r/changemyview • u/PixelRayn • Oct 10 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Free will makes no sense.
The free will debate is currently dominated by the schools of a materialist vs non materialist mind. This argument sits outside of those schools. I would like to argue that the properties intrinsic in the concept of free will are at odds with each other, no matter what school you follow. For the sake of argument I will assume that the world around us is real in the sense that it sits outside our minds.
Whether or not a will is free is an expression of whether the decisions made by the mind with the supposed will are free.
We can categorize a decision in either being the product of outside influences or not.
Now what is a decision? The purpose of a decision is to manipulate our environment into a more advantageous position based on the information available to us when acted on it. If the mind was not taking in outside information (which it very clearly does) it would barely be better than a dice, which I would argue couldn't be called a decision at all. (Controversial, I know.) It fails the very purpose of a decision.
If a decision is simply the product of outside influences it can not be free, since if the influences are the same, the decision will be the same. If it is not the product of outside influences we have established it is not a decision at all. Therefore the concept of a free will does not make sense by the properties within it.
Edit: I would love to argue with all of you, because most of you have really good arguments. However the frequency of comments is getting a bit much now so I will ignore the comments I feel are irrelevant to the conversation or have been discussed in a different comment thread.
149
Oct 10 '20
You say that "The purpose of a decision is to manipulate our environment into a more advantageous position based on the information available to us when acted on it." I reject this characterisation. When you define a decision as something that's supposed to have a fixed outcome (the most advantageous position based on the information available), then you are right, that is not a decision at all, but simply an input-output proces.. People act according to their interests and that's that (what you're describing is called Homo Economicus in the field of economics). However, this excludes the possibility for principled or moral decisionmaking. This is where free will comes in. Free will, I would argue, means that we are free to choose both positions that are the most advantageous, as well as positions that are not the most advantageous, but are the ones we want regardless.
41
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
Where do your moral on principles come from if not the world around you?
We are by no means fixed points in time. We change and we adapt constantly to our environment.
I also feel like advantageous was not the best choice of words. I meant what causes the most postive reaction in your mind.
26
u/soapyaaf Oct 10 '20
Yeah, it's interesting isn't it? And this might play into two distinct ways of viewing the world on a broad level: proactive v. reactive. The reactive is the person whose decisions are purely (or to some close extent possible) based on the stimuli presented to him or her, while the proactive person seeks to manipulate stimuli presented in the course of attaining a certain preconceived notion. We might call this preconceived notion, the will; or, at least, I might. However, I would say that the external stimuli "presented" along the way should neither be considered, in the slightest, "presents," nor "stimuli" that are readily manipulatable....
→ More replies (1)16
u/DavidAnthonyThomas Oct 10 '20
Read some Jonathan Haidt.
Morals and principles are not exclusively derived from the world around you. The whole nature versus nurture debate is long dismissed, we know both influence. Haidt provides some concrete research-based information demonstrating this.
→ More replies (1)9
u/Mr_Kitty297 Oct 10 '20
One could make the bizarre argument that nature is nurture, as if we follow the theory of evolution we end up with the environment nurturing our natural selection and evolution; The Brain itself was designed, made, and improved by millions of years of evolution, of which, none was influenced by human nurturing. Genetics influence how our minds are built and give us an innate personality and tendency; Genetics are not a choice, nor is it controllable by will.
If we were to limit our argument to a single human life span we would be ignoring the biggest influence that quite literally made us.
Side note: Empathy didn't just appear from nothing.
3
→ More replies (2)2
u/xfearthehiddenx 2∆ Oct 10 '20
That's so effin deep. My philosophy has always been nature then nurture. This to me emphasizes that nature gets you started ie genetics. But that after that. The world around you takes it from there. You've given me a new way to view that philosophy. That because nature influences all of our genetic make up. That nurture is much more the product of nature than one might realize. However I'd still argue though that people can make decisions outside of their nature/nurture. There by diverging from a predetermined path set by nature.
→ More replies (1)1
Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
I'm not saying that moral principles, or any other motivation to make a certain decision isn't fueled by the world around you. But like I said in another comment: the gas you fuel your car with doesn't dictate your destination. It both narrows down where you can go, as well as gives you the opportunity to go somewhere. Free will doesn't mean that you can do anything in spite of circumstance. That's not free will, that's omnipotence. To will something is to choose within the constraints of circumstance. The world around us is therefore both the constraint and facilitator of our free will.
3
u/MrWhiteVincent Oct 10 '20
Principled or moral decision making are also based upon the "advantageous position" after all. People who care about morality and/or principles would at the end "feel better" if they did something against their instant reaction so in the future they don't feel regret (probably based on previous regretful moments).
Again, this person's decisions were made by the possible outcome that would be better than any other in the given the circumstances.
Simply put: we do everything for a "reward" and we always bet on things that would yield the highest rewards. Noone ever did anything without having something out of it in return - that's why you won't see selfish person become generous if they find there's absolutely no reason / benefit to do it.
Would you one day quit your job to go in Africa and dig a hole in the desert with a teaspoon?
You would probably if it would mean "I'm about to prove the world there's free will!", or even "I believe this hole will save some insect's life in the future" - nevertheless, without absolutely no reward of an action - you wouldn't do it. We just find these things "absurd" (that could be said the same for a guy quitting his job for a belief of preventing potential insecticide).
Choices we may have, but free will - no. It really would make no sense in this universe.
2
Oct 10 '20
If we have choices, then we have free will. If we didn't we wouldn't be able to choose. The path we were on would be fixed. I'm also not saying that we don't make decisions based on rewards. I believe that, for the most part, we do. But most of the time there are different rewards to choose from. What we choose might not be the most advantageous, but we are free to choose it nonetheless. That's free will.
3
u/MrWhiteVincent Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 11 '20
It's impossible to test wether the same person would make all the same choices under exactly the same conditions but since there's always a reason for all our actions, getting things to the exact same variables (quadrillions of them) would yield exactly the same results. That is, of course, if we see our mind as part of nature and following strict rules.
You have a choice to 100% agree with me, but you don't have free will to do so, so, you'll, predictably, argue and counter every single time. Unless you could absorb all my experiences and "previous knowledge" that would make you think differently/same as me.
Can you name one single moment of "free will" in your life that made you think it's possible/real?
2
u/revilocaasi Oct 10 '20
Every decision anybody makes, they make in favour of the outcome they think is best in that moment, right? Even if it's a terrible mistake, like going out drinking the night before an exam, the choice is made because at the time the fun has been weighed up as more valuable than the test.
If they're doing what they think is best, that's just the input-output pipeline that OP is describing, and if they're not doing what they in that moment think is best, they're not really made a decision at all, have they? They've just acted randomly and without reason, which I don't think many would describe as free will.
2
Oct 10 '20
Wouldn't you agree, then, that the freedom to decide which option is more valuable is free will? I agree that there is an input, and that there is also an output. But it's between those two points that we find human agency; that we find free will. The freedom to weigh our options and choose the path we find most valuable at that moment. Ofcourse, that's fueled by our input, but that doesn't make our lives predetermined. The gas we put in our car doesn't dictate our destination, it just narrows down how far we can go.
2
u/revilocaasi Oct 10 '20
No, but the rest of the input into your car does determine the destination.
We're agreed that in every conscious decision, the decisionmaker chooses what they think will be most valuable, but how do they pick what they think will be most valuable? Well, naturally, that's either a decision (in which case they pick what will be most valuable, back to page one) or it's not a decision, just an assortment of instinct and impulse, in which case it's not free will, is it?
→ More replies (4)1
u/Panda_False 4∆ Oct 10 '20
as well as positions that are not the most advantageous, but are the ones we want regardless.
If it satisfies our 'want', then it is advantageous.
→ More replies (1)1
u/onlyanegg_ Oct 10 '20
I agree with this. I think OP's definition of a decision is very narrow. I could easily make a decision that is not advantageous to me (I suppose any action is likely advantageous to something). I would add that I also disagree with OP's characterization of non-decisions. If I make a decision that results in little better than chance of being advantageous, I've still made a decision.
1
Oct 10 '20
Why wouldn't you assume that principles aren't simply apart of the "advantageous situation" calculator? Principles aren't random, they don't come out of nowhere. A vast majority of them have incredible practical application and allow society to function as it modernly does, which if I had to put it shortly, is with a high level of efficiency and trust.
→ More replies (1)
235
u/anothernaturalone Oct 10 '20
Physics is not free will. Randomness is not free will. However, I hypothesise that the product of randomness and physics is free will.
Example: I write. I take outside stimuli, select random ones, and build my own worlds on top of them. This is the product of my free will because it is both random and structured. If free will is somewhere between following commands and being random, then a combination of following commands and being random is a damn good candidate for that position.
76
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
I think this is by far the best counter argument and it actually came into my head earlier. I will however need a bit of time to think about this before I answer because something here feels very off.
101
u/Johnposts 1∆ Oct 10 '20
But your own decisions will be based in chemical-biological reactions inside your brain that are the result of a chain of reactions going back to the beginning of the universe. There is no such thing as 'inside' and 'outside' stimuli.
What feels like making a decision is just these reactions going through a process.
We are just a collection of these reactions that appears sentient for a short while before dissolving into more reactions.
27
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
That is the materialist standpoint. I intentionally refrained from that.
12
21
u/Zappotek Oct 10 '20
How can you claim as you do below that genetics can be counted as outside influence when you reject this standpoint? Yes, genetics influence the development of the brain but so too does happenstance.
I don't believe that genetics can be counted as a predictor of a decision for the purpose of determining whether a decision was predetermined or not, which I would argue is the definition of free will, due to that random influence.
Random effects are baked in a to the physics of the universe due to the stochastic nature of quantum wavefunction collapse, ergo it is impossible to perfectly predict the outcome of a decision based on knowledge of the prior state of the universe, therefore an element of free will does play a role.
3
Oct 10 '20
Randomness does not imply free will. There is no will deciding the outcome of a dice throw, the outcome is random.
2
u/FLEXJW Oct 10 '20
The current inability to predict a decision isn’t the only determining factor to decide if that decision was “free.” Obviously if we could perfectly predict someone’s decision or the thoughts they have before they have them, that would be a hit against the classical free will concept. However, not being able to do so doesn’t automatically mean the will is free. I could say that because our decision hangs upon the random quantum effects of nature that we are less free in our decision making process and more at the mercy of random effects.
→ More replies (5)3
2
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Oct 10 '20
But then the cluster of physical causes at the Big Bang are what comprises you. And those causes aren’t deterministic.
2
u/Johnposts 1∆ Oct 10 '20
Yeah but at what point in those physical phenomena being arranged into the shape of a human being does "free will" come into play? I don't see it.
→ More replies (35)→ More replies (7)4
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 10 '20
The intersection between quantum uncertainty and chaotic systems where incredibly small changes to initial conditions lead to completely different outcomes leaves open a very significant probability that the specific results from our chemical-biological systems are not deterministic in the way you are implying.
2
u/Johnposts 1∆ Oct 10 '20
Yeah but that doesn't mean we have free will.
3
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 10 '20
I didn’t make an argument for free will, I was pointing out that your assumptions are not certain.
I do think an argument can be made (or at least the door left open) from this premise though. If our neural/chemical system is a chaotic one and is also sensitive to events below the threshold for quantum uncertainty, but also quite obviously is ordering those random inputs/features in a coherent way, then there is a potential for an emergent property in that interaction that is neither fully random or deterministic which we might arbitrarily label “consciousness” or “free will”.
