Free Will

[cuppajoe_9]

The first rough outline of my essay in which I defend the existance of free will is as follows:


Definition of Free Will
- A condition that exists when an agent, such as a human being has the ability to change the outcome of future events by its actions.
- The existance of free will, as defined above, runs contrary to the doctrines of determinism, which holds that all future events are fixed, and of indeterminism, which holds that future events are variable but cannot be changed by force of will.

Defense of my Definition
- Mr. Stace's* definition is not a reasonable one because actions that the completely predictable product of internal stimuli cannot reasonably be called free.
- My definition fits the pragmatic reason for the debate: to decide whether or not future and present events are determined.

My Morning Cup of Tea
- In the morning, before going to school, I like to have a cup of tea.
- Sometimes, however, I do not, but instead go to class a bit early, or make some toast or a bagel instead.

I Can Tell the Difference Between Free Will and the Lack Thereof
- Phenomenon: ocasionally, due to lack of sleep, I find myself sitting behind a cup of tea that I do not recall deciding to make.
- Most of the time, however, this does not happen. I either decided to make a cup of tea, or I decide not to.
- If determinism hold, every time I make tea, the decision to do so was previously determined.
- Since I can tell the diffeerence between when I have decided previously to make tea and when I have not, determinsim does not hold to be true in many cases, and therefore the doctrine of determinism must be false, and free will by my definition must exist, as I can change the outcome of whether or not I make tea in some cases.

Science Does Not Support Determinism**
- Sociology shows us that persons who are exposed to certain circumstances, such as poverty and violent upbringing, are more likely than the general population to become murderers. This does not, however, remotely suggest that such people were destined to become murderes, as the vast majority of the people who are exposed to such conditions are not violent.
- Biology tels us that there are certain genetic factors that influence all animals, humans alike, to behave in certain ways. Again, this does not suggest that we are determined by genetics to behave in certain ways because it is obvious that we can defy our genetic preconditions, and do so when we use contraceptives, for example.

Compatibilism
- Mr. Stace's Ghandi example*** is not a valid argument for compatibilism, because Gandhi, while he certainly had free will by Stace's definition, also clearly possesed it by mine. It is certainly conceivable that Ghandi could have chosen not to fast, or that he could have chosen to protest by some other means. This is shown by the fact that there were many people who were exposed to the same conditions as Ghandi, but none of them organized hunger strikes.

Non-Theistic Free Will
- I see no reason to believe that our bodies are controlled by an independant and immaterial spiritual force.
- There is, however, no reason to think that just because I am not controlled by such a force I cannot make free decisions.
- It is also, therefore, theoretically possible for non-human objects, such as animals or complicated computers, to demonstrate free will by my definition.

*W.T. Stace, a compatibilist, who believes that free will and determinism can exist at the same time.
**Contrary to the claims of Baron D'Holbach, another writer who I am supposed to be arguing with.
***Stace compares the position of two men who fasted for a week, one because he was lost in the desert and one because he wanted to free India from colonial opression.

Devils advocates hither! Which bits of my arguments need tightening?

[Virgil]

It's hard for me to be devil's advocate on this because I fundementally support it. But here's where you can strengthen your case. You say:

- Sociology shows us that persons who are exposed to certain circumstances, such as poverty and violent upbringing, are more likely than the general population to become murderers. This does not, however, remotely suggest that such people were destined to become murderes, as the vast majority of the people who are exposed to such conditions are not violent.
Yes more likely the the general population, but still a minority. Most people who grow up poor are not criminals, albeit the chances are slightly greater. So there are some that are and some that are not; therefore no determinism.

[PierreGringoire]

Although I do not believe in pre-determination, I will attempt to challenge you as the speaker of one who would support determinism and free will existing at the same time.
Humans may have advanced thoughts but because of the concept of infinite there can very possibly be a higher power that condecends when observing the human race, that power saying, "I know exactly what this individual will do down to the very matrix of brain waves."
Human beings come up with a lot of abstract conversations. But this higher power will Factor in eveyone elses biology and then predict every social ocurrance that will ensue.
It also works if you believe there is no "higher intellegence" than human beings. Biology itself decides what we do in life, and the "what we do" is unimportant. Rather, it is what we are that holds any real significance. And we cannot change who we are.
What if the decision you think you are making, the options you think you have, have actually been removed, and the decesion you ultimately make is the one that you always were destined to make?
So the petty things we do qualify as "free will." But who we are is unchangeable and is an eternal truth. Hence both determinsim and free will having both existence at the same time.

[jiabaoyi]

I get to be the curmundgeony fellow in the Far East, though, I know of no east-asians in my lineage. More directly to the subject and faithfully, if ungracefully paraphrased, I give you Heisenberg:

"In the formulation of hard-determinism, that if one knows the starting conditions absolutely one may predict the outcomes, it is not the conclusion but the premise that is flawed"

That is to say, that science is and has ever been the most filial child of determinalism. Social sciences, while fine and commendable, do not approach the realm wherein determinism finds its justifications. Ah, here we go...

"In the sharp formulation of the law of causality-- "if we know the present exactly, we can calculate the future"-it is not the conclusion that is wrong but the premise. --Heisenberg, in uncertainty principle paper, 1927"

And that one cannot observe without affecting the observed does not undermine in the slightest the notion that all things are in motion.

Sorry, I've rambled. In essence: Effects proceed from causes, that we are unable to follow these causes up through the constituents of the body to the mind, while remaining cognizant of the effects of all other forces in the universe which might influence the action of a neuron is not enough to overturn the fundemental rule of science.

That was a rather rambling "In essence" too wasn't it?

While I have the greatest sympathy for your efforts and believe that you have made intelligent arguments, I do not believe that those arguments have any bearing on the law of causality which Heisenberg refered to.

Regards, Justin

[Turk]

I interested in this subjects long time ago, so i have few words to tell about it. But before getting into discuss i would like to make one sentence definiton of determinism "Free Will (so human) has no effect on future events so there's no free will, it's just a dream and history determined without man's will" (though this reminds me Marx's historical determinism and it reminds me he was an Atheist. But according to me, there's no logical explanation of determinism without accepting God's existence. If someone defends determinism he have to defend God's existence too).

