No. I was making a metaphor. Sorry that wasn't clear.


The topic of free will is plagued by confusion because terminology isn't clearly defined. IMO the topic is extremely simple: consciousness resides only in the brain, which is a physical apparatus; and physical things always and only operate in a deterministic manner.

Even so, that part of us that produces the ILLUSION of free will can be DEVELOPED--to have an ever deeper and more complex understanding and interaction with reality. As that development happens, one can have an ever increasing feeling of a WIDER FIELD OF ACTION in reality. Speaking in terms of the illusion of free will, one could call that development an increase, or growth, of "free will."

it's an issue of definition..

i do agree with you on the laws of thermo, i absolutely observe them...
but I also observe we can certainly make decisions within those laws, which defy logic.
are they free? define free
it will inevitably be a subjective interpretation, with anyone you ask.
it's a limitation of language, including math.
too many variables.

After reading bits & pieces of this thread, I've decided Gibran2 is my hero


Sorry if this, my only contribution to this thread, offends anyone

This is a way to make sense of the concept of free will without contradicting science etc.
You cannot predict the outcome of it, it is highly flexible and it perceives itself as free.
Yet it is caused and bounded by the laws of nature.
It obeys scientific determinism philosophically, but determinism will fail to unravel it.

I don't think there can be any reasonable objection against this view of free will.

The counterargument that this form of free will isn't realy free in the sense that it cannot escape the laws of physics, would in my view be a childish objection since no-one is arguing against the idea that we are bound by the laws of physics anyway.
It's like arguing you can't buy anything with money.

The argument is whether if you accept the laws of physics, there can be a definition of free will that makes sense.

I say there is, as i explained above.

We can define free will however we choose. The problem isn’t with how we define it, but rather with the consequences of any particular definition.

For example, if we define free will as “the ability to choose”, I would say that’s a reasonable definition, since we do indeed have the ability to choose, and choice seems to be involved in most definitions of free will. But what are the consequences of this definition? Anything that has the ability to choose is now defined to have free will: computers, toasters, thermostats, plants, etc. In fact, depending on how we define choice, we might even be able to say, with this definition of free will, that everything has free will, and it then becomes apparent that the definition isn’t really defining “free” or “will” in any usual sense.

Having said that, I would agree that relating free will to our inability to predict the future seems reasonable. But the consequences of such a definition will force us to admit machines and computers and flowers into the “free will” club.

Our inability to untangle the complexity of the decision-making process and predict its outcomes contributes significantly to the illusion of free will (maybe it’s even the source of the illusion?), but is not itself free will.

Among those who believe that free will exists, they would say that people have free will and machines don’t. All of the proposed definitions of free will that I’ve seen so far are either too inclusive: they allow for toasters and plants to have free will, or arbitrarily exclusive: the definition arbitrarily excludes non-human entities and objects (for example, defining free will in terms of whether or not an entity has a prefrontal cortex!)

So when thinking about a definition of free will, ask yourself if it is overly inclusive or artificially and arbitrarily exclusive. If either is the case, then the definition is not adequate.

I understand the logical argument gibran2, but it's very distanced... I wonder how do you feel personally? I know our world models change and so on but im wondering what is in your head at this moment... Do you feel like your choices are completely predetermined? Is there no responsibility for one's actions? How do levels of awareness relate to will?

My definition of free will doesn't include computers or toasters. I define free will as not only the ability to choose, but also to be aware of this/to reflect upon this and to make this reflection/awareness part of the decissionmaking proces.
(and to further reflect on that to further influence it, etc.)
It is this dimension of reflection that causes the proces to be unpredictable.

If someone would build a computer with this ability, then i would be the first to admit that this machine would have free will.
At this moment however, computers or toasters don't have this ability as far as i'm aware.

computers are designed to make decisions based on logic, a set of instructions developed by people. plants operate on metabolic processes, but have no neural network to even process logic.

as for humans...when you factor in emotions and behavior, it opens up a whole other can of worms. also, we can't really define free will without considering consciousness/subconsciousness.

I think we could easily circumvent the whole toaster/computer issue by stating that anything with consciousness that chooses has freewill. Computers and toasters (most likely ) don't have consciousness.

If you look at all those different aspects that play a role in human decisionmaking, then you see that it would easily get way too complex and inneficient if you would be mr darwin and you would want to organise this whole proces within a brain.

That makes me think that creating a special 'program', a concept such as 'free will' may be the easiest way to organise all these processes simultaneously.