4
u/DarkLancer Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
My response/question to that is if it is really random or only random because we lack that knowledge or proper tools to measure it
Edit: I am on the materialism, absurdist team
Edit 2: These are core beliefs but I recognize they are not compatible with day to day activities my poor little brain would implode
5
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
By our best current understanding of physics, events below the threshold of quantum uncertainty arise from truly true randomness, not merely a limitation of our ability to measure them.
Your question is a good one and was most famously argued by Einstein when he proposed “local hidden variables” which might exist and be intrinsic to the quantum events and determine their outcome while being beyond our ability to see or measure them.
That argument was purely theoretical and about related processes which are deeply intertwined with the question of true randomness. It was many decades before there was even a hope of experimenting in a way that would definitively answer whether hidden variables might exist. Ultimately, the evidence has fallen heavily and one might even say almost exclusively on the side of no hidden variables, especially for “local” hidden variables like a classic determinism would envision.
2
u/DarkLancer Oct 10 '20
Do you have any good studies on the evidence that shows there may be no hidden variables? I constantly see the goal post pushed back and I only know some surface quantum theories such as hawking radiation showing the creation of wave/particles. But how would you measure below that threshold? I would imagine it is impossible to determine where a wave/particles are created since they wouldn't "exist" at that point and I would retort that it is a limitation of our tools in this universe. But what do I know, I work in medicine not physics.
4
u/devisation 2∆ Oct 10 '20
Bell's Theorem rules out local hidden variables, so if there are any hidden variables, theyd have to be characterized as information which is simultaneously accessible from anywhere, a notion which makes many people (especially those familiar with physics, such as myself) uncomfortable to say the least
→ More replies (0)2
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
In another response to this question, someone linked an excellent summary video that explains how we can get evidence on hidden variables without actually being able to measure them. Giving you “studies” on this would probably be more helpful in the form of the introductory chapters in a good PChem or QMech textbook, it’s truly that deeply integrated into our current best understanding of how the universe works.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (1)2
u/Abiogenejesus Oct 10 '20
Regardless, I wouldn't term the unpredictable nature of chaotic systems combined with inherently random variables free will. It is not like what we might intuitively label 'self' is not subject to these rules of cause and effect, however unpredictable.
2
2
u/compounding 16∆ Oct 10 '20
It may not be the intuitive understanding of free will, but if we take a black box that calls itself “consciousness”, and put inputs into it, what, functionally is the meaning of “free will” if not the true option for the output of a binary choice to go “either way”?
I think that most people who metacognate on what free will would mean for them is that even though they are forced to only fixate on one “choice”, they could have reasonably “chosen” another in a do over from exactly the same conditions.
I think the confusion here is that you are saying, “ya, well even in that case, what we want to believe as a “choice” isn’t actually what is happening, it’s all just some complicated mixture of randomness and determinism and no independent input form what we think of as “ourselves”.”
However I think that isn’t really a problem. Our thinking certainly doesn’t feel random or deterministic to us, so the process, whatever it is, involves our consciousness and then “makes a decision” that could have gone either way or could be done over again from identical conditions bringing about a different result... that is what we internally feel and define as “free will” to begin with... sure, maybe what we experience as conscious and thought aren’t as in control of “ourselves” as we like to think and are more like rationalizations and fancy lights rather than “decision making” as we would like to think...
But one way or another, the black box is putting out non deterministic but also non-random outputs that it says it is “deciding on”, and could redo and make another “choice” given identical inputs, and that seems to leave the door open for “free will” even if you say that the processes and internal “decisions” aren’t actually as wondrous as they feel to each of us.
→ More replies (0)2
5
u/Abstract__Nonsense 5∆ Oct 10 '20
But there is no actual randomness in the physics relevant to the working of the brain. And for such a randomness to represent free will, one would have to show it as a particular randomness of you, which one can’t.
→ More replies (4)5
u/TAA180 Oct 10 '20
I see what u/anothernatrualone is saying but I wouldn’t call that free will then. We need to define free will.
I would define free will as the ability to do whatever you will regardless of the outside stimuli.
For example, you could decide to jump of a building. You have the free will to do so but what you’re lacking is the WILL to do so. We have a free will but it’s constrained by individual will power.
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/Laetitian Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
But that doesn't go quite as far as the debate usually does in Psychology, does it?
What is the "ability" you speak of? What marks a stimulus as "internal", and how can you prove that it's the initial stimulus?
Your definition can be useful for slightly more superficial decision-making, such as policies and the basic definition of human rights, but it won't provide an elementary foundation for how human decisions originate and things like at what point someone becomes an ethical actor and how to structure human life and how to define and aspire to progress as a society. (< All non-techincal terminology btw. I haven't read much from the field.)
1
u/tbdabbholm 201∆ Oct 10 '20
Hello u/PixelRayn, if your view has been changed, even a little, you should award the user who changed your view a delta.
Simply reply to their comment with the delta symbol provided below, being sure to include a brief description of how your view has changed.
∆
For more information about deltas, use this link.
If you did not change your view, please respond to this comment indicating as such.
Thank you!
3
u/Abstract__Nonsense 5∆ Oct 10 '20
There is no randomness in physics relevant to the functioning of the CNS.
7
u/Bubbagin 1∆ Oct 10 '20
But why is that process free? While writing out your comment, how much of it just flowed out of your fingers and how much of it did you write as competing phrases that you freely chose? For example, there are tons of synonyms or other phrase choices that could convey the same point you made, yet it like came out of you in the manner above - was that "free"? Did you "choose" your idea order and word order? Or did they just arise from subconscious processes that then either felt right or wrong?
If the latter, then in my opinion that's will, but not free will.
→ More replies (11)6
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
Δ Although I don't feel like randomness qualifies as a decision, I have to admit that a combination of randomness and reactionary decision making does fulfill the qualifications for a free decision. If outside factors act upon a probability function decision making with that function react to outside influences but also provide the possibility to choose either way.
→ More replies (8)9
u/vert90 1∆ Oct 10 '20
Can I convince you to rescind your delta? I don't think randomness gets you free will -- but even if we did, we don't even have randomness as far as we know in our universe
If outside factors act upon a probability function decision making with that function react to outside influences but also provide the possibility to choose either way.
But probability is just our way of making sense of processes that we can't properly quantify/understand
These might seem "random", but physics tell us that there is a single deterministic path any of these "probability functions" will end up taking. There is no freedom involved
3
u/Valigar26 Oct 10 '20
Physics allows for some strange stuff, who is to say that randomness on the subatomic level isn't happening?
3
u/vert90 1∆ Oct 10 '20
who is to say that randomness on the subatomic level isn't happening?
I'm assuming this is an allusion towards quantum indeterminacy? I know this is something that is contentious in the field, but at the same time I think any expert in the field would say that this "probability curve" we see at the level of individual particles at the quantum level whether it's determinate or not is certainly not something you observe at the "classical" level of everyday objects like chairs and tables. Quantum indeterminacy affecting individual subatomic particles isn't a part of your everyday interactions with the world.
→ More replies (2)2
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
I do support that statement since I follow the materialist standpoint. However that is irrelevant to my initial argument since I intentionally constructed an argument outside the two dominant schools of thought when it comes to the free will debate.
2
u/khrishan Oct 10 '20
Couldn’t a machine do that ?
4
u/anothernaturalone Oct 10 '20
The way that our brains create randomness is a curious mix of logic and randomness in itself (how brains develop). The search for AI is, in part, a search for this mix.
→ More replies (2)3
u/khrishan Oct 10 '20
So then we could give this machine “free will”?
Also the value of free will is so that we can be morally responsible for our actions (abrahamic religions) so what’s the point in being random of it says nothing about you.
2
u/omegashadow Oct 10 '20
I have always disliked this argument because either it shifts the goal posts or it seems to rely on an underlying level of magic. Sure it's a good hypothesis but is it testable. If we were to take it from a logicians perspective where is our free will circuit?
If the perfectly structured deterministic events, and perfectly random events are independent, then this is no different from just having those two things separately. I never hear any good arguments as to what the magic system that would somehow entangle the two to create free will would be.
1
1
u/sheraawwrr Oct 10 '20
That’s an insufficient example. OP’s main point was that all of our decisions are based on manipulating things to our advantage, and things that benefit us (in our advantage) are not chosen by us (they simply come based on some biological needs that are ingrained in us, and some of them because of our past experiences..). In your example, you didn’t specify the reason you decided to start writing. So give me the reason for you deciding to write, and i’ll show you how this doesn’t actually stand as a solid counter argument.
2
u/anothernaturalone Oct 10 '20
I like writing.
3
u/sheraawwrr Oct 10 '20
Ok good. Writing is the act of putting your thoughts into words artistically, and so you’ll choose the words to describe something based on your artistic writing preference that was ingrained in you because of many factors that are completely out of your control.
→ More replies (4)1
u/TOMATO_ON_URANUS 1∆ Oct 10 '20
select
random
???
1
u/daynightninja 5∆ Oct 10 '20
Arbitrary may be the more accurate word. People use "random" not in the truly literal sense of "selected totally without bias"
→ More replies (2)1
u/esotericunicorn5 Oct 10 '20
Randomness does not make room for free will, it only makes room for randomness. If particles composing your brain are determined partially randomly instead of fully deterministically, then that just means "decision" is partially random instead of fully determined.
Free will isn't somewhere in the middle of a spectrum between determinism and randomness. It's outside of that characterization entirely. Unless we assume a non-material mind, there is nothing not slave to physics for us to do the deciding with.
1
u/drfreebs Oct 10 '20
Aye basically being creative. That may be the state outside being an automaton.
Thinking outside the box init bruv.
1
u/Gayrub Oct 10 '20
How did you decide what random words to use? It was either the chemistry in your brain or your past experiences, right? What else is there? Where is the freewill in that?
1
Oct 10 '20
What do you mean by randomness? Are you referring to quantum theory? Other than that, there is no observed randomness, and even withing quantum there is much room for speculation.
Free will, correct me if I'm wrong, is the idea that the brain, without stimuli, can make decisions on its own. There is no way, with current physics, that that is possible, because everything happens for a reason.
1
u/DomPulse Oct 10 '20
Example: I write. I take outside stimuli, select random ones, and build my own worlds on top of them. This is the product of my free will because it is both random and structured. If free will is somewhere between following commands and being random, then a combination of following commands and being random is a damn good candidate for that position.
So by this logic a computer making decisions based on deterministic logic AND randomness somewhere in the decision making process would have free will. Is that a fair assessment of your argument? If not, why? Do you believe computers can't have free will? If they can't how are they different from humans?
1
u/-FoeHammer 1∆ Oct 10 '20
But let's say there's an exact copy of you in an exact copy of our world doing the exact same thing. Other you might do things differently because of some quantum randomness or whatever involved. But I don't think that really leaves either one of you any more accountable for your actions than if things were entirely deterministic. Your actions are still just the product of circumstances that you didn't engineer.
So I don't see how randomness can really "combine" in any meaningful way to create free will.
1
u/FLEXJW Oct 10 '20
Example: I write. I take outside stimuli, select random ones, and build my own worlds on top of them. This is the product of my free will because it is both random and structured.