If my definiton of free will is right i'll tell some of my thoughts about determinism if it's not right then correct it.

[PeterL]

I largely agree with Jiaboay. Free will may exist, but it would be extremely difficult to tell, because the web of cause and effect is so tangled that it is impossible to determine the fundamental cause for anything. The immediate cause may be obvious, but there may be an underlying cause that you can't detect. For example, you drink your morning cop of coffee, because you like coffee, but why do you like coffee. You may have a shortage of a neurotransmitter the production of which is encouraged by caffiene, so you body tells you that coffee is good, so that you will consume the caffeine that it needs.

There are potential underlying causes that are much more remote from you, so they would be even harder to notice. Where it looks like choice, you might want to look deeper and further back in time.

[cuppajoe_9]

Humans may have advanced thoughts but because of the concept of infinite there can very possibly be a higher power that condecends when observing the human race, that power saying, "I know exactly what this individual will do down to the very matrix of brain waves."You have actually just made a very controvertial statement. It is not possible for something to be actually infinite as opposed to potentially infinite. The series 1,2,4,8,16... is potentially infinite, but it can never be actually infinite because no mater how many numbers you write, you will never have to write ∞. Similarly, no matter how much information you have, there will always be information that you don't have. I'm going to try to steer clear of the infinite information argument anyhow, because I'm not nearly enough of a physicist to argue with it, and because it is untestable.


though this reminds me Marx's historical determinism and it reminds me he was an Atheist.While this is hardly the time or the place, I do not think that Marx thought individual actions are determined. There's no point in calling for a revolution that is predestined to happen in a certain time in a certain place in a certain way. A big part of my essay is trying to show why being a materialist does not necesarily make you a determinist (or an indeterminist).


"In the formulation of hard-determinism, that if one knows the starting conditions absolutely one may predict the outcomes, it is not the conclusion but the premise that is flawed"I have only the most tenuous grasp on quantum physics, but does it not claim that there are truly random events, and therefore that Heisenberg is wrong in this case?


The immediate cause may be obvious, but there may be an underlying cause that you can't detect. For example, you drink your morning cop of coffee, because you like coffee, but why do you like coffee.Tea, actually. Coffee is too much of a chore that early. What I am trying to get across is that sometimes it is determined that I will make tea (when I am half asleep), and sometimes it is not, and furthermore I can tell the difference. Both Indeterminism and Determinism seem to me to predict that I would not be able to tell the difference.

Thank you all for your replies, by the way.

[bluevictim]

The first rough outline of my essay in which I defend the existance of free will is as follows:
...
Devils advocates hither! Which bits of my arguments need tightening?
I'm not sure what kind of feedback you are looking for. I would think what you have is adequate for a high school level assignment (it sounds like this essay is an assignment). One thing that might be a problem is that you don't seem to be interacting with the authors you were supposed to be arguing with very much. The emphasis seems to on your system of thought, and you seem to brush off the arguments of those authors without a lot of justification. I'm not sure exactly what your assignment is (if indeed it is an assignment), but your instructor may have been looking for a more rigorous discussion of the systems these other authors presented.

If you just want any thoughts in general about what you've posted, here are some of mine:

First, a lot of it lacks logical rigor and precision (I'm just telling it as I see it, I don't mean to offend). It is, however, about the level of rigor I'd expect from a high school student (I'm sorry for being so condescending, I have no idea whether you're a high school student, undergraduate, or professor emeritus of philosophy). Some examples of what I mean:
- A lot of terms are used that are not clearly defined. What do you mean by "determined"? What do you mean by the "ability to change the outcome of future events"? What is "force of will"? In my opinion, the crux of the issue lies in the definitions.
- You do not say why "actions that [are?] the completely predictable product of internal stimuli cannot reasonably be called free".
- In your "cup of tea" example, you're conclusion depends on the identification of "the decision to do so was previously determined" with "I have decided previously to make tea", an identification which you have not justified.
- Your assertion that Mr. Stace's Ghandi example is not a valid argument for compatibilism is a straw man because you are using a different definition of free will.

Second, it's interesting that you chose the question of "whether or not future and present events are determined" as the reason for the debate, since the debate about free will is usually centered around the nature of moral responsibility for our actions. This is probably something worth keeping in mind when you read other discussions of the subject.

[mtpspur]

I think free will is a misnomer. I believe what humanity practices is a form of free agency. All of anyone's decisions (this is me just talking) are results of various influences. For instance: Did you make your tea because you were thirsty, practising a morning ritual, jump starting your day, etc.

My personal belief (based on Genesis) is that the first created beings Adam had perfect free will--there were no conditions seting him up to practice good or evil. After the fall his free will was DEAD--having no power to guide him which is why we blunder out way thru life as we find it.

In my experience when my 'free' will gets exercised I usually screw it up--mostly in my personal relationships. There is a reason the wife is called long suffering.

I know this is simplistic but if you want a detailed Biblical analysis try Martin Luther's On the Bondage of the Will--try to get an edition with Erasmus's notes or it will defy some comprehensive reading.

All the best and sorry for the Sunshine Boys crack yesterday--didn't read as funny as I meant it (in the Hamlet forum).

[Dr Eep]

I think it is possible for free will and determinism to exist simultaneously.I concede that a belief in a higher power is essential to my theory so scientists will not agree - but here goes; For those who maybe wonder how the Bible and therefore, God has mapped out our future-you know, with all of the wonderful apocalyptic events waiting for us whether we choose to want them or not, and question then how true free will can exist- here is how I see it.
If God exists, is it possible that he resides in a physical place such as another planet? Is it possible that he is able to see our past, present and future at the same time? We as humans are still seeing, in our present time, light from exploded stars where the event occurred thousands of years ago - but the light and energy has been preserved through time and space. Is it possible that in a similar way God is able to decipher what he sees as an immortal infinite being through time and space? In so doing he is therefore able to see past present and future and document it for us which is what determinism is I would suppose, without interfering with our own several abilities to live freely and choose for ourselves?

[Turk]

While this is hardly the time or the place, I do not think that Marx thought individual actions are determined. There's no point in calling for a revolution that is predestined to happen in a certain time in a certain place in a certain way. A big part of my essay is trying to show why being a materialist does not necesarily make you a determinist (or an indeterminist).


