I think this concept of free will is very true.
It is in a sense fake, but the illusion has a function within the whole proces.

The idea of free will plays a part in the whole deterministic proces, i think. It probably has a social function as well. Thus being sort of one level where all parts of the decissionmaking process of all levels come toghether.

If you bring all levels of the decission making proces toghether on one level, than something like free will is probably the most efficient way of organising the desired interaction between all these levels.

Im sorry but i still dont get it.

It is clear to me that all choices by human individuals are determined, not-random.
As so far free will can be considered to be an illusion.

But how can a random choice be not an act of freedom?
Isnt 'random' as free as it gets?

Pls give me a kick or something.
Im stuck.

Well, at least random cannot be deliberate.

I’m not so sure that all choices we make are purely deterministic. There may be random processes occurring in the brain that have a “butterfly effect” on the decision-making process.

A random choice is not any more free than a deterministic choice. Random in this case means that the process of choosing cannot, even in theory, be pre-determined given a set of initial conditions.

In one sense, nothing is free. Everything is constrained by physical laws, including random processes.

This is great discussion, and has given me a lot of food for thought. Perhaps "Free Choice" and "Free Will" need to be distinguished more clearly. This debate has focused almost entirely on our choices as being free\determined\random, but it seems to me that an assumption is being made that choosing is the same thing as willing, and it is not at all clear to me that they are the same. They may be related, but I think "Will" maybe something quite different from "Choice".

When I "Will" to do something, I am transcending choice. I am not choosing, I am willing - out of nothing, ex nihilo, from nothing more than my subjective relationship with the Cosmos. If I were a Cosmic, Divine being of some kind, I could freely "Will" something into existence as an extension of myself, or out of nothing, whatever the case may be - simply because I can. Such an act is completely free.

I think our Will is a different attribute than our capacity to choose - and thus, to negate Free Will by refuting "Free Choice" may be barking up the wrong tree, so to speak.

It is easy to see, simply from introspection combined with a cursory understanding of Quantum Physics, how we make choices, and the argument that they are either determined, or random, or chosen "for a reason" is strong. However, do we not also possess the capacity to override the choice mechanism, and WILL something, despite our desires? To WILL something we don't want, don't like, don't prefer, as biological creatures, on the basis of a non-material abstract VALUE of some kind? Or just to prove that we can? Mind over matter.

To me, the fact that we CAN, unlike any other organism on earth, by an act of WILL, override the natural physical and biological CHOICE mechanisms are indicative of WILL - a will that at least, in principle, can be free, and undetermined by anything more than the fact that we possess the ability to do so - if we choose We can choose to engage in an act of free will. The choice may be determined, or random, but the act of willing is something separate from the act of choosing.

^ Very interesting. Makes sense to me...interested in what others have to say.

The relevant dictionary definition of “will” is: “the act or process of using or asserting one's choice”. I don’t see how willing something does not involve choice. I don’t see how it transcends choice. Will is the process of choosing and then acting on that choice. You make a choice, then you act.

You suggest that we have the capacity to “override the choice mechanism”. What causes this capacity to become active? Once again, either there is a reason or there is no reason. You say “we have the capacity”. Don’t you mean “we have the choice”? But the statement “we have the choice to override the choice mechanism” is a logical contradiction.

It’s true that we can will/choose something we don’t want, don’t like, etc. (And we often find ourselves in this situation in everyday life.) But this is just another choice. In fact, you practically said this yourself when you said that we can will something “on the basis of a non-material abstract VALUE of some kind”. If you are basing your choices/actions on something, then you have a reason for your behavior. If there is a reason for your behavior, then it isn’t free. (And of course, if you have no reason it isn’t free.)

You say “We can choose to engage in an act of free will.” You’ve been trying to separate the notion of will from choice, but notice how you eventually must bring them together again?

You just proved we have free will.