You have all these different levels where things happen that may be relevant for the outcome of the proces. What if you would have one program that brings all of these levels toghether somehow?
You would no longer have to run a feedbackprogram on all of these separate levels but only on this free-will program.
It makes sense to have such a program, but that program should not be very complex itself, because that would only increase the chaos in the whirl of data that's going on here.

To create a concept that is simple but that would at the same time fit this whole structure of a one-level program that brings different levels of a multi-layered information proces toghether on wich you can run a feedbackproces to check for errors and so on, in a social creature, a program that would include some form of accountability would be the easiest, most compressed solution.

that would be called 'metaprogramming'
and shows just how complex the human brain/mind really is.

I don't think every decision a human makes is based on predetermined outcomes, there's
no evidence for this; it would negate things like responsibility for actions. sure, responsibility is a human construct, but so is 'free will', and 'consciousness'.

Yes, an infinitely complex structure, but spawn by following simple rules.

Obviously the brain is very complex and the nuances of its functioning are very mysterious. But I’m having trouble seeing how complexity relates to free will, especially the “free” part. A complex system may be unpredictable and/or incomprehensible, but how does that make it free?

A single atom is very complex. Two interacting atoms are much more complex. Several atoms interacting are so complex that the fastest supercomputers can’t accurately simulate their behavior. A human being is made up of trillions upon trillions of atoms, all interacting in incomprehensibly complex ways. But just because we can’t adequately describe those interactions doesn’t mean they stop obeying physics at some point.

@ benzyme - The absence of free will doesn’t imply that people aren’t responsible for their actions. Why would it?

because you're suggesting we ultimately have no control over our own actions.
isn't that basically what free will is?

More musings:

First, in our daily practical lives, it “appears” that we have free will: we make choices – intelligent or otherwise, we learn from our mistakes and (hopefully) avoid repeating them, we take responsibility for our actions (if we’re mature adults), and we grow as human beings. It certainly “feels” like I’m free. And in the sense that my actions are not (usually) constrained by circumstances or other people, I am free. I think when most people think of free will, this is what they’re thinking about.

But all you have to do is look around you and you’ll see that what appears to be true is not necessarily true. It appears that the sun, moon, and stars revolve around the Earth. It appears that “solid” matter is solid, when in fact it’s mostly empty space. There are countless other examples. We accept that atoms are bound by physical laws, yet we reject that particular collections of atoms are not. Why?

As I’m learning from this thread, the illusion of free will is one of the hardest illusions to give up. Most psychonauts have no trouble letting go of their ego (however it’s defined) and talk of “merging with the Godhead” or recognizing “we are all one” or concluding “I am God”. Many have no difficulty claiming that “selfhood” is an illusion. Almost as many believe that physicality is a fantasy. They feel “enlightened” because they’re able to let go of self. Yet these same people (I’m generalizing and not referring to anyone in particular) are unwilling to let go of the most illusory concept of all – that of free will.

I didn’t just one day freely choose (irony intended) to recognize that the concept of free will is a logical impossibility. As I hope you can see, I’ve given it a lot of thought. And I don’t want to resort to an “appeal to authority”, but most philosophers and all strict materialists accept that free will is ultimately an impossibility. Philosophers seem much more interested in asking questions that follow from the conclusion, such as the type benzyme has asked – “Given that there’s no free will, how can we hold anyone responsible for their actions?”

One way to learn something new is to entertain concepts or ideas that seem counterintuitive or in some way disagreeable. Ask conditional questions: “If there wasn’t free will, what would follow from that?” It doesn’t require you to change your beliefs, but it does require you to think.

Part of the problem understanding this concept has to do with how you define “I” or “self”. Instead of saying “I make choices”, say “choices are made as the result of lawful interactions between the collection of atoms identified as ‘self’ and their environment”.


More simply, instead of saying “I make choices”, say “I’m a part of a system that makes choices”.

Instead of saying “I have control”, say “I’m a part of a system that has control”.

Your argument is really a logical fallacy as an inductive argument. You really only offer some evidence that could suggest that it's possible not to have free will: not that there is no free will.

the illusion of free will goes out with the illusion of consciousness, and I know how you just love to believe consciousness is something that originates outside of the human mind, which is improbable and impossible to show evidence for.
you have no way of showing that the concept of free will is independent of consciousness.

I make no such claims. In fact, how could I claim that free will, a logical impossibility, depends on anything? It simply doesn’t exist, and this can be proven via logical argument. I freely acknowledge that there is no way to prove whether or not consciousness exists. This is why I express my beliefs about consciousness as beliefs.

You are making the claim that free will somehow depends on consciousness and that both exist. So it’s up to you to:

1 – Prove consciousness exists.
2 – Prove free will exists.
3 – Prove free will depends on consciousness.

Get to it!