This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Free will and the illusory open-ness of the future.
The controversy seems to be making a comeback through quantum mysticism and such attempts to put consciousness at the core of reality.
I've seen comments about this on several discussions. I'd love to see how far these arguments go in favour or not of the reality of free will.
Theodore A. Hoppe 200+
(PhysOrg.com) -- When biologist Anthony Cashmore claims that the concept of free will is an illusion, he's not breaking any new ground. At least as far back as the ancient Greeks, people have wondered how humans seem to have the ability to make their own personal decisions in a manner lacking any causal component other than their desire to "will" something. But Cashmore, Professor of Biology at the University of Pennsylvania, says that many biologists today still cling to the idea of free will, and reject the idea that we are simply conscious machines, completely controlled by a combination of our chemistry and external environmental forces.
Read more at: http://phys.org/news186830615.html#jCp
Barry Palmer 50+
Philosophy can be fun, but in my life, philosophy is the strategic thinking behind acting practically. From the practical point of view, there is no difference between actual free will and the illusion of free will. If I programmed a computer to play chess, I could claim that I programmed it to have free will. The only arguments you could form against that claim would be philosophical arguments. To support my claim, I could simply point out that it appears to have free will as much as any living organism, and no one can predict what move it will make next. This is exactly the same situation as claiming that humans have free will.
For the practical purposes of living day to day, this debate is irrelevant.
Enjoy your debate, its good entertainment.
Gerald O'brian 50+
I completely agree with what you say about A.I. If you can build a machine that can fake human behaviour and feelings, then you've built a man... Because this is all we do : we fake being people.
But you're right, this has nothing to do with the way we live. We all buy it, the fakeness, and make it real. It's the only way to figure practical things out.
Stefan H. Farr
To bring back the analogy with the billiard balls, imagine that some billiard balls can spontaneously get chipped for a well know reason but which cannot be determined when it occurs, just randomly. The chipping can seriously affect the balls trajectory because it alters its shape and thus behaviour. We still know all the physics about it, we could account for it, but because we don't know when the ball gets chipped, if at all, we cannot calculate its trajectory and its position at any point in the future, because it is affected by this randomness.
Stefan H. Farr
First there is still debate whether or not the universe is deterministic in nature. We know Newtonian mechanics is deterministic for sure. You hit a bunch of billiard balls and set them in motion. Everything from then on is deterministic, it is calculable. Depending on the initial conditions and the physics of the environment (table, friction, elastic coefficients, etc) we can calculate in advance where the balls will be 100 years from now, down to every second. The same thing applies if there are 100 billion balls on the table or 10 times as much. You really need a big computer to calculate but the fact of the matter is, that the balls must follow an exact history. There is no free will.
We don't know if the universe is deterministic. Quantum mechanics, which is a better description for the universe than Newtonian mechanics is unpredictable by nature, but we can still not say for sure if it is deterministic or not. There may be some quantum determinism that we don't yet understand and if consciousness arises from any kind of physical phenomenon that is subject to this quantum determinism than the answer is really as simple as in the previous case. The Big Bang set the universe in motion, and those initial conditions + laws of physics dictate the history of the universe. There are lots of balls, but they must follow the predetermined sequence of events.
If quantum physics is not deterministic just plain old random, and consciousness arises from this randomness, than the history is not predetermined, but there still isn't any free will. All decisions are dictated by the initial setup + some random events that we cannot control.
Finally, if consciousness has some weird origin that will allow it to defy the laws of physics and the randomness it may actually exist.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Randomness means that the outcome is not knowable, for physical reasons. I don't see how this changes anything about our deterministic model of the world.
In fact, hold on. I don't even understand what random means... or why it should be possible for anything to be really random. Hmmm, perhaps I'll start a conversation about this.
Thanks a lot!
Frans Kellner 100+
There is no future nor past.
What is - is always and ever changing.