"The Act or process of using or asserting one's choice". So if we have Free will, we are free to act or process using choice. If we do not have free will, we are unable to act or process using choice. Since we live in a world where we are free to process choices and act upon them (we CAN choose, irrespective of the source of those choices), we therefore have free will.

I’m quite certain that I haven’t proven we have free will.

It’s true that we are free to process choices in the sense that we are not physically or otherwise prevented from doing so by outside forces. I am free to stand up when I choose to unless someone is holding me down or has tied me to my chair or I’m already standing or etc. But this is using the word “free” in the more familiar sense.

A computer-driven autonomous vehicle makes choices (stop/go, turn left/right, accelerate/brake, etc.) and is free to act on (process) those choices, but it obviously doesn’t have free will – unless we define free will in a new way.

The statement “If we do not have free will, we are unable to act or process using choice.” is false. As the autonomous vehicle example shows, making choices and then acting on them is done all the time by entities that don’t have free will. Another example would be a microprocessor. Microprocessors frequently make choices, such as “if X>Y then N=N+1” and then act on those choices: “if X>Y then N=N+1”. A computer that could make choices but couldn’t act on them would be about as useful as a brick.

The choices we make and the actions that follow are not free. Think of an action as the final link in a long chain of causes and effects, all of which are determined by rules of one kind or another.

You have just proven it again. If you choose to get up from a chair, and you cannot due to some outside influence (not physical limitation), your will is not free, as it is being infringed upon by another using their free will. If you are able to act out your choices (within the limits imposed upon us by the material reality we live in), then your will is free.



In this example, the choices are actions. They are not separate, therefore no free will. The robot is contrained by its programming, which boils down to randomness, which is not free will. If you constrain it, it will still make the choices, and attempt to act them out. It acts on choices whether free to do so or not.



Again, down to programming which imposes limitations upon the ability to both choose and act. If/then statements are irrelvant when talking about sentient beings because: if X>Y then N=N+1 or N+1=N or X = N+1 or Y=N-1. If you are going to use If/then statements then you are arguing that fate exists, and all choices now and the future have been pre-planned and can be known.



If you are not able to complete the final link in a long chain of causes and effects, then your will is not free.

This is one way of defining free will. It isn’t the way I’ve defined it, but that’s OK. You define free will as “being able to act out your choices within the limits imposed upon us by the material reality we live in”. This is closer to the everyday working definition used by governments, courts, social scientists, etc. It’s a useful and necessary definition.

The definition I’ve been using is something like “the ability to choose or act, in a non-random manner, independently of and uninfluenced by any system of rules or laws”. This definition removes the “within the limits imposed upon us by the material reality we live in” restriction. By this definition, free will is a logical impossibility.


The choices are not actions. For example, the choice may be to accelerate or to brake. Once the choice is made, it is then typically followed by an action. Actions follow choices, but actions aren’t the same as choices.

Anyhow, how are we not constrained by our programming?


Mathematics isn’t that simple. For example, the Mandelbrot set can be described algorithmically, yet it is infinitely complex and can never be known in it’s full detail. Another example: There are algorithms that generate the digits of pi, yet an algorithm can never generate the infinite sequence of digits that comprise pi.

Read about Gödel's incompleteness theorems and computable functions for more information and examples.

Just as free will is an illusion, so might time be an illusion. If everything that can happen exists simultaneously outside of time, then in some way everthing is pre-planned (but can’t necessarily be known).

You are equating will with choice. They are not synonyms.

Now you say, "The ability to choose or act..." - but the accepted definition you yourself gave was: "the act or process of using or asserting one's choice”. They are not the same. Which is it...A definition which you created to adhere to your own belief system, or the generally accepted meaning of the word?

What about the act of choosing randomly?

Of course this definition is of paramount importance to any social organization. If we don't have this everyday working definition, then no one could be held responsible for anything.

Any computer related analogy is irrelvant as at the most fundamental level the process is random, and by your own definition negates the possibility of free will.

Read this and draw your own conclusions:

Free Will Defined

I will read it later.

