reliable as proofs for and against the existence of God. One may be sure that that they are unreliable without even reading them, because of unenlightened's famous principle: "No arrangement of words, howsoever cunning, can oblige the world to be thus and not so."
    Thought experiments can only be useful when one already knows precisely what one is talking about. They are therefore of little value to philosophers, who are only called in when folk discover that they don't quite know what they are talking about after all.
    To reject unenlightened's principle is to believe in the efficacy of magic spells.
    unenlightened

    Based on the argument you made, math and science are magic spells, because they predict how things work by the use of logic symbols. I would be angry that you have written such ignorant nonsense without even bothering to read the OP, but I am used to it by now.
  • unenlightened
    9.2k
    Based on the argument you made, math and science are magic spells, because they predict how things work by the use of logic symbols. I would be angry that you have written such ignorant nonsense without even bothering to read the OP, but I am used to it by now.Brendan Golledge

    Not so. Science first looks. Science first considers evidence. Argument is the servant of evidence, not the master. I also am used to silliness - including my own.

    And, a small correction; I read the thread before commenting, because I like to check that I am not repeating a point that has already been made, without acknowledgment.
  • Questioner
    84
    My background in biology has me taking the side that says all is random. In nature, there is no such thing as a closed system. There are always random events that impinge upon and influence the outcome of any "cause" in producing its "effect."
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    If all is random how do we make decisions by predicting the future? Are you saying we have no control over our lives?
  • Questioner
    84
    If all is random how do we make decisions by predicting the future? Are you saying we have no control over our lives?Gregory

    We can plan, and make decisions, but we can't predict if a bus is going to hit us tomorrow.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    But making plans in life implies we can predict the future with some accuracy
  • Questioner
    84
    But making plans in life implies we can predict the future with some accuracyGregory

    Making plans speaks to routine, and we do have routine, but routine may be interrupted.
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    You never walked to the car knowing you would get there? Usually changes in routine happen gradually
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    What does control over life mean?
  • Questioner
    84
    You never walked to the car knowing you would get there? Usually changes in routine happen graduallyGregory

    Not always, as my example of getting hit by a bus illustrates. Or, suddenly getting diagnosed with cancer. Or, winning the lottery. Or, reading a good book that changes your perspective on life.

    What does control over life mean?Gregory

    This reminds me of stoicism. There are things we control, there are things we do not, and wisdom lies in knowing the difference.

    "Freedom is the only worthy goal in life. It is won by disregarding things that lie beyond our control."
  • Gregory
    4.7k


    Disregarding what lies beyond our control means separating between what we can and cannot control with a will to control (power)
  • Questioner
    84
    Disregarding what lies beyond our control means separating between what we can and cannot control with a will to control (power)Gregory

    Hmmm ... that's not how I see it. For example, sometimes we have to accept things in our life that suck. Things we cannot change. For example, a cancer diagnosis, Now, we might rail against God, and scream at the sky, "Why?"

    But there is no answer to that question, "Why?" It was all just a random instance of cells malfunctioning.
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    Or, reading a good book that changes your perspective on lifeQuestioner

    "In the active practical reality of consciousness observation thus finds opened up before it a new field. Psychology contains the collection of laws in virtue of which the mind takes up different attitudes towards the different forms of its reality given and presented to it in a condition of otherness. The mind adopts these various attitudes party in view to receiving these modes of its reality into itself, and conforming to the habits, cutoms, and ways of thinking it thus cones across, as being that wherein mind is reality and as such object to itself..." Hegel, phenomenology of mind
  • Gregory
    4.7k
    For example, sometimes we have to accept things in our life that suckQuestioner

    Life doesn't suck. As the spirit desires so it has
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

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.