Marx's thoughts about history makes him a historical determinist. Because he certainly says end of history will be Communism (this is also clash with his own method dialectic).

And well, i didn't say being materialist makes you determinist, maybe you misunderstood or i meant it wrong cuz of lack of my English knowledge. I said if you are a determinist then you have to believe God's existence too. If someone defends determinist thoughts and materialism in same time i just say his mind is really messed up and it's anomaly with itself.

[Nightshade]

Well I guess its all good bt you could mention self forfilling prophecy theory, their was a famous study not the rosnburg or clown an tiger one but a field study somwhere in africa where they belive that chilldren born on a wednsday are predestined to be 'bad' and so the man went off to the jails and got a ration and it was true that the highest ratio from one day came froma wednsday ( I think it was 21% or somthing) but that didnt account for all the other people in the prisons. so I think they settled that you forfill what is expecte of you as a whole.

[PeterL]

Tea, actually. Coffee is too much of a chore that early. What I am trying to get across is that sometimes it is determined that I will make tea (when I am half asleep), and sometimes it is not, and furthermore I can tell the difference. Both Indeterminism and Determinism seem to me to predict that I would not be able to tell the difference.

I agree that "Both Indeterminism and Determinism seem to me to predict that I would not be able to tell the difference." Because I can't tell the difference, and things happen that appear to be unpredictable from know background information, I believe that "free will" is an illusion. I know that humans are ruled but biological necessity more than most people realize, so I think that humans have less choivce in their lives than most people think, but they don't notice.

Instant coffee is easy, and it isn't bad.

[grace86]

That's interesting....I am currently doing a paper on the topic: "How free is the will of the individual within society?"

[Lawks_myth]

The only illusion in this particular forum is that the people that briefly mention in passing that "Biology really determines what we do and..blah blah blah" actually have one inkling of what they are talking about. I feel that if some of your are able to do something as incredible as convice the people you are speaking and writting to that you actually have a real answer or real insight into this problem even though you do not, through your advanced understanding of the english language, your efforts would benifit the world much more in an area of science which could actually help answer the question you seem to care so much about.

Yes I beleive we have "free will" which is just two words that represent an Idea that we are all very clear on misnomer or not. I beleive the human body is owed more credit in this subject that it is given. We are not just creatures with motivations and biology that determines everything we do. We are an absolute freak accident which was sustained by the proper temperatures and throughout the course of history our brain, through a complex and random combination of necessity of survival and permutation has developed several tools that work together by adding weight of importance to objects, ideas and people which make up our ability to trust, which is, simply put, how we come to make our own unique choices. Now that everyone is getting ready to correct my grammer and make sure that I know that my vocabulary is inferior, I would like to remark that it really has nothing to do with the information and the entire point of me writting this post in the style I have is to get feed back negative and positive because I know I have offended someone with superior understanding and would love to hear their response.

[cuppajoe_9]

- A lot of terms are used that are not clearly defined. What do you mean by "determined"? What do you mean by the "ability to change the outcome of future events"? What is "force of will"? In my opinion, the crux of the issue lies in the definitions.More time spent defining things is definitely needed. I think I'm going to eliminate the reference to 'force of will' entirely. "Change the outcome of future events" rests on whether or not future events are fixed (determined), i.e. was Oliver Cromwell always destined to execute Charles I, or could he have opted out at some point?


- You do not say why "actions that [are?] the completely predictable product of internal stimuli cannot reasonably be called free".Actions that are completely predictable are necesarily determined, as opposed to free. Freedom demands unpredictability.


- In your "cup of tea" example, you're conclusion depends on the identification of "the decision to do so was previously determined" with "I have decided previously to make tea", an identification which you have not justified.I can tell the difference between "making tea because I thought about making tea and decided to do so" and "making tea out of force of habit". It's a variation of the Arguement from Deliberation. When people make decisions without deliberating their actions are more predicatble than when they deliberate.

- Your assertion that Mr. Stace's Ghandi example is not a valid argument for compatibilism is a straw man because you are using a different definition of free will.No, no, it's a perfectly valid argument for compatibilism, but it's not a valid argument for the existance of free will, because the compatibilist defines the term bizarely. Stace's arguments are perfectly sound, but they evade the purpose of having the argument: to determine whether there is one possible future or many, and to determine whether or not human beings can have an effect on which future we will end up with.


Second, it's interesting that you chose the question of "whether or not future and present events are determined" as the reason for the debate, since the debate about free will is usually centered around the nature of moral responsibility for our actions. This is probably something worth keeping in mind when you read other discussions of the subject.Yes, I've read more than one Argument from Moral Responsibility essay, but fixed and variable futures strike me as the more interesting question. I'm trying to avoid the moral responsibility bit because it usually slides into an appeal to consequences argument.

Thanks for your help.


Marx's thoughts about history makes him a historical determinist. Because he certainly says end of history will be Communism (this is also clash with his own method dialectic).Oh, Marx was certainly a historical determinist, but I don't think he believed that the actions of individuals are pre-determined. The belief that the forces of history are pushing us inevitably one way or the other is not incompatible with belief in individual free will.


And well, i didn't say being materialist makes you determinist, maybe you misunderstood or i meant it wrong cuz of lack of my English knowledge. I said if you are a determinist then you have to believe God's existence too. If someone defends determinist thoughts and materialism in same time i just say his mind is really messed up and it's anomaly with itself.No, the misunderstanding was on my end, sorry. Baron D'Holbach defended materialistic determinism quite coherently by saying that humans are bound in all cases by strict cause and effect laws. My philosophy prof tends to associate determinism with materialism, which is part of what I'm trying to object to in my essay.

[Lawks_myth]

The end all answer to the question of whether or not humans have free will is found by grouping together several easy to understand facts :

The original primary motivation for all creatures is survival

Evolution, very basically defined, means that animals who do not posses the qualities necessary for survival, cannot pass down their weak genes to future generations of their species, therefore eliminating their species from existence.
Logically then, animals who do contain the qualities to keep themselves alive reproduce with other animals who have also managed to keep themselves alive in either the same fashion or in some other fashion and create a stronger, more efficient species which is only able to get stronger and more efficient through reproduction with other stronger more efficient survivors and so on.