I have to say I am a bit disappointed in you gibran2. When you confronted me with logic that was sound, I acknowledged the logial value of your position and admitted that I couldn't logically find falut with it, even though it didn't fit with my understanding.

I have now presented you with a logical argument which I believe is sound, but instead of debating or pointing out where my logic was faulty, you decided to change the definition of "will" to something not commonly accepted in order agree with your own beliefs.

If you are going to change the definitions of words in the middle of an debate, then I have nothing more to offer as it is pointless. If I make a valid point, you will only change another definition in order to maintain your "correctness" of opinion, rather than debating the subject.

Well, the reason I’m not spending too much time on this thread anymore is because it’s all been said. Also, your tone seems to me (maybe it’s just me) to have turned from intellectually curious to argumentative. I won’t participate in a thread that degenerates in that way. I’ve done it too many times before, and the outcome is never productive.

I will address your previous post. First of all, there are many definitions for “free will” and for “free” and for “will”. I haven’t changed the definition that I’m using. In my very first post I said:

Nowhere do I define free will as “the ability or capacity to choose”. I mention that definition several times, and give examples of that usage, but that was only because you keep coming back to that definition. I use choice and action synonymously only because neither one is ultimately free.

So if you define free will as “the ability or capacity to choose”, then yes, we have free will. I said this in my very first post. But if you define free will more generally as “the freedom to choose” then no, we do not have free will. And random choices and/or actions are not free.

Secondly, you say you have presented a sound logical argument, but I’m having trouble finding it. Could you please point out the portions of your argument that are logical?

You say “Any computer related analogy is irrelvant as at the most fundamental level the process is random, and by your own definition negates the possibility of free will.”

I don’t understand this at all. Since when are computer processes random? Computers generally execute code representing very well-defined and precise algorithms. There is no randomness involved at all, unless it is very deliberately introduced for very specific reasons.

Regardless, I never claimed that computers have free will. I have pointed out several times that if we use your definition of free will, which seems close to “the ability or capacity to choose”, then we must attribute free will to computers, since they have both the ability and the capacity to choose (and to act). Now if you want to claim that computers have free will, that’s fine. I don’t believe they do. And neither do we.

If you have something meaningful to add to this thread, by all means let’s keep going. If you simply want to argue for the sake of arguing, then let’s stop now.

You are correct. It was I in fact that changed the definition of what we were discussing to fit my own understanding. I am the one guilty of what I accused you of.

My apologies.

I previously agreed that by your definition free will does not exist. And you agreed that by my definition free will does exist. Therefore we are both right, and we are both wrong. Which is exactly where I like a debate to end up

Namaste

That is the relevant dictionary definition only for your argument, not for mine There are several others:

b. The act of exercising the will.
4. Deliberate intention or wish: Let it be known that I took this course of action against my will.
5. Free discretion; inclination or pleasure: wandered about, guided only by will.
4. To resolve with a forceful will; to determine.
1. To exercise the will.

They will do nicely.



No. That's why I used the word "Capacity". Choosing and willing are two different things. They are related, but not the same thing. I can "Choose" to bench press 500 pounds all day long. But unless I have the "Capacity", my choice is in vain.


Which is why I didn't make that statement



Why not? This just seems like a non-sequitur to me. How does "Having Reasons" = "No Freedom"? OF COURSE we choose for reasons. Why else would we choose? But saying that "having reasons" violates "freedom" is like saying "having reasons" violates "cupcakes". Yet I still have a reason for liking them. It doesn't mean they are no longer cupcakes; neither does having a reason to make a free choice mean there is no such thing as a free choice.


Like I said, they are related - perhaps in an analogous fashion to choosing to flex your muscles. The choosing is not the flexing. Choice usually is an antecedent to Will - but not always. We can simply WILL something with no choice involved. It is like choice - but more than choice. Choosing is a decision, a mental process. Will is action. We have this capacity - not choice, capacity - the capacity To Will. Imagine two climbers: Climber 1: I choose to climb this peak. Climber 2: I WILL climb this peak! Number two is not only a stronger statement, but a stronger reality: He is not merely *choosing* to climb the peak; he is willing the reality into existence ahead of time. In this case, he is not choosing to will - he is simply willing: "To resolve with a forceful will, to determine, to exercise the will". Choice is related to willing; it is not congruent with willing (which is why we have two words, not one).