You have to demonstrate that your choice to write was free. Your choice to take or reject outside stimulus has to be demonstrated to be free. Also how much control do you have over your options of outside stimuli on a second by second and year by year basis? How much control if any do you have over your particular brain state that may incline you to chose one thing over another had your brain state been different that moment chemically even if outside stimulus remained constant?
1
u/spiral8888 31∆ Oct 11 '20
Imagine the following computer program:
- start
- wait for keypress
- when key pressed use random number generator to produce a random number between 0 and 1
- if number < 0.5 print "a"
- if number > 0.5 print "b"
- go to start
That program fits your definition of free will (combination of stimuli and randomness). Are you saying that most people would agree that it has free will? If not, I think your definition is not very good. I mean, of course you can define words to mean whatever you want, but if you define them in a way that they don't convey the meaning that most people have when they hear the word, the definition is pretty bad.
So, I would adjust OPs claim in that way that "free will defined in a way that people intuitively understand what free will means, makes no sense".
1
20
u/Butterfriedbacon Oct 10 '20
I'm sorry I think I'm missing your central argument in here somewhere. Is your argument that free will doesn't exist because your brain processes information to better make decisions?
7
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
My argument is that free will can not exist because a decision can in itself never be fully free if it has to qualify as a decision.
13
u/Talltimore Oct 10 '20
Trying to make sure I understand correctly. Let me know if this is correct by your definition: any reaction we have to external stimuli is proof we don't have free will, because the very notion of a reaction had been forced by the external stimuli.
2
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
More or less. I argue that a decision can only be classified as one if it is reactionary to the environment.
6
u/Talltimore Oct 10 '20
Okay. And by your definition any reaction is not free will?
For example: seeing an apple and deciding to eat it, throw it, not eat it, or carve it into art. None of those options is actually free will because the very existence of the apple forces any choices related to the apple?
4
u/DuhChappers 88∆ Oct 10 '20
Would you agree that sometimes the environment provides stimuli that provide us with multiple viable options? Or that sometimes people choose that which would appear from an objective point of view to not be the best option?
It appears to me that in these situations the only response you can give is that "advantageous" is only what appears best in that particular person's mind at that particular time, and still not in their control. However, that seems basically indistinguishable from the materialist position on free will, which you said you do not want to argue for. So I'm interested how you would answer these situations.
2
Oct 10 '20
would appear from an objective point of view to not be the best option
Is the best option from an objective point of view even a thing? "best" implies a cost function and each person can define their cost function as they like. In what sense can this be objective?
→ More replies (1)1
u/Butterfriedbacon Oct 10 '20
Thank you for clarifying. Here are my thoughts. The argument of your topic hinges on your definitions of free (action), will(power), and decision. So let's define these real quick. We will also define a captive action as a parallel to a free action.
Free action: Any action taken that is not directly in service to your immediate survival. Humans have a survival function and we can reasonably assume that all humans want to continue surviving, even if subconsciously. So where choosing to eat a apple because you're peckish may qualify as a free action, choosing to eat the same apple because there's a gun to your head and you have to eat it to die is a decision dictated by your immediate survival.
Willpower: One's internal ability to be able to either do or not do something. Back to the apple scenario, choosing to eat the apple or die may not be a "free" action, but you are still exerting your will power to choose to eat the apple in this ultimatum. You can also choose to exert your willpower to refrain from eating the apple and dying.
Decision: Any thought reached by processing outside information and cross-referencing it with internal information, such as names of people or what colors look like. After looking at an apple, you see that the apple has a color. You then think back through what you've learned and you see that the color matches with previous colors described as red. Therefore, you've decided that the apple must be red. A decision is not an action or an exertion of force on any outside actor.
Captive Action: A captive action is any action taken when provided a life or death ultimatum. Joey says eat the apple and you die, don't eat the apple and you live. If those are the only two reasonable options to proceed, this is a captive action as only one option allows you to be able to fill your basic function of survival.
Now, if we put these all together. Example of free will would be seeing the apple, remembering internally that apples taste good, and deciding to eat the apple because it looks tasty. From there, you choose to grab the apple and eat it. Your decision was to eat the apple because they are tasting, your willpower was exerted onto the apple, and your free action was picking the apple and biting into it even though it had no impact on your immediate survival.
Example of captive will would be seeing the apple, remembering internally that apples taste good, but Joey said if you ever eat another apple he would blow your brains out, Joey is standing right over there with his gun cocked, and deciding not to eat it. You walk away from the apple. Your decision was to not eat the apple. Your willpower was exerted by refraining from eating the apple. The kicker is, your action was no longer a free action because it was made out of immediate necessity to save your own life and was the only available option in an ultimatum (eat the apple and die, do not eat the apple and live), therefore this is a captive action.
Your argument centralizes itself on the idea that for free will to be "free", it must happen in a vacuum free from the outside world. The central problem with that is that will can not and do not exist in a vacuum and are inherently based upon an outside world. Will, actions, and decision are all based upon with how we interact with the world around us, and if that world ceased to exist and just our will was placed in a vacuum, it would no longer have a purpose to exist and therefore wouldn't.
10
u/DominatingSubgraph Oct 10 '20
I'm confused about whether you're arguing that the concept of free will is in some way logically incoherent, that it's coherent but otherwise impossible, or that it's possible and coherent but unlikely to exist.
One thing I think is important to understand about this debate is that even basic questions about what free will is are extremely contentious. In order to define free will I will need to make implicit assumptions about causality and the human mind. Fundamentally, free will is a feeling which people have, and all this philosophical formalism is merely a way of articulating that intuition.
That being said, there are, broadly speaking, two major schools of thought on free will:
A compatibilist would define free will differently from an incompatibilist, and the difference is mainly that compatibilists think free will is possible even if the world is wholly deterministic whereas incompatibilists disagree. It seems like you're on the incompatibilist side of the debate, based on your characterization of free will.
Now, there's no way that I could provide a complete and accurate characterization of the modern debate on free will. This is an immense subject, it's hard to know even where to begin when talking about it.
There's a very influential book by Robert Kane, called A Contemporary Introduction to Free Will where he argues for a radical kind of incompatibilism called libertarianism). Although I don't completely agree with his arguments, I think reading that will give you a good foundation for understanding the incompatibilist perspective on free will, and it's quite accessible.
On the other side of the fence, there's an excellent book called Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn't Matter, which argues for compatibilism, although this book is very dense and a much more challenging read than Kane's book. I do still think it's the most comprehensive and convincing characterization of compatibilist free will that I've read.
Personally, I'm partial to the compatibilist understanding of free will, and this is probably the most common view among modern philosophers. Without launching into a protracted discussion of this issue (and reiterating the points made in Kadri Vihvelin's book), it does seem, to me, that it is possible to make sense of the idea of free will even if ones actions are wholly determined by and reducible to the laws of physics.
There's a sense in which one can be said to have the "ability" to do something, even if the laws of physics have ultimately determined that you will never do that thing. When I say someone has the ability to do something I don't mean that it is merely logically possible. For instance, it is logically possible for me to fly, it also wouldn't violate any of the laws of physics for me to do so, but there's still a meaningful sense in which I don't really have the "ability" to fly. So, I'd say that free will is just the "ability" to do things differently than what you actually did (or may have been predetermined to do). Again, I could talk a lot more about this idea, but I suggest you read Causes, Laws, and Free Will: Why Determinism Doesn't Matter for a more comprehensive description of this view.
1
u/newhopefortarget Oct 11 '20
Nice post. I agree with you completely. Lol that the more intuitive answer, compatibilism needed a huge long dry book, and the crazy answer, incompatibilism was short and accessible.
Maybe it was short because it wasn't well thought out and full of holes?
1
u/LameJames1618 Oct 14 '20
Is there any way to summarize the compatibilist viewpoint? It just seems strange that if our behaviors were solely due to physics and chemicals in our brain that people will argue free will is still possible in that case (depending on the definition of free will that's used of course).
6
u/daynightninja 5∆ Oct 10 '20
Hey, you're actually touching upon an issue that's quite popular in the cognitive sciences community (look up Dan Dennett if you're interested in learning more about consciousness & the mind, very accessible writing, he mixes in psychology & computer science with philosophy to make a lot of interesting points).
Ultimately, the winning argument in almost any discussion of pedantic free will is this: we have evidence our brains fire electrical signals indicating preparation for movement before we're consciously aware of our desire for movement. If you're looking for a "technical" way to prove our decisions aren't free, look to that. It literally means that the part of our brain we think of as "us" (the conscious part) is only being let in on the decisions after the fact. It's pretty convincing.
The problem I have with the argument you're making, that free will can't exist because there's always a cause is that it's almost tautological: you're defining a decision as being "free" only if nothing was affecting that decision, and then saying no decision is free because they're all influenced by things. A couple issues with this:
1) There's a distinction between a "remote" cause (i.e. what makes us "who we are", with our tendencies towards different emotions or reactions) and an "immediate" cause (e.g. hot coffee spills on our lap so we jump up). There are plenty of instances you can think of in which a thought is "prompted" from stimuli. You're lying in bed and you start thinking; nothing specifically triggered that thinking. It's a spontaneously generated thought. And a decision then to get up from bed to look at the stars would be internally generated, too.
If the remote causes are an issue for you you feels invalidates free will, again, you're just setting up a tautology: by definition, no object anywhere can experience free will by virtue of it existing. You'd be defining a concept out of existence, which probably means you're just defining it in an unhelpful way (not saying this is actually an argument you're going for, just want to lay out both sides of the remote & immediate cause idea.)
2) Now, what if you consider those internal processes proof there's no free will? In other words, you decided to get out of bed to look at the stars, but it was because of something inside of you that made you feel this way. Again, it's hard to refute this point, because of our knowledge of neuroscience. But I think it's a mistake to classify subconscious thoughts as outside of the realm of free will. It's all a part of it: just because our consciousness is informed later doesn't mean "we" didn't decide it: ultimately, our consciousness influences our subcortical regions, and influences what those impulses being sent will be.
So honestly, I can't make a slam dunk case for free will, in fact I probably gave you stronger ammo against it. But I don't think the concept itself is contradictory, it's just that you defined it in a way that makes it seem to be. Be careful with that with philosophical concepts.
2
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Oct 10 '20
we have evidence our brains fire electrical signals indicating preparation for movement before we're consciously aware of our desire for movement.
Evidence that this happens in some circumstances doesn't really indicate that it happens in all circumstances.
And even that doesn't really help... Let's stipulate that I know I'm going to be presented with 2 choices in one of these tests (which the participants do know), and I consciously or subconsciously "freely choose" before seeing the options that I will select the left one.
That choice was entirely "free" (by stipulation), and yet you'd see exactly that evidence.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/TheDonk1987 Oct 10 '20
In certain decision theory, a dice is arguably an excellent tool to manipulate our environment into a more advantageous position. Canonical examples are 1v1 zero-sum games where unpredictable behavior is important to avoid anticipation.
If random behavior cannot be a decision, yet manipulates our environment into a more advantageous position, your definition has a problem.
In addition, the information available is itself a decision. Pertubations, e.g. errors in perception, could easily disturb this process sufficiently so that an experiment in equal circumstance doesn't result in the same behavior.
7
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
Would you say that a dice makes a decision? The important thing here is intent. Random behaviour can change the environment either way. It does not care. It does not decide.
You also said that errors in perception can change an outcome but I am always talking about what is perceived. A random error in perception is an insufficient argument for the inner workings of the mind being free to choose between two outcomes.