Mammals are animals

Humans are mammals

Humans are animals

Humans are animals who have evolved a brain so powerful that it can question itself and where it came from.

No other animal has a powerful enough brain to question its own existence.

Humans are absolutely unique in this ability and therefore are classified just as sentient beings but concious beings.

All other animals are still primarily concerned with and motivated by the survival instinct.

Humans are the only animal who have evolved the ability to become bored with survival and end their life knowingly and willingly

The fact that humans are able to overcome even the original primary motivation which is responsible for the entire existence of all species in the world as we know it is clear and unarguable proof that humans have the ability to freely think act as they please.

[PeterL]

The only illusion in this particular forum is that the people that briefly mention in passing that "Biology really determines what we do and..blah blah blah" actually have one inkling of what they are talking about.


Does that mean that you are not compelled to eat food, as one example?

[Lawks_myth]

What you have quoted was not meant to dismiss that biology has a large roll in the subject of free will, but that the people using it do not know more than the clips of bits and phrases that they have picked up over the years to aid there standard going-nowhere-arguments which serve no other purpose but to pass philosophy classes.

[Lawks_myth]

Furthermore I myself beleive that biology and anatomy are the only subjects should come into play when discussing free will.

[Lawks_myth]

Let me just state for the record that I must have been smoking crack on my first post and would like to know if anyone was able to decifer anything I was trying to say. I dont know what compelled me to write so carelessly but it may have been because my emotions had flared up from something I had read which caused me to start writting even though I did not have my thoughts together. Wait what? Emotions? What are those? Are they those things that are entirely seperate from normal motivations that tend to override normal rational thinking? Arent they also inherent in the human creature wheather they have been conditioned to have them or not? Those dont have anything to do with free will do they?

[bluevictim]

cuppajoe_9,

It seems that you are leaning towards using a definition of "determined" based on predictability, and you are taking for granted that free will is opposed to predictability. It sounds to me like your plan is roughly the following:

(1) Definition: cuppajoe_9 free will (CFW) is a kind of will that can not actually exist (as opposed to "existing" merely as a concept) if the future is determined ("determined" approx.= "predictable").
(2) CFW actually exists because {demonstration that CFW actually exists}
(3) Therefore, the future is not determined.

I think step (2) will be difficult to do convincingly because your definition of free will (CFW) is quite strong (see PeterL's criticism of your cup of tea argument for an example of why many intuitive arguments won't work).

I think that statements like,
Actions that are completely predictable are necesarily determined, as opposed to free. Freedom demands unpredictability.are too broad, but at least by using the concept of predictability as a basis for the definitions of "determined" and "free", there is a promising avenue for refining the model of determination and freedom.

For example, instead of considering only the two possibilities "predictable" and "unpredictable", we can use a scale of predictability. This would allow for a complementary scale of freedom. We can also use a relative sense of predictability. We can say, for example, that X is predictable with respect to Y if X is predictable based only on knowledge of Y. This then allows for a relative sense of freedom: we can say X is free with respect to Y if X is not predictable with respect to Y. I think it would be easier to make meaningful arguments about these relative notions of predictability and freedom than about absolute freedom and determination. From there, one can make more convincing conjectures about absolute freedom and determination.

It would be quite a project to carry out an analysis at this level of rigor, so I wouldn't really expect you to do it just for this essay you are writing, but you asked for opinions and I find it interesting, so I'm just sharing my thoughts.

Have fun with your essay.

[cuppajoe_9]

(1) Definition: cuppajoe_9 free will (CFW) is a kind of will that can not actually exist (as opposed to "existing" merely as a concept) if the future is determined ("determined" approx.= "predictable").
(2) CFW actually exists because {demonstration that CFW actually exists}
(3) Therefore, the future is not determined.
That's about the size of it, yeah. The best I can do with step 2 is shift the burden of proof to the determinists which is, admittedly, not the most convincing way to do it, but I've only got two weeks.

Interesting-sounding related book: http://mentalhelp.net/books/books.php?type=de&id=3380

*edit* I think I can use my 'unpredictability' arguments to counter the casual ones fairly effectively. Or would that be putting the cart before the horse?

[bluevictim]

That's about the size of it, yeah. The best I can do with step 2 is shift the burden of proof to the determinists which is, admittedly, not the most convincing way to do it, but I've only got two weeks.

Interesting-sounding related book: http://mentalhelp.net/books/books.php?type=de&id=3380Well, there's certainly no shame in that, as long as your intended goals and scope are clear. That book does look interesting, and the topic is a very fun one to discuss and think about.

[bluevictim]

*edit* I think I can use my 'unpredictability' arguments to counter the casual ones fairly effectively. Or would that be putting the cart before the horse?This is kind of funny. I feel like I should understand what you're asking, but I have no clue what you mean. Could you explain this, please?

[cuppajoe_9]

The argument goes something like this:

Determinist: "Ghandi's actions were a direct result of the situation he was placed in, and his genetic predispositions towards leadership &c."

Me: "Ah, but there were plenty of other people exposed to those exact same causes, genetics included (he has a family), but the rest of the people who were exposed to those causes did not behave in the same way Ghandi did. You are clearly missing something."

Determinist: "Damn, I hadn't thought of that."


Is this circular reasoning, given that in (1) I am defining free will in such a way as to require unpredictability?

[bluevictim]

This is not circular reasoning. Basically, Determinist is saying Ghandi did not have CFW because X, and you are arguing that X does not prove that Ghandi did not have CFW. Of course, even if your argument is correct, it does not logically follow that Ghandi did have CFW, it just means that Determinist will need another argument if he wants to prove that Ghandi did not have CFW. I don't think your argument would be convincing, though, because you failed to account for the "&c." in Determinist's argument.

[bluevictim]

I don't think your argument would be convincing, though, because you failed to account for the "&c." in Determinist's argument.On second thought, I'm being pretty generous to Determinist by assuming he actually had good argumentation in "&c." You probably meant that the "&c." stood for nothing more significant than what an "&c." on your side could have covered. In which case, I take that back.