The dynamics of perception is an interplay between the perceiver and the perceived. Perceiving isn't done by any individual but any living organism filters the actual state of being into any personal reality depending on the characteristics of that organism. This process in life mirrors that of the non living universe. What you call your consciousness is just your personal reality as a modulation of that of the universe.
Ken brown 30+
Casey Christofaris 10+
One could argue that everything is connected so even that personal choices path was predetermined, however the choice you make is not. Now I am not talking about turning left or right out of the driveway. I am talking about a choice where a lesson is to be learn. Once you make this choice your life could be set back on this "predetermined path" leading you your next personal choice/free will.
To sum up my answer I would suggest that life is both predetermined and free will
natasha nikulina 50+
All is flow, all is flux, all relationships are in motion to everything else.
I think, it’s a truer picture of the world.
In a philosophical context : the 'thing' is what it is and what it is not . One side exists by the virtue of the other. It is set up as a dichotomy, but it is one thing it is entangled , but we perceive it as opposites. IOW . determinism and free will are just concepts that represent the motion of human consciousness and are two sides of the same coin.
Something like this ... :)
eric rodgers
shawn lyles
Gail . 50+
Gerald O'brian 50+
I kind of liked that term, but if you have a better one, I'm all ears!
Gail . 50+
Gerald O'brian 50+
I don't think that quantum healling, etc... are science, though.
There is quantum physics, and pseudo-quantum physics.
Gail . 50+
20 years ago, the idea that meditation could eliminate many diseases, increase IQ, enhance the immune system, and treat mental illnesses was simply crazy. Today, the evidence is pouring in.
10 years ago, the idea that group meditation could be quantifiably proven to reduce violence and other social ills in inner cities, while enhancing social benefits, was thought to be so ludicrous that when the study was published, six groups immediately began studies to challenge the absurd idea. Now it's fact and even the US NIH agreed along with other countries and major universities who have undertaken their own studies.
I suggest that these studies (and others) are the new field of science that is providing us with stunning bodies of evidence that challenge our preconceived notions.
The fact that quantum science initiated these studies as a result of inescapable questions as a result of Twin Slit, Schroedinger's equation, Delayed Choice, Bell's Inequality, etc, is important. The physicists involved are not afraid of exploring new dimensions of knowledge. That's why it's called science rather than religion.
Gerald O'brian 50+
It's pseudo-science when it merely mimmicks science and explains absolutely nothing. The whole point of pseudo-science is to set itself as a victim to sell a few books, not to provide understanding of reality. Coul I ask you to tell me where I can find an explanation about group meditation?
natasha nikulina 50+
Do you understand QM ?
Do you understand Mysticism ?
You see ? They have something in common, they are not fully intelligible.
Re : God didn't warn Eve. He warned Adam.
There is a point, i guess. Adam and Eve represent ying/yang of human psyche.It's adam/eve, the being. It's already duality without which there is no existence, but they are in harmony and reside in Paradise, which is not a place but a state of mind/ consciousness.
I have this kind of understanding :)
shawn lyles
Robert Winner 50+
Free will is the ability to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints. The existence of free will and its exact nature and definition have long been debated in philosophy. Historically, the constraint of dominant concern has been the metaphysical constraint of determinism, which stated most simply is the notion that the present dictates the future entirely, that every occurrence results from prior events. The two main positions within that debate are metaphysical libertarianism, the claim that determinism is false, so free will exists is at least possible—and hard determinism, the claim that determinism is true, so free will does not exist.
Since this has been debated for centuries Las Vegas odds are 1000 to 1 that it will not be decided during this conversation. And even odds that I am determined to have free will ..... Aw come on that was funny.
Bob.
Gerald O'brian 50+
And then all the Jesus stuff about bad people being ignorants, really, who deserved love and education the most. If there is a religious concept of free-will, I don't see it. I only see a big moral mess because it's not carried by consistent philosophy. Someone should fix this.