Disregarding quantum randomness for now (which, as you correctly note, would not be a choice at all), the core of your reasoning is that if we choose "for a reason", then the choice is not free. The fallacy is that this presupposes we could choose "without a reason". "Choosing for no reason" is a nonsense statement, like asserting the existence of a square circle.

Having a reason is as intrinsic to the very nature of choice as having 3 sides is to the nature of the triangle. You have setup a false alternative: Choosing for a reason vs choosing without a reason; this is like saying we fall due to gravity or we fall due to an absence of gravity.

Since "having a reason" is fundamentally part of "choice", you can logically state that:

(The Choice) = (The Choice) + (The Reason for The Choice).

C = C+R

Since R is intrinsic to C (there is no C without R), they are logically the same statements.

What you are essentially arguing is that

1. If we (C+R), then (C) is not free

which is logically the same as

2. If We choose, the choice is not free (or, [if C, then C], since you are *by definition* removing freedom from choice)

Which is logically the same as

3. There is no free choice

That is not an argument; it is a statement.

4. Ergo, since there is no free choice, therefore, no free will

A conclusion based on a statement.



Goodnight, people

I think that the problem with the concept of free will is, that as we tend to see it, in order to be realy 'free', the free will must be able to will something without any reason. It must be able to will something 'out of nowhere' and it must be able to do so without it being a random event, since then we would atribute this 'will' to randomness. This concept itself is essentially flawed.

I didn’t go back to look, but I think most of the quotes you’ve taken were comments I directed at posts from other members (Saidin in particular) and they’re now out of context. Anyhow…


To choose for no reason is to choose at random. Just another way of saying it. An even more precise way of saying it is “choosing for something that is not a reason”.

It’s like asserting the existence of a shape that is not a circle - not asserting the existence of a square circle.


This notion of choice extends beyond biological systems, and even beyond physical systems, but for simplicity, lets look at biological systems.

In your everyday life, do you ever violate physical laws?

If you answer yes, then I’d like to know how.
If the answer is no, then how is anything you do, including thinking, making choices, and acting on those choices free?

Your brain is not free to violate physical laws. Everything it does, conforms to physical laws. All thoughts, choices, actions, are products of extremely long and complex sequences of neural and other biological activity, none of which “you” control.

Imagine a causal chain that begins with photons entering your eyes and striking your retinas, signals traveling to your visual cortex and other regions, and after astoundingly complex neural and biological activity, signals being sent to your muscles causing your body to jump out of the way from an oncoming car.

From the moment those photons entered your eye to the moment you jump, were any physical laws violated? If yes, explain. If no, then explain how free will is involved.


“Choosing for no reason” could be phrased as “choosing for something that is not a reason” or “choosing at random”. So tautologically, we have “choosing for a reason or choosing for something that is not a reason”.
Your gravity example would be tautologically phrased as “we fall due to gravity or we fall due to something that is not gravity”.

A choice is not “a choice + a reason for a choice”. I’m not even sure what that means.

A choice is the satisfaction of certain conditions which is typically followed by an action dependent on the choice. Here’s a simple “computer code” example:

if (x>5) n=n+1;

The condition is (x>5). If the condition is satisfied, then the choice is made to perform the action n=n+1. If the condition is not satisfied, then the choice is made to do nothing (to take no action).

Still very interesting thread. I find myself thinking about it very often during the day. Thank you all for that.
At the moment i am very near the thoughts of polytrip:



I think the free will must be able to will something without any cause.
If it is caused (random/non-random, reason/no-reason, chosen/non-chosen) then it is not free.

Since everything is caused, nothing is free?