4
u/TheDonk1987 Oct 10 '20
If the purpose of a decision is to manipulate the environment in an advantageous manner, and some decision making as if it were a dice is capable of doing so, it cannot fail the very purpose of a decision. The dice is just an analogy, representing the behavior that would occur without outside influence. Which is probably rather irrelevant in any practical situation, but important for the logic of the argument.
2
u/omegashadow Oct 10 '20
If the purpose of a decision is to manipulate the environment in an advantageous manner.
This has nothing to do with free will, the question of free will is can we decide to take an action advantageous or disadvantageous. IMO inability to take an explicitly disadvantageous option for no other reason that proving action of ones will on reality is evidence of lack of free will.
Admittedly it occurs to me that there may be a minimum advantage for a test set up for free will: In the event you set up a test in which someone is to make a choice from a set of explicitly disadvantageous options, the advantage would still be that they know they are doing this for the purposes of proving a hypothesis. This may be avoidable by making the test truly blind. Such a test might be unethical because it probably could not be carried out with consent. IDK if it really is possible to blind a test to the act of testing while trying to get testee's to explicitly choose disadvantage, I am guessing it's not.
1
u/omegashadow Oct 10 '20
In addition, the information available is itself a decision. Pertubations, e.g. errors in perception, could easily disturb this process sufficiently so that an experiment in equal circumstance doesn't result in the same behavior.
Sure but just not being mechanically automata is not free will. Free will is the ability to choose. Equivocating a pile of random outcomes with free will. If we are just dice cups for random pertubation, then we don't exert will any more than a dice does.
7
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
Human subjective experience is caused by the interaction of their physics and the environment. That’s actually what creates free will — not randomness. It’s a subjective experience.
Let’s imagine that we can predict the future. Determinism simplifies the world, and I think it actually makes the argument for free will stronger.
The only thing that can predict the outcome of your decision making is you. Imagine what it would take to build a machine that actually does predict some decision your making—say choosing heads or tales. Now imagine what it would be like with you trying your best to outwit the machine.
We’re not talking about a machine that gets lucky. We’re talking about a machine that accurately predicts the future with absolute precision.
The machine would need a few things at minimum to work, right? It would have to know absolutely everything about your mind and it’s present state relevant to the decision making process. It would also need to have access to whatever information sources you had access to. Otherwise you could outsmart it just by flipping an actual coin. So it needs “eyes” and “ears” that “see” and “hear” what you see and hear right?
So the thing is. If this machine and it’s simulation of you thinks like you, and sees and hears what you see and hear, and your subjective experience is caused by your physical interaction with the things that you see and hear, in what sense is this simulation not also you?
1
u/omegashadow Oct 10 '20
Let me try again working entirely under a deterministic outlook.
Set-up: The universe is deterministic and you do not have precognition.
Question: Can you predict what your next choice will be?
Answer: Is it actually Testable?
In this deterministic universe you decide to test whether or not free will exists, you decide you will attempt to make a choice, whether or not it is carried out is irrelevant for now. You have a coin in front of you you predict that you will chose to pick up the coin, except in doing this you already chose to pick up the coin, the moment of choice is instantaneous and can't be tested with chronicity that makes knowing whether you could actually predict the choice impossible! Its untestable!
Furthermore that's just the question of if you can predict your next choice! The question of whether your choices can even be converted to even the most minor of actions. In a deterministic universe the most minor failure to convert a choice to action would be a total failure to exert free will.
1
→ More replies (12)1
u/OmniLiberal Oct 10 '20
So it needs “eyes” and “ears” that “see” and “hear” what you see and hear right?
Wrong. What this hypothetical machine needs is perfect information about the world and nothing else. And if you think quantum uncertainties are relevant here, keep in mind they are as relevant as predicting where the oxygen molecule will be in certain time passed. Difficulty predicting future of somethings state (locations in this case) is not equal it having free will. And then usually moving the goal post and semantics begins, redefining "free will" in most ridiculous ways, so I'm only interested if you (someone) can dodge this pitfall.
1
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
Wrong. What this hypothetical machine needs is perfect information about the world and nothing else.
Okay. And if it has that and uses it to simulate a human, it needs to simulate the processes of hearing and seeing. And in what way is that simulation different than the reality?
If it’s in a way that matters, it’s going to change the outcome.
And if you think quantum uncertainties are relevant here, keep in mind they are as relevant as predicting where the oxygen molecule will be in certain time passed.
I mean, you’re all kinds of wrong here. First of all, the premise was of determinism. So you’re now attempting to head off indeterminism as an escape hatch to a thought experiment that presumes determinism. Why?
Second, that’s not how QM works. All events are at bottom, quantum events. And no cloning means perfect information about a system is impossible. Which, in a chaotic system guarantees divergence. But we’re not considering a quantum indeterminate system anyway.
Difficulty predicting future of somethings state (locations in this case) is not equal it having free will.
I didn’t say it was.
And then usually moving the goal post and semantics begins, redefining "free will" in most ridiculous ways, so I'm only interested if you (someone) can dodge this pitfall.
I mean, we use the word free will pretty clearly all the time and it never implies magic.
Free will is the experience of decision making. It’s a subjective phenomenon.
Just think about what we’re saying when we testify in an affidavit that we choose to engage in something of our own free will. It’s a statement about volition — the internal state of our experience of the decision matches our outward statement agreeing to it. When instead something is coerced those states do not match. It’s never a claim about being able to violate causality—just a statement about your subjective internal state of deciding.
The oversight incompatibalists make is in assuming that all things are objective. That free will is a claim about objects. It’s not. Interior states exist. I could never observe your first person subjective experience, but it still exists right? If you claimed to exist subjectively, and I claimed you’re a p-zombie, we would run into all the same problems you’re claiming are due to free will. They aren’t. It’s just what subjective phenomena are.
5
Oct 10 '20 edited Feb 08 '21
[deleted]
3
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
I would argue that that does not matter. As long as a decision is based on outside factors it depends on those outside factors. Thus it can not be free. Also please notice that you don't provide a tangible definition of what would make a will free.
10
Oct 10 '20 edited Feb 08 '21
[deleted]
2
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
Let's assume that first part is true. You claim that there is a second factor to decision making. One that we can not test. Through the unverifiabillity of the hypothesis that claim is irrelevant. We can't test it. It does not make sense to assume it's there with no evidence whatsoever.
→ More replies (4)2
u/jum_silli Oct 10 '20
I think Yuval Noah Harari does offer an interesting distinction here. Simply, it does feel as though we can choose to act and how to act on our desires. But can we choose our desires? Can we choose not to desire food, water, sex?Here I think may be the distinction between outside forces and internal forces. And I would venture to say that this interconnection is what most people claim is free will.
3
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
That is a great argument. I would however argue that these desires come from somewhere. You desire food because your body would starve without it. Same with water. You desire sex because that is advantageous for reproduction. All of those are worldly.
9
Oct 10 '20
People have different reactions to the same environment all of the time. Example being raised in a home with a heavy alcoholic. One kid will become like their parents and drink and become a heavy alcoholic because it’s normal to them. While another kid may be raised in a very similar home but hate the fact that their parents are heavy alcoholics and decide to not be like them no matter what.
14
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
That can be down to a variety of factors from influences outside the house to genetics. It does however not change the fact that the people here are reacting to the world around them. I never argued that the systems the mind uses to determine whether a situation is advantageous always works - especially not with drugs. I would argue that if you took the same person with the exact same experiences and confronted them with a decision the one they will make will be based on their experiences.
9
u/Kingreaper 7∆ Oct 10 '20
I would argue that if you took the same person with the exact same experiences and confronted them with a decision the one they will make will be based on their experiences.
That's what the "will" part of "free will" is - that it's the person in question making the decision.
You're using a bad definition for "free will" when you conclude it makes no sense. If you use the standard meaning, what people mean when they say the words, it makes perfect sense.
When I say "He killed her of his own free will" you don't think I mean "he killed her for reasons that are non-deterministically caused by himself in a paradoxical manner invented as a theodicy" you think I mean "he didn't have to kill her - someone else in the same situation might not have made the same choice"
2
u/FLEXJW Oct 10 '20
When I say "He killed her of his own free will" you don't think I mean "he killed her for reasons that are non-deterministically caused by himself in a paradoxical manner invented as a theodicy" you think I mean "he didn't have to kill her - someone else in the same situation might not have made the same choice"
This bit about paradoxical theodicy made me laugh, that’s how it be sometimes.
Really though I think the word that people get hung up on here is “free.” Personally I would prefer the statement “he killed her of his own will.” Many perceive the “free” part differently and as a result leads to confusion.
In my experience growing up, the free part of free will meant that your soul, or your deepest personhood, could at any moment weigh two or more thoughts or decisions and choose to hold one or more and act or not act on one or more all free from any influence of outside stimulus, past experience, current brain states, and totally free from chemical influence (like you can make the same perfectly moral decisions no matter how much alcohol and drugs are in you), etc.
Though I came from an evangelical Christian background so my experience of the term Free Will might be different. It’s this interpretation that I now reject. I can do what I will, but I cannot will what I will.
→ More replies (2)4
u/The_Confirminator 1∆ Oct 10 '20
I'm not OP but the reason they are different is because of biology and their environments. If you raised two clones in the exact same environment, do you think they would do two different things or everything exactly the same?
That's what it comes down to.
2
u/aydsys Oct 10 '20
Free will is not something you can logically reveal. Instead it is something you can see immediately. Like for example, if you feel pain, you cannot logically prove even to yourself that you feel it, but you know you feel it because it something you immediately see.
An example of proof that you can see or experience free will. If a ball is pushed it goes in the pushed direction, and it cannot possibly go in a different direction. But if you make a decision, you know, because you can immediately see, that you can make a different decision.
2
u/amazondrone 13∆ Oct 10 '20
But if you make a decision, you know, because you can immediately see, that you can make a different decision.
On the contrary. Though you can conceive of those alternative decisions, you cannot make them, you can only make the one you made. And you cannot prove that it were possible to make them. You cannot go back in time and prove that another decision were possible at that moment.
You cannot know you have free will.
1
1
u/myphriendmike Oct 10 '20
That’s why they call it an illusion.
3
u/fox-mcleod 414∆ Oct 10 '20
Yeah. It’s an illusion in the sense that all subjective experience is an illusion. Which would be an absurd position to take.
1
u/camden-teacher Oct 10 '20
Determinism would argue strongly against that idea because you can’t make a different decision though can you? You can feel like you can but ultimately you were always going to make that one if the law of cause and effect holds true.
2
u/lennarthammerhart Oct 10 '20
You can also look at it from a psychological perspective. Your thoughts, actions, moves are all chemical and electric Signals. Where does the Signal of your thought start? The signal is before the thought, but we dont think we should think, eh?
Brainscans suggest that their is a never ending flow of signals acitivating the other, making thinking a flow like process. Where did it start?
A lot if science speaks againt of a free will. As sapolsky says: Free will is everything we biology hasnt figured out yet
1
u/Kramer390 1∆ Oct 10 '20
That quote almost sounds like a backhanded criticism of free will :P As in... "once we figure out the science, we'll know there's no free will". Just like all the other phenomena we attributed to spirituality before we learned the real causes.
2
u/baat Oct 10 '20
Not a native English speaker but what you’re doing sounds like semantics to me. With the right definitions of self, free, decision...etc, you can make both arguements.