Sterling Spencer
Does being ignorant of doing something make you innocent of it? If it did then if someone killed a person without the knowledge of it being wrong would they then be innocent due to their ignorance?
Was Eve even ignorant, because God did warn her? Was she innocent, because she did take a bite?
Gerald O'brian 50+
And adults don't go to jail for something they did as a child.
That's what i meant
Gail . 50+
Sterling Spencer
Children don't go to jail but they would still undergo some form of punishment, right?
@ TED Lover
But Eve did know, didn't she? She told the serpent what would happen upon eating the fruit and the serpent replied saying that she would not die. Should someone ever be punished for just being ignorant of something? Shouldn't they only be punished for wrongful action?
Gerald O'brian 50+
God taught its creatures to do as they are told, and this is how our children are brought up. A father won't punish a kid for doing what Mommy asked.
Oh, about Eve : "The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, 3 but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”"
Come on, you have no excuse! The book of genesis, which explains the creation of the entire universe, life on earth and the drama of losing immortality takes about 45 seconds to read!
Sterling Spencer
David Hamilton 50+
shawn lyles
george lockwood 20+
pat gilbert 50+
John Dunbar 10+
David Hamilton 50+
PS... "There's no such thing as addiction... There's just things you enjoy doing... More than being alive" Doug Stanhope.
Gerald O'brian 50+
I agree that free will exists, but as a metaphor. We can't ever figure out the exact details of the initial states, and a thought implies billions of interacting neurons. So instead of trying to predict what a person is about to do through reductionnist physics, it's handy to suppose that behaviour results of actual decision making.
When i interact with humans, I believe in free-will, even though I think it's all an illusion.
David Hamilton 50+
I'm practically an asexual monk, and have no interest in having children, so rationally, and based on the stimulus of my environment, I should care more about finances, than looks... but, I'm on strike. I refuse to contribute money to this government, because I believe it's evil... So I have free time.
I am genetically fat. The world is trying to determine, that I will grow up to be a fat guy. If I eat 2 meals in a day, or eat until I'm no longer hungry, I gain 2 pounds a day. Most of my life, I believed, that I had been screwed, by genetics, and there was nothing I could do about it... Then I realized, some people can eat 3 meals a day, and stay healthy... I can eat one, and a light snack. The world makes it hard for me to stay thin... It does not determine that I will be fat.
If I put more energy into it, than other people do, I can overcome my genetics, and have. If you believe you have no free will, you cannot do this. So I would actually go one step further, free will exists, if you believe in it.
If you choose not to believe in free will, you will likely end up very fat, very drug addled, very lazy, and very sex addicted, cus lets face it, that's the devil on all our soldiers.
chen xin
i think we are born equal and free. we are all animals .and we also have the characteristic
of animals .free will can bring us a good moor ,then we wont feel stressed .
when you are stuck it is the time that you do something jsut as you said very lazy and sex addicted .
so freedom is very important .
Gerald O'brian 50+
When you think of something, doesn't it matter what you've been through, who brought you up, what books you've read and who you've dated? You'd be someone else if you hadn't grown up with the exact same environment, wouldn't you?
Now if you can aknowledge this, then where's your limit about how much your thoughts are determined?
David Hamilton 50+
However, beyond that... The key words you use, are "to win the battle against obesity, lust, and becoming a billionaire"... That's free will. You acknowledge that every one of us experiences that desire, and some of us go down that path, some do not.
I chose what books I read, and I chose to read, in a generation, in which that did me no social favors... Thinking Dostoevsky is a valid conversation reference, is not a particularly learned or encouraged behavior in the society of 20 year olds in Los Angeles. There is nothing about the city I live in, or my parents (who hate subtitles)... which leads me to be shocked every time someone tells me they haven't seen "The Seven Samurai".
My choices, reflect very often who I haven't dated... but it also reflects my taste. Theoretically there is a woman in Los Angeles who loves classic movies, and can't wait to build clean energy products in the garage with me... but I certainly haven't been conditioned by my environment to have much faith in that.