[Skafte]

I haven´t read all posts, will do so on a later note, so this post is mainly focused on the general question of free will and the original thread-starter´s post. For now I will state my opinions and if only I can phrase these understandable someone hopefully will be convinced.

First off, I noticed you wrote that you think science is against determinism and for free will. But several physicists have done experiements with the special "attribute" of particles (dno if that´s correctly spelled), called "spin". I will not go into the, some might say, a bit complicated theory and so on, but in basics the psysicists choose which dimension to record the spin in and if two separated psysicists choose the same dimension, the outcome should be the opposite of one another. But in practice these tests deviates so much from the expected results that either 1) einstein´s famous formula is wrong, 2) our general understanding of many basic principles of the quantetheory is wrong - or 3) and here it is: The psysicists´ choices are pre-determined and the psysicists are controlled by either inner or outer patterns.

This was the more complex experiement and I hope you understood at least some of it :)

Now, away from physics and over to biology. The french scientist Angela Sirigu did a experiment a few years ago with state of the art equipment. He asked a bunch of people to press on a button whenever they felt like it. Meanwhile Sirigu measured they´re brain-activity and more. This is a bit complex as well, but in basics the brain decides to press the button, sends this message to the part of the brain that handles movement and this part sends a message back that the message is received and then the testperson presses the button. Now, this was measured very accurate, the brain decides to push the button 350 milliseconds before the test-person knows it, but he thinks he decided it.

This shows that free will is an illusion the brain has created.

Now to my own thoughts: You think you make a conscious choice every day to drink a cop of coffee, but in fact this is predetermined by every (and I litteraly mean EVERY) action, thought and so on that has ever existed, both your´s and other´s. There will always be an explanation as to why you did something, and the answer isn´t free will. It´s psycics, biology, chemistry, etc. If a leaf falls to the ground it´s because of the wind, the gravity, the puff of wind the person who just passed created, etc. And all of these are determined by other things, and so on. Everything is predetermined.

Now, don´t think I´m done now, but I´ll have to work out now, so you can ponder over the above and I will return with more. Also, I will read everybodies posts as soon as I got the time :)

[cuppajoe_9]

This was the more complex experiement and I hope you understood at least some of it Not a word, as you seem to have left out what exactly this experiment is supposed to show, why to physicists doing the same experiment would be expected to obtain opposite results, which particles they are dealing with, what 'spin' is and what this has to do with free-will.


Now, away from physics and over to biology. The french scientist Angela Sirigu did a experiment a few years ago with state of the art equipment. He asked a bunch of people to press on a button whenever they felt like it. Meanwhile Sirigu measured they´re brain-activity and more. This is a bit complex as well, but in basics the brain decides to press the button, sends this message to the part of the brain that handles movement and this part sends a message back that the message is received and then the testperson presses the button. Now, this was measured very accurate, the brain decides to push the button 350 milliseconds before the test-person knows it, but he thinks he decided it.

This shows that free will is an illusion the brain has created. It shows nothing of the sort. It shows that snap decisions are made predicatbly. That has nothing whatsoever to do with deliberation, which is one of the cornerstones of my argument.


Now to my own thoughts: You think you make a conscious choice every day to drink a cop of coffee...Tea. Tea in the mornings or during the week, coffee in the afternoon or on the weekend.


...but in fact this is predetermined by every (and I litteraly mean EVERY) action, thought and so on that has ever existed, both your´s and other´s. There will always be an explanation as to why you did something, and the answer isn´t free will.That's quite a large statment and you're going to have to back it up a lot better than that. You have not accounted for deliberation and, more specifically, why I can tell the difference between a decision that is the result of deliberation and one that is not.

I apologise for the tone of the above post. I am honestly not trying to be hostile and I am not in the habit of rejecting arguments contrary to my personal opinions out of hand, but I am extremely stressed out for entirely unrelated reasons, and I am far too tired to revise it. I plead your indulgence.

[Skafte]

We are talking about elemental particles as electrons. Spin is a form of movement, which doesn´t have anything to do with rotation and it can only have two values, either up or down. But spin can happen in multiple axes and dimensions. An electron can, for instance, spin up in two dimensions and down in a third. It is possible to measure the spin, but as the measurement of the spin affect the measurement in the other dimension, you can only determine the spin in one dimension at the time.
Now, in some special cases the spins can have an opposite twin, one shows up, the other one down. So this two electrons will have opposite spins. Ok, good.

Each of the electrons is send to different locations, miles apart. When we choose to measure the spins in the same dimension, we should expect to get opposite spins. When we measure in different dimensions, it is possible to statistically calculate which results you ought to get, depending on the spin of the electron. Physicists expects to measure the same spin in four out of nine cases, if they choose totally randomly - this is not the case(!!). Three possible explanations:

1. The particles somehow affects eachother, so the measurements in the two labs are not independent. The consequent of this is: Particles communicates faster than the speed of light, so either Einstein was wrong or option 1 is not the right one. I choose to believe the latter.

2. There are basics misunderstandings and errors in quantetheory and that is why the predictions the scientists makes are wrong. The consequent of this is: Our basic thoughts of time and space might be fundamentally wrong, this could be a possible explanation.

And now, to the part about free will:

3. The physicists doesn´t choose randomly, and therefore the statistically results are not the same as the results we actually get. The consequence of this is: Scientists, and everybody else, doesn´t have free will. Their choices are controlled by inner or outer patterns, out of their control.

These patterns could be due to subconsciousness, biology, environmental effects and so on.

Now, you must choose, which one of this is the explanation?

1. Einstein was wrong!
2. Quantetheory is wrong!
3. Free will does not exist!

I choose no. 3 :)

If you don´t believe the science in all of this do some searches on google, or better yet, find a book about it. The experiment has been done MANY times! But please, don´t expect me to have explained it perfectly or even totally correct, I only know the basics. And remember, this IS complicated stuff, so I neither can or will bother writing the entire theory and everything in here. If you really finds this interesting, like I do, read about it, if not, don´t. I hope I can convince somebody with my beliefs, but if not, so be it.

About the push button thing.. How can you say it doesn´t show that? Something as simple as pushing a button when you want to is not consciously decided by YOU(!), but still you´re saying we have free will? And I´m sorry, but I don´t entirely understand why you´re talking about snap decisions, if we had free will, to push a button when you wanted to should be the most "aware-off" situation you could be in? It´s not a snap decision, it´s a decision, if we had free will.