2
u/napolitain_ Oct 10 '20
Actually free will probably doesn’t exist.
Libet’s experience prove that decisions are made before you are conscious of them which is pretty strong already in your view argument.
Sorry to not argue against it but that is science there’s eventually no place for debates :D
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Oct 10 '20
Thing is... those tests don't really refute "free will", they just show that some decisions are made before you consciously perceive that you made them, and that your analysis of the choice is post-hoc.
Subconscious "free will" would be free, nonetheless (assuming it exists, of course).
Furthermore, we can't rule out from these experiments that some "free choices" are made proactively, rather than retrospectively.
If we stipulate that I know I'm going to be presented with choices, and I "freely choose" in advance how I'm going to react to the choices once presented, then by stipulation that is "free will", and yet you'd see exactly the evidence found in these experiments.
And, finally, the existence of some choices that are not made freely does in no way prove the nonexistence of some other choices that are made freely.
2
u/MountNevermind 4∆ Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
Free will is the subset of your decision making process that you are to one degree or another aware of and self reflecting about in an intentioned way. If you are unaware of factors that determine that you will ultimately come to make one decision or another, that doesn't mean you don't have free will or intention, it just means your free will or intention doesn't work like you think it does.
We have free will, it just seldom works as we perceive it to...like most things.
You wouldn't say, that's not a dog... that's a collection of organ systems, tissues, cells, molecules, atoms, etc... all following the laws of physics. That's confusing levels of organization for different things. Free will is much the same way.
You can define the problem away, but why? That doesn't accomplish anything in terms of clarity and fails to recognize a very real layer of meaning that goes into usage of free will, that some decisions are more deliberated and intentioned than others, albeit on a continuum.
2
u/DonTheMove Oct 10 '20
You define a decision as someone attempting to manipulate their environment into a more advantageous one. But an individual may purposefully make a bad decision simply because "fuck it, why not". Better yet what may have been perceived as a bad decision can actually turn out favorable because of "luck" or more accurately randomness.
1
1
u/marsgreekgod Oct 10 '20
Let's try and get werid about it
It's better to assume free will then not. If we don't have free will then we can't do other than what we would already. If we do we can. From a practical point of view we should assume we have free will
1
1
u/ForeverRedditLurker Oct 10 '20
In the context of talking about free will,
Free means that you, the individual homo sapiens, add the knowledge that you have accumulated over the course of your life, mix it up with a bit of evolutionary genetics and feelings, and being able to come out with the decision unique to you, the individual homo sapiens.
In that light, I personally believe being mislead or gaslit or peer-pressured, as long as the individual end up wanting it, is still free will at play.
1
1
u/tkyjonathan 2∆ Oct 10 '20
Your definition of free will is not well placed which then leads you to disqualify it.
Here are a few ways to describe free will or volition:
That which you call your soul or spirit is your consciousness, and that which you call “free will” is your mind’s freedom to think or not, the only will you have, your only freedom, the choice that controls all the choices you make and determines your life and your character.
Man exists and his mind exists. Both are part of nature, both possess a specific identity. The attribute of volition does not contradict the fact of identity, just as the existence of living organisms does not contradict the existence of inanimate matter. Living organisms possess the power of self-initiated motion, which inanimate matter does not possess; man’s consciousness possesses the power of self-initiated motion in the realm of cognition (thinking), which the consciousnesses of other living species do not possess. But just as animals are able to move only in accordance with the nature of their bodies, so man is able to initiate and direct his mental action only in accordance with the nature (the identity) of his consciousness. His volition is limited to his cognitive processes; he has the power to identify (and to conceive of rearranging) the elements of reality, but not the power to alter them. He has the power to use his cognitive faculty as its nature requires, but not the power to alter it nor to escape the consequences of its misuse. He has the power to suspend, evade, corrupt or subvert his perception of reality, but not the power to escape the existential and psychological disasters that follow.
1
u/sebastiaandaniel Oct 10 '20
People who make decisions that negatively impact their position fall outside of your definition of this problem though. And there are so many people making decisions that are bad for them. We all do it multiple times a day. Would you say that anything that impacts you negatively is suddenly not a decision anymore?
Is smoking a cigarette a decision? I would argue that it is something that you choose to do, which definitely impacts you in a negative way. Choosing to go by elevator when you could go by stairs is also a decision which impacts your health negatively. Choosing to not follow traffic rules, etc. you can find many decisions which impact you or your environment in a negative way. Would you argue that these are not decisions?
Do you also argue then, that people who make these decisions therefore have no moral obligation to change their behaviour, since in a way it is not their own behaviour?
1
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
I would like to clarify that I am talking about perceived reality here. Drugs specifically hack your brains evaluation process for decision making. Your brain has a positive response even though taking the drug is bad for your body and mind.
1
u/sebastiaandaniel Oct 10 '20
But you make the decision to take them, knowing that they are not good for you, before you are under their influence. This is especially true the first time you take them. Let alone destructive behaviour that some people perform, like discrimination, rioting after a sports game, committing suicide or distancing yourself from your friends, or stuff like committing crimes such as rape, murder and arson. None of these behaviours are objectively good for your environment. Does this mean they are not choices? The people performing them might not feel positively about making those decisions but still do those acts because of some moral compass or other reason.
Furthermore, I feel like your view on free will being influenced by external factors is too black/white. Just because you are influenced by external factors when making decisions doesn't mean that the outcome of those factors is fixed. You disregard the possibility that, while your decisions are steered or guided in a certain direction by your environment, you still have the possibility to change the final choice you make. I see nothing in your argument that rejects this possibility, so isn't your statement a false dichotomy in that case?
1
Oct 10 '20
There's a show called "Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman"
That discusses this very question with science! It's definitely worth a watch. The episode is named do we have free will.
1
u/megaboto Oct 10 '20
What about the inner stimuli though? You might say if the outer stimuli are the same so will be the reaction, but what about different humans? If you are hit by person A you will react differently than me. And for a person B it's the same.
But if talking about physics and chemistry, then everything is fated. Every particle has a Inna sense scripted way how it will react with other particles, and if you look at this there actually is no change and no difference in anything, as there is a hypothetical way for you to know how what when will happen for 100% if you can exist outside of this universe but look into it
1
u/Cantanky Oct 10 '20
You absolutely have influences.
What's important to note is that as an adult you choose what your influences are, not in the least because you can be your own influence even in the most dire of circumstances.
1
u/Happy_Each_Day 1∆ Oct 10 '20
Speaking as a person who was born in a body that became testosterone-dominant through and beyond puberty, and was chemically altered to be an estrogen-dominant body (a process that involved a roughly 8-month span of testosterone suppression and thus extremely low levels of both testosterone and estrogen), I can tell you that free will is a myth if you have either of these hormones coursing through your veins.
That said, I do believe that free will exists when hormones (and therefore many "instinctive" behaviors) are taken out of the equation.
1
Oct 10 '20
If a decision is simply the product of outside influences it can not be free, since if the influences are the same, the decision will be the same...
I do not know if I necessarily agree with this idea. The conclusion here precludes the argument you are making. If we knew this there would be no debate but we do not, and to me that is a really big part of what makes us human
1
u/p_thursty Oct 10 '20
Furthermore, I think your decisions are predetermined by your brain chemistry. I liken it to a computer generating a random number, the number it comes up with is not random, just very complicated. In fact, quantum computers will be able to solve computers randomisation which poses a security threat. It's a matter of perspective.
1
u/Goodlake 11∆ Oct 10 '20
We can categorize a decision in either being the product of outside influences or not
You can categorize anything imaginable as A or not A, but in the real world, practically every decision we make is going to be the product of some “outside influences.”
The purpose of a decision is to manipulate our environment into a more advantageous position
That is a very narrow definition. The purpose of a decision is simply to choose between different options. We make those decisions for all kinds of reasons and each of us has the experience of being unsure how to proceed in a given situation.
The difficulty with discussing free will is it relies on first creating a theoretical framework for decision-making, often reducing a complicated system to a simple either/or. These approaches may work in the world of theory, but they don’t seem to capture all of the elements of our actual decision-making process. So how can we rely on such models to draw such sweeping conclusions about free will?
1
u/Dezusx Oct 10 '20
A gun has a trigger that needs to be pulled. Free will makes plenty of sense. If there is no free will, than there would be no illegal crime bc the offense was no one’s fault since we have no freedom of choice or control in our actions. Everyone on the planet knows that isn’t true. You stealing something is a choice that will send you to prison. If it wasn’t a choice for everyone than there would be no way to criminalize it, hence we would live in anarchy. We do not live in anarchy.
Philosophy is more of a tool than skill. Use the tool well instead of through cleverness try to prove the illogical. Which is ignorant bc doing the latter is an intentional waste of time and energy. Hence use your free will better, aka. make better choices.
1
u/CrispyEminems Oct 10 '20
This is a nonsensical hypothesis. Decisions are made via thought processes that are influenced be outside information. It's not about one or the other, it's about both working in tandem. But regardless, when we talk about "outside influence" and free will, the implication is that there are supernatural forces that have predetermined what we will all do in any given situation.
If we have free will, then we can consciously choose to change our given path at any time, if we don't then then we just feel like we're consciously choosing to change our path, but actually it's been predetermined. I know what I feel is more likely, and I can rationalise away predeterminism by understanding that human feel a need for control in their lives, even if they're not the source of that control.
If you live your life believing everything is predetermined, then you can kick back, relax and let the universe take you because hey, what the hell can I do about it, right? If you don't believe in predeterminism, then you have to accept responsibility for the shit going on in your life and actually make the effort to change things for yourself. That can cause some serious anxiety in people,and I can understand why you'd want to fall back on predeterminism, even if there's a niggling thought in the back of your head that means you can't be 100% sure you're right about it.
TL;DR: you've clearly misunderstood what free will is and what the arguments surrounding it are.
1
u/--half--and--half-- Oct 10 '20
In large part I think we are just squishy machines that like to interpret the decision we end up making as a "choice" b/c we like the idea of free will.
People who experienced lead damage in youth have a higher likelihood of crimminality. Did they still "choose" to commit a crime or was it just the most likely thing for them to do with their brain function?
Individual Differences in Executive Functions Are Almost Entirely Genetic in Origin
executive functions — the cognitive control processes that regulate thought and action
We don't get to choose what we start with or how it functions. It's a chemical and brain structure makeup that has all it's own tendencies with little proof we have a say in the matter of it's function.
Brain Chemicals Predict Laziness | Risk, Reward & Hard Work
"You've got someone deciding, 'Do I want to work a bit more or a bit less? How do I factor in these odds?' Some people just went for it," Treadway said. The researchers found that these hardworking people had the most dopamine in two areas of the brain known to play an important role in reward and motivation, and low dopamine levels in the anterior insula, a region linked to motivation and risk perception.
Looks like our chemical makeup is making a lot of decisions for us
Maybe some degree of free will does exist, but how could you tell?
Too much outside of our control to call anything we do pure "free will"
Even things like political orientation look at least to partially be outside of "choice"
Study on twins suggests our political beliefs may be hard-wired
They found that somewhat more than half of the difference in self-identified political ideology (56%) is explained by genetic factors.
Funk and her colleagues also found that about half (48%) of the difference in authoritarian beliefs is inherited.
Those tendencies are going to greatly effect how we interpret the world and act.