So little about me, has anything to do with my environment, or upbringing, so little of it is related to anyone I know, I can't even imagine believing that my life is predetermined.
Gerald O'brian 50+
1- Do you believe free-will can be programmed, in theory?
2- What other animals, in your opinion, have free-will?
3- If you can make decisions regardless of the environment, what's the difference between randomness and free-will?
Thanks for your contribution on this.
David Hamilton 50+
I think programming free will in theory, would resemble a random error generator... but that's not the same experience.
2. Not sure... I actually believe atoms may have free will, and that explains quantum theory, but I admit, that's just crazy talk.
3. The best question, and the most difficult to answer. I believe, some things are objectively awe inspiring, and beautiful. I think all human beings can benefit from experiencing them. I mentioned once before that the best experience in my life was backpacking around Europe spending time in hostels and riding the rails. Aside from the flight, I was amazed how little people still appreciate things that are just objectively awesome, and how cheap you can experience things which have survived for centuries.
It's like a movie... I, shockingly, even as a young man, always thought, "Most things of value, probably weren't made this year". I don't know what made me attuned to that at a young age, certainly modern pop helped. Once I chose to evaluate things in this way, my choices lead me down a very strange path, which makes me happy, but very frustrated with modern society. I don't think free will is encouraged. I think people would rather feel sorry for their station in life, and that is the constant struggle we are all trapped in. It's up to each one of us to overcome this, or not.
David Hamilton 50+
In short, life is a series of probabilities... however... You are the gambler. You invest your energy and resources where you enjoy them, and in doing so either profit or lose. Some odds are longer than others, but the game is rigged against us all.
Gerald O'brian 50+
David Hamilton 50+
We don't need a hive mind to go to Mars... Just free will + crazy people : )
PS, the "It's like a movie..." That just trailed off had a follow up I deleted for space... 6 months after opening weekend, there's always a way to see it really cheap. So you can see 5 movies 6 months late, at a drive in or cheap theater, rental, netflix... Or you can watch one on opening weekend. 6 months after it comes out, if no one's talking about it still... It probably wasn't worth seeing in the first place.
Entropy Driven
All you are calling for is a huge mess. I will give it a try before mumbo-jumbo comes to the stage.
1. I am not sure that determinism is correct. Why not? Because it is an overenthusiastic conclusion from the perfection in the mathematical descriptions of the workings of such things as the parables described by cannon balls in the planet to their connection to the ellipses described by planets in orbits around the sun. My point being that some "laws" of physics are quite precise, but that does not mean that everything in nature is. Thus it is possible that not everything is predictable from the positions and momenta of every atom in the universe. It is possible that the conclusion towards determinism was a hasty generalization.
2. We have evolved in a way that we are able to "weight data," stuff going on around us. If the universe is deterministic, then at least it is not so predictable and weighting probabilities has been part of survival mechanisms for living beings.
3. I could rephrase the above as this: laws might narrow, delimit, what can and cannot happen. That does not mean that they determine what exactly will happen.
4. From the above I would conclude that at the very least some measure of free-will exist regardless of how much deterministic people would argue that the universe is. Why? Because we have still evolved as if things are unpredictable, as if we can make decisions. That is free-will at the very least at a level that we can understand.
5. It is very hard to decide what free-will means (I know, I used one definition above, but you will see). This little point will be the source of most of the problems in this thing if you get more public.
6. This will become religious and mystic and pseudoscientific (thus nonsense) in no time. So that's it from me.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Entropy Driven
What about free-will: the idea that complex computations being more than the sum of the parts does not go against the laws of physics? Or what about free-will: the idea that the laws of physics leave some room for decision making? Then you have authentically open questions. Questions that will not be easy to solve anyway, but at least something we can put our minds to run around.
(Nice mess above.)
Gerald O'brian 50+
There is a debate : I've caused you to supply another definition, haven't I?
So, there is a treshold in the complexity of computation, you say, at which point free-will emerges? Why not. Any idea (wild guess) where that line might be?
But then it raises a new problem ; what's a free-will decision VS a more basic decision?
I personnally think there is no special threshold in the scale that goes from chemical reactions to wondering whether Beethoven or Bach was the best composer. And I expect to be refuted.
Entropy Driven
I might have created an undesirable problem. One of assuming that complex computations are simple computations on top of each other. Or maybe not. After all, we have seen that most logics can quickly lead to paradoxes. So, maybe it is the possibility and inevitability of paradoxes where the problem lies. Maybe if we were computing as exactly on complex problems we would find ourselves in one paradox after another ... interesting thought. Think of self referencing paradoxes like "this sentence is a lie."
Since I am just thinking aloud I have created a million problems more. The thing being, we can't assume that simple computations put on top of each other are just as solvable. Roads to paradoxes can become invisible. Undecidability unavoidable, if we kept working with the wrong paradigm. Perhaps that's where the solution, if there's any, might be found. Simple computations can help us understand how things work at a very basic level. That does not mean they can help us understand exactly and unambiguously how much more complex problems work at the highest levels.
No, I don't know where the line can be found. Maybe it is not a matter of lines, but of how the edifice is built. We quickly find a problem in a simple liar paradox. We might not so easily figure out complex systems where liar paradox would stop us were it not because reality does not truly work the way simple models work.
I know, I lost you, didn't I? I lost myself, so no problem ... (can-of-worms/pandora's box thus opened.)
Gerald O'brian 50+
Yeah you really lost me with the introduction of paradoxes into this argument. I'll read it once more...
natasha nikulina 50+
Whenever we are confronted with opposites, we'd better try to unify them, to create a "coincidentia oppositorum" so that the differences can resonate and become complimentary rather than contradictory.
You may get really 'something' out of it , but it's just hard as hell to talk about that what you've got ! :)
eric rodgers
I like the metaphor of there being a dance and dancer in regards to this thing we call life. Many of us assume we are the dancer leading the dance. Perhaps more conscious folks accept that they are the dance. Perhaps even more that more consciousser (ha) peoples have a realization that they are both the dance and the dancer in this life of ours. pppp pppppp ppppparadox.
Entropy Driven
Maybe that's the point. Determinism was an overly enthusiastic idea born out of, again, the success of models of the physics of some century/centuries ago. Models are models. They represent reality, yet they are not reality. They could have trapped people into thinking that because their predictions about, say, gravitation-thus-elliptical-orbits, then everything would be predictable from such first principles, thus predetermined. No room for any deviations. Yet, we know that the predictions were not that accurate. That imagining all the mass and shape of the objects to be contained into points helps us develop the models, but that it is far from being an accurate representation of reality. if we know all of that, why believe that the universe behaves that way and still accept the idea of determinism?
So, my paradox example shows an obvious defect in one kind of logic. This kind of logic is still useful, yet not the absolute model to judge the way nature works. Natasha then suggests fuzzy logic. This logic allows for some freedom and thus less predetermination. Right? It is still a model, yet it has not reached the minds of physicists to renounce the idea that they had everything figured out and that the universe, while somewhat predictable, is not completely predictable. That computations might not always be on/off bit to bit procedures. That models are models, while reality is reality.
Thus, I stand by what I said. This is undecidable, but it looks a lot like we have free-will (something pretty much like it). So, for all practical purposes we have it. Could it be illusory? Yes. Could it be real? Yes. Can we break the laws of nature then? I don't think so. Does that not mean that free-will is an illusion? Nope. we know that these laws mean constrains, but we do not know that such constrains are absolutely precise. In rather metaphorical words, we do not know if such constrains allow for fuzzy-logic or demand boolean logic.
See ya my friends.