And not to my "backing up" part. Ok, here we go:

When the English physicist Isaac Newton formulated his three famous laws on the movement of any given body, the human kind suddenly got the spectacular possibility to calculate and predict the happenings of nature. If you know the current position and velocity of a body as well as all of the forces which affects this, then you will be able to, with simple mathematics, to calculate exactly where it is, and how fast it is moving, at any given time.
The laws of Newton are universal and accounts for both planets as well as the smallest elemental particles, as everything, even human beings, are built of. Therefore you can, in theory, predict everything that will happen, if only you know all of the details of the starting point. In other words every seed which is growing in the ground, every rock which is rolling down a hillside, will be a direct consequence of the happenings which took place during Big Bang, which created the universe about 15 billion years ago.
At first most people would probably not believe such determinism and sustain the belief in free will and thereby the belief in the possibility to affect the future. But the only thing standing in the way of predicting the future is:

1. Quantemechanics. It is impossible to determine both the velocity and position of, for instance, an electron, and thereby get the needed information to such a massive calculation.
2. Practically. It would be basically impossible to collect and process such an amount of information. The fate (the future) of a leaf falling to the ground, will depend on the wind conditions, which are affecting by an endless number of events far, far away, which again is determined by other events.
3. Even the smallest change, or miscalculation, of any given movement of just one electron in one of the involved atoms, would lead to a totally different situation and result.

But as this is philosophy, we can imagine such a machine which could collect and process all of this information without any miscalculation or any thing, and thus predict the future. If it is possible to predict the future in theory (which I believe it is, I can tell it´s gonna be a tough time convincing you ;)), then we have no free will!

Now, let me hear your opinions on this. I will gladly discuss such an interesting subject :)

[cuppajoe_9]

If you don´t believe the science in all of this do some searches on google, or better yet, find a book about it. The experiment has been done MANY times!Yes, now I know which one you are refering to and the conclusion is that these particles can transmit information faster than the speed of light, and it's really weird. Even if the scientists do not have free will, it's hard to see how some sort of outside force would direct them to misread the evidence in the exact same way every single time.


The laws of Newton are universal and accounts for both planets as well as the smallest elemental particles, as everything, even human beings, are built of. Therefore you can, in theory, predict everything that will happen, if only you know all of the details of the starting point.But it doesn't work like that in practice. In humans, similar conditions lead to dis-similar results, even if all conditions that could possibly be taken into account are taken into account. Any social-scientist will tell you that humans only behave predictably if you put them in large groups and take the average. Since, as you have already admitted, it would be impossible to test this the infinite-information theory in a normal way, you are going to have to set up another experiment to prove your point. Since human beings are still chaotic systems after everything else is taken into account, somebody is obviously failing to take something into account. The simplest explaination for this is that, given the choice between A and B, my chances of chosing A are somewhere between 0% and 100%. Given this, it's no stretch to believe that I have something to do with the choice.

[bluevictim]

Yes, now I know which one you are refering to and the conclusion is that these particles can transmit information faster than the speed of light, and it's really weird. Sorry for being pedantic, but there is no need to conclude that there is transmission of information faster than the speed of light, because the scientists doing the experiments in separate locations aren't communicating with each other.

[PeterL]

Now, you must choose, which one of this is the explanation?

1. Einstein was wrong!
2. Quantetheory is wrong!
3. Free will does not exist!


It is possible that all three explanations are true. In fact, it is likely that 1 and 2 are at least partly true. Einstein assumed that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant and the upper limit of possible speed. He also assumed that aether that could be used as an inertial frame of reference could not exist. Neither of those assumptions have been demonstrated to be facts, and there is substantial evidence that aether exists and possibly could be used as an inertial frame of reference (there is little difference between "space-time" and "aether" anyway). Even the best minds in physics would agree that it is quite possible that the speed of light in a vacuum could be different in other regions of the universe. If Einstein's assumptions prove to be wrong, then his theories will collapse. (See Dayton Miller's aether experiments)

Quantum theory is largely based on randomness and perception, but things may be determined by causes that we cannot see.

It is my opinion that free will is an illusion that is based on humans inability to detect causes that are not nearby in time and space, and our inability to untangle the web of cause and effect that is behind human activity. Perhaps if we could detect and calculate all of the subatomic motions, we could predict larger events, but even with all of that information we would have to interpret it correctly.

[PeterL]

Sorry for being pedantic, but there is no need to conclude that there is transmission of information faster than the speed of light, because the scientists doing the experiments in separate locations aren't communicating with each other.

It is the information that the particles appear to be communicating that would exceed the speed of light, not that the physicists are communicating.

[bluevictim]

It is the information that the particles appear to be communicating that would exceed the speed of light, not that the physicists are communicating.What I was trying to say was that this particular kind of apparent faster-than-light "information transfer" does not pose insuperable problems for relativity. One thing to note is that the physicists (or anyone else) at the two separate locations can not use this phenomenon to transmit a message faster than light. Albert Einstein himself did feel that this phenomenon indicated a problem with quantum physics, but of course there have been many advancements since his time.

[PeterL]

What I was trying to say was that this particular kind of apparent faster-than-light "information transfer" does not pose insuperable problems for relativity. One thing to note is that the physicists (or anyone else) at the two separate locations can not use this phenomenon to transmit a message faster than light. Albert Einstein himself did feel that this phenomenon indicated a problem with quantum physics, but of course there have been many advancements since his time.

While it is true that the people measuring the particles can't send information by using the particle's spin, but information is transmitted by the measurement of the spin. Although there have been advances, this phenomenon is still a mystery, and it is a problem for Einstein's theories.

[bluevictim]

While it is true that the people measuring the particles can't send information by using the particle's spin, but information is transmitted by the measurement of the spin. Although there have been advances, this phenomenon is still a mystery, and it is a problem for Einstein's theories.Yes, thank you. I wasn't intending to sound like the phenomenon is well understood, or that the problems it poses for relativity are trivial, just that there isn't necessarily an outright contradiction.

[Turk]

I don't think Quantum Theory or Einstein are about determinism. Relativity of time is not about determinism.