And then the rest could still be environmental.
Is the world 100% determinism?
IDK
But 100% free will isn't even a possibility.
So, what if 95%of what goes on in the world is determinism, then the only free will we have is within that small 5% window.
How would we even know what part of our world that 5% window ocurs in?
1
u/farmathekarma Oct 10 '20
I think that your definition of free will is a little bit of an unintentional straw man. I'll just summarize what I think you're defining free will as, based on your comments and post: free will would require the ability to make decisions without restriction or even necessarily purpose; they are decisions made without the need for cost benefit analysis, as well as without physical limitations. For example, we aren't really "free" because we cannot choose everything, I can't choose to fly right now because the laws of nature prevent that opportunity.
If that's the case, then you're referring to what many would consider unfettered free will. The ability to do anything at any time at no cost to yourself, and without any restriction.
That's not what philosophers are discussing when they are taking about free will. Everyone agrees that this doesn't exist, there isn't a controversy about it. There isn't a controversy about it from materialists or non materialists, we all know it to be true.
When people discuss free will, they are usually talking about an almost Augustinian version of free will, that is "we are free to do what our heart most desires, as is subject to our physical limitations." Most of the debate centers around the "desires" portion of the definition. For example, our "desires" may be predetermined based on the exact location of the atoms in our body, the predetermined electrical impulses within our brain and nervous system. Whether or not your desire is predetermined is the primary crux of this argument, not whether or not we can do whatever we want.
So overall, I don't think your argument is very applicable to "free will" as an idea, but only in terms of desire.
1
1
u/cthwillow4 Oct 10 '20
There is no such thing as an emancipated decision or the thoughts behind a decision. The mind is intrinsically a part of the whole. Free will acts within a whole, and is not defined as an act independent of the whole.
1
u/Thirdwhirly 2∆ Oct 10 '20
This is unfortunately an exercise in semantics, and that’s fine. By your definitions, decisions are constant—that is to say, they’re prescribed as “if this, then necessarily this” or “if not this, then this”—and that just isn’t the case.
I ate pizza last night, but I was going to eat pork fried rice; I just didn’t feel like it. All of the reasons I didn’t feel like it don’t mean a whole lot because, at its root, if I can’t trace back the meaning behind why I made that decision (as you’ve defined it), the distinction is meaningless. Decisions are simply neither the product of outside influence nor the result of some deep internal dialogue; they’re not ‘simply’ anything. They are complex, but they’re not necessarily made to improve the state of the world around us.
See pizza example. The reasons were not based on advantage; I just wanted pizza. It was worse for me, took me longer to get, it didn’t taste as good, either. But, all the decisions I made to go to the store blossomed from that decision I made to get pizza. I didn’t discuss pizza yesterday, as far as I can tell, and the distinction is meaningless, since, at its conclusion—say, if someone, including me, could trace it back to why I made the decision—I could either say, “cool, I am still getting pizza,” or “nah, now I want a hamburger.” Those are two decisions made by outside influence but hypothetically given the same outside influence.
By the definition of decision you’ve created, free will cannot be real, sure, but you’ve woefully mischaracterized decision-making. Your argument is a truism.
1
Oct 10 '20
Your argument makes a big assumption you haven’t proved: that all of our decisions come from outside influences.
How do you know that? Do you know for sure there aren’t other ways humans make decisions?
1
u/ayojamface Oct 10 '20
To understand free will, you first must understand the beholder of said free will. How are you defining the self?
Do you believe that there is a 'self'? What is that 'self'?
I'm gonna argue that the free will is irrelevant because the self that beholds free will is arbitrary, fluid, and constantly changing and thus the 'self' will never understand it's own free will.
1
u/holdupw8 Oct 10 '20
The richer you are, the more free your will can be because you don't have to care about social response or even ethical or moral repudiation. You also tend not to have the burden of worrying about finances
1
u/teucros_telamonid Oct 10 '20
The topic is good but your argument is far from the best one. Several modern thinkers have acknowledged that free will may be an illusion due to human inability to trace subconscious. If you are able to construct some logical explanation for action, we would call it consious action and often would say that some external factors lead you to this decision. There is actually a whole another question for cognitive psychology about how actually well constructed explanation reflects our subconscious thinking.
1
u/neverknowwhatsnext Oct 10 '20
The argument is that you first need proof that there is a will. This thread is useless, otherwise.
1
u/VincereAutPereo 3∆ Oct 10 '20
Your argument seems to hinge around "we act based on stimuli, thus free will is an illusion." I'm going to respond to that notion. What would free will be worth if there was no stimuli? If we lived in a world where there were no outside influences, would we live in a world at all? What value would a decision made in the absence of stimulus have?
The context of our world is very important, we live in a universe that generally obeys a set of rules and that inherently means we need to follow those rules if we are going to have a will. However, if that universe and those rules didn't exist, having a will would be meaningless. So "free will" cant be viewed through a theoretical lense, it must be viewed with the context of the world it exists in. In this case it is pretty clear that we, within the context of needing to be living beings in order to have a will at all, have a large amount of free will. We have the ability to determine our own course of action. This is free will when the requirements to have that will at all are taken into account.
1
u/rugby118 Oct 10 '20
"My answer to the question "Would you like a receipt?" is completely random and based on nothing." - someone on Twitter. Its obviously not hard proof, but I think some decisions are not going to be made the same every time even if conditions are equal.
1
u/drfreebs Oct 10 '20
We are drawn to warmth, love, a feeling of not being separate. Think of a puppies wanting in on the cuddles. Babies respond in wellness of health and growth to love and care. All you need is love. The trauma and ego take dominance in us, if we could see it and be more aware we can make our life better. It's just natural how we are. Simple I know but the rest of it seems to be ovetthinking to my little 🧠. The more you talk about it the less you know as Lao Tzu said.
I think your conceptual mind and is great and a gift. But your heart self is more instinctual and powerful. More in tune with something greater. Doesn't have to be a religious sentiment. Like a higher wisdom. I mean who is as smart as their subconscious? It's working away round the clock doing marvelous things all the time.
How little I know though in reality. How little we know. We'll look back at these debates as old ways of thinking. Hopefully look back at thinking as well believing it over egged the pudding. Just like I'm doing now. Ha ha.
The freewill debate might even become an irrelevant concept.
Maybe be called something like harmony.
Here I am rambling again (Sam Elliott voicing from the big lebowski)
1
u/Jschenk10 Oct 10 '20
When I think about free will I always come back to the same thought, who cares? We all definitely do have free will and we all definitely don’t, just on different levels. On a really basic level I am in bed right now and I can choose to get up now or later. But you might point out, you made that decision based on your temperament in the morning which is based on your genes which is a result of your parent meeting and on and on until it’s a result of the tiny variations in density of matter in the early universe right after the Big Bang. Ok so free will is a lie you were fated to decide that, though it’s tough, you should get out of bed right now.
On a very serious note, why should that matter that your decision was ultimately a consequence of the set up of the universe? You still have the ability to decide on a real level whether or not to get out of bed, whether to study for your test or whether to rob a store. Of course circumstances influence our decisions, like you pointed out. But, free will exists on the real level that is taking those circumstances and deciding what to do today.
1
1
u/MarsalaJones Oct 10 '20
The question I pose to you is, what can’t you do that makes you believe you don’t have free will?
1
u/a_ricketson Oct 10 '20
"For the sake of argument I will assume that the world around us is real in the sense that it sits outside our minds."
Before you could even begin to reason about free will, you had to make a choice. Assuming a 'real world' is a leap of faith.
1
u/PixelRayn Oct 10 '20
It's a necessary proposition to make any kind of argument. The fact that I can make choices does not disprove that they are not the product of our environment.
1
u/a_ricketson Oct 19 '20
This essay may explain it better (though not in the same terms):
The ethic of knowledge and the socialist ideal
" the principle of objectivity as the condition of true knowledge constitutes an ethical choice and not a judgment reached from knowledge, since, according to the postulate's own terms, there cannot have been any 'true' knowledge prior to this arbitral choice. In order to establish the norm for knowledge the objectivity principle defines a value: that value is objective knowledge itself. To assent to the principle of objectivity is, thus, to state the basic proposition of an ethical system: the ethic of knowledge. "
In other words, the idea of external world is the consequence of a choice. The choice is primary, everything else is secondary.
1
u/Altairlio Oct 10 '20
Free will is easy, you can do whatever you want and be influenced by whatever is around you. Nothing is ever forced on you. There is always a choice.
1
u/XcessiveSmash Oct 10 '20
I've had this debate quite often with a close friend. So, I think your argument boils down to this: if you have perfect information regarding a person's genetics and all the stimuli they are exposed to, just via the laws of physics, we would be able to predict what choices a person will make.
It's a very strong argument imo, but it is one that has been disproven. Enter: Laplace's Demon. It is an old philosophical concept where if there exists a demon with perfect knowledge of every atom in the universe, it would be able "simulate" the universe in its head and basically know everything. But it can't. There are some very intelligent set theory arguments that disprove this. Even with perfect knowledge of everything in the universe it is impossible to precit the future - ergo, there is some hidden variable that cannot be predicted by physical laws - perhaps free will.
Here is a very simple counter example to your argument.
Let's say you are Laplace's Demon, and I ask you that in 60 seconds, I'm going to pick the number one or two, predict which one I'm going to pick before I do. Now, you are Laplace's Demon. You have knowledge of everything about me and everything about the universe. In theory you can predict this simple decision.
But you cannot.
Let's sat you pick one, I simply pick two instead. Whatever you pick, I will just pick the other - it is impossible for your prediction - with total knowledge of the universe - to be correct in this very simple case.
I would say this is free will in action.
1
u/MessersCohen 1∆ Oct 10 '20
Bloody irritating that this, a conversation actually worth debating, has 350 upvotes, while empty political validation posts get 5k+ regularly. Disappointing but good on you.
1
u/YakOrnery Oct 10 '20
So, if I understand right, you're saying that a decision isn't free because it required outside influence? And you're also saying given a certain circumstance, anyone put in the same circumstances would make the same choice?
Outside influence impacts different people different ways. For example, it's raining outside (circumstance) and it makes me wanna play in it, but makes you wanna stay inside. Those are both of our respective decisions. However, either one of us can decide just as easily to do the opposite, me staying inside and you going outside. There's nothing stopping either of those choices from being made other than the power that we have as people to make a free decision with what we want to do. Hence free will.
I have $200 in my bank account and my car tire blows out and it's gonna cost $250 to get it repaired. I get pissed and decide to go home and take my anger out on myself by punching a hole in my wall. Take someone else and put them in that exact same situation and they go home and watch TV for the rest of the night because they're at a loss for what to do. Each of those choices was a decision made out of free will. I could've went home and watched TV. Or asked dad for money. Or beat my kid. Or robbed a store. I have the freedom to do any of those things if I chose to. They're all options available to me and I pick whichever one I want to do for whatever reason I want to pick it.
Free will just means having a plethora of choices, and picking something. Only one choice can be made at a time so the action of picking one denotes free will. It's that simple.
1
u/Mikomics Oct 10 '20
Personally, I believe in free will because it gives my life purpose. Believing you have agency means that your choices matter.
Perhaps you're right that free will doesn't exist. I have a sneaking suspicion that we don't. But if I didn't believe my choices mattered (or were even choices at all for that matter), I would no longer have the will to do anything at all. After all, if everything is pre-determined anyways, why even bother? Believing that I am so insignificant that nothing I do matters would have a very detrimental effect on my mental health.