I said before that i'll write about free will, but now i think even discussing about existence of free will is completely silly. Even this proves existence of free will.

[PeterL]

Yes, thank you. I wasn't intending to sound like the phenomenon is well understood, or that the problems it poses for relativity are trivial, just that there isn't necessarily an outright contradiction.

There is no "outright contradiction", but it is a major roadbolck on the way to creating a theory of everything. The existence of this phenomenon shows that Einstein wasn't completely right. While Quantum Theory accepts this phenomenon, it doesn't explain it.

[accountansiyot]

In my opinion, as i understand in, there is free will. Everyone of us has it. On determinism, determism is just a presumption or and assumption of what will happen. Like a prediction or forecast. In business, it is estimates. When we do estimates, sometimes we get the right conclusion or sometimes we have a wrong one. Determism is a psychological challenge. What I mean about that is that if someone presume us to be a robber because of our situation where in like we are in poverty as such. Two things would happen to us and that two things depend on how we tackle the situation by our personality. Maybe some of us would see the fact that the situation is inevitable, then perhaps he would become a robber because he sees it as ease. The second personality would see that the situation needs to be changed thus making him not anymore thief but rather someone else. It is a psychological challenge and it's up to us how we deal on it whether it is inevitable or not.

[bluevictim]

There is no "outright contradiction", but it is a major roadbolck on the way to creating a theory of everything. The existence of this phenomenon shows that Einstein wasn't completely right. While Quantum Theory accepts this phenomenon, it doesn't explain it.

At this point I thought it would be good to explain a little further what we have been going back and forth about, and point out how it is relevant to free will and determinism. I think it's an interesting topic, and I know there are people around here with technical backgrounds, so maybe it can provide fodder for some interesting discussion.

I assumed Skafte, cuppajoe_9, and PeterL were talking about the phenomenon known as quantum entanglement.

Here is the story:
Electrons have a property called spin, which is either +1 or -1.
There is a machine that produces two electrons, let's call them "Electron A" and "Electron B", such that no matter what, the spin of Electron A must be the opposite of the spin of Electron B, but the spin of each electron is undefined until it is measured. One possible way to think about it is to think of the electrons as special coins, which you can only flip once. If someone flips coin A and it comes up heads, coin B must come up tails when it is flipped, and vice versa.

Alice takes Electron A to Lab A and Bob takes Electron B to Lab B, which is a lightyear away from Lab A. At exactly noon, Alice measures the spin of Electron A, and finds that the spin of Electron A is +1. At exactly one nanosecond after noon, Bob measures the spin of Electron B. Since the spin of Electron A was +1, Bob must find that the spin of Electron B is -1.

Here is the problem. If Bob had measured the spin of Electron B one nanosecond before noon, the spin could have been either +1 or -1, but somehow Electron B "knew" that the spin of Electron A was measured to be +1 one nanosecond after noon. Thus, the "information" that the spin of Electron A was measured to be +1 traveled one lightyear (from Lab A to Lab B) in less than one nanosecond. This is very disturbing because everyone knows that relativity says that information can't travel faster than the speed of light (so it should have taken more than a year instead of less than a nanosecond).

Naturally, it would be helpful to think about the reason for the maxim that information can't travel faster than light. One of the fundamental features of relativity is that the measurement of distances and time intervals depends on the velocity of the observer.

Let's call the measurement of the spin of Electron A "Event A", and the measurement of the spin of Electron B "Event B". The fact that information from Event A had to travel faster than light to reach Event B means that there are some observers to whom Event A happens after Event B. This is bad because it would then seem that the measurement of the spin of Electron A to be +1 caused the measurement of the spin of Electron B to be -1 before the measurement of Electron A even happened; it would certainly be very disturbing for an effect to precede its cause.

However, the only reason Event A was said to have "caused" Event B was that Event A was said to have happened before Event B. There is no other reason why Event B wasn't the "cause" of Event A; if it weren't for the fact that Electron A was measured "before" Electron B, it could just as well have been the case that the measurement of the spin of Electron B to be -1 caused the measurement of Electron A to be +1 (keep in mind that Alice had no control what the result of measuring the spin of Electron A would be). In other words, there isn't a causal relationship between Event A and Event B in the usual sense. Thus, this phenomenon doesn't really contradict relativity.

If, on the other hand, Alice was able to use this phenomenon to communicate a message to Bob faster than the speed of light, there would be a definite assignment of "cause". For example, if Alice sends a faster-than-light message telling Bob to kill his cat (and Bob obeys the message immediately), there would be observers to whom Bob received and obeyed Alice's order to kill his cat before Alice sent her order. This would be very problematic because the effect would seem to precede its cause.

At this point, I hope it is possible to see how all of this relates to the thread. First, this phenomenon does not mean that determinism (or indeterminism) is a logical necessity of quantum theory. Second, it highlights a subtle, but non-trivial, difference between an event being predictable based on previous events and an event being caused by previous events, which affects how one might define determinism. Third, it raises some questions about the nature of causation. If everything is determined, it would seem that the concept of cause and effect may be less meaningful. If relativity is taken for granted (and there are experimental results that support it), then it would seem like there is something "real" about the concept of causation, which might suggest some weak (at least) form of indeterminism.

I hope somebody finds this interesting.

[bluevictim]

Well, it looks like I done killed this thread (what? people on a literature forum don't want to talk about the ramifications of relativity on determinism?). Sorry.

Anyways, I came across an entertaining discussion about free will (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2006/11/the_little_robo.html) by Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert). I don't buy the reasoning, but I thought it might be interesting for anyone who might still be interested in talking about free will and determinism.

[cuppajoe_9]

The one explaination for the speed-of-light-defying electrons I have heard is the 'hologram' model of the universe, which states that two electrons aren't acutally transmitting information faster than the speed of light because both electrons are actually part of the same something, and space is an illusion that keeps everythig from being too close to everything else. That's why I major in english and not physics.

[kilted exile]

I hope somebody finds this interesting.

I am interested in it, however it is some time since I studied any quantum theory and I am still doing my own research.

I must agree with your point about the difference between causation and prediction. Though I am still trying to figure out why electron spin would be used as an example of not having free will.

Perhaps I am looking at this subject in the wrong magnification

[bluevictim]

I must agree with your point about the difference between causation and prediction. Though I am still trying to figure out why electron spin would be used as an example of not having free will.I have to admit, I'm not exactly sure I understand what Skafte was trying to say about how entanglement affects free will. From my reading of his/her post, there doesn't need to be any involvement of quantum physics at all. Hopefully he/she will pop back in and clear it up.

I do think that the discussion of why entanglement doesn't contradict relativity raises some issues that are related to determinism (which is related to free will, and also one of the OP's main concerns). Relativity asserts that the idea of causality is somehow "real". However, if everything is determined (for a strong sense of "determined"), it is tempting to say that causality is an illusion. If it was determined that JFK would be assasinated by Oswald, perhaps it is JFK's assasination that caused Oswald to shoot him rather than Oswald shooting him that caused the assasination. To put it another way: It is determined that 1+1=2 and 2-1=1. Is it the case that 1+1=2 causes 2-1=1, or is it the case that 2-1=1 causes 1+1=2?

[kilted exile]

I do think that the discussion of why entanglement doesn't contradict relativity raises some issues that are related to determinism (which is related to free will, and also one of the OP's main concerns). Relativity asserts that the idea of causality is somehow "real". However, if everything is determined (for a strong sense of "determined"), it is tempting to say that causality is an illusion. If it was determined that JFK would be assasinated by Oswald, perhaps it is JFK's assasination that caused Oswald to shoot him rather than Oswald shooting him that caused the assasination. To put it another way: It is determined that 1+1=2 and 2-1=1. Is it the case that 1+1=2 causes 2-1=1, or is it the case that 2-1=1 causes 1+1=2?

I'll deal with the numbers (it's a language I am far more comfortable with ;) ). It is of course the case that neither one "causes" the other it is just the case that both are true. (will add more later....getting late)

I am reminded of an example from a Stats class I took at Glasgow Uni regarding Predictability and Causation. It revolved around Ice-Cream sales and drownings at a beach. Of course there is a relationship between the # of ice-creams sold and # of drownings as A increases, B also increases, this can allow us to predict in months where Ice-cream sales are high drownings are likely to be up as well. But, of course (I really use that term too much), there is no causation.

[kilted exile]

Ok more awake.

Causaulity is of course (there it is again) not an illusion, there are plenty of examples of true cause and effect. However that does not mean that either everything has a cause, or that there is one sole cause.

For the example you gave regarding JFK and Oswald, it first has to be decided that an assasination is pre-determined and must take place, and that there is no-one on the grassy knoll :alien: (because then it's a completely different kettle of fish) .

So then there is the question as to how far back the pre-determination goes. If it is pre-determined that Oswald must assasinate JFK, can we justifiably suggest he would have been killed even if he wasnt president. Or if we decide it is just that Oswald must assasinate a president would it matter what the policies of the president were. Or if the president had followed diametrically opposed policies would he simply have been shot by someone else from the same place (after all we have determined he must be killed). Would reversing Oswald's policies, reverse JFK's and vice-versa?

And then of course there is the number problem:

Neither causes the other, because they are both the same. It is just the "tenses" that are different active -> passive.


**Just some extra stuff I came back across during some reading today**

There is a great edition of Sciam devoted to Time which came out last year - A Matter Of Time, Volume 16, Number 1, 2006, ISSN 1048-0943. It covers some of the issues raised regarding the electon spin stuff.

[bluevictim]

So then there is the question as to how far back the pre-determination goes. If it is pre-determined that Oswald must assasinate JFK, can we justifiably suggest he would have been killed even if he wasnt president. Or if we decide it is just that Oswald must assasinate a president would it matter what the policies of the president were. Or if the president had followed diametrically opposed policies would he simply have been shot by someone else from the same place (after all we have determined he must be killed). Would reversing Oswald's policies, reverse JFK's and vice-versa?Thanks for your thoughts. I'm not sure if I'm understanding you right, but it sounds like we're somewhat in agreement. What I was trying to say was that if we postulate the strongest form of determinism possible, it might imply that the idea of causality is not "real". To follow your description of the JFK thing, none of the "if" questions you presented would matter, because everything is determined to happen just the way they did. The math thing about 1+1=2 was just a model of what I mean by the strongest sense of determinism possible. It seems to me that if we accept causality as real, then we wouldn't be able to hold to that form of determinism (the strongest form possible, like the determinism in math) at the same time. It sounds to me like you're reasoning along similar lines. That is, if we accept that cause and effect is real, we have to use a weaker model of determinism, where it makes sense to ask those "if" questions.


There is a great edition of Sciam devoted to Time which came out last year - A Matter Of Time, Volume 16, Number 1, 2006, ISSN 1048-0943. It covers some of the issues raised regarding the electon spin stuff.Thanks for the tip. That sounds interesting.

[kilted exile]

Oh yes, we are definetely in agreement. I was just thinking of hypotheticals.

[bluevictim]

So then there is the question as to how far back the pre-determination goes. If it is pre-determined that Oswald must assasinate JFK, can we justifiably suggest he would have been killed even if he wasnt president. Or if we decide it is just that Oswald must assasinate a president would it matter what the policies of the president were. Or if the president had followed diametrically opposed policies would he simply have been shot by someone else from the same place (after all we have determined he must be killed). Would reversing Oswald's policies, reverse JFK's and vice-versa?

...

There is a great edition of Sciam devoted to Time which came out last year - A Matter Of Time, Volume 16, Number 1, 2006, ISSN 1048-0943. It covers some of the issues raised regarding the electon spin stuff.I think your suggestion that a lot of this relates to the concept of "time" is right on. These types of questions come up constantly whereever the idea of time travel comes up. I think this is also one reason why it is so hard to think rigorously about determinism -- the notion of time is so deeply ingrained in us that it's hard not to fall into traps because of our intuition.

There is certainly a fair amount of determinism inherent in modern science, which is pretty much based on an assumption that there is enough symmetry in reality to justify inductive reasoning from experiements. In my experience many people (scientists and non-scientists alike) insist that this assumption is "true". Personally, I don't think it is necessary to believe this assumption is "true" to justify science; it is only necessary to admit that it is useful.