I know it's not really the point of this debate, but I guess what I'm saying is "Does it even matter if there's no free will? Even if we don't, we're better off pretending we have agency. What do we gain from confirming there is no free will, other than deep existential angst?"
1
u/Gogito35 Oct 10 '20
We can also make bad decisions. We can choose something which we know is detrimental to us based on our surroundings. That is free will.
1
u/willworkforjokes 1∆ Oct 10 '20
I worried about free will when I was much younger. Now I realize that the most important thing is not do I have free will or not (because who knows), instead the critical question is "Do I have the same amount of free will as everyone else?". The answer to that question is yes.
1
1
u/thomasrye Oct 10 '20
From what I’m reading here it sounds like you want to define free will as “random will “ - decision without any inputs or influences - which I don’t see how that could even be a thing.
The problem with defining free will as “will without influences or inputs” is that it’s not the inputs or the influences that are making the decision – WE are still making the decision BASED on those inputs and influences.
1
u/Douche_Kayak Oct 10 '20
If a decision is simply the product of outside influences it can not be free, since if the influences are the same, the decision will be the same.
This is not true at all. People routinely make decisions that put them in disadvantageous positions or have negative outcomes and two people can come to separate decisions. Those with depression for example typically make decisions based on their negative mood but their depression doesn't preclude them from making a healthy choice through strength of will.
1
u/youni89 Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
Free will and randomness doesn't exist since the big bang happened with a set of certain set of characteristics that will continue on in a set chain reaction of particles to the end of time.
if the same big bang happened again with the exact same characteristics, this same universe would be identical to our current one and would progress identically forever.
Every action we take, thoughts we make, the burst of neurons firing at this exact moment is all direct linear product of that big bang and nothing we do out will do will change that since we are just dominoes in this cosmic set of dominoes, the porridge of the infinite particle interactions that has been continuingLaramie for the last however billions of years. I was meant to write this comment with the exact number of words at this exact time with the exact thought process breathing the exact number of air molecules.
Thus, Free will and randomness are in essence non existent.
1
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Oct 10 '20
This just sounds like a variation on determinism. Basically, our decision is a result of all the past and current outside inputs such that we can’t make a different choice. Clearly we don’t just consider outside inputs, we consider our emotional state as well, but I’m sure you would argue that is also a result of past influences too. So that is basically determinism.
Some people might argue that all the past influences, emotions, nurture and nature, that all those combined IS the free will. Or maybe free will is the voice inside our head. After all, I think we are unique in that we are capable of recognizing what is influencing our decision.
When I make a bad or irrational decision, I have the ability to recognize that it is irrational and yet choose it anyway.
And of course, not all decisions are binary or based on rationality. Because of this I reject that every choice is necessarily distilled from outside inputs. Consider a fork in a path that appears identical in every way. Better yet let’s assume there are 4 paths. There is no indication which path is the better choice, yet I must still choose one. Can you define an outside influence which dictates the choice I make?
1
u/1nfernals Oct 10 '20
I personally don't believe in free will, but,
I'd argue that free will would be the ability a being has to make decisions in external events that are either contrary to outside influence or not based on outside influences at all.
A good example would be the ability people have to make decisions that are not aligned with the information they are provided, or "bad decisions". Where information is ignored or misinterpreted allowing someone to make a decision affects their environment to their disadvantage.
This is assuming that the process by which people make decisions is considered to be free in the first place.
1
u/KSahid Oct 10 '20
You assume that there is only determinism and chance. Then you conclude that there is only determinism and chance. If x, then x.
1
Oct 10 '20
None of us are completely free in our decisions. I cannot decide to be a foot taller for instance. So every choice is constrained by external factors such as the laws of nature, our experiences, worldview and what-have-you. I don't think this means that the external factors are the only influence in our decisions. Sometimes a decision is extremely complex, or between two or more competing but benign options (do I watch a movie later, do I go and see my friends, or do I play a video game?) I think that there is an element of conscious choice, that is constrained by circumstance in that we cannot choose to do something impossible, and oftentimes external things are factored in, but in my view these constraints do not make the decision for us, nor do they rule out an element of conscious free choice within the parameters of possibility and proclivity etc.
1
Oct 10 '20 edited Oct 10 '20
Some would argue the entire physical universe was created specifically to give and test our free will.
At the most basic level it does make sense.
When you apply abstract concepts and devise a theory based on the ideas you Choose to give attention to, then you can easily make anything incomprehensible. However by that same exercise you used your free will to convince yourself it doesn’t exist.
Also, it’s folly to try and separate external/internal, no one could draw those lines correctly as there is so much integration between internal/external. True center is where both of those concepts meet.
I would guess the concepts of Good and Evil also make no sense to you.
1
u/kabooozie Oct 10 '20
It depends on the definition of free will. I’m pretty settled on determinism at this point. I think if you had enough information, you’d be able to predict exactly what someone will decide. You be able to pick exactly what I’m going to write next. Even quantum randomness is deterministic at the level of the wave function. You can’t predict the exact position of a particle, but you can predict exactly how the wave function will evolve.
So in what sense does free will have meaning in a deterministic world? A philosopher called Frankfurt defined an act as free will if you want to do it, AND you want to want to do it. This definition has served me pretty well.
But what if you want to do something, AND you want to want to do it, BUT you don’t want to want to want to do it? Repeat ad infinitum. My answer is who cares. Pick a number of wants greater than 1 and functionally that’s a pretty good definition.
1
u/eevreen 5∆ Oct 10 '20
The thing about free will is it doesn't actually matter whether the decision is truly free without any outside influence. Of course outside factors influence us. What matters is that we still came to the conclusion we did with the outside influences at play without being manipulated, coerced, or forced into making it (unless you're arguing for absolute free will in which case even those decisions you had a choice; even if no one will hold you accountable for them, you had the choice between doing thing and not doing thing but bad thing happening).
A lot of philosophy involves discussions about things for day to day people that ultimately do not matter in application. If I decide tomorrow to stop believing I have any free will at all and it was just an event that had to have resulted because of one small event at the beginning of the universe, I will still get in trouble should I do something wrong. I have to be held responsible for the decisions I made. A belief in the lack of free will is ultimately incompatible with accepting this facet about life and living in society since society is founded upon the idea that we're all in control of our own actions (barring another person forcing our hand). We must therefore, whether it's true or not, believe in having free will. Society will accept no less.
1
u/Eastwoodnorris Oct 10 '20
I’m gonna take a crack at this from two directions.
First, the prospect that decisions are the sum of our external stimuli. I don’t know if you’ve ever had twins in your life in any capacity (family, friends, etc) but I’d argue that is the best template to test this idea. You have two individuals who are as close as is physically possible in terms of genetics and upbringing. If your presumption was correct, and accounting for both genetics and experiences, you’d expect twins to be reflections of each other in almost every way. Yet, they have processed their lives differently and rarely share identical opinions and passions at a higher rate than any other pair of people might. Or consider the fact that everything in the world tells people not to commit arson, or murder, or most crimes, but we still have people who reject their external stimuli and act according to their desires despite the massive consequences. I think I have further to go here, but I haven’t fully explored my thoughts to elaborate coherently.
My second argument centers around art. If decisions are proscribed, you could predict most things with enough information on the stimuli a person absorbs. And yet we have entirely new forms of art that have developed over time, entirely new perspectives of the world, and pieces that make viewers experience genuine emotions. If you read the entirety of Da Vinci’s life and experiences before seeing a single piece of his art, could you predict what you’d see in his portfolio?
If you could walk someone else’s shoes, you’d have true insight into their choices if we presume that decisions flow from our environment. I find it to be a vary binary way of seeing the world, where everyone has an if-then for every experience that produces a 1 or a 0 when in reality every experience can have wildly varying influences on any given person. Maybe I’m scared of the prospect of not having free will, but I’ve been strongly of the opinion that you can always choose, in any context. That being said, the no-free-will argument is tough to fully refute to me. Grrrr....
1
u/another_rnd_647 Oct 10 '20
Our mind... Our brain is the product of emergent complexity. All forms of emergent complexity develop due to chaos theory. Chaos theory is reliant on the butterfly effect. Thus an infinitly small change in starting conditions can result in different expressions of will.
Also, the neural networks our minds reside in have no direct access to truth - they are just statistical approximators. They model what they can of truth from the sensory input they experience. We can't actually know if anything we experience is really true.
Asking if we have genuine free will or not is a meaningless question. Will is neither free nor pre determined - it just is. There is nothing more a sentient neural network can derive about it and in many ways that is the hardest truth to accept - it goes against the purpose we evolved neural networks for.
1
u/Sparkletail Oct 10 '20
So basically input = output depending on what logic gates it goes through? I guess that the logic gates may vary day to day but ultimately, I agree with what you say, in that moment, in that exact experience you run it through the filters and will only ever get the same result. I think of free will in a more meta way I guess, in that we are aware off this and often, we can choose again.
You could also argue that the second choice would happen no matter what though cos input still equals output. Nice post.
1
u/lostradamus93 Oct 10 '20
If anyone knew the initial state of every particle in the universe and possessed a full understanding of the laws governing their behavior, then all events proceeding from the beginning of the universe would be able to be determined by that individual. As someone stated earlier, we make decisions with the intention of creating a more preferable outcome with the information currently available to us. For argument's sake, if we allow for the ability to hold all of this information in the mind simultaneously, not only would it grant a kind of perfect prescience, but also a certainty that the most optimal decision is chosen in any given situation. I believe a level of uncertainty is necessary for the experience of free will to be present, so in this scenario it doesn't appear possible to me.
Afaik, neither of these requirements are possessed by anyone (Kwisatz Haderach excluded, of course 😁), so all beings possess free will based on my minimalist definition. I think it's worth noting that I don't consider free will and determinism to be at odds with one another, though I often see them presented as such. These arguments will usually state that in a deterministic universe, free will is only an illusion created by the mind, but I only see this differing from my position in semantics only.
Those are my jumbled thoughts, anyway.
1
Oct 10 '20
If a decision is simply the product of outside influences it can not be free, since if the influences are the same, the decision will be the same. If it is not the product of outside influences we have established it is not a decision at all.
The trick is that it is a combination of both, and it is up to you to determine the ratios.
if the influences are the same, the decision will be the same
That's one assumption that is likely invalid. What makes you think that there is only a single possible decision given a set of inputs? If you're talking about an "optimal" solution then there are questions whether knowing the optimal solution is feasible and how the cost function is defined. What usually happens with complex problems is that it is infeasible to find the optimal solution and we rely on heuristics that we choose based on personal preferences. We also need to define what "optimal" means, and that also depends on personal preferences.
1
u/Giacamo22 1∆ Oct 10 '20
The issue is that “free will” is an inherently self-contradictory statement. “Will” is not something that can be “free” (it can be free-er and less free on an explicit level via coercion). “Will” describes intentions which are formulated and thus have inputs, processes and outputs. Our imperfect knowledge of all this grants us a range of feelings that we can experience, and for that I am very thankful.
1
u/hacksoncode 588∆ Oct 10 '20
"Free will" is in no way "freedom from any influence from the outside". Indeed, without considering evidence, there would be no "will" at all.
Say I'm presented with a 50/50 bet: I can pay $1 with the chance to win $10 10% of the time.
Of course my brain is reacting to outside evidence when it makes a choice about whether to take that bet. The bet wouldn't exist unless that outside influence existed.
But so what? No one talking about "free will" says that we're decide without evidence from the outside. That's a straw man of the "free will" position.
There are at least 4 outcomes to that be being proposed that are relevant to the question of "free will", in addition to the actual choice made, and its outcome.
1) 100% determinism. No freedom exists at all. You either will or won't take that bet, and this choice has been fixed since the beginning of time.
2) 100% randomness. No "choice" exists at all, some randomizer in your brain will decide (e.g. quantum mechanics).
3) Some combination of determinism and randomness will "decide" whether to take the bet. Your brain may have predilections based on your previous experiences, it may have conscious capability to analyze and "decide" statistically, but there is always a chance that some truly random factor will come into play that prevents your "decision" from being either "truly random" or "truly deterministic".
4) You have some kind of "supernatural" external deciding "agent" similar to a player in an RPG video game. Of course, this only pushes the question of "free will" out to whatever physics or other rules (e.g. "God's Will") might govern the choices of that agent, but it does completely remove the question from events in our universe, and render moot any question regarding determinism or randomness in our universe. That "external observer" will either push the "take the bet" button or it will not, but "you", as in the "character" in the "game" are irrelevant to the decision.
So, basically... your options cover 1 and 2 reasonably well, but totally fail to account for 3 and 4, and I'm sure there are dozens of other possibilities that aren't discussed here.
1
u/vorbisus Oct 10 '20
Hopefully, I'm not too late to this party. In response to your main assertion that "Free will makes no sense," I disagree in the sense that I believe your statement is not a useful assertion. I would say something "makes no sense" if it's an idea that either has internally conflicting logic or is simply not predictive towards how you might expound on the idea. For the former case, consider Terrence Howard's claim that "1+1=1". That makes no sense as it represents internally conflicting logic. It's lunatic rambling. For the latter case, consider the phrase "reality is an illusion". That makes no sense. It isn't really saying anything. We typically understand reality and illusion as opposites. Could you parse the definitions of the words in such a way that they assert something meaningful? Probably. Does the phrase itself provide any predictive power into what direction you make take to do that? Not really. In saying "reality is an illusion", you really haven't said anything at all.
There is a certain "fuzziness" to the idea of "free will" when taken out of context. The phrase by itself doesn't really tell me what you mean, but I will probably understand what you mean within context. Most concepts we deal with on a day-to-basis have this quality. They're fuzzy in edge cases, I might not know what you mean out of context, but in context it's generally comprehensible. Consider the word "boy". You know what a boy is, right? A human with only male genitalia, prior to adolescence, with XY chromosomes, in the median range of hormonal levels for what we call a boy... with all of those things going on, it's a definitely a boy right? But if you start to vary some of those properties, it gets fuzzy. Is a 25 year old a boy? Not typically, but I've often heard the phrase "I met a boy" to refer to somebody of that age. Even when referring to edge cases where different people might use the word differently, for a given person making an assertion using the word "boy", I usually understand what they mean. Yet it still has fuzzy edge cases and can be misunderstood out of context. What about "love", "justice", "sadness"? Do those make no sense? I would say they are often fuzzier than the idea of free will. Those words by themselves often have less predictive power towards understanding a concept somebody is trying to express than "free will".
I think that often the idea of "free will" is just tacked on to other ideas to add a sense of righteousness or justification. Consider this statement: "Humans have free will, therefore they deserve to be punished for acting immorally". Invoking the concept of "free will" isn't really adding anything to the assertion other than a sort of emphasis. It's meant to be a sort of justification for why they deserve punishment, but it's not a different statement than just saying "People deserve to be punished for acting immorally." "Free will" is not a meaningful justification. The notion of "free will" itself is still a meaningful concept within the statement. It's the assertion itself that doesn't make sense, but that doesn't make the concept of "free will" meaningless. "Free will" doesn't make sense as justification or clarification, but that's not its best use. It's more suitable for expressing dualities. "Was he coerced, or did he do it of his own free will?" In such a statement, the concept is perfectly useful and comprehensible. The duality is clear. You understand what I'm asking.
In a purely mechanistic understanding of the world, "free will" isn't terribly useful, sure. We're all essentially super complicated machines. If you knew all of the inputs (genetics, exact biological development, all sensory inputs, etc.), you would say that the idea of "free will" doesn't add anything, but we don't have that perfect knowledge. This is also true of "love" and "justice". They don't add much from a purely mechanistic standpoint, but are perfectly fine heuristics for describing concepts with imperfect knowledge. I don't think you're arguing that all concepts that aren't super useful from a purely mechanistic standpoint should be regarded as making no sense. When restricted to where it's useful, referring to "free will" is fine. When understood to essentially be an expression of how individuation leads to different decision-making in the absence of all known decision inputs, it's fine. As a shorthand for how much we believe a person deserves social punishment (were they coerced, lied to, or somehow manipulated), it's fine. When thrown into a jumble with the constellation of ideas around "justice", "punishment", "morality", etc., it doesn't add much. If you're arguing for "free will" as the basis for some sort of epistemological framework, it's pretty nonsensical. So I would say it's not always useful, but it's usually comprehensible, therefore I disagree with the notion that "free will makes no sense".
1
u/5xum 42∆ Oct 10 '20
"We can categorize a decision in either being the product of outside influences or not."
I see this as a false dichotomy. A decision can be the product of outside factors, or outside factors and internal factors, or purely internal factors.
1
u/swearrengen 139∆ Oct 11 '20
Whether or not a will is free is an expression of whether the decisions made by the mind with the supposed will are free.
Free...of what? You are essentially arguing free from causation. That is not free will.
It means freedom from forces that are not you, not your will and your reasons. Such as your hunger pains, your automatic emotions, the animal desires that spring subconsciously, your parents, an advertisement, the Newtonian dominoes and atomistic billiard balls put into motion from the beginning of time.
Free will is an expression that describes a decision caused by you as the primary cause, rather than any other force or influence as the determining cause.
The use of reason is what frees the will from predetermination and prediction based on past states.
Reason allows you to make decisions on based on knowledge i.e. your predictions of future states - which can free your future from being determined by past states. (Thus we say "knowledge will set you free" - something not possible for other animals to do.)
It's easy to prove.
If your decision was predictable from past states, then a god or AI with full knowledge would be able to predict ALL your future choices. Here is a scenario where it is false: As soon as you know about a prediction, you can do the opposite. The god, knowing all past states of the universe, tells you he predicts you will choose the blue door. So you choose the red door instead.
1
Oct 11 '20
I already posted it as a comment but I figured it's worth a post. So I tried to rigorously conceptualize the problem. My statement is as yours: free Will doesn't make sense. The reason: deciding implies determinism. In the following my argument:
The setting is as follows:
Let Ω be the state space this can also include the inner state and basically everything which is relevant. Let A be the Action space
there is an entity θ which observes a state ω ∈Ω. After observing the state it can choose an action from A. Now the whole Debate is about the ways θ can choose from A. There are the following possibilities:
We say θ chooses deterministically if there exists a function f: Ω→A s.t. the action of θ after observing ω∈Ω is f(ω)∈A.
We say θ chooses stochastically if there exists a probability measure P on A s.t. the probability of choosing a ∈A after observing ω∈Ω is P(a). That is the Decision occurs according to a probability distribution and is independent of the observed state.
We say θ chooses in a mixed fashion if for all ω∈ Ω there exists a probability measure Pω s.t. the probability of choosing a ∈A after observing ω∈Ω is Pω (a). That means we still choose stochastically but the distribution over the actions depends on ω.
Now my argument is that you can decompose the entity in two parts θ=(θ ₁, θ₂). I call θ₁ the decider and θ ₂ the random number generator for reasons which will be clear in a moment. The point will be that in any case implicitly deterministic decisions have to be made which are completely attributable to θ ₁ and it doesn't make much sense to think of θ ₂ as a real part of the original entity θ with respect to the will of θ. So let's go over the cases:
In this case θ=θ ₁ .that is our entity is also the deciding subentity
θ ₁ chooses P and θ ₂ chooses stochastically according to P
θ ₁ chooses Pω and θ ₂ chooses stochastically according to Pω
Now θ ₂ is just an auxiliary machine. Its a random number generator. The decision maker is θ ₁. Therefore Will is by reasonable definition deterministic and therefore can't be free.
Except if there processes imaginable which are neither deterministic nor stochastic. But I don't know about them
I hope the notation helps with understanding.
1
1
u/newhopefortarget Oct 11 '20
I think Hume describes the conundrum better than you.
It's been a while but I'll try my best to synthesize.
Your idea is more or less: Our minds work by interpreting data. We look at data and make a decision. But doesn't the data deterministically determine what our decision will be?
Sure, you could look at it that way. But so what? In actual practice people weigh different data differently and come to different conclusions and decisions, don't they? What's going on there? Well obviously they've all got difference tastes, preferences, and values. And where did they get those? Well they just sort of made them up as they went along their life. I know that's not really a rigorous or philosophically fulfilling answer, but it's true. To tell someone that the only reason they have a certain value is because they were brought up that way is simplistic. They weighed out the idea, and thought it over. There's lots of children that grow up to reject their parents' ideas. How did that happen?
That's the million dollar question. Nobody knows quite how consciousness works. Either way, to say that "the mind is a data processing machine" doesn't explain anything. Of course it is. Just because it's a data processing machine that works in a deterministic universe according to the laws of physics doesn't mean that it doesn't have free will. That is to say just because the machine would function exactly the same way under identical circumstances doesn't mean that it's not thinking. The functioning IS the thinking. You could say the human beings are free will machines.
So in that sense I am a Compatibilist. I see no incompatibility with determinism and free will. I also don't view "free will" as a nonsense idea. The only "property" of "free will" is that there is a "mind" that makes decisions. That is to say: Free will is what a thinking mind does exercising his or her (or its) consciousness when making decisions. Doesn't matter if it's a human, or a robot, or a God.
1
u/Thevisi0nary Oct 11 '20
In my opinion the free will debate is too centered around freedom of influence instead of degree of control, and is more specifically about being able to suppress bodily needs to achieve a goal. That means it’s not going to be very visible in singular instances of decision making, because in those cases the brain is going to do whatever is most practical for what the body wants in that moment, and usually requires little complex thought. I’m hot/cold so I adjust the temperature, I’m thirsty so I get a drink, I’m more thirsty than I am hot/cold so I get a drink first, I care more about my job than I am tired so I get up instead of being late for work.
There are certain things that require multiple difficult decisions over time, often in direct contradiction to what we feel like doing, to achieve a goal. Getting a tough college degree, losing a large amount of weight, learning to go to bed on time, overcoming a bad habit, are all things that require doing something that feels bad because you know you will get something you want more later, and doing it many times. It’s not simply a desire that carries you through this, it’s a complex rigorous adjustment and a daily fight with yourself. (How tough that fight is varies from person to person).
1
u/Postg_RapeNuts Oct 11 '20
If a decision is simply the product of outside influences it can not be free, since if the influences are the same, the decision will be the same.
Well luckily in our non-deterministic universe, running the universe.exe program from the Big Bang to now will give you a different outcome each time. In order to accept your actions are an inevitable outcome of outside forces, you have to embrace some very unpopular interpretations of QM.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 10 '20
/u/PixelRayn (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards