# Does free will exist?



## HareBrain

Since there's no philosophy section, I thought I'd stick this here, since it involves neuroscience as well. It was inspired by a comment from Werewoman on the "glorification of killing" thread, where she said "Everything is a choice. Even love". But I didn't want to take that thread off-topic.

I'm not sure anything is a choice. And how would we know if we were making a choice or not? We can only be said to make a choice if it is possible for us to vary our decision given the exact same circumstances. But the circumstances will never be exactly the same twice, so how can we know that a combination of genetics and previous experience -- nature plus nurture, if you like -- hasn't precisely determined how we go about the decision-making process, and thus hasn't precisely determined exactly what our "choice" will be?

Going from philosophy to science, I think it's been demonstrated that the neural activity related to a particular decision -- to pick up a card, say -- occurs (or at least is measured as having occured) after the physical activity has commenced. In other words, we consciously rationalise as a decision something that our subconscious has already set in motion.

It's not a comfortable idea that free will might be an illusion. If it is an illusion, it's one on which the western legal and religious systems are largely based. It might even be one that's necessary for the functioning of society, but that in itself doesn't make it true.

Actually, I believe that we have the capacity for free will, but that our willingness to go with the decisions suggested to our consciousness by the hidden parts of our minds means that we almost never exercise it. But maybe, if humankind is allowed to evolve, that will change.

Any thoughts?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae

It's hard to say. Psychology is always a difficult field to prove anything in, and this is where this subject tends to lay. However, I honestly don't think free will is an illusion-people often go against the best genes and upbringing, when they have no reason to, other than the fact that they choose to. And thinking that the subconscious makes it so there's no free will-the subconscious is a part of us. Our deepest parts have that free will, so on the most basic level it would exist. And the nature/nuture thing? Neither come into play in a lot of circumstances. Imagine two siblings, raised in the exact same environment and treated the exact same way by family and others they were around. (Unlikely completely but it happens.) One turns out to become the perfect angel while the other performs deeds that would make Kali cry.


Subconscious has a lot to do with it I believe, but like I said, it's a part of us and even though it may drive our physical conscious, it is making our decisions and therefore that is the part of us that has our free will.


----------



## Interference

Something's making me say "Yes".


----------



## HareBrain

Manarion said:


> I honestly don't think free will is an illusion-people often go against the best genes and upbringing, when they have no reason to, other than the fact that they choose to.


 
When they have no reason to? You mean no _apparent_ reason, otherwise surely they would just be choosing randomly.



Manarion said:


> And thinking that the subconscious makes it so there's no free will-the subconscious is a part of us. Our deepest parts have that free will, so on the most basic level it would exist.


 
I don't agree. We don't express free will when we breathe or digest. Our subconscious is our instincts, driven by genetics, hormones etc; the subconscious doesn't express any free will at all. It is all about programmed reaction to stimulus. If it did amount to free will, we would have to say the same about animal behaviour.



Manarion said:


> And the nature/nuture thing? Neither come into play in a lot of circumstances. Imagine two siblings, raised in the exact same environment and treated the exact same way by family and others they were around. (Unlikely completely but it happens.) One turns out to become the perfect angel while the other performs deeds that would make Kali cry.


 
But surely (don't worry, I'll stop calling you Shirley soon!) no two people could ever have the exact same combination of genes and experiences. Even if they were twins, they would have read different books, had different conversations, eaten different foods, any one of which would have diversified their sum life-experience to the point where they might behave slightly differently, and once their paths start to diverge, the experiences will diverge increasingly rapidly, and so on.


----------



## HareBrain

Interference said:


> Something's making me say "Yes".


 

I can't decide if this is flippant or darn sophisticated


----------



## Interference

I know.  I'm a mystery.  It's a life choice thing.



All right, a tentative stab at another kind of answer:

In the broad scheme of things (I'm talking about Universal constants and the like) our access to free choice is moderately irrelevant - humans just aren't that important - and in terms of the inexorable path of eternity, I suspect the beginning and end are predetermined while everything in the middle is variations on a theme to lead the Universe to that end.

So, human freedom of will:  Yes, undoubtedly our choices are personal and largely freely made on a day-to-day basis, but I suspect that the overall path of our lives is determined at the outset.  The meal is prepared, we choose when to sit at the table, sort of thing.  And maybe we can even choose not to eat.  But I suspect the chef knew we would ...


----------



## StormFeather

An interesting thread - and one that prompted me to look up 'what is free will' to see what the general concensus might be, while I try to make up my own mind.

The first link I clicked on had the first lines from a variety of sites - the one that intrigued me the most was the following:



> Divine faculty of knowing how to choose conceded to the Monads. For souls free will is sin, being always a transgression of the Law of Love


from: www.piccolifrancescanispiritualisti.org/nuova_pagina_12.htm

I haven't clicked on the link - but thought the idea that free will is a sin against the Law of Love might add a certain zest to the debate?

For the interested, the other first lines can be found here:

define:free will - Google Search


----------



## Parson

The Parson rushes in "where angels fear to tread" and says "Yes." Free will exists, but it is also all foreordained/predestined. Logical nonsense, but not all truth is logical.


----------



## Interference

I think I'd support that as it doesn't conflict with my thesis


----------



## Dale_M

I believe the answer is yes.  Free will for me is the ability to make a decision which flies in the face of all local influences.  Most of the time we follow rules, because we know a more successful outcome is more likely if we follow the rules.  But sometimes we just don't.  It doesn't matter that our free will might be pre-ordained, it is still _our_ will, not somebody else's.  We might be living in a four-dimensional sub-manifold of a ten-dimensional space, but we will never experience anything of the other six dimensions; similarly our universe may be ticking to the mechanism of a superior universe in which our actions are pre-ordained, but inside _our_ universe that is as irrelevant as those extra dimensions.


----------



## The Judge

There are two aspects of non-free will here, aren't there?  There's the religious 'everything is written'** whereby nothing we do is of any use in changing our destiny, in which case we are simply clockwork mice running in pre-ordained tracks (predestinate grooves!***) up and down the celestial clock.  Then there's the 'we are simply slaves of our biology' whereby how we react to anything is wholly dependent on hormones/synapses/circuitry/what-have-you boiling through our system at any given time.

A plague on both your houses, say I.


** Parson may be able to hold simultaneously two contradictory ideas but I don't think that's the case for all his brethren

_
***
There once was a man who said 'Damn!
It is borne in upon me I am
An engine which moves
In predestinate grooves
I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram.'
_(Maurice Evan *Hare*)


----------



## HareBrain

StormFeather said:


> from: www.piccolifrancescanispiritualisti.org/nuova_pagina_12.htm
> 
> I haven't clicked on the link


 
I have, now. Never before have I seen a glossary that might more accurately be called a glossolalia. (Great, the cleverest thing I'll ever write and it's in a thread only ten people will ever read.)



Dale_M said:


> I believe the answer is yes. Free will for me is the ability to make a decision which flies in the face of all local influences.


 
But how can you know what all those influences are? And if you can't, how can you know that you're going against them? How can you know that some experience you had fifteen years ago didn't rewire your brain in such a way that it is now a determining factor?



> It doesn't matter that our free will might be pre-ordained, it is still _our_ will, not somebody else's.


 
I like this thought about each having our own will, wherever it comes from, but I don't think it then becomes free will. Free will, I contend, is the ability to make decisions _whilst being conscious of, and thus able to take into account, all influences on that decision_. My contention is that at this stage of our development, we cannot be aware of all the influences, and so cannot free ourselves from their effect.


----------



## The Judge

HareBrain said:


> I have, now. Never before have I seen a glossary that might more accurately be called a glossolalia. (Great, the cleverest thing I'll ever write and it's in a thread only ten people will ever read.)


Never mind.  It's quality, not quantity, of readership that's important.  Well, until you're published, that is...


----------



## StormFeather

HareBrain said:


> Free will, I contend, is the ability to make decisions _whilst being conscious of, and thus able to take into account, all influences on that decision_. My contention is that at this stage of our development, we cannot be aware of all the influences, and so cannot free ourselves from their effect.


 
I think it would be a rare entity indeed that could take into account every possible factor that may come into play or come to bear on any decision. In fact, I suspect such an entity might not get round to making the decision at all  

Just an idea/question but . . . .

Maybe it's only free will when you make what is perceived as the wrong decision? The right decision in many instances would be the one that had many influences that enables you to know that it's correct. By bucking those influences, are you exhibiting your free will to choose a path against your instinct, upbringing, knowledge etc?


----------



## dustinzgirl

If it doesn't, then why do we have brains?


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> I'm not sure anything is a choice.


There are always choices _to be made_. I think you're disputing who or what makes those choices and why.


HareBrain said:


> And how would we know if we were making a choice or not?


That's more difficult to say, but it depends on the choice. Not all are near-instant (though they can be made so with the tossed-coin trick).


HareBrain said:


> We can only be said to make a choice if it is possible for us to vary our decision given the exact same circumstances. But the circumstances will never be exactly the same twice, so how can we know that a combination of genetics and previous experience -- nature plus nurture, if you like -- hasn't precisely determined how we go about the decision-making process, and thus hasn't precisely determined exactly what our "choice" will be?


This is a measurement problem rather than something that tells us whether we _are able to _make choices. 


HareBrain said:


> Going from philosophy to science, I think it's been demonstrated that the neural activity related to a particular decision -- to pick up a card, say -- occurs (or at least is measured as having occured) after the physical activity has commenced. In other words, we consciously rationalise as a decision something that our subconscious has already set in motion.


There was an Horizon programme in the last few months or so where the researcher (using an MRI? scanner) knew what answer the guinea pig (the programme's presenter) would give seconds before the guinea pig knew. But all that tells us is that it is not always our conscious mind making the decision. But is that any diffrent from a computer programme requesting an answer from a maths chip (integrated or otherwise)?



HareBrain said:


> It's not a comfortable idea that free will might be an illusion. If it is an illusion, it's one on which the western legal and religious systems are largely based. It might even be one that's necessary for the functioning of society, but that in itself doesn't make it true.


Is the legal system really based on this? Does it care what it is inside our heads that makes decisions? Where "faulty" decision making is seen to be endemic (and not just beneficial to the person "making" those decisions), we somethimes declare that an accused is not fit to stand. In other cases, juries (or judges) try to determine what happened, who did it and why (in the external sense). They do not spend much time involved in psychological assessments before judgement (as opposed to sentencing).



HareBrain said:


> Actually, I believe that we have the capacity for free will, but that our willingness to go with the decisions suggested to our consciousness by the hidden parts of our minds means that we almost never exercise it. But maybe, if humankind is allowed to evolve, that will change.


I believe there is free will.



Oh, and free wills are available on the Internet. (A big boy made me type that, but he's run away into my subconscious....)


----------



## dustinzgirl

Free Willie is available on the internet, too.

(I typed that all by myself).


----------



## Interference

LOL - really


----------



## HareBrain

Ursa major said:


> There was an Horizon programme in the last few months or so where the researcher (using an MRI? scanner) knew what answer the guinea pig (the programme's presenter) would give seconds before the guinea pig knew. But all that tells us is that it is not always our conscious mind making the decision. *But is that any diffrent from a computer programme requesting an answer from a maths chip (integrated or otherwise)*?


 
Could you expand on that last line? The way I read it seems to support my case, but since you're arguing against it, it clearly shouldn't.



> Is the legal system really based on this? Does it care what it is inside our heads that makes decisions? Where "faulty" decision making is seen to be endemic (and not just beneficial to the person "making" those decisions), we somethimes declare that an accused is not fit to stand.


 
I meant sentencing rather than judgement. The legal system is based at least in part on a sentence having a punishment aspect. If free will were accepted not to exist and we were all, in effect, incredibly sophisticated robots, this could not be valid, since no one could be said to be legally to blame for his actions. The punishment aspect would be removed from sentencing, which would become wholly concerned with rehabilitiation and deterrence. (Of course the punishment aspect is part of the deterrence, so that would be hard to disentangle.)


----------



## The Judge

If the legal system accepted free will did not exist, then both rehabilitation and deterrence are also non-starters.  If it is my fate and/or my biology which makes me steal, then no amount of ordinary rehabilitation or deterrence will stop me or those whose fate/biology is similar to mine.  In that event, the only options are (a) taking no action against me, leaving me free to pursue my burglarious career; (b) putting me somewhere for all time so that my fate/biology no longer impinges on others; (c) treating me to make the necessary amendments to my biology.

The law actually does take into account behaviour which falls short of mental illness of the kind which renders someone unfit to plead.  There are defences such as automatism where the necessary _mens rea_ ('guilty mind') is absent trhough no fault of the accused eg sleepwalking.  By and large they fall into category (a) in that no further action is taken.  Which is fine when there are only a handful of cases each year.  If every defendant could claim, then there would be a radical shift in how these cases are treated.

NB Dr Johnson:


> If a madman were to come into this room with a stick in his hand, no doubt we should pity the state of his mind; but our primary consideration would be to take care of ourselves.  We should knock him down first, and pity him afterwards.


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> Could you expand on that last line? The way I read it seems to support my case, but since you're arguing against it, it clearly shouldn't.


When I ask an application (say Excel) to make a calcualtion, I do not really care whether a) it is done, in machine code, by Excel; b) it is done, in machine code, by some O/S function; c) it is done by inbuilt routines by the CPU; d) it is done by a maths chip external to the CPU. I think - correctly, I believe - that the computer has done the calculation.

My decision-making functions are within me. It does not really matter where exactly a decision is made (which part or parts of the physical brain, whether the "software" that has performed it is considered to be part of my conscious mind or not).

What I'm suggesting is that _we cannot say we lack free will simply because of where in our heads any particular decision is made_. (Reflex actions are, of course, different as they invlove simple nerve paths outside the brain.) This is not a positive argument for free will, merely questioning one suggested argument against free will.


----------



## Stephen Palmer

This...

Freedom Evolves: Amazon.co.uk: Daniel C. Dennett: Books

... from a great writer, may interest you!


----------



## Interference

Actually, fascinating concept.  Free Will as an evolutionary process, possibly culminating in the ultimate freedom: To create.

I like this concept.


----------



## HareBrain

The Judge said:


> If the legal system accepted free will did not exist, then both rehabilitation and deterrence are also non-starters. If it is my fate and/or my biology which makes me steal, then no amount of ordinary rehabilitation or deterrence will stop me or those whose fate/biology is similar to mine.


 
Not at all. I don't believe our biology solely influences our behaviour, but all our experiences since, and our current environment. Deterrence works by persuading some that the risk of committing a crime is too great. The ones it works against might be a particular group whose genes/experience/environment lead them to accept this argument, but it still works. And rehabilitation can also work, since it changes a person's experience, which is a major determinant of behaviour. It might not work on all criminals, but its effectiveness isn't limited by the absence of free will. The robot, if you like, gets reprogrammed throughout life, by everything that happens to it. Biology, as in one's genetic nature at birth, is only a small part of the matter.



Ursa major said:


> When I ask an application (say Excel) to make a calcualtion, I do not really care whether a) it is done, in machine code, by Excel; b) it is done, in machine code, by some O/S function; c) it is done by inbuilt routines by the CPU; d) it is done by a maths chip external to the CPU. I think - correctly, I believe - that the computer has done the calculation.
> 
> My decision-making functions are within me. It does not really matter where exactly a decision is made (which part or parts of the physical brain, whether the "software" that has performed it is considered to be part of my conscious mind or not).
> 
> What I'm suggesting is that _we cannot say we lack free will simply because of where in our heads any particular decision is made_. (Reflex actions are, of course, different as they invlove simple nerve paths outside the brain.) This is not a positive argument for free will, merely questioning one suggested argument against free will.


 
It's also questioning the definition of free will, which I now realise I rashly took as read. Obviously your definition differs from mine above. How would you (or others) define it?


----------



## HareBrain

Sorry for double posting



Stephen Palmer said:


> This...
> 
> Freedom Evolves: Amazon.co.uk: Daniel C. Dennett: Books
> 
> ... from a great writer, may interest you!


 
Thanks Stephen, looks very interesting. I'll definitely read it.

Maybe I should repeat, in case it got lost in my first post, that I'm not arguing that free will can't or doesn't exist, only that at this stage in human development, it is very rare. But I think it will develop, and the route to that development is an increased understanding of consciousness, so that we can become more -- and hopefully, in the end, almost fully -- aware of the powerful influence of our subconscious elements on our behaviour. (Though as Stormfeather pointed out, we can never be completely aware of all these billions of individual influences.)

A quote from a review of the book linked to above:



> the free will debate has neither feature: we all think we are free to choose; as a brute fact either we are or we're not: but either way, we can't change it (if we're not free, then we aren't free to change to be free; if we are free, we're not free to decide not to be). Whatever the answer is, it can't make any difference to the way we live out our lives, since whether we're free to choose begs the very question we're asking.


 
I disagree with this for the reason above -- the capacity is there, however unexercised, and we _can _change it, with effort and with awareness of how we work.


----------



## Parson

The Judge said:


> ** Parson may be able to hold simultaneously two contradictory ideas but I don't think that's the case for all his brethren
> 
> _
> ***
> There once was a man who said 'Damn!
> It is borne in upon me I am
> An engine which moves
> In predestinate grooves
> I'm not even a bus, I'm a tram.'
> _(Maurice Evan *Hare*)



[Sigh!] Too true your Honor! But it should be much less true than it is for the Bible that we hold to be truth manages to take both sides of the question and declare them true. Why can't we who follow Jesus and the Bible do the same?




_
Freedom Evolves: Amazon.co.uk: Daniel C. Dennett: Books


Very interesting summary. I might add this book to my collection. So far as I see it he is arguing for evolutionary development of free will. 
_


----------



## The Judge

HareBrain said:


> Not at all. I don't believe our biology solely influences our behaviour, but all our experiences since, and our current environment. Deterrence works by persuading some that the risk of committing a crime is too great.


Now I'm getting confused.  If a person can make a decision based on past experiences, why is this not free will?  I thought the whole point was that if you don't have free will, you don't make decisions as such, you simply do what biological imperatives require.  Only if the experiences affect the chemical make-up of the brain can free will be lacking - which is the 'treatment' I was referring to as option (c).  

Lack of free will to me means being made to do something by 'forces' outside one's control.  If one can think, on no matter what level, 'If I steal this I'll be back in chokey again' and a decision is made not to steal, then that is free will in evidence I'd have thought.

If I'm understanding you aright, you think something can only be free will if the person knows each and every 'force' acting upon him/her -- including all the hidden forces of chemicals/neural pathways etc -- thinks about each force and how it is capable of 'requiring' one decision or another, and then he/she makes a considered decision not simply on the facts but taking into account all of those other factors and the influences they are bringing to bear.  That to me seems far too convoluted.  You might get a better decision that way (though how we define 'better' is likely to run into problems) but I can't see that a person who does that is exercising free will in a way that is alien to someone who makes a not-quite-snap judgement.


----------



## Dale_M

dustinzgirl said:


> If it doesn't, then why do we have brains?


They didn't give me a choice....


----------



## HareBrain

The Judge said:


> Now I'm getting confused. If a person can make a decision based on past experiences, why is this not free will? I thought the whole point was that if you don't have free will, you don't make decisions as such, you simply do what biological imperatives require. Only if the experiences affect the chemical make-up of the brain can free will be lacking - which is the 'treatment' I was referring to as option (c).


 
But past experiences affect the neural make-up of the brain, which is much the same thing. (Maybe.) 



The Judge said:


> Lack of free will to me means being made to do something by 'forces' outside one's control. If one can think, on no matter what level, 'If I steal this I'll be back in chokey again' and a decision is made not to steal, then that is free will in evidence I'd have thought.


 
But if you have a genetic/chemical/neural propensity to say "I'll take the risk" or "I won't take the risk" is that not a force outside one's control? (I suppose that might depend how one defined "one")



The Judge said:


> If I'm understanding you aright, you think something can only be free will if the person knows each and every 'force' acting upon him/her -- including all the hidden forces of chemicals/neural pathways etc -- thinks about each force and how it is capable of 'requiring' one decision or another, and then he/she makes a considered decision not simply on the facts but taking into account all of those other factors and the influences they are bringing to bear. That to me seems far too convoluted. You might get a better decision that way (though how we define 'better' is likely to run into problems) but I can't see that a person who does that is exercising free will in a way that is alien to someone who makes a not-quite-snap judgement.


 
I'll redefine my argument to say that I believe conscious free will, in its true form, can only be exercised where the decision is not influenced by the subconscious. (And I suppose I might qualify that with "strongly influenced".) My contention is that at present, pretty much all activity is subconsciously driven, only to be consciously rationalised after the event. When you talk to someone, do you think out what you say before you speak it? Almost invariably not; you have a general idea of the point you want to make and the words are generated without forethought by previous linguistic programming.

And where does the initial idea come from? Anyone with any experience of meditation knows that thoughts arise in the mind on their own, without any "will" on the part of the individual. Same in the rest of our lives. Our subconscious minds are huge thought-generating machines that run on their own, and get us to run after them - and we think it's our conscious selves that are in control! Madness! Madness, I tells ya!!!!

OK, now I lie down.


----------



## chrispenycate

A difference which makes no difference is no difference.

If, to he who experiences it, the illusion of free will can not be distinguished from the 'real thing', I submit that it truly doesn't matter.

There exist physical models of the universe (including must of those allowing time travel) where everything past present and future is fixed, predestination of the most rigid, invariant kind, and time is just an explanation for our dimension-limited senses. I don't particularly like them (or my particles wouldn't, if they had enough free will to like or dislike anything), but I can't disprove them.

On the other hand, with a slightly more flexible plenum, Heisenberg uncertainty guarantees us that any sufficiently large telephone exchange will give a certain irreducible  percentage of wrong numbers. Could it be this Brownian fog of errors that makes us think we are thinking, deciding? Even if it is this, overlaying a lifetime's experience of previous mistakes that directs our choices, the sensation is that we call 'myself', which, if it is an illusion, is a very consistent and hard-wearing one.

To a metaphysician, consciousness might be a mess of genetic influences warring with experience, of random numbers that change with chemical stimuli, be they internally or externally applied interreacting with direct observations by the senses. But, in general, I 'like what I fancy I feel' and some of those aforementioned genetic factors suggest I stick to the illusion of 'feeling' a while yet.


----------



## HareBrain

chrispenycate said:


> A difference which makes no difference is no difference.
> 
> If, to he who experiences it, the illusion of free will can not be distinguished from the 'real thing', I submit that it truly doesn't matter.


 
But it _does_ make a difference, and it _can_ be distinguished. The process of distinguishing it is begun simply by asking "why did I do that?" or "why did I think that?" and not being satisfied with the default answer: "because I decided to". That is the argument advanced by the conscious ego, which presents itself as the one in control, which is what we like to believe. True conscious control can only come about after we identify the ways in which we are already controlled. But come about it can, eventually. Maybe not for a while, but consciousness hasn't stopped evolving yet.


----------



## Peter Graham

I think the problem with the "everything is predetermined" argument is that it assumes that there is only one possible response to each set of circumstances with which an individual is faced.

I think that this is palpable nonsense as every choice we make is affected by previous choices we and others have made.  The permutations flowing from each choice are so numerous and so complex that for the predetermination argument to work, we would each be having to make millions (if not trillions) of predetermined decisions each and every day, with every decison we make prompting further "trees" of predetermined reactions on the part of others.  We would be reduced to something akin to a complex Scalextric car.

At a global or historical level, the choices humans have made have allowed us to develop and invent exciting things like penicillin, nuclear bombs, cars and tax returns.  Many of our breakthrough discoveries were, apparently, discovered by accident, or were used for other purposes first.  We have  a great capacity to learn by doing and to learn from our mistakes. We can see further because we have stood on the shoulders of giants.

This is because our brains are wired in such a way that we do far, far more than just respond to a stimulus or react to a situation.  We tend to be proactive rather than reactive.  Our putative Scalextric car, by comparison, can do nothing until *something* happens to* it* - someone turns the power on, depresses the handset or throws it out of a window.

Predetermination also suggests that there is a force out there which sets the boundaries and which makes the choices for us.  This is actually one of my big issues with religion, and although I have the very greatest of respect for Parson as an individual, I cannot see how anyone could be happy to accept such a massive and insoluble contradiction at the root of their faith.  

To whit, free will and predetermination can only exist side by side if we accept that god has, for some reason best known to himself, given some the non-beleivers just enough rope to hang ourselves with.  He becomes the celestial Scalextric controller, deciding that he will cause certain cars to go into that tight hairpin at full tilt, meaing that they will inevitably leave the track and never cross the finish line to join the winners on the pearly rostrum.  So, in other words, he punishes them for doing what he caused them to do in the first place.  He forces *them* to take responsibility for *his *actions and to live with the consequences which he has also determined.  If that doesn't completely undermine the notion of a loving or caring god, I really don't know what does.

But if there is no force out there, there is nothing to predetermine what we do.  The "rules" governing our world which we have identified may have been identified wrongly or understood incorrectly or may not exist at all.  Therefore we must be exercising free will.  We must be shaping our world rather than the other way around.  

Given the pigs ear we generally make of it, the evidence would seem to support this latter proposition.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

I'm not sure predeterminists would balk at the numbers involved.  The notion that all actions have a single origin is all that it takes.  Human action is in this way no different from subatomic action.  Billions+ of minute processes have led to a single destination in spacetime, from the infinitesimal to the infinite.

But now we're at the infinitely small, Free Will espousers may take huge comfort from the Heisenberg Principle.  Of course, predeterminists will argue that they are currently inhabiting the only Universe that their "random" course could allow.

I believe both arguments to be incredibly strong and that it is only our emotional attachment to freedom of will that deters the larger number of people from acknowledging the alternative.  After all, the alternative would make us all automatons with no say in how we act or feel or respond to others.

And that just wouldn't feel right.


----------



## Parson

Peter Graham said:


> Predetermination also suggests that there is a force out there which sets the boundaries and which makes the choices for us.  This is actually one of my big issues with religion, and although I have the very greatest of respect for Parson as an individual, I cannot see how anyone could be happy to accept such a massive and insoluble contradiction at the root of their faith.
> 
> To whit, free will and predetermination can only exist side by side if we accept that god has, for some reason best known to himself, given some the non-beleivers just enough rope to hang ourselves with.  He becomes the celestial Scalextric controller, deciding that he will cause certain cars to go into that tight hairpin at full tilt, meaing that they will inevitably leave the track and never cross the finish line to join the winners on the pearly rostrum.  So, in other words, he punishes them for doing what he caused them to do in the first place.  He forces *them* to take responsibility for *his *actions and to live with the consequences which he has also determined.  If that doesn't completely undermine the notion of a loving or caring god, I really don't know what does.



Thank you for your kind words.

The problem is not quite "insoluble." But it does take a belief in an omniscient God. I would refer you to Romans 8:29 "For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his son..." My understanding of this verse is that predestination comes after knowledge, so God in his omniscience knew the choices I was going to make before the beginning of time and space. Leaving me both free to choose and having been already chosen.

Thanks as well for the great Scrabble word.  Scalextric sent me to my dictionary post haste.


----------



## Moonbat

I have always had trouble aligning God with free will, if there is a God and he is outside of time and can therefore see all that will ever happen then how can I have any free will if all my decisions have already been made (and foreseen)
Also if the multiverse theory is correct, then I don't make one decision, because every time a choice is made all choices are made and the universe splits to allow each of these choices. While the multiverse scenario does allow for God to foresee all possible universes it still doesn't allow me to have any free will, admittedly this universe is the one where I decided to join in this discussion, in others I only sat and watched, but is that a free choice and as we all agree that this is the only universe we can see what is the point in postulating about the others?

there must be some very simple thought exercise that allows us to confirm (or deny) the existence of free will, trouble is I can't think of it! 

I'm not sure why but I have just thought about sword fighting, in the film I recently watched (Zatoichi) two swordsmen face each other, the Samurai closes his eyes and sees the fight in his mind's eye predicting what will happen and how he can counter the other's moves to win. In the moment when he realises how to win, he is happy and makes a noise. This then inspires the other (a blind man) to change his drawing method (and angle) causing the Samurai to lose the fight. Obviously this is an example of cause and effect, there maybe no free will involved, but the use of 'mind's eye' fighting suggests that there isn't any free will to change the outcome of the fight before it has begun. Not sure if that has any relevance though.


----------



## Peter Graham

> I have always had trouble aligning God with free will, if there is a God and he is outside of time and can therefore see all that will ever happen then how can I have any free will if all my decisions have already been made (and foreseen)


 
I am sure that Parson will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the religious argument would run:-

God allows us to exercise the free will he has given us.  However, he knows how we are going to exercise it before we do.  But he doesn't stop us exercising our free will, even if we mess it up.

This is a tidy argument, but for me it is wholly unconvincing.  It smacks of squaring the circle.  What it doesn't address is the central question, which is why does an apparently loving God set us up to fail in the first place?  If he created us, he is responsible for giving us free will.  Why did he do that in such a way that ensures that lots of us could mess it up and then suffer the consequences, which he also determines?  

Regards,

Peter


PS: Glad you like the word, Parson.  Scalextric was what the groovy boys wanted instead of (or sometimes as well as) a Hornby railway.


----------



## Ursa major

I doubt "Scalextric" it would be much use in Scabble, though. Or does that game allow proper nouns to be freely used?


----------



## mosaix

Would Scabble be much use in Scrabble though?


----------



## Parson

Peter Graham said:


> I am sure that Parson will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that the religious argument would run:-
> 
> God allows us to exercise the free will he has given us.  However, he knows how we are going to exercise it before we do.  But he doesn't stop us exercising our free will, even if we mess it up.


 
This is exactly the way the argument runs.



> This is a tidy argument, but for me it is wholly unconvincing.  It smacks of squaring the circle.  What it doesn't address is the central question, which is why does an apparently loving God set us up to fail in the first place?  If he created us, he is responsible for giving us free will.  Why did he do that in such a way that ensures that lots of us could mess it up and then suffer the consequences, which he also determines?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
> PS: Glad you like the word, Parson.  Scalextric was what the groovy boys wanted instead of (or sometimes as well as) a Hornby railway.


Ah, now you've asked the question that none can answer outside of God. Why should he make us this way? No one knows, the logical answer is that a love that is ingrained, outside of free will in this discussion, is not love at all. Love requires a choice, or so the argument goes. To extend what I said early in this thread "What is logical is not always true."

In any system built of faith, in truth any system whatever, there comes a point sooner or later that you have to say I don't know the answer to that.


Ursa:



> I doubt "Scalextric" it would be much use in Scabble, though. Or does that game allow proper nouns to be freely used?


Proper nouns are not permitted in tournament Scrabble, or Scrabble played according to the accepted rules, but exceptions can be made to the accepted if all are accepting of the exception. 

Mosaix


> Would Scabble be much use in Scrabble though?


This must be a dictionary day for me. But after looking up my second word of the day, yes scabble would be of use. If you could lay it first it would be a "Bingo" (a play in which all seven tiles in your possession are played at once) giving a bonus score of 50 beyond the board score.


----------



## Ursa major

mosaix said:


> Would Scabble be much use in Scrabble though?




Aaaarrrr, it would, Jim, lad.


(To scabble is 1. to rough-dress (stone); 2. to cabble**. )




** - Which is to break up flat pieces of partially finished iron for fagotting. (Would Irn Bru be the right drink to go with those faggots? )


----------



## The Judge

Erm... I'm hoping that Parson goes scrabbling for his dictionary again, and doesn't rely on a common US definition here...


----------



## Parson

Fortunately, Parson's education was good enough so that I know *more *than the common (American) parlance of the word faggot. But it is not a word one uses in any kind of obscure context or the original definition flies by the boards.


----------



## Ursa major

My excuse - and I don't deny it was my choice to use it (to keep vaguely to the thread topic) - is that I was quoting the OED word for word**.





** - Not as easy as it sounds, as the dictionary contains photographically-reduced images of the complete OED and I have to take off my specs (or use a magnifying glass) to read some of the entries; given that my natural focal length is about 20cm, that the book weighs a few kilos (by my estimate), and that I can't read the laptop's screen without my specs, you're lucky*** that I typed anything at all.


*** - Whether you think yourself lucky in this instance is, of course, entirely up to you.


----------



## Werewoman

HareBrain said:


> Since there's no philosophy section, I thought I'd stick this here, since it involves neuroscience as well. It was inspired by a comment from Werewoman on the "glorification of killing" thread, where she said "Everything is a choice. Even love". But I didn't want to take that thread off-topic.
> 
> I'm not sure anything is a choice. And how would we know if we were making a choice or not? We can only be said to make a choice if it is possible for us to vary our decision given the exact same circumstances. But the circumstances will never be exactly the same twice, so how can we know that a combination of genetics and previous experience -- nature plus nurture, if you like -- hasn't precisely determined how we go about the decision-making process, and thus hasn't precisely determined exactly what our "choice" will be?
> 
> Going from philosophy to science, I think it's been demonstrated that the neural activity related to a particular decision -- to pick up a card, say -- occurs (or at least is measured as having occured) after the physical activity has commenced. In other words, we consciously rationalise as a decision something that our subconscious has already set in motion.
> 
> It's not a comfortable idea that free will might be an illusion. If it is an illusion, it's one on which the western legal and religious systems are largely based. It might even be one that's necessary for the functioning of society, but that in itself doesn't make it true.
> 
> Actually, I believe that we have the capacity for free will, but that our willingness to go with the decisions suggested to our consciousness by the hidden parts of our minds means that we almost never exercise it. But maybe, if humankind is allowed to evolve, that will change.
> 
> Any thoughts?



Wow! I really started something here, didn't I? I will try to elaborate as to my meaning when I said everything is a choice. I can only really speak for myself. When I posted that, I was trying to make the point that people make the choice to kill no matter what the circumstances they find themselves under that makes them commit the act of killing. I cited my own experience with wanting to kill, as opposed to actually committing the act. 



HareBrain said:


> But how can you know what all those influences are? And if you can't, how can you know that you're going against them? How can you know that some experience you had fifteen years ago didn't rewire your brain in such a way that it is now a determining factor?
> 
> 
> 
> I like this thought about each having our own will, wherever it comes from, but I don't think it then becomes free will. Free will, I contend, is the ability to make decisions _whilst being conscious of, and thus able to take into account, all influences on that decision_. My contention is that at this stage of our development, we cannot be aware of all the influences, and so cannot free ourselves from their effect.



My brain has been rewired by experiences that happened decades ago. I had/have no control over it. That's what post-traumatic stress disorder is - a change in the hard-wiring of your brain that causes you to be on a constant state of alert, waiting for the next attack. Granted, in my case, the next attack can be a simple word, odor, or anything else I experienced simultaneously with the traumatic event, but those things can set off a fight-or-flight primitive survival response in my body. My rational mind knows that no threat exists by Chanel No. 5 perfume, but smelling it (even thinking about smelling it, or typing about smelling it causes the same effect, as is evident in my accelerated heart rate as I type this) will cause my fight-or-flight response to kick in because my mother wore that perfume all the time, and each time she attacked me, my brain associated that particular odor with the attack. The amygdala in my brain has been permanently altered to react to that smell. I still do, whether I want to or not. 



HareBrain said:


> But past experiences affect the neural make-up of the brain, which is much the same thing. (Maybe.)
> 
> 
> 
> But if you have a genetic/chemical/neural propensity to say "I'll take the risk" or "I won't take the risk" is that not a force outside one's control? (I suppose that might depend how one defined "one")
> 
> 
> 
> I'll redefine my argument to say that I believe conscious free will, in its true form, can only be exercised where the decision is not influenced by the subconscious. (And I suppose I might qualify that with "strongly influenced".) My contention is that at present, pretty much all activity is subconsciously driven, only to be consciously rationalised after the event. When you talk to someone, do you think out what you say before you speak it? Almost invariably not; you have a general idea of the point you want to make and the words are generated without forethought by previous linguistic programming.
> 
> And where does the initial idea come from? Anyone with any experience of meditation knows that thoughts arise in the mind on their own, without any "will" on the part of the individual. Same in the rest of our lives. Our subconscious minds are huge thought-generating machines that run on their own, and get us to run after them - and we think it's our conscious selves that are in control! Madness! Madness, I tells ya!!!!
> 
> OK, now I lie down.



In my case, if free will were not exercised in spite of my subconscious, certain people would probably be dead. The brain is truly amazing. I really can't explain why it is I've managed to thrive when so many with my experience have not and it is a daily struggle, but it's all I know. I can lament my fate and feel sorry for myself, but in the end, it's the way I'm made, whether it's God's will or not, I don't really care, because it simply is, and I either live with it, or die. There are so many more good things in life, because of my free will to choose whom I love and what I do with my life, so I feel I have no choice but to argue that free will does indeed exist. 

Nice thread, btw. Makes me wanna go beat hubby's @ss at scrabble.


----------



## Werewoman

With all of that being said, from a judicial standpoint, I'm curious. Perhaps The Judge can address this for me.

I read in the newspapers and see on the news all the time about people that slaughter their entire families and almost inevitably, they cite all sorts of excuses for their actions. Stress due to joblessness, mental health issues, disabilities, etc., etc., etc. If that excuses their actions, then you might as well hand me a license to kill, because I have experienced all those factors. I don't kill because it's wrong, simple as that. I choose not to kill, simple as that. Free will.

If I killed all the people that hurt me, and it would be satisfying indeed, I suppose I could find a way to justify it to myself, and I could probably manipulate the court system to let me off with a nice trip to a padded cell wearing a turtle suit until it was determined I was no longer a danger to myself or others, but that still doesn't make it right. In the end, I've only propagated the evil that led to my own horrors, and that's what stops me. I want the evil to stop, and while I've accepted that I can't stop all evil acts, I can stop the cycle in my own life and in the lives of those around me. Free will, my friends. Free will.


----------



## Parson

W Woman,

You have my undying respect. The only way a cycle of violence stops is when someone says "I will not retaliate" or every opponent is dead. To me this is about as close to a proof of free will as there is. Every instinct for survival would seem to say I am going to finish them off before they can finish me off.

This is the true Christian ethic at it's core. One of the parts of the Bible that always brings me to tears is the picture in Acts of Stephen being stoned to death and yet praying "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing." 

W Woman -- Thanks for letting your ethics overrule you hormones!

The Parson with tears in his eyes.


----------



## The Judge

I echo Parson's comments Werewoman.  Family members of mine were also assaulted -- sexually and otherwise -- as children, so I have a little knowledge of the kinds of things it can do to the innocent.  That you have overcome these horrors says a great deal about your strength and character.  I sincerely hope that the future brings better things for you and your family than the past has done.

I don't know that I can help overmuch with the legal points, as there are differences between jurisdictions.  It's also been quite a while since I undertook any criminal defence work so to do anything comprehensive and accurate I'd need to spend some time on it.  But basically, never forget that though people may raise things as defences, that doesn't mean those defences are accepted**, nor that they are complete defences to the crime.  I personally haven't heard of any case where someone has cited 'ordinary' stress, for instance due to disability or ill-health or homelessness, as being an excuse for murder, and I can't believe it would ever be accepted as such.  Mental health is different, though, because there are some people whose brains are so disordered they simply don't understand the difference between right and wrong any more than an animal would - hence they are not guilty by reason of insanity***.  Their actions aren't excused, in the sense they are forgiven, but it is recognised that they can't be punished in the same way as a sane person, since they haven't the necessary mental capacity.

** In point of fact I once acted for a woman whose violent husband was threatening her.  He ultimately killed her (in front of their son).  The husband argued he was temporarily insane.  His defence was rejected by the jury, I am delighted to say, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.  (How much he probably served is another matter, regrettably.)

*** this can actually cover a wide spectrum of things, and gets very complicated very quickly, I'm afraid.


----------



## Chinook

Peter Graham said:


> I think the problem with the "everything is predetermined" argument is that it assumes that there is only one possible response to each set of circumstances with which an individual is faced.
> 
> I think that this is palpable nonsense as every choice we make is affected by previous choices we and others have made.  The permutations flowing from each choice are so numerous and so complex that for the predetermination argument to work, we would each be having to make millions (if not trillions) of predetermined decisions each and every day, with every decison we make prompting further "trees" of predetermined reactions on the part of others.  We would be reduced to something akin to a complex Scalextric car.




I'm not sure that the nonsense is even very palpable.  Wow, you go away for a few days, and look what happens! 

The biggest issue I've noticed in this thread is That people seem to be assuming that it is necessary to "know" what you are doing when exercising free will. A friend of mine gave a talk (He's into meta-physics big time) and during this talk he gave a fairly astonishing statistic. (I trust his integrity in the researching of his facts). He said that the adult human brain processes roughly 60,000 thoughts per day, and the larger percentage of these thoughts are at a subconscious level. It's possible that we have forgotten all the "learning" we have done along the way, and things that were once first encounters are now everyday occurrences. Things that we learn when we are young become automatic, and now, we think about it so fast that it doesn't arise to the "surface" of our mind. (Walking up and down stairs, not touching hot burning things, etc.)

But seriously, if you had to think about the consequences that the world would experience  every time you took an action, you would freeze up like an ice sculpture and never make a move. Just because you don't know half of the variables involved, or the possible outcomes, does not mean that you are not exercising free will. You are exercising "partially informed" free will.

We also live in societies now, which not only have rules, and laws that most of us are willing to obey as they are often to our mutual benefit. As has been mentioned, it doesn't stop everyone from breaking the laws and rules. Beyond the rules and laws, we also have what I call an "agreement reality". What I mean are things like the dictionary. We need a way to agree on what things are (what they're called) so that we can cooperate within these societies. 

Finally, I want to address the "God knew what you would do before you did it" question. I suppose that is possible depending on your definition of "God", but to me that wouldn't be true free will. I believe that God gave us free will so we could find out what it's like. I don't believe anyone is excluded from God's love, and that it is only our limitations that keeps us from experiencing it. It depends on the choices we make in this world where we will start out in the next. It is because of statistics that I believe in God. What are the chances we would evolve to the state we find ourselves in if there were no meaning to it all? The is about a 1 in 100 quintillion chance that we'd end up with a brain that could ask the question "Is there a God?", and "If so, why does he allow people to suffer?"


----------



## Ursa major

Chinook said:


> He said that the adult human brain processes roughly 60,000 thoughts per day, and the larger percentage of these thoughts are at a subconscious level. It's possible that we have forgotten all the "learning" we have done along the way, and things that were once first encounters are now everyday occurrences. Things that we learn when we are young become automatic, and now, we think about it so fast that it doesn't arise to the "surface" of our mind. (Walking up and down stairs, not touching hot burning things, etc.)
> 
> But seriously, if you had to think about the consequences that the world would experience every time you took an action, you would freeze up like an ice sculpture and never make a move. Just because you don't know half of the variables involved, or the possible outcomes, does not mean that you are not exercising free will. You are exercising "partially informed" free will.


There is an assumption in this: that because a decision is made in the subconscious mind, it isn't "informed". This may be true, but I'd need persuading (with evidence) that this is so. (Okay, we've probably all stumbled when walking up and down stairs, but I'm betting that the proportion of correct foot placings in the total far exceeds the success rate of our "conscious" decisions.) And as others have said, we often think we've made a "conscious" decision when in fact it's simply been delivered to the conscious mind, which then "back-reasons" (justifies) it.

I do agree, though, that it's free will, whether wholly decided in the conscious mind or not.


----------



## dustinzgirl

What if God simply knows all the possible futures and choices?

Then we still have free will. 

Since every choice makes another string of events, perhaps God just knows ALL of the events, ALL of the choices, and ALL of the outcomes.


----------



## Moonbat

But if all the choices and outcomes are known then they could be said to have happened (in the all knowing eyes of god), and then what choice is there?

If I have a choice between turning left and right, and god sees the results of both choices, or the universe splits into one universe where I turn left and one where I turn right then what choice have I made? Ok the me in this universe will say I chose right, but the me in the other universe would say I chose left, so did I have the free will to choose or did I just follow all possible paths regardless of my will?

Personally I think we do have free will and that there isn't a God, but I don't really have any proof of either? 

God may not exist, but its a beautiful idea.


----------



## dustinzgirl

Maybe they do all happen, and we can only perceive one instance, and each instance we can perceive is simply a singular act that we, as humans, define based on our perception.

Its a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Ever seen Sliders?

The Universes are much wider than human imagination.


----------



## Peter Graham

> What if God simply knows all the possible futures and choices?
> 
> Then we still have free will.


 
This echoes Parson's earlier post. But it also doesn't deal with why, if there is a god, we have been given free will in the first place. This is where it all falls down for me. 

Parson very gamely accepted that this is the point where it comes down to faith - if I understand him right, he can accept that sometimes the religious argument is all to pot in terms of logic, but because he doesn't profess to understand god's motives and wouldn't want to second guess them anyway, he's fine with that. 

But for the non believer, this _looks_ like a cop out (and no disrespect meant here - the perception and the reality are frequently poles apart). To the non-believer, claims require proof and extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Faith equates to a belief _without _proof, which some just cannot accept. 

So perhaps the free will argument comes down to three basic arguments, none of which can actually be proved until we sort this god thing:-

1. There is no god and therefore no controlling force. We live in a chaotic and largely coincidental universe and therefore have to be exercising free will as, in fact, that is pretty much all there is. 

2. There is a God and he gifted us free will. We don't know why, but we don't really need to know why. 

3. There is a God and all of our actions are predetermined for us by Him. We are running in our wheels like little lab rats.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Ursa major

Perhaps free will is like the supply of cheap drugs. One gets hooked and then the price goes up.


What an omnipotent - and, as has been mentioned, omniscient - entity might require from us poor mortals is another matter (or not) entirely.





*cough*


----------



## Chinook

Peter Graham said:


> ... it also doesn't deal with why, if there is a god, we have been given free will in the first place. This is where it all falls down for me.
> 
> 2. There is a God and he gifted us free will. We don't know why, but we don't really need to know why.



This subject can be driven into the ground without really getting anywhere. It is only within a human's own perception to decide for themselves (or not decide) what they believe. 

I assert (once again), because it is what I believe, that God gave us free will to experience what it is like to exist without the guidance, awareness, and love that God has for_ all _of us. It is possible for me (at times) to go within myself and sense God's presence, but I don't selfishly pray to him for things that I want. Life for most of us is filled with trials and tribulations, and the happenings in the world sometimes seem senseless. I believe that things are this way for our ultimate benefit, and this "realm" is not what it seems. We are here to learn spiritual truths, and take them with us to the next world. What matters most are the kind acts we commit in this life. Not how much money we make, or a name that we make for ourselves.


----------



## Urien

An omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnitemporal god precludes free will. If that is not the case then god has limitations and he does not know what is happening or will happen in his/her/its universe. This is not the modern view of the current monotheistic religions consequently belief in the omni view of god must preclude belief in free will.

If no god and we began from an an initial set of theoretically repeatable positions then it is all a big science experiment and we are just complicated cogs. No free will there.

Free will is difficult to find. However, we have the perception of free will; I believe I could always take a different course of action, from inside my head it doesn't all look inevitable. 

If we are our own gods then perhaps free will does exist and from minute to minute we create the universe around us in some sort of fever dream made real. However, there's little evidence for this and we are in essence back in the religious territory of belief but we do avoid (I think) the problem of omni powers of god. On the other hand many more problems are uncovered by this approach.


----------



## Peter Graham

> This subject can be driven into the ground without really getting anywhere. It is only within a human's own perception to decide for themselves (or not decide) what they believe.


 
I absolutely agree.  But I think the big issue - the thing that divides the believer from the non-believer, is that the believer is happy to trust to their perception _without _any need for empirical evidence.  In other words, they have faith.  One could be unkind and say it was this attitude that caused the Dark Ages and held western civilisation back by about a thousand years, but equally one could be kind and say that an individual's natural optimism (for example) is no more than an expression of faith - not in a deity, necessarily, but in the conviction that Everything Will Be Alright.



> I assert (once again), because it is what I believe, that God gave us free will to experience what it is like to exist without the guidance, awareness, and love that God has for_ all _of us.


 
I respect your assertion and your belief, but I ask you the same question I asked Parson and DG- why would God do this, especially when the consequences of misusing free will tend to result in a very warm afterlife?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Chinook

> I respect your assertion and your belief, but I ask you the same question I asked Parson and DG- why would God do this, especially when the consequences of misusing free will tend to result in a very warm afterlife?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter


Ah, you have me confused with "those" people. I don't believe in that scenario. As hard as it is for me to imagine, the Bible was written at a time when people didn't respond to simple, peaceful guidance. 

By the same token, I don't believe Jesus actually talked in a threatening way. I personally think the Romans got hold of the Bible and surreptitiously "moved a few words around" and possibly even added a few of their own making it possible to persuade people in a direction that the emperors preferred. Then during the seventeenth century, a guy named Dante came along and painted pictures conveying his ideas or interpretations of Biblical things. Then we end up with this distorted view of religion that seems rather pervasive. As far as misusing free will, I don't believe God punishes anyone for that. I believe that when they arrive in the next world there is an "accounting" for ones life, and any suffering the misuser feels is simply their own remorse.  

Here is a Credo you seldom hear, but one I believe should be heard more often:

Religion should be the cause of fellowship and harmony in the world. If it is not, then it is not religion, it's politics.  

The prime rule I follow is tolerance of every interpretation of religion that people wish to hold dear. I try to keep an open mind. I don't for a second claim to "know" for sure what it all means, but the process I use is to let ideas ruminate for awhile and see if they "feel" right; or you could also say "Do they ring true?" as the expression goes.  I do have written sources but I dare not reveal them in this venue. Anyone wishing to know is free to send me a "PM."

Regards, 

Chin.


----------



## Chinook

Urien said:


> An omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, omnitemporal god precludes free will.



Not necessarily. I believe DG said it earlier. Perhaps God knows all of the possibilities, but doesn't interfere with the choices we make, and there you have it: free will.


----------



## Parson

Chinook said:


> Ah, you have me confused with "those" people. I don't believe in that scenario. As hard as it is for me to imagine, the Bible was written at a time when people didn't respond to simple, peaceful guidance.



As someone who regularly tries to convince people to do what is right and good for them at the same time without resorting to threats etc. I have sompe serious doubts that all that much has changed. I believe we *pretend* to be more sophisticated, but any real move toward more peaceful rational behavior is slim at best. 



> By the same token, I don't believe Jesus actually talked in a threatening way. I personally think the Romans got hold of the Bible and surreptitiously "moved a few words around" and possibly even added a few of their own making it possible to persuade people in a direction that the emperors preferred. Then during the seventeenth century, a guy named Dante came along and painted pictures conveying his ideas or interpretations of Biblical things. Then we end up with this distorted view of religion that seems rather pervasive. As far as misusing free will, I don't believe God punishes anyone for that. I believe that when they arrive in the next world there is an "accounting" for ones life, and any suffering the misuser feels is simply their own remorse.



The Bible is not the Book of Mormon or the Quran which both came into being in a very short time and were almost always all together. The church was still fighting over which writings belonged in the New Testament a couple of hundred years after Christ. It is dubious in the extreme that any coordinated change to the New Testament witness could have been made in the early Christian era. Added to that Rome mostly wanted to eliminate Christianity not co-opt it. That move awaited Emperor Constantine in the early Fourth century. 



> Here is a Credo you seldom hear, but one I believe should be heard more often:
> 
> Religion should be the cause of fellowship and harmony in the world. If it is not, then it is not religion, it's politics.
> 
> The prime rule I follow is tolerance of every interpretation of religion that people wish to hold dear. I try to keep an open mind. I don't for a second claim to "know" for sure what it all means, but the process I use is to let ideas ruminate for awhile and see if they "feel" right; or you could also say "Do they ring true?" as the expression goes.  I do have written sources but I dare not reveal them in this venue. Anyone wishing to know is free to send me a "PM."
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Chin.



I  like the idea of religion becoming politics when it is not a cause of fellowship and harmony. On the whole I agree with it. 

But I am utterly committed to evangelical Christianity and so I must always ask myself the questions "When does my toleration become duplicity in propagating a lie? Are people losing their chance for eternal salvation because I did not want to offend someone?" Ian Leitch, a great Scottish evangelist once said: "Ninety-five percent of Great Britain is going to hell unoffended." I hope he's wrong about that, but I worry about things like this. 

The rule I try to live by in interpersonal relationships is a simple golden one: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Which would sometimes include hauling me up short, looking me in the eye, and saying "Think about what you've just said."


----------



## Urien

Chinook,

Under the all knowing omni idea of god, he knows all the possibilities and he knows what the outcome will be. He cannot be surprised by what we do; alpha and omega, he knows with absolute certainty the primary and end state of his creation. In other words he's built a complex clock and we are just the workings therein. We do not under that premise have free will, we imagine we do, the many paths we appear to face are in reality merely the one god knows with absolute certainty that we will take.


----------



## Ursa major

Parson said:


> "Ninety-five percent of Great Britain is going to hell unoffended."


 
I'm doing my best (to offend them, that is), believe me.


----------



## Parson

Ursa major said:


> I'm doing my best (to offend them, that is), believe me.



You have yet to offend me. But I have been know to groan when somethings punny.


----------



## Chinook

Urien said:


> Chinook,
> 
> Under the all knowing omni idea of god, he knows all the possibilities and he knows what the outcome will be. He cannot be surprised by what we do; alpha and omega, he knows with absolute certainty the primary and end state of his creation. In other words he's built a complex clock and we are just the workings therein. We do not under that premise have free will, we imagine we do, the many paths we appear to face are in reality merely the one god knows with absolute certainty that we will take.



I understand what you are conveying, and I would not disagree with it if I believed it was in fact the case. The part we don't agree on is that God knows which choice you will choose. All I said was that he knows all of the possibilities. You are asserting this assumption that God knows "the end state of his creation". What I am suggesting is that God knows that no matter what happens here in the material world, everything will be alright - no matter how it goes. So he_ does not_ know what the outcome will be; at least not here in this existence. (He only knows all of the possible outcomes). What I believe is that this life is a mere drop in the ocean of what you will experience now that you exist. You will carry on into the next world to have a wonderful awakening, and only then will you see this world for what it really is. 

Happy trails,

- Chin.


----------



## HareBrain

Chinook, if God is to mean anything at all, then surely God would have to exist outside of time, which is part of creation. In which case God will always know everything that will (i.e. in our future) happen.


----------



## HareBrain

Parson said:


> But I am utterly committed to evangelical Christianity and so I must always ask myself the questions "When does my toleration become duplicity in propagating a lie? Are people losing their chance for eternal salvation because I did not want to offend someone?"


 
Parson, I've long wondered about this aspect of evangelical Christianity. How do you arrive at the compromise between living a normal life (and maintaining normal relations with people who don't share your religious views) and your perceived duty to save others?


----------



## Chinook

HareBrain said:


> Chinook, if God is to mean anything at all, then surely God would have to exist outside of time, which is part of creation. In which case God will always know everything that will (i.e. in our future) happen.



Dear Brain, We are arguing semantics. I said God knows all of the possible outcomes. In a sense, that is the same as knowing everything. What I am saying (and after this I'm going to throw my hands in the air and give up if you guys don't get it) is that God does not have to know how it "ends". He is infinite, and so are you. It isn't necessary for God to know in advance what you will do with your life. God will be right there when your physical life ends, and you will review what you have done. That will determine what happens in your next life. Goodnight all, 

- Chin.


----------



## Interference

I support the premise that God, or the Reality that we identify by that name, persists throughout all the dimensions, including Time.  However, I also suggest that time is not immutable, or that it is as mutable as space and all other dimensions as well.

If God is a consciousness, then I also suggest that our perception of consciousness is the closest we can ever come to understanding God or God's will, which is why the expansion of mortal consciousness is of such importance to so many people.

As to whether God knows the future or not, I suspect He does inasmuch as He is in and of Himself the representative of Infinite Awareness, therefore knows Time in all _its_ dimensions.

Does God's knowledge of the future affect our free will?  Not a jot.  Whether we have free will or not is inconsequential since, should God choose to intervene, we would either have a choice do follow His guidance or not according to our whim or have no choice in the issue and create the future already laid out for us.

However, I suggest that Infinite Time isn't very much affected by the choices made in this moment or the next any more than the action of a butterfly can really cause a hurricane.


----------



## Chinook

Parson said:


> But I am utterly committed to evangelical Christianity and so I must always ask myself the questions "When does my toleration become duplicity in propagating a lie? Are people losing their chance for eternal salvation because I did not want to offend someone?" Ian Leitch, a great Scottish evangelist once said: "Ninety-five percent of Great Britain is going to hell unoffended." I hope he's wrong about that, but I worry about things like this.
> 
> The rule I try to live by in interpersonal relationships is a simple golden one: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Which would sometimes include hauling me up short, looking me in the eye, and saying "Think about what you've just said."



Parson, You seem like a truly caring person, and I admire that. You might also consider caring for yourself. God loves you, and therefore wants the best for you. Personally, I don't believe God wants you to worry so much. 

After all, were you somehow involved in the creating of 95% of the British population? (If you were, I'd say you've been a very naughty boy! )

Let God worry about them, and teach where you don't find resistance. When you argue with people over their ideals, it tends to make them hold onto them more tightly. Peace, 

- Chin.


----------



## Chinook

Interference said:


> I support the premise that God, or the Reality that we identify by that name, persists throughout all the dimensions, including Time.  However, I also suggest that time is not immutable, or that it is as mutable as space and all other dimensions as well.
> 
> If God is a consciousness, then I also suggest that our perception of consciousness is the closest we can ever come to understanding God or God's will, which is why the expansion of mortal consciousness is of such importance to so many people.
> 
> As to whether God knows the future or not, I suspect He does inasmuch as He is in and of Himself the representative of Infinite Awareness, therefore knows Time in all _its_ dimensions.
> 
> Does God's knowledge of the future affect our free will?  Not a jot.  Whether we have free will or not is inconsequential since, should God choose to intervene, we would either have a choice do follow His guidance or not according to our whim or have no choice in the issue and create the future already laid out for us.
> 
> However, I suggest that Infinite Time isn't very much affected by the choices made in this moment or the next any more than the action of a butterfly can really cause a hurricane.



Very well said, my friend. Love is. (period)


----------



## Parson

HareBrain said:


> Parson, I've long wondered about this aspect of evangelical Christianity. How do you arrive at the compromise between living a normal life (and maintaining normal relations with people who don't share your religious views) and your perceived duty to save others?



Perhaps it is just semantics, but I have no duty to save others, that's God's business. My duty is to bear witness to the truth that is mine through Christ my savior. So, I try to live in such a way that God can use me in whatever way he desires to bring his plan for salvation into the world. The Christian life is about deep personal relationships with Christ and others. Out of those relationships arise the ability and opportunity to bear that witness. 

I do not go around like the mythical gunslinger looking for opportunities to "put a notch" on my gun. But I do pray regularly that God will send into my life the people I can share Christ with, and with whom I can be in ministry. 

Obviously this mind set leaves me little question about the free will question. The problems for me come from the other side. [See previous post regarding how I have come to hold these two Biblical concepts together.]


This also gets at what Chinook posted:



> Parson, You seem like a truly caring person, and I admire that. You might also consider caring for yourself. God loves you, and therefore wants the best for you. Personally, I don't believe God wants you to worry so much.
> 
> After all, were you somehow involved in the creating of 95% of the British population? (If you were, I'd say you've been a very naughty boy! )
> 
> Let God worry about them, and teach where you don't find resistance. When you argue with people over their ideals, it tends to make them hold onto them more tightly. Peace,
> 
> - Chin.


I agree Chin, God does not want me to worry over the results. The results are always in his hands. My desire is to be a stepping stone for others to grow in a relationship with Jesus Christ, and not a stumbling block for them to trip over. 

The point of my earlier post was that I am afraid that our present age has lifted the worthy ideal of toleration to the level where it is worshiped rather than respected. Some things and some people need to be confronted rather than tolerated.


----------



## Nik

As some-one who's been Agnostic since about the age of seven (7) when I accidentally falsified a then-tenet of RC, I'd invoke Catastrophe Theory: Only at cusp points does 'Free Will' have any global significance.

Against that, sometimes hard work and/or genius can create a cusp point, allowing leverage.

Irrespective of that, allowing evil to flourish, however briefly, may be counter-productive: Game Theory goes through several iterations before agreeing...


----------



## Chinook

So, all things in moderation, including moderation?

(actually more of a reply to Parson regarding "tolerance", which by the way, I consider to be a spiritual virtue in most cases. I do get your point Parson, although I must admit that the lack of tolerance shown by some religious factions results in their unpopularity with the populous. You don't need God to figure out why those results occur.)


----------



## Werewoman

Parson said:


> W Woman,
> 
> You have my undying respect. The only way a cycle of violence stops is when someone says "I will not retaliate" or every opponent is dead. To me this is about as close to a proof of free will as there is. Every instinct for survival would seem to say I am going to finish them off before they can finish me off.
> 
> This is the true Christian ethic at it's core. One of the parts of the Bible that always brings me to tears is the picture in Acts of Stephen being stoned to death and yet praying "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
> 
> W Woman -- Thanks for letting your ethics overrule you hormones!
> 
> The Parson with tears in his eyes.



If you had any idea all the times I have looked to the heavens and quoted Stephen...with tears in my eyes.



The Judge said:


> I echo Parson's comments Werewoman.  Family members of mine were also assaulted -- sexually and otherwise -- as children, so I have a little knowledge of the kinds of things it can do to the innocent.  That you have overcome these horrors says a great deal about your strength and character.  I sincerely hope that the future brings better things for you and your family than the past has done.
> 
> I don't know that I can help overmuch with the legal points, as there are differences between jurisdictions.  It's also been quite a while since I undertook any criminal defence work so to do anything comprehensive and accurate I'd need to spend some time on it.  But basically, never forget that though people may raise things as defences, that doesn't mean those defences are accepted**, nor that they are complete defences to the crime.  I personally haven't heard of any case where someone has cited 'ordinary' stress, for instance due to disability or ill-health or homelessness, as being an excuse for murder, and I can't believe it would ever be accepted as such.  Mental health is different, though, because there are some people whose brains are so disordered they simply don't understand the difference between right and wrong any more than an animal would - hence they are not guilty by reason of insanity***.  Their actions aren't excused, in the sense they are forgiven, but it is recognised that they can't be punished in the same way as a sane person, since they haven't the necessary mental capacity.
> 
> ** In point of fact I once acted for a woman whose violent husband was threatening her.  He ultimately killed her (in front of their son).  The husband argued he was temporarily insane.  His defence was rejected by the jury, I am delighted to say, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.  (How much he probably served is another matter, regrettably.)
> 
> *** this can actually cover a wide spectrum of things, and gets very complicated very quickly, I'm afraid.



I know in most cases where people claim 'temporary insanity' it's really just an excuse. I find it very disturbing the way the press throws it around. All it seems to do is make it harder for those of us who suffer from mental illnesses. I am no more dangerous than the next person. In fact, I am probably less so in that I am aware of my condition and am able to recognize it for what it is. Years of therapy and medication got me where I am - that, and my faith in God. 



My take on the whole 'is there or isn't there a God' thing? Who am *I* to say that God *doesn't* exist? Some things are true whether we believe in them or not. Even if He doesn't exist, it's not for me to say one way or another. That's the conclusion I came to a long time ago, and it has served me well.


----------



## dustinzgirl

I would agree that its not for us to say for someone else if God does or does not exist, or any gods, since I think that, and based on my biblical research, that God as well as many, if not all, other gods existed, but each person has to choose their own soul's pathway, and not someone else's.

Which makes me conclude that freewill does exist, but that the one true God as the Alpha Omega ect ect knows all that has, will, and can be. I think God knows all the potential and guides the results, but the rest, especially that first choice of faith, is utterly up to us. Of course I base this on the words of other men, which may or may not be true and correct, and I ignore the words of other men who I don't agree with, as all humans do, so even my conclusion is suspect, as all human conclusions are. 

Which is why I'm still fairly damn positive that in this whole big huge mathematically awesome Universe, all things exist, even those that we can't define.

I'm working on a book about it.


----------



## Uraeus

We at least have the illusion of free will. We think we are making the choice, even if we arn't. If we somehow had a way to transfer our consciousness from our bodies and brains then we could possibly be free of biological determinism. I don't know. I'll always feel like I have a choice so I am not so bothered.


----------



## Ursa major

I think that if we wanted to transfer the mind into another host (I'm assuming you mean a non-biological one, Uraeus) we would have to transfer more than just our consciousness. It may be the part of us that is aware, but it isn't doing everything of ours of which we subsequently become aware.

At the risk of briefly pushing myself into the spotlight in this thread, I have to admit that many of the puns I type on the Chrons have just popped into my head (or, to be more accurate, have made themselves aware to my conscious mind). Most may be memories - I simply can't believe most of the simple word-plays have not been uttered before - but perhaps some are new to me (in the sense that I myself have not seen or heard them before, not that the thoughts are necessarily original to me). Either way, they appear in my head unbidden and I salve the pain by sharing it with the people here. I do, of course, sometimes strive for a pun. (Which are of worse quality, the unbidden or the engineered, I can't say.)

I would imagine that many people here associate me - the conscious being called Ursa - with punning, but it is usually not the aware me who's generating these puns. In these cases, my free will extends to no more than censoring the puns (my subconcious seems to have few boundaries when it comes to word play) and deciding whether to share them with others.



* Awaits a campaign for only the conscious Ursa to be transferred into another substrate. *


----------



## dustinzgirl

I'd like to transform myself into a taco.


----------



## Ursa major

I hope that's only food for thought (or thought for food), Dusty.


----------



## Parson

Was that a free will pun? Or a pun for free will?


----------



## dustinzgirl

Fated puns?


----------



## Chinook

I can't take anymore of this pun-ishment. I'm going to use my free will and go. Maybe I'll go to the technology heading, and start a thread about having a free Wii.


----------



## Ursa major

Sometimes that is not a matter of free will, Chinook. (And in so many different ways....)


----------



## Parson

I rest my case. Fated puns indeed.


----------



## chrispenycate

Is not a pun will a rotating firework? (thus setting Catherine, whoever she might have been, spunning in her grave.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I think there seems to be some confusion and mingling of different ideas going on.

Some people mentioned the idea of knowing and realising _all_ of the possible reasons why we do certain things... I don't think that has anything to do with free will. That concept has more to do with the idea of absolute and total 'awareness', which is not the same as free will. (And, in my opinion, an impossibility.)

There was also some philosophical discussion regarding subconscious decisions. Well, that doesn't have to do with free will, either. That's just a question of consciousness, and how the human brain develops to learn and process various stimuli over time to aid it in certain situations, e.g. walking, breathing are just two examples of functions that our brain has learned to perform without any deliberate effort or focus on our conscious mind. In fact, breathing is not learned, it is one of the few acts which we are capable of from birth. Walking, though, _is_ learned. But even though it's something that we have to be 'taught', it's not something we have to think about. Our brains have evolved in a way that these sort of essential activities are handled automatically, allowing us to focus our mental abilities on other, more pressing concerns, such as visiting the Chronicles Network.

Other animals whose brains are less developed than humans [insert joke here] do not have free will; all of their actions are based on instinct. Survival instinct, self-preservation, etc. A predator doesn't sit and look at a prey and wonder, "Gee, should I bother chasing that thing? I'm kind of tired. Plus, *Lost* is about to start. Maybe I'll just order in..."

Free will, conscious (and even sub-conscious) thought, higher levels of mental processing, self-awareness, communication... all of these are examples of abilities that our brains have developed over thousands of millenia that separate homo sapiens from other species of animal.

That, and boxer-briefs.

Thank [God/Genetics/Chaos Theory/Evolution/Aliens/Random Chance/WhateverYouThinkIsResponsibleForLifeOnEarth] for boxer-briefs.


----------



## Ursa major

The act _of_ walking is probably semi-automatic.

Choosing _to be _walking is an act of free will**.






** - Even, to take an extreme example, when some guy with a gun is ordering you to walk. It's still your choice. Best to walk, though. But then your legs won't do as they're told. You begin to sweat. Will your life end here...?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

That depends... Since your thug does not have free will, the choice of shooting you or not is not in his hands, and has long since been made by...


----------



## Interference

DA is treading roughly the territory I've been wandering over since last night, about the actual question of the title of this thread.

It doesn't ask "are we capable of independent thought and action" but if we have free will, and in that respect (though the answer is still inconclusive) there are the usual two answers.

Yes: Because we can choose our actions, yadda-yadda-yadda etc,

but more importantly,

No: Because we set ourselves up with a system of beliefs and morals that will ever-after inform our decisions.

I do not have sufficiently free will to make me hurt a cat, for example, or to become a Latin Lover or to play trombone with the LSO or to sit through an entire episode of Lost without saying "Oh, get on with it!" every five seconds.

I've inherited and learned behaviour patterns that deny me the luxury of these things while others around me have learned their own patterns which may permit one or all of them.

Is that their free will, then?  No, because their learned behaviours have made it impossible for them NOT to be Latin Lovers or LSO trombonists or cat-de-Sades.

The path, then, as always, is the real mystery of Free Will, not the destination.


----------



## Moonbat

I think that is slightly illogical. I am not a latin lover because I'm not Latino, that isn't a choice thing, that about my parents and geography. I'm not a trombone player with the LSO because I haven't played Trombone to a good enough standard, though (unlike the latin lover example) I could practice Trombone until I was sufficiently good enough to try and get a seat on the LSO.
I have assumed that this discussion was about Free Will being the choice between two equally valid options, we can never say whether the option we chose is due to free will or just due to destiny or fate, a pre-destined future that is playing out without the option of choice. Logic would suggest that we do have a choice, but there is no proof because every choice if made becomes the only choice (its a time thing). 

N'est pas?


----------



## Ursa major

As Moonbat has left the cat hurting option - I'll ignore the two different definitions of a latin/Latin lover being deployed as I'd only end up adding a third -  I'll pick it up.

* Prepares to be scratched.  *


I'm not sure we should confuse free will with either the law or cultural conditioning. (Both are involved here, at least in the UK.) There are plenty of examples of law breakers and cultures do fade away or change (sometimes due to the actions of those within those cultures).

Some people break laws, some people only stay within the law because they fear the consequences of not doing so, some feel that keeping to the law is their civic duty, while others hardly give a thought about it. Which of these is an example of free will not being applicable?

As with the law, so it is with culture. The only differences are the way it's enforced and the way its tenets are inculcated in us.

Your argument might be stronger if you simply said that we often do things out of habit. But even then, we can do otherwise _if we so choose_.


----------



## Interference

Moonbat said:


> I think that is slightly illogical. I am not a latin lover because I'm not Latino, that isn't a choice thing, that about my parents and geography. I'm not a trombone player with the LSO because I haven't played Trombone to a good enough standard, though (unlike the latin lover example) I could practice Trombone until I was sufficiently good enough to try and get a seat on the LSO.
> I have assumed that this discussion was about Free Will being the choice between two equally valid options, we can never say whether the option we chose is due to free will or just due to destiny or fate, a pre-destined future that is playing out without the option of choice. Logic would suggest that we do have a choice, but there is no proof because every choice if made becomes the only choice (its a time thing).
> 
> N'est pas?



My point is that a latino with the background that leads him to becoming a Latin Lover has _no option but_ to become a Latin Lover.  He can do nothing else.  There is no choice in the matter.  Whatever else he does (car racing, surgery, astronaut training) he will _always_ end up a Latin Lover.

You will never be in th LSO playing trombone because your path, your learning, your experience and your influences, have had nothing whatever to do with that as an option.  Should you one day wish you were, there would be nothing you could do about it.  Your will (to play with the LSO) is not free.

And I make the point in response to the presumption we have all thus far been making, in that the definition of "free will" has something to do with cosmic imperatives.  It may or may not, but in the end I believe that point to be irrelevant.

We make the choices we make because of who we are, _not_ because of who we might be intended to become.



(It's a slightly tricky concept, perhaps, and as usual I'm not expressing it very well, but hopefully someone who sees what I'm getting at will pick it up and explain it a little better.  If I try, as previous experiences have shown me, I might end up confusing the issue even more.  My history and background suggest that I may attempt a better clarification, but experience also shows that I'm most probably going to fail in the attempt.  My place on my current growth curve leads me to the conclusion that I have now no choice but to say no more on the matter. )


----------



## Ursa major

Interference said:


> (It's a slightly tricky concept, perhaps, and as usual I'm not expressing it very well, but hopefully someone who sees what I'm getting at will pick it up and explain it a little better)


 
They might. They might not.


----------



## Interference

Soz, Urse, I added a bit - post-post, as it were


----------



## Ursa major

Some people will do that (me amongst them ).


----------



## Interference

Really?  I doubt anyone's ever noticed you doing that


----------



## Parson

Clearly you have no choice in the matter. You just think you do.


----------



## Interference

There, like I said: Someone wiser with a more concise and easily understood version of what it took me two posts and five paragraphs to say ... I give up


----------



## Ursa major

But you don't have to....


----------



## Interference

Oh, I think I do, I really, really do


----------



## Chinook

Moonbat said:


> I have assumed that this discussion was about Free Will being the choice between two equally valid options, we can never say whether the option we chose is due to free will or just due to destiny or fate, a pre-destined future that is playing out without the option of choice. Logic would suggest that we do have a choice, but there is no proof because every choice if made becomes the only choice (its a time thing).
> N'est pas?


 
If you want to narrow it down to that level, then even Quarks, leptons, muons and such don't have free will. They only have the probability of a specified amount of of free will. There is 100 percent chance of finding both an electron and a positron as the result of colliding atoms in the LHC. This removes all free will from that particular (pun intended) outcome. Whereas in other parts of quantum physics, things get quite murky. Typical particles (in the Fermion category (every particle known to have mass) have mass and spin). The direction of spin however is not certain. The more particles you bring into proximity, the more murky it gets. An example: (For hard scientists - a cold electron trapped in a definite spatial state, say by appropriate electric fields is what we will choose to call a qubit - Quantum bit.) The spin can point up, or down. Qubits have also demontsrated a peculiar behaviour in which that spin can point "sideways". These are not "new" states, they are combinations of up and down. They either spin "west" or "east". The nomenclature used by physicists is something like this: Probability = 1/(the square root of 2) Up + 1/(the square root of 2) Down. Either term can be multiplied by zero and the sum of the squares (1/(the square root of 2) squared) = 1/2. If you replace the Down term with the up term, and vice versa, you get east or west. So there are 4 possibilities right there, and no physicist - no matter how smart they are - can tell what they will find. 
And yes, for those in the know, this comes from the Heisenberg principle: If you are to have accurate knowledge of a particle's position, you must allow the particle to have the maximum energy, and to know the particle's energy (velocity), you must allow it to have every possible position. 

How does this relate to free will? We can't even tell what particles are going to do next when they interact. Humans are billions of times more complicated than these particles. Every action a human makes depends upon thousands if not millions of other actions, reactions and environments. If it were possible to set up an experiment where two identical twins were seperated at birth, but exposed to exactly the same environments, and exactly the same interactions, and exactly the same everything, I will bet a trillion dollars they will end up doing at least one thing different than the other. (please be aware of the fact that the probability that I would actually pay out that sum is about .0000000000000000000000001/1)


----------



## Interference

Too much reading for me right this second, but the skim read gives me the gist and I wholly concur with the lack of choice down to quantum states, And it is only at quantum level that the nature of random selection becomes apparent and I don't think it's too fanciful to say (others will point and laugh at my naiveté) that mental processes from consciousness to thought operate at this unpredictable level before impinging on experiential realities...

Actually, I suspect predictability becomes simpler the more complex the organism.  Just a suspicion.  All the variables would ultimately mean nothing, just as the choice of a man can play no part in the unfolding of infinite Time.


----------



## HareBrain

Devil's Advocate said:


> I think there seems to be some confusion and mingling of different ideas going on.
> 
> Some people mentioned the idea of knowing and realising _all_ of the possible reasons why we do certain things... I don't think that has anything to do with free will.
> 
> There was also some philosophical discussion regarding subconscious decisions. Well, that doesn't have to do with free will, either.
> 
> Other animals whose brains are less developed than humans [insert joke here] do not have free will; all of their actions are based on instinct. Survival instinct, self-preservation, etc. A predator doesn't sit and look at a prey and wonder, "Gee, should I bother chasing that thing? I'm kind of tired. Plus, *Lost* is about to start. Maybe I'll just order in..."
> 
> Free will, conscious (and even sub-conscious) thought, higher levels of mental processing, self-awareness, communication... all of these are examples of abilities that our brains have developed over thousands of millenia that separate homo sapiens from other species of animal.
> 
> That, and boxer-briefs.
> 
> Thank [God/Genetics/Chaos Theory/Evolution/Aliens/Random Chance/WhateverYouThinkIsResponsibleForLifeOnEarth] for boxer-briefs.


 
You state quite a lot of things that are _not _free will, DA, but unless I've missed it, neither you nor anyone else has come up with a definition of what it _is -- _apart from a process that's been developed.



Moonbat said:


> I have assumed that this discussion was about Free Will being the choice between two equally valid options, we can never say whether the option we chose is due to free will or just due to destiny or fate, a pre-destined future that is playing out without the option of choice. Logic would suggest that we do have a choice, but there is no proof because every choice if made becomes the only choice (its a time thing).
> 
> N'est pas?


 
Yes, that's one of the points I was trying to make a while back (but with subconscious or biological influence playing the role of "fate").


----------



## dustinzgirl

If I wanted to learn the trombone, I could. 

I just don't want to.


----------



## Interference

It's the "not wanting to" part that I was driving at, DG.  That's what you can't change.


----------



## Ursa major

So when you were offered the chance to learn the trombone, Inter, your immediate response was, "Blow that!" 

*cough*

The trouble is, you don't know what your unconscious decision making involved. As I've been arguing - fruitlessly, it seems - is that it doesn't matter which part of you makes the decision. It was the collection of atoms that at that moment made up the being that we call Interference (I know that sounds nebulous ) decided it did not want to learn to play the trombone. Nothing else - no other atoms, collected together or not - made the decision. An angel, bruised from failing to get on the head of a particular pin did not make the decision for you. You made it. You don't know why you made it, but you did.

And thus it was that the Irish, rock-and-roll version of Glenn Miller never saw the light of day. (And I've decided not to make known my views on whether or not that is a good thing.  )


----------



## Interference

Ummm ... I'd rather we concentrated on why I'm not a Latin Lover, but okay, let's go with what you're saying for a while ....

The predeteminist route you describe is 100% valid as far as I can see.  From the Big Bang when the first matter appeared and became the second and fourth and sixteenth and so on (I know, who know if that's what happened, but let's keep it as a model for the moment) it is arguably predictable how, like snooker balls, each would lead to the next.  Unlike snooker balls, we don't need to take into consideration errant draughts, passing lorries, floating fluff or chalk on the table.  So that atom bounces into that one.  The result is these two or it's a vibration or it's something that, had we but the skill, we might define and measure.

Soon the mayhem becomes planets, which become earth-like, which produce life, all in a predictable fashion, and each infinitesimal particle must have arrived where it is because of where it came from and where it's going to finish up.

By this model of existence in 4 dimensions, even the thoughts are susceptible of extrapolation with the right tools and thereby every decision that was ever made, every birth and every war.  With sufficient processing power, we should therefore not only be able to predict who the next Shakespeare will be, but even write his plays before he's born - which again would be a predictable outcome of the model.

So far so good and the predeterminists have their win.

And my sub-clause to this model is that we become the people we become through experience and learning which defines for us our intentions and feelings towards things.  Had Clarke Kent been raised by Thomas and Martha Wayne, he would of course still have been Superman (he was already that to begin with) but seeing his parents murdered may have made him a very different Superman.  Of course, he'd probably have prevented the murder and turned out no differently.

Had Wayne been raised by Jonathan and Martha Kent, on the other hand, we would have been unlikely to see Batman, but rather Smallville's brightest Police detective.

His nature predicted his path.

Wayne would never have become a criminal or a feckless playboy, Kent would never have used his superpowers for world domination or self-interest.

And neither of them would ever have learned trombone.

But of course, there is no way in this Universe that Clark could have been fired off in a rocket from Krypton and landed in a field near Thomas and Martha Wayne's house.  Neither could the soul of young Bruce have inhabited any other child.


----------



## Ursa major

_You're not a Latin lover because it's all Greek to you, perhaps...?_


Is your reply to Chinook (after finally reading his post)?


----------



## Interference

Errr .... I really ought to read that, oughtn't I 

See, I can agree with both of you because the argument is ultimately moot.  Whether I have free will (i.e. the ability to choose between any number of propositions at will) or not (because my atoms have found their pre-destined orbits OR because the way I was brought up precludes me from choosing a bunch of stuff that might be really cool) doesn't affect my behaviour one jot.  All I know is that as long as I don't believe in God, I've no one else to blame but myself for the way things turned out and that's a surprisingly comforting thought.


----------



## Moonbat

There is no doubt that Bruce Wayne's decision to become Batman was hugely influenced by the death of his parents, but there was a chance he wouldn't choose that life, that, for instance, if he had just gone to confession one time and opened his heart to the Parson that he would have learnt forgiveness and not concentrated on revenge, becoming instead and very gothic baker.
Are you suggesting that he had no choice in the matter, that all of us here have not chosen to become Chrons but merely are here because we are here.
That suggests that there are no reasons for anyone doing anything, that there only is. While I cannot prove that there is a choice made (consciously) by any sentient being, I choose not to resign myself to believing that there isn't free will.
Technically nothing is free, even the descision making process costs energy in the form of brain processes, neuron firing and what not, so maybe there is a will, but it is never free


----------



## Interference

iI'm saying that choice has nothing to do with it.  We are who we are, we do what we do -- or as the great philosopher, Popeye, once said, "I ams what I ams and I canst be no ammer."


----------



## Chinook

Interference said:


> ...With sufficient processing power, we should therefore not only be able to predict who the next Shakespeare will be, but even write his plays before he's born - which again would be a predictable outcome of the model...


  Ahem! *cough* There will never be another Shakespeare, even with time being infinite and all. We are all unique, just like everyone else.  

And don't start with the million monkeys punching keyboards eventually authoring one of his works. No single monkey could ever do it, and if it were several monkeys, someone would have to pick the pieces up and put them together. That, in my estimation would be cheating.


----------



## Chinook

Interference said:


> iI'm saying that choice has nothing to do with it.  We are who we are, we do what we do -- or as the great philosopher, Popeye, once said, "I ams what I ams and I canst be no ammer."



Not to be argumentative or anything, but isn't it the choices we make that make us who we are?


----------



## Interference

It took a somewhat less than infinite number of monkeys to make the first Shakespeare 

No arguments from here.  Everything you say on the subject is as likely to be true as everything I say   until we find out for sure, I'm not arguing with anybody.

However 

Yes.  Our choices make us who we are.  But are those choices freely made?  Why am I replying to any of this?  Simply because who I am is the kind of person who will reply to this.  Why am I the person I am?  Because I couldn't be anyone else, given my origins all the way back to the Big Bang.

And if that doesn't work for you, then I'm still who I am because of the free choices I made to bring me here.

All I'm saying really is that whether I'm me from choice or me from predetermination, I'm still me.  And I would always be this me, as long as the rest of my history remains unchanged.

And this particular Me has no option but to write this reply.

Choice doesn't really enter into it.

Ok, I could choose not to reply, but clearly I haven't.  So did I really have a choice?  Nah.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Ursa major said:


> The act _of_ walking is probably semi-automatic.
> 
> Choosing _to be _walking is an act of free will


Exactly. My point was to (try to) illustrate the difference between the idea of Free Will, and the question of Conscious vs Sub-conscious thought, which are two separate issues. Someone earlier said something to the effect of how many decisions we make are made sub-consciously, and my point is that sub-conscious thought is not anathema to free will.



Interference said:


> No: Because we set ourselves up with a system of beliefs and morals that will ever-after inform our decisions.
> 
> I do not have sufficiently free will to make me hurt a cat, for example, or to become a Latin Lover or to play trombone with the LSO or to sit through an entire episode of Lost without saying "Oh, get on with it!" every five seconds.


Sorry, but I _completely_ disagree with that sentiment. I think you're convincing yourself of mystery, metaphysics, destiny and enigma in areas of your life where there is none.

There is no question that you _do_, most definitely, have the free will to hurt a cat, become a Latin Lover or to play trombone or to watch *Lost*. The reason you don't do these things is because of morals, personal preference, lack of ability and bad taste in television(), respectively.

Everything is destined, we have no free will, we are not really free to choose what we do... These are all excuses to be used when trying to justify our shortcomings. After all, if there is no free will, then any time I screw up, it's not really _me_ who's screwing up. It's just destiny. Hitler wasn't such a bad guy, then. Or Stalin. Wish they were still around. And racism? Well, what's wrong with that? If I hate blacks/Jews/Asians, it's because _I can't help it, I don't have a choice in the matter_.

********, I say. Everyone needs to learn to take responsbility for their own mistakes, their thoughts and actions, their beliefs. The alternative is the cowardly way out. This convicted belief in "Everything is predestined" has _nothing_ to do with religion or belief in the divine. If you're a ****-up in life, it's not because God 'destined' for you to be one; it's because _you ****** up_, and that's the cold, hard reality.

Live with it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

HareBrain said:


> You state quite a lot of things that are _not _free will, DA, but unless I've missed it, neither you nor anyone else has come up with a definition of what it _is -- _apart from a process that's been developed.


Actually, I stated quite a lot of things that have _nothing to do with the question of free will_.

And that was the point.

As to what free will is? Well, it's possible get all super-metaphysical on it if someone wants; for me, the layman's definition of free will would be the ability to make my own decisions and choices (for better or for worse). As opposed to the idea that my decisions are _not_ my own, and have already been made by [insert decision-making entity/process here], which I don't buy.


----------



## Chinook

DA - I whole-heartedly agree with you right down the line. In fact I think that was the point the band Rush was trying to make in their song of the same title. I'm not too sure I agree with the way you used the word 'anathema', because of it's utterly evil implications.  I was the one who was talking about thoughts becoming "sub"-conscious.They don't start out that way. When a child chooses to attempt walking, he may be following some watered down version of "instinct", but the way I see it, it is free will because he is choosing to make the attempt. It doesn't even matter how many adults are egging him on, it is still his choice. Later on when walking becomes more automatic, he may not have to look where his feet are but it is still free will that is moving him around. The parts of the action (any action we take) that have become routine may not seem to be there anymore, but they are. They happen with such ease and speed that we seldom think "I'm moving my leg." Yet they are an underlying requirement of anyone wishing to move their leg, so technically those "automatic" thoughts are still part of the equation that makes up the concept of free will. (I had to say all of that. Someone was pointing a gun to my head, and telling me what to say.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Chinook said:


> DA - I whole-heartedly agree with you right down the line. In fact I think that was the point the band Rush was trying to make in their song of the same title. I'm not too sure I agree with the way you used the word 'anathema', because of it's utterly evil implications.


Really? _*quickly Googles 'anathema' so as not to display his ignorance of multi-syllable words*_ Ah... yes, well, er.. I suppose that might not have been the best choice of words. Funny, though, I could've sworn I have heard it being used in a similar context. I think I shall make this one of the ultra-rare occasions I use my Get-Out-of-Jail-Free "English is not my first language"-card. _*wondering if it worked*_




> They happen with such ease and speed that we seldom think "I'm moving my leg." Yet they are an underlying requirement of anyone wishing to move their leg, so technically those "automatic" thoughts are still part of the equation that makes up the concept of free will.


_*applauds*_
I quite agree, of course.


----------



## HareBrain

For those who think we have free will, would you agree that free will is only going to be exercised in ways that don't go against the personality? For example, though there is nothing physically stopping me doing so, I couldn't exercise my will to torture a kitten, at least not in my current state of mental health. (I think Inter made a similar point earlier.)

But where does this personality come from? It is a combination of genetics and experience, the same combination that I've argued governs our behaviour at a very detailed level. So unless you argue that personality doesn't determine behaviour at all, you have to find some level of detail at which free will comes into play, otherwise you'll go all the way down to determinism.

BTW, I looked up the experiments I referred to in my first post.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

$&*(@#&! I had written a longish reply but the damn net stalled. Actually, I think it might have just been these forums, since other websites were working fine. Any one else experience any problems?

Anyway, in brief, then. Your personality is _one_ of the many, many factors (albeit a significant factor) that affect your decision-making process. But the decision, in the end, is still yours. That is an example of free will. Many people _do_ ignore their upbringing and experiences and end up doing things that don't seem to fit with what they've learnt. Serial killers would be an (admittedly extreme) example.

HareBrain - I think the question that is actually plagueing (sp?) you is not about free will, at all. What you're really wondering about (from what I've discerned after reading your posts) is the idea of Conscious versus Sub-conscious thinking/decision-making/choices. All of the arguments you have presented so far seem to support that. As I said before, I believe these are separate issues.

I am not just contesting your claim that there is no free will (though I believe there is). I'm also contesting the _validity_ of your arguments. Not because I think you're full of **** (I don't), but because I feel your arguments are related less to 'free will', and more to 'consciousness', if you know what I mean.

As far as your arguments themselves go - that our decisions are frequently the product of sub-conscious thinking; we do things without fully knowing why; personality, upbringing, experiences etc. play a large part in our choices, etc. - I _absolutely_ agree with you. A lot of our decisions are undoubtedly the result of some sub-conscious process. 

Let's say, if someone tries to punch you in the face. Your automatic reflex is probably to duck, right? That is a product of sub-conscious processing. Your brain knows that it should duck and try to avoid the hit; you don't have to consciously think, "Right, then. There's a fist coming at me. Maybe I should try to avoid it. But should I bend down? Or move to the side? Or maybe try to parry?" By the time you got through that line of thinking, you'd be missing a tooth or two. If humans hadn't developed the ability to process information sub-consciously (and do so _very quickly_), and instead relied on the tedium of conscious reasoning for every little thing, there is no doubt we wouldn't have accomplished a fraction of the things that we have.

So, yes, our sub-consciousness plays a huge part in our day-to-day lives. But, again, that is neither an argument for nor against free will.

Apples and oranges is what I'm trying to say, in an unnecessarily long-winded manner.

*EDIT* Okay, so that wasn't very brief.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

You know, these forums should have some sort of option where it gives you more detailed 'stats'. I know this is only going to be my 61st official post, but if there was a way to keep track of stuff like 'Words Per Post'...

I have a feeling mine would be abnormally high... *EDIT* That's poor grammar, isn't it?


----------



## Moonbat

ok, thought experiment time 

Imagine that in front of you there are two buttons, the first labelled 'press me' the second labelled 'don't touch'. You have 4 choices, you can either:
press the button labelled 'press me' or
press the button labelled 'don't touch' or
you can press neither button or 
(attempt to) press both buttons at the same time.
So we have 4 simple choices.
According to Interference's view of free will none of us will actually choose (with free will) which button(s) to press (or not press) but the choice we make will depend entirely on who we are, i.e our experiences to date. For those of us that are particularly obtuse we will probably press the 'don't touch' button, for those of us that see ourselves as non-conformists will probably choose not to press either button, and for those of us that are greedy will try to press both at the same time.
Ok, so far so boring, with no particular conclusion or evidence of free will, but now we can bring in the experiment mentioned by Harebrain (Volitional acts and readiness potential) It should be possible to stop the person actually pressing the button that they have chosen to press (as the choice is made subconsciously before the button is pressed, even before the presser is aware of making the conscious descision) then give them the option of chaging their choice. I'm am confident that some (if not many) will happily change their choice of which button to press and then press the other. This would prove that the person is not just a collection of thier experiences and has the chance to effect the future they choose (actually no it wouldn't because the act of stopping them would then add to thier experiences and so would be part of the effect that makes them choose the other button (Dagnammit!))

Ok, forget I just said that 

How about we stop them after they have made a choice (possible even recognising which button they would choose (due to brain activity, I am clutching at straws here)) but before they press the button without actually telling them that we have stopped them to allow them to change their choice, lets say an emergency alarm startles them and forces them to hesitate before making the choice again. If someone changes thier mind without a prompt from us (the experimentor) has exercised free will.

I still think it suffers from the 'just a product of our experiences to date' malarkey.


----------



## Peter Graham

I agree that those of us supporting the notion that free will exists need to find a snappy definition or one liner.

The great old chestnut I had to endure in my younger days was the studenty/solipsistic "what if everything in the world is a figment of my imagination?"  To which my reply was always "test your theory.  Go and jump in front of an express train.  Then come back and tell us if you were right."  

We don't need to do anything quite so dramatic here.  But what we do need to do is something useless and time consuming.  Something which cannot possibly be a prudent or logical choice for us to make at any level.  Something which shows beyond reasonable doubt that we are not just a pre-programmed human sat nav, making choices solely in response of events.

So, go online and order a copy of Tess of the D'Urbervilles from a bookshop in Berlin.  When it arrives, smear the title page in jam.  Then remove all of chapters 3-11 inclusive, turn them into a paper brick and paint it with red oxide.  Leave the paper brick on a bird table until it rots away.  Leave the rest of the book in a bin in your local park.

In anticipation of the opposing argument - which is more likely?  That you are the sort of person who can be prevailed upon by someone they've never actually met to waste their time and money doing something which they know to be completely pointless, or that the very fact that you _can_ waste your time and money doing things that are completely pointless shows that you are exercising choice and free will?

Regards

Peter


----------



## Interference

Peter Graham said:


> So, go online and order a copy of Tess of the D'Urbervilles from a bookshop in Berlin.  When it arrives, smear the title page in jam.  Then remove all of chapters 3-11 inclusive, turn them into a paper brick and paint it with red oxide.  Leave the paper brick on a bird table until it rots away.  Leave the rest of the book in a bin in your local park.



I -- will -- obey ...






or do I merely _choose_ to


----------



## HareBrain

Devil's Advocate said:


> HareBrain - I think the question that is actually plagueing (sp?) you is not about free will, at all. What you're really wondering about (from what I've discerned after reading your posts) is the idea of Conscious versus Sub-conscious thinking/decision-making/choices. All of the arguments you have presented so far seem to support that. As I said before, I believe these are separate issues.


 
That pinponts our disagreement, then, because I believe them to be one and the same. I do so because I contend that:

1. Free will is the ability to exercise one's will in the absence of (or, able to take into account) external influences.
2. Free will can only be exercised by the conscious.
3. The subconsciousness is external as far as the conscious is concerned. Same with biology. (Edit: I appreciate this might strike many as absurd. Actually, it might be absurd. I might have to come back to it - or start a "what is consciousness?" thread.)




> I am not just contesting your claim that there is no free will (though I believe there is). I'm also contesting the _validity_ of your arguments. Not because I think you're full of **** (I don't), but because I feel your arguments are related less to 'free will', and more to 'consciousness', if you know what I mean.


 
I see your point, but again, I think they're the same. If you want to separate free will from consciousness, then in my opinion you have to define it better than the ability to make choices. And maybe it wasn't the best term to use in the thread title.

BTW, I've never argued that there is no free will (or "conscious decision-making" if you prefer), only that the weight of non-conscious influences on us means we have to achieve a relatively high state of self-awareness before we can hope to truly use free will. Everyone has the capacity, but it's rarely exercised, I would argue.

Of course, the value of the whole discussion is probably only in typing practice, because as Moonbat has pointed out, we can never truly know whether the choices we make are real or only apparent, anyway (because they might all be much more subtle variants on the "torture the kitteh or not" non-dilemma).




> As far as your arguments themselves go - that our decisions are frequently the product of sub-conscious thinking; we do things without fully knowing why; personality, upbringing, experiences etc. play a large part in our choices, etc. - I _absolutely_ agree with you. A lot of our decisions are undoubtedly the result of some sub-conscious process.


 
But how would you tell which ones weren't?

(I'm not sure if we're talking about the same king of "decisions" btw, because you then go on to use a reflex action as an example. I'm talking about the apparently conscious, non-reflex decisions, eg which PC to buy)




Peter Graham said:


> In anticipation of the opposing argument - which is more likely? That you are the sort of person who can be prevailed upon by someone they've never actually met to waste their time and money doing something which they know to be completely pointless, or that the very fact that you _can_ waste your time and money doing things that are completely pointless shows that you are exercising choice and free will?


 
What's most likely is that those who want there to be free will, will behave in the way that seems to prove its existence.

Also, if the history of the internet has taught us anything, it's that people are never averse to expending a great deal of energy and money in order to waste their time.


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> 2. Free will can only be exercised by the conscious.
> 3. The subconsciousness is external as far as the conscious is concerned. Same with biology. (Edit: I appreciate this might strike many as absurd. Actually, it might be absurd. I might have to come back to it - or start a "what is consciousness?" thread.)


I think you will need to prove that the subconscious mind is not capable of exercising free will to prove your point 2. I'm not convinced, simply because I currently believe those scientists who are saying that consciousness is a much smaller part of the brain's function than previously thought.

As to your point 3, how separate are the conscious and subconscious parts? Do you mean physically, as in they never use the same neurons? Is this true? (This is a genuine question as I have no idea what the right answer is.)


----------



## Chinook

Interference said:


> It took a somewhat less than infinite number of monkeys to make the first Shakespeare



Shakespeare was made out of monkeys??? Wow, I didn't know that!


----------



## Interference

Ahem ... someone thinks someone should read his Darwin.  We're all monkeys, bud


----------



## Ursa major

Then why can't any of _us_ ape his achievements?


----------



## Interference

Some of us try -- _very_ hard


----------



## Chinook

Descended from Monkeys is a whole different barrel than being composed out of more than one. Also, I'd like to see some evidence of the experiment you are alluding to, and exactly how did they piece together what individual monkeys had typed? If it was a computer simulation, I would again say that's cheating. 

One liner? "In ethics, free will implies that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions."

Most civilized societies use this reasoning in courts of law, so it would seem that the majority (If you can say that the majority supports the system of law they abide under) agrees that there is such a thing as free will, because with freedom comes responsibility.


----------



## Ursa major

If you're interested in monkey-authoring, you could look here:
http://www.sffchronicles.co.uk/forum/50139-give-a-virtual-monkey-a-virtual-keyboard.html​_Is this aping the real world, or is it the use of guerilla tactics...._
​


----------



## Chinook

I do believe that Ursa should be held morally accountable for the way he is pun-ishing us.


----------



## HareBrain

Ursa major said:


> I think you will need to prove that the subconscious mind is not capable of exercising free will to prove your point


 
Ursa, glad you posted as I meant to tackle this idea of yours earlier and forgot. I don't understand how the subconscous mind _could _be capable of exercising free will, even if free will did widely exist. Maybe we mean different things by it -- could you give an example where you think your subconscious _does _exercise free will?



Ursa major said:


> As to your point 3, how separate are the conscious and subconscious parts? Do you mean physically, as in they never use the same neurons? Is this true? (This is a genuine question as I have no idea what the right answer is.)


 
As I said, I'm not nailing my colours to this idea of separation, but one argument would be that higher consciousness (as opposed to subconscious) is the part of our awareness that is capable of reflecting on the workings of our minds, and as such, it can take a position that is external to that which it is reflecting upon. But as far as I know, there's no evidence for physical separation in terms of neurons etc -- in fact I don't think anyone has yet shown where consciousness comes from or how it arises in terms of biology or neuroscience.



Chinook said:


> One liner? "In ethics, free will implies that individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions."
> 
> Most civilized societies use this reasoning in courts of law, so it would seem that the majority (If you can say that the majority supports the system of law they abide under) agrees that there is such a thing as free will, because with freedom comes responsibility.


 
The fact that legal systems hold others morally accountable for their actions doesn't necessarily imply the existence of free will, only (as you pretty much say yourself) a belief in it.


----------



## Parson

To quote a quasi-evangelist*: "Believe it and you shall achieve it!" 





*Quasi-evangelist because I am utterly convinced what they are selling has the soul of self hypnosis wrapped in a blanket of Biblical texts taken out of their context. This process can be creatively used to make the Bible say almost anything.


----------



## dustinzgirl

I believe that someone will give me a nice used RV with a 440 in it and all working appliances and a bathroom and sleeps 4.


----------



## Interference

They don't do those in the 440 range, what else can we tempt you with?


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> Ursa, glad you posted as I meant to tackle this idea of yours earlier and forgot. I don't understand how the subconscous mind _could _be capable of exercising free will, even if free will did widely exist. Maybe we mean different things by it -- could you give an example where you think your subconscious _does _exercise free will?


No, for the simple reason I don't know where my subconscious mind takes over from my conscious mind (and vice versa). What I mean by this is that I'm not sure there is the equivalent of a border (or, say, something akin to the distinction between a software application and an underlying operating system).





Let's return to my mention of the subconscious supply of puns. There is not a simple difference between unbidden and engineered puns, in the sense that the former are not always simple and the latter are not often complex. It seems to me that the neural mechanisms required to generate word-play are so similar that either they are:
always in the subconscious mind, but are capable of being invoked by the conscious mind;
duplicated (and thus entirely separate, which begs the question of just how much dictionary/thesaurus/etc information I'm carrying two copies of);
not innate to either the conscious or subconscious mind but existing simultaneously in both.
(By the way, I think my pun-making has been learnt. I did not tell jokes at school and I certainly did not engage in word play. Obscure "facts" were my thing, which has come in handy in pub quizzes.)

Here inside my head, I don't feel that my conscious mind is invoking some low-level pun routines. When I'm struggling to find a pun, I can feel myself going through all the steps. That seems to rule out explanation 1.

Explanation 2 sounds highly unlikely. How would the information be kept at all in step? Why doesn't my unconscious** mind beat my conscious mind to the punch? (And I know - or feel I know - that it doesn't: when I've struggled to find some word-play, and posted it, and then edited out (most of) the typos, up pops an extra play on words.)

Explanation 3 sounds the most likely to me: the pun-making is orthogonal to the "boundary" between the conscious and unconsconscious minds. It functions in either a step-by-step way or can drive itself. The reason the unbidden pun can arrive much later than the engineeredone could be that my conscious mind has taken over the required neural pathways, not allowing the subconscious mind to use them.

Given this, the difference between conscious and unconscious decision making may simply be one of how the conscious mind sees it it at that moment; the routines may be the same.



** - I'm aware that I'm using subconscious and unconscious interchangeably; there's for a very good reason for this: ignorance.


----------



## Parson

Ursa, this makes a great deal of sense to me. I know that I've often had it that I knew that there was something that was not quite right with my Sunday sermon on Saturday night. But when I awoke (often immediately or sometimes in the shower) the right idea that I had been struggling to get out for hours on Saturday "pops into my head." I feel as though my subconscious has processed it overnight and by the grace of God has come peculating to the top in time for me to make a necessary adjustment.


----------



## HareBrain

Ursa, I see the point you're making (I hope) but I don't think subconscous decision-making can be classed as an exercise in free will, because there is no "will", in the sense of "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action". But I appreciate there are other, less strict definitions of "will".

The exercise of will (whether truly free or only apparently free) would not be in the generation of the puns but the decision what to do with them.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Where there is a sub-conscious decision, there is a way...


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> Ursa, I see the point you're making (I hope) but I don't think subconscous decision-making can be classed as an exercise in free will, because there is no "will", in the sense of "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action". But I appreciate there are other, less strict definitions of "will".
> 
> The exercise of will (whether truly free or only apparently free) would not be in the generation of the puns but the decision what to do with them.


I can see what you mean, but I would argue that "will" - or the ability to determine and express it - is another of those functions and processes which cannot be pinned down as being on one side or another of a mental border.

Think of a committee. For some reason or other - lack of expertise, or the desire to avoid getting bogged down in detail or (worse) heated arguments, or worry that proper consideration would likely eat into time better spent on the golf course or in a bar - sets up a sub-committee to come up with a proposal or do some fact-finding. The sub-committee comes up with a report and the committee takes some or other decision based on this. It may be (all other things being equal) that all the committee does is rubber-stamp whatever the sub-committee has done. (It may even have dlegated responsibility for the decision when it set up the sub-committee). The mani committee then publishes the decision, not bothering to mention the sub-committee's deliberations.

I get the impression that this is (at least sometimes) what our conscious mind does.

It also seems to me that the conscious mind is a bit like the Board of a large company; its members tell us (and act as if they believe it) that they are the source of all the wealth created by the company. They are deceiving us (and, maybe, themselves).


----------



## Chinook

HareBrain said:


> The fact that legal systems hold others morally accountable for their actions doesn't necessarily imply the existence of free will, only (as you pretty much say yourself) a belief in it.



You're leaving out everything else I said. What I am using is "agreement reality" logic, where, if a sufficiently large proportion of the population believes that some concept (like free will) is defined by certain parameters, that makes it more or less true for that population. _It is an agreed upon reality_. It is also "shored up" in the fact that it is so widely accepted, that it is incorporated within our legal systems. I believe that is a pretty strong argument, but then like Paul Simon said, "A man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest." (which is another side effect of free will.)


----------



## Interference

Leave i', Chin, 'e's no' worff i'.


----------



## The Ace

Dunno, I'll have to ask Mum.


----------



## Interference

LOL 


Ok, to make up the seven characters, I'll just say this one more time and then leave, much to the relief of everyone here:

Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable.

There.  A little over seven characters do you? (I used to sell cheese)

(pigeons ... meet the cat)


----------



## dustinzgirl

Interference said:


> They don't do those in the 440 range, what else can we tempt you with?



Well hubby wants the engine to put into the plymouth. 

I want an RV to chill in for the summer. 

But I don't want to spend money on it.

So.............give me both!

But if fate determines our actions and reactions and the larger world around us, then why do we have the ability to think and make decisions? Perhaps fate is only involved with the major things, the epic determinants of the whole planet, like the invention of fire and nuclear war.


----------



## Interference

Yep, I made that point too.  What we do on this mudball doesn't matter a damn to the Universe.

*not smug, just annoying *


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Interference said:


> Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable.


I concur, and would also add 'never-ending'.



> leave, much to the relief of everyone here:


Ditto.

Peace.


----------



## HareBrain

Interference said:


> Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable.


 
Inter, you've just argued against an earlier post where you reacted positively to the idea that free will might evolve as a means of creativity. How do you think free will is going to evolve, by itself? While we just sit around waiting for it to happen? OK, I'm going to risk going all whacko here, but since this thread has run its course I'll take that risk -- evolution in consciousness can only occur if we incorporate within the more recent layers all the earlier layers, and that includes understanding the extent to which our subconscious affects our ego -- and that's why thinking about the concept of free will, and asking ourselves whether we possess it, and when or if we use it, is useful. I contend.


----------



## Interference

I do, as I said in the post you aren't quoting, find the concept appealing, that consciousness evolves and that free will might be the outcome.  I'm not yet so full of myself that I can't see an elegance in someone else's proposition, however divergent it may seem from my own.  I am, after all, first and foremost a fiction writer, not a philosopher.

My current state of philosophical thinking presumes the Universe to be a creative force and that we reflect that creativity in our own lives.  Ken Dodd once said that he felt the Meaning Of Life is to be creative, and I completely (at the time of writing) concur with that proposition.

Someone else was talking about absolutes before - probably not here - saying that the true test of an absolute condition is what would happen if you removed it?  Very often, nothing very different.  Thus the "absolute" becomes obsolete.  

"evolution in consciousness can only occur if we incorporate within the more recent layers all the earlier layers" is as likely to be true as untrue, all we know is that evolution will occur.  How it occurs is for debate among those who have evolved.  (Perhaps this is that very debate.)  Our ape ancestors can hardly be expected to have wondered what lay ahead for its species.

Free Will, like the power of flight or walking upright, will or won't evolve with or without your help or mine.  Perhaps it already has, or perhaps the fact that we contemplate it means it is still just an aspiration.  The need to walk on two legs began, after all, as an aspiration, and only through natural selection became the norm.

But it was a survivalist imperative.  Can the same be said for Free Will?  Are we, as a species, dependent on Free Will for our survival?  No: Whatever guides us, affects us or informs us is a natural process.  or Yes: We are well capable of making appropriate choices to advance our lives and our species.

Each of these arguments, it appears to me, is strong.

Can this be used to discover whether or not Free Will exists?  Probably not to any degree of conclusiveness.  A volcano has no choice over whether or not it erupts and the result, on the one hand, is Pompeii, while on the other it's Hawaii.  From this, it's pretty clear the volcano has no need of free will.  How different are we from a volcano, then, as we are each as capable, in equal measure, of devastation or beauty as the other?  If we have Free Will, how do we choose to exercise it?  We choose to turn left or right, we marshal our financial resources, we argue our points with one another, all of which are cosmically, I suggest, rather pointless expressions of something that so many people consider so fundamentally essential.  Individual free will (allowing that it exists) plays a very small role in, for example, global politics.

And it is for reasons such as these that I concluded before with: "Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable."

In another medium, I might be tempted to write and re-write that paragraph for clarity and precision, but for now I suspect it holds up well enough with perhaps just this small addition: As thinking people, you and I can both reason each side of the argument to a satisfactory conclusion.  This supports, I believe, my contention that debate is unprofitable as it shows how irrelevant any question is that results in the answer "Yes if this and yes if that."

In the end, having found an answer we can completely and utterly resonate with, will we act any differently?


----------



## Chinook

*Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?*

Just kidding.


----------



## Interference

*Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?*

Somebody please merge this thread


----------



## Moonbat

> "Whether "free will" does or does not exist, not one of us would behave any differently, each of us being driven by our personalities and desires for acceptance in equal proportion, therefore the question becomes irrelevant in the extreme and the debate, ultimately, unprofitable."


 
It's a strange assumption that without free will we wouldn't behave any differently. Free will is such an intangable concept that it cannot be proven one way or the other, but to conclude that life would be the same if it does exist or doesn't is unsubstantiatied. Like saying life would be no different if God exists or if He doesn't.
I can see that life in the here and now might not change one iota if God truly doesn't exist, but the past, and particularly the beginning would change, would it not?

If there isn't free will, and I don't subscribe to free will being something that comes with consciousness of the descision or sentience, then even the primordial gloop that had a choice (although driven by instinct) between bright sunlight and damp shade was following a predetermined path, (I'm somehow assuming the gloop could move) I have made many decisions in my life, not least the choice between turning left or right when I wasn't sure of the direction. Had I turned right things would/could have been very different. 

To say we are here because we are here is akin to saying nothing at all, and lord knows we are certainly saying something. 

A Volcano doesn't have free will, but it doesn't have a descision making process, we do. We can decide if we turn right or left. 



> Individual free will (allowing that it exists) plays a very small role in, for example, global politics.


 
Again how can you be sure, Hitler made a descision to give up painting and run for office, did that descision not play a major role in global politics? What about Barrack Obama, he must have decided at some point not to become a rapper (joke) and run for Office, his subsequent election to the office of president has definitely had an effect on global politics, if only to rob someone worthy of the nobel peace prize and give Kenyans a new national holiday, still it is an effect.

Talking in terms of the universe, nothing really matters what we do, unless we are unique in terms of our evolution towards sentience and philosophy, if sentience is a common result across the universe then not much we do matters in cosmic terms.


----------



## Ursa major

Are there things that people do that cannot be explained other than by the existence of free will? (And I'm suggesting that we exclude the "an angel told him or her to do it" argument.)


----------



## Interference

Moonbat said:


> Talking in terms of the universe, nothing really matters what we do, unless we are unique in terms of our evolution towards sentience and philosophy, if sentience is a common result across the universe then not much we do matters in cosmic terms.



My view, too.


----------



## Ursa major

On the other hand, if we scour the universe for nascent intelligence and remove the possibility that it will develop further, then we would matter in cosmic terms.








Or would we?


----------



## Interference

How long is any civilisation reasonably expected to survive?

Now, how long is eternity?

Does _anything_ matter in cosmic terms?

Let's just live our lives and try not to hurt anybody.  Not for the cosmos, but for ourselves.


----------



## Ursa major

Interference said:


> Let's just live our lives and try not to hurt anybody. Not for the cosmos, but for ourselves.


 
But we're humans....


----------



## Moonbat

> Are there things that people do that cannot be explained other than by the existence of free will? (And I'm suggesting that we exclude the "an angel told him or her to do it" argument.)


 
I'm not sure. Can you explain my choice to wear a blue t-shirt today as anything other than free will, I have penty of other t-shirts that I could have chosen to wear.

Its going to come down to a definition of free will, Interference would suggest that all of my past experiences (included owning a blue t-shirt) has lead me to choose the blue t-shirt today and not the others.

Other examples would be

Suicide
Supporting a loosing team
choosing not to wear a condom
having that extra biscuit when you know you shouldn't
Watching Eastenders


----------



## Peter Graham

Ursa major said:


> Are there things that people do that cannot be explained other than by the existence of free will? (And I'm suggesting that we exclude the "an angel told him or her to do it" argument.)


 
Yes - anything pointless. If we deny the possibility of free will, we have to ask ourselves what the driver is behind human existence:-

1. It is all part of a divine master plan.

2. We instinctively obey non-divine rules which order the universe and everything in it. 

3. We are unable to do anything other than respond in a fixed way to any given situation.

Believers probably go with number 1 every time. Free will is part of divine creation. The fact that religious authorities make it clear that we will be punished if we exercise our free will incorrectly suggests very strongly that free will exercised independently of the godhead must exist.

Number 2 is the hamster in the wheel thing. We are all products of order. The choices we make are pretty much predestined as a means of getting us where we need to go. Problem is, without a divine hand on the tiller, this argument looks thin to say the best. It also cannot explain the popularity of Oasis.

Number 3 (which appears to have sparked most debate in this thread) is, in many ways, virtually indistinguishable from free will. Because there are so very many possible scenarios and because they arise so frequently (arguably with every breath we take and every step we make), to all intents and purposes we _appear_ to be expressing free will, even if we aren't.

But the problem with number 3 is that it relies on us being passive - we _react_ to stimulus and to situations. This doesn't appear to me to be a very good description of human life and interaction, which is so frequently irrational, impulsive and downright chaotic.

In addition, the fact that we can waste our time in so many ways - be that staring at an inspiring view or painting, building a scale model of HMS Victory out of matchsticks, hunting for Roman roads in overgrown fields or even listening to Oasis - all suggest that we are able to shape and determine our own lives, at least to some degree.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## HareBrain

Peter Graham said:


> But the problem with number 3 is that it relies on us being passive - we _react_ to stimulus and to situations. This doesn't appear to me to be a very good description of human life and interaction, which is so frequently irrational, impulsive and downright chaotic.


 
I think we've reached the point where we're repeating our earlier arguments, but I just wanted to respond to this, Peter. If human life is irrational, impulsive and chaotic, wouldn't that be a good argument _for _the idea that we react passively to stimulus and situations? If we did exercise free will on a regular basis, wouldn't life be rational, planned and orderly?

As for your "wasting time" argument, I don't think most people really believe their hobbies are a waste of time. But if they did see them that way, why would they do them? Again, I think that's an argument against free will -- they waste their time because they're obeying unconscious impulses to do so, like the person who crams more and more chocolates into his mouth even when he's stopped enjoying them.


----------



## Peter Graham

> If human life is irrational, impulsive and chaotic, wouldn't that be a good argument _for _the idea that we react passively to stimulus and situations? If we did exercise free will on a regular basis, wouldn't life be rational, planned and orderly?


 
Absolutely not.  We are bags of raging hormones and whizzing electrical impulses, usually with a very poor idea of how we appear to the outside world.  Tiny things send us into frenzies of excitement, rage, frustration, fear or joy - the _Today_ programme, roadworks, party political broadcasts, reality TV shows, recorded telephone answering sytems in utility companies, the misues of the prefix _pre_, crowing cockerels at 4 a.m etc etc.  We behave utterly irrationally and in a way which is entirely at odds with a sober analysis of cause and effect.



> As for your "wasting time" argument, I don't think most people really believe their hobbies are a waste of time. But if they did see them that way, why would they do them?


 
Because they are fun.  Or, at least, more fun than doing nothing and easier to achieve than the things which really would be fun.  But take my example of looking at a view.  In the ordered world view, such things can have no use.  Aesthetic appreciation for its own sake is completely pointless.  Illogical.  But we do it anyway.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

Peter Graham said:


> It also cannot explain the popularity of Oasis.



Oi!  Show a little respect, our kid.


----------



## HareBrain

Peter Graham said:


> Absolutely not. We are bags of raging hormones and whizzing electrical impulses, usually with a very poor idea of how we appear to the outside world. Tiny things send us into frenzies of excitement, rage, frustration, fear or joy - the _Today_ programme, roadworks, party political broadcasts, reality TV shows, recorded telephone answering sytems in utility companies, the misues of the prefix _pre_, crowing cockerels at 4 a.m etc etc. We behave utterly irrationally and in a way which is entirely at odds with a sober analysis of cause and effect.


 
But ... but ... how is behaving according to the dictates of raging hormones and electrical impulses anything other than what I've been arguing? You seem to be making my point for me, only better.


----------



## Interference

It's a cyclic, rebounding argument, HB.  Similar arguments (or even in some cases the very same ones) can be used to support several different propositions.  Why do our hormones rage?  Because God wills it OR because that's science.


----------



## Ursa major

* Resists dubious pun. *


See: I do have free will!


----------



## Parson

Three Cheers the The Bear!!

Hip! Hip!  ____________________

Hip! Hip!  ____________________

Hip! Hip! _____________________


----------



## Interference

That's not free will, that's will power 

(It's a two step programme for teddy bears that go round and round the garden)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

*Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?*

No/Yes.


----------



## HareBrain

*Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?*

Well, I like "Determinism", and I like (Fate). But which is better?

Only one way to find out ...

FIIIIIIIIGHT!!


----------



## Ursa major

*Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?*

Or we might decide, willingly, that we're fated never to determine the answer.


----------



## chrispenycate

*Re: Does "Determinism" or (Fate) exist?*



Interference said:


> Somebody please merge this thread



Darn good idea. Done


----------



## Moonbat

I have been to many fates in my lifetime, or was that fetes?

And no matter how determined I am to determine is there is detemrinism I am always detered from an answer


----------



## Peter Graham

HareBrain said:


> But ... but ... how is behaving according to the dictates of raging hormones and electrical impulses anything other than what I've been arguing? You seem to be making my point for me, only better.


 
I think the point here is that if we allow that raging hormones _et al _do affect our behaviour we are already one step on from the rather cold stimulus/response model of decision making.  We are moving from the external to the internal - or, as is more likely, to a mix of the two.  We are accepting, I think, that two people from very similar backgrounds and with very similar experiences may react in very different ways to the same situation.

Of course, you have never argued that this is not the case.  But therein lies the rub.  Our internalised selves have a very large part to play.  We have to accept that our internal selves develop and change over time and as a result of the things that happen to us.  There are, in other words, very few constants.  The person I am now (in terms of how I respond to stimuli) is very different from the person I was twenty years ago - age, experiences, trial and error have all played a part.

So, is it conceivable that a scientific model or experiment could be devised which would be able to tell with 100% accuracy _precisely_ what I would do in terms of movement, thought and voice if the phone rings in three minutes? I doubt it.  

We change.  The world changes.   Even if - and it's a big if - every tiny choice we make (consciously or unconsciously) *is* entirely predictable, the processes and factors involved are so very complex as to be indistinguishable from what we call free will.

But I ask you this.  Do you believe that an MP who fiddles his expenses cannot be held accountable for his actions?  Or that a fellow who drives home drunk at high speed and kills someone should not be punished?  

Best regards,

Peter


----------



## Ursa major

Moonbat said:


> I have been to many fates in my lifetime, or was that fetes?


But does going to them make them into Fêtes accompli?


----------



## HareBrain

Peter Graham said:


> But I ask you this. Do you believe that an MP who fiddles his expenses cannot be held accountable for his actions? Or that a fellow who drives home drunk at high speed and kills someone should not be punished?


 
Very quick answer, since I have to rush out: no to both (ie both should be held accountable). For two reasons. One, I think that holding people responsible for their actions (except in extreme caes of illness etc) is likely the best model by which society can operate at this stage, even if the model is dubious. And two, in both cases the individual has the _capacity _for free will -- as I've argued all along -- even if they haven't properly exercised it.


----------



## Chinook

HareBrain said:


> ... in both cases the individual has the _capacity _for free will -- as I've argued all along -- even if they haven't properly exercised it.



Sorry Brain, but you'll have to explain this one to me. What's the difference between having "the _capacity _for free will" and having free will?   Is it along the lines of the lazy ones not using their capacity? Isn't choosing not to choose also a choice? *pauses* Hah-ha! 

Here's a question for you - What determines the choices that we are faced with each day? Is the "All Knowing" universe deliberately throwing us curve balls, even though it knows whether we will hit or miss?  

There's the rub... We had at least a little something to do with what comes at us everyday don't we? At the same time things come into our lives we could never have imagined or dreamed up. It's a mix. Still, I believe it is how we respond that matters.


----------



## HareBrain

Chinook said:


> Sorry Brain, but you'll have to explain this one to me. What's the difference between having "the _capacity _for free will" and having free will?  Is it along the lines of the lazy ones not using their capacity? Isn't choosing not to choose also a choice? *pauses* Hah-ha!


 
Sorry, my wording probably wasn't terribly precise. What I meant was the difference between using free will (as in, a decision made as consciously as possible with a minimum of non-conscious influence) and not bothering to do so. But you're perfectly right, whether someone chooses to make a decision as consciously as possible is itself (in my view) subject to the non-conscious influences of genetics/experience etc, which rather invalidates my justification for punishing wrongdoers on that basis. Bah!



> Here's a question for you - What determines the choices that we are faced with each day? Is the "All Knowing" universe deliberately throwing us curve balls, even though it knows whether we will hit or miss?


 
I think that's entirely a question of spiritual cosmology, if I can put it like that, and entirely unprovable. I think it's possible. Some would argue that although the AKU knows what will happen (being outside of Time) it is the actual experience, rather than the knowledge, in which the value lies.



> Still, I believe it is how we respond that matters.


 
The trouble with a subject like this is that you have to define pretty much every word you use. Like "matters"


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi HB,

Chinook makes an interesting point.

To continue with our analogy, equally interesting is the way in which lawyers in criminal cases use your "victim of circumstance" argument routinely in mitigation. It doesn't provide a defence, but it _might_ be the difference between a community punishment and a spell in clink. However, it's generally ignored by Judges (many of whom also made the same argument in their days in practice) on the grounds that it is regarded by most folk as hand-wringing wet liberalism of the first water and/or further evidence of everyone's favourite non-existent phenomenon - "Broken Britain".

But that said, if you allow for free will (as you do), I presume you accept that it would be quite impossible to correctly identify the point at which free will ends and automatic response begins. You might even argue that people with strong wills are better able to exercise free will. I still maintain that people's decisions to do stupid, irrational or pointless things is the best evidence of free will, so is it the case that criminals who commit ridiculous crimes or who commit other crimes in a totally dopey fashion should be treated more harshly than those who think them through properly, on the grounds that those in the latter category are evidencing more signs of being prompted by automatic response rather than free will? 

This fits your argument (possibly), but it does fly in the face of accepted wisdom, which tends to hold that a planned crime is more blameworthy than an opportunistic one and that treating stupidity as an aggravating feature is not really cricket.

I would never try to argue that circumstance and stimuli do not affect decisions.  However, I don't think it's a "one or t'other" situation in which we are _either_ responding automatically _or_ truly exercising free will.  I would see it more as a sliding scale, perhaps always with elements of both and rarely (if ever) with only one to the exclusion of the other.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

HareBrain said:


> it is the actual experience, rather than the knowledge, in which the value lies.



Oh, that's clever!  Just one thing I have to work in before I can completely assimilate it, the nature of experience which requires some interaction with Time.  Given that even Timeless beings may have some sensations, and one of these sensations may be referenced as "the passage" or "flow" of time, it's entirely possible that "experience" can have some low-level impact on their/its existence, something like blood-flow in the body, perhaps.  An unconscious requirement.  If the AKU is making progress, I doubt if that is its "purpose", but it may certainly be a requirement.

Very clever, very interesting, very thought-provoking.  Damn.  Where's me drum 'n' bass.  _Must - stop - the - think--ing_


----------



## Chinook

HareBrain said:


> The trouble with a subject like this is that you have to define pretty much every word you use. Like "matters"



Matters: Makes a difference. Is important. What is relevant. Ripples out across the universe in waves of space-time affecting anything and everything in some way, no matter how small.


----------



## HareBrain

Peter Graham said:


> But that said, if you allow for free will (as you do), I presume you accept that it would be quite impossible to correctly identify the point at which free will ends and automatic response begins.


 
In practical terms, yes.



> You might even argue that people with strong wills are better able to exercise free will.


 
Only as long as they choose to exercise it. Otherwise they just more doggedly pursue those courses of action suggested to them by their non-conscious influences (whilst at the same time believing those actions to be the result of their free will).



> I still maintain that people's decisions to do stupid, irrational or pointless things is the best evidence of free will, so is it the case that criminals who commit ridiculous crimes or who commit other crimes in a totally dopey fashion should be treated more harshly than those who think them through properly, on the grounds that those in the latter category are evidencing more signs of being prompted by automatic response rather than free will?


 
I don't accept your premise, Peter, because no one does things that seem truly stupid, irrational or pointless _to them, at the time_.** Or if they do (OK, I accept there are cases) it's the conscious mind that realises the activity is pointless, but the non-conscious influence that keeps them doing it. I'll expand the example I gave a couple of pages ago. Take the case of a man who buys two bars of Green & Black's organic chocolate, intending to make them last him a week. He eats one whole bar on the way home from Waitrose, just because he's peckish and it's something to do whilst walking, and when he gets home, even though he's already stuffed, he eats the other one too, robotically breaking off chunks and popping them into his mouth while he peruses the latest Chrons posts, and he keeps doing it even though he feels sicker and sicker, even though his conscious mind is pointing out that this is not only pointless, but detrimental to his appetite and his waistline. So what's making this hypothetical (cough) person do this? If his conscious mind, the only part of him capable of exercising free will (as I have defined it) is unable to exercise it because of some other element, what is that element?

So I would contend that activities that seem stupid, pointless etc to the person doing them, are evidence for a _lack _of free will rather than the reverse. Just because our non-conscious minds have evolved as a result of survival-based evolution, does not mean that everything they suggest to us is in our own best interests.

And the results of those experiments I've linked to seem to show that most acts, however pointless they might seem to others, are rationalised by the conscious mind after the non-conscious mind has decided to go ahead with them. The ego-consciousness, with its all-pervading sense of self-importance, doesn't want to accept that it might not actually be in control of the mind/body of its host, so it fools itself into thinking that almost every action is in fact of its own making. It's like a child in the passenger seat of a car, with a toy steering wheel, who wants to believe himself the driver, so when the car turns left he turns the wheel left as soon as he notices the movement, and convinces himself that he's the one who made it happen.

(It's probably more subtle than that, but I exaggerate to make the point.)

** even if the only point is to stave off boredom


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> Take the case of a man who buys two bars of Green & Black's organic chocolate, intending to make them last him a week. He eats one whole bar on the way home from Waitrose, just because he's peckish and it's something to do whilst walking, and when he gets home, even though he's already stuffed, he eats the other one too, robotically breaking off chunks and popping them into his mouth while he peruses the latest Chrons posts, and he keeps doing it even though he feels sicker and sicker, even though his conscious mind is pointing out that this is not only pointless, but detrimental to his appetite and his waistline. So what's making this hypothetical (cough) person do this? If his conscious mind, the only part of him capable of exercising free will (as I have defined it) is unable to exercise it because of some other element, what is that element?


Speaking as someone who doesn't keep packets of biscuits in the house - mostly becuase I know what will happen (I'll eat them all in quite a short time), and the rest of the time because I _have_ eaten them all - I can say truthfully that I do not feel an unconscious urge to eat them. I eat them because I like eating them. (True, they don't make me feel sick, but they would be a factor in increasing my waistline).

So I can make a number of _conscious_ decisions: The good one is not to buy the biscuits. The less good one is to buy them. The worst is to keep eating the biscuits because the pleasure I derive from this activity outweighs any advantages I see in waistline control.

Now it may be that a hypothetical werehare () _is_ just absentmindedly shovelling chocolates into his mouth. but I don't really buy that. It seems to much like an excuse: "Sorry, but I couldn't help myself."

My evidence is that I _can_ keep biscuits in the house and not wolf them down if I choose not to (and have successfuly done this on many occasions); it's just that I'd rather not give myself that choice, given my bias towards scoffing the lot.


----------



## HareBrain

Ursa major said:


> Now it may be that a hypothetical werehare () _is_ just absentmindedly shovelling chocolates into his mouth. but I don't really buy that. It seems to much like an excuse: "Sorry, but I couldn't help myself."


 
OK, I (for yes, 'twas I all along!) could have helped myself, but because it wasn't actually a horrible exeprience, there wasn't enough stimulus for me to do so. But I _can_ eat chocolate past the point where I cease to derive any immediate positive benefit from it (a situation that's called in Economics "negative marginal utility") and it's interesting that at the same time that I'm thinking what a stupid thing to do, I am also coming out with some kind of justification for it. And the most common one is, "once this bar is finished, it will be over and I won't have to worry about it any more". Which is ridiculous, but I know I'm not the only one to experience this.

So what's going on there? Is my consciousness (the part of it that's not appalled at my gluttony) rationalising as best it can a ludicrous behaviour "forced" upon me by some kind of non-conscious craving? Or is it only pretending to do so, in order to provide me with evidence for my cherished world-view that our minds behave in that way, perhaps because I once read a similar argument in Julian Jaynes's _The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind _and was so impressed by the wordiness of the title (not to mention with myself for making it through those 1200 pages) that I now seek any opportunity to align my ideas with those of its author?

Well?


----------



## Ursa major

That your conscious mind is rationalising the situation _as it is happening_ suggests that it is going along with the activity, and thereby sanctioning it.

Which is an act of will, is it not?


----------



## Peter Graham

> I'll expand the example I gave a couple of pages ago. Take the case of a man who buys two bars of Green & Black's organic chocolate, intending to make them last him a week. He eats one whole bar on the way home from Waitrose, just because he's peckish and it's something to do whilst walking, and when he gets home, even though he's already stuffed, he eats the other one too, robotically breaking off chunks and popping them into his mouth while he peruses the latest Chrons posts, and he keeps doing it even though he feels sicker and sicker, even though his conscious mind is pointing out that this is not only pointless, but detrimental to his appetite and his waistline. So what's making this hypothetical (cough) person do this? If his conscious mind, the only part of him capable of exercising free will (as I have defined it) is unable to exercise it because of some other element, what is that element?


 
Noting is "making" you do it. You are choosing to do it. You aren't driven to do it by some urge you cannot control and which you are powerless to resist. It's only chocolate - not crack cocaine or smack!

You know it's not sensible to eat all the chocolate in one go, but you like the chocolate, so you do it anyway. You are making a perfectly conscious and free choice. But (and perhaps turning your own arguments against you) you probably don't want to think that you are the sort of person who is so quick to indulge in appetite-busting, waistline-swelling activities. So you seek out some element - something which is stifling your ability to make a free choice not to eat that second bar - something which ultimately makes _your _decisions someone (or something) else's fault and/or responsibility.

Perhaps this is your ego point - the cult of self in action. We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong. Look at the excuses people come out with to justify businesses failing. It's always the world economy, or the decisions of the Treasury, or the evil banks. It's never the fault of the person who's borrowed up to the hilt on the basis of a flimsy or self serving commercial venture which is never going to work in the first place.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Déjà vu, I say.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Déjà vu, I say.


Wait, didn't I just say that..?


----------



## HareBrain

Peter Graham said:


> It's only chocolate - not crack cocaine or smack!


 
Hmm, a South American plant product that's swamped the western world and is now contributing towards a health crisis -- can you spot the difference?



> But (and perhaps turning your own arguments against you)


 
Ooh, verbal judo!



> you probably don't want to think that you are the sort of person who is so quick to indulge in appetite-busting, waistline-swelling activities. So you seek out some element - something which is stifling your ability to make a free choice not to eat that second bar - something which ultimately makes _your _decisions someone (or something) else's fault and/or responsibility.
> 
> Perhaps this is your ego point - the cult of self in action. We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong.


 
Oog! Akh! Ghhhff ...

*shuts down for ten-year programme of in-depth self-examination of mental processes*


----------



## Interference

Peter Graham said:


> We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong.



It's self preservation, which has helped us survive till now.  I don't think survival is a matter of choice.


----------



## GrownUp

Peter Graham said:


> Noting is "making" you do it. You are choosing to do it. You aren't driven to do it by some urge you cannot control and which you are powerless to resist. It's only chocolate - not crack cocaine or smack!
> 
> You know it's not sensible to eat all the chocolate in one go, but you like the chocolate, so you do it anyway. You are making a perfectly conscious and free choice. But (and perhaps turning your own arguments against you) you probably don't want to think that you are the sort of person who is so quick to indulge in appetite-busting, waistline-swelling activities. So you seek out some element - something which is stifling your ability to make a free choice not to eat that second bar - something which ultimately makes _your _decisions someone (or something) else's fault and/or responsibility.
> 
> Perhaps this is your ego point - the cult of self in action. We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong. Look at the excuses people come out with to justify businesses failing. It's always the world economy, or the decisions of the Treasury, or the evil banks. It's never the fault of the person who's borrowed up to the hilt on the basis of a flimsy or self serving commercial venture which is never going to work in the first place.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter



Chocolate is a law. Like gravity. One falls downwards. One eats chocolate. That part has nothing to do with free will. I mean, I can fall over and then regret it. Taking care to wear sensible shoes, or watching where I'm going, are part of my free will and effect how often I trip. 
But the construct of the Universe with its patterns of movement are what I'm moving through. Just because I fall over doesn't mean it's all my fault. The Universe helped, surely.


----------



## Sorcerer

Only if you want it to !


----------



## Parson

Free will for me is the ability to make decisions regarding my life without outside influence. Which, if you read through the thread, I argue is impossible.


----------



## Ursa major

For me, free will means that you are not programmed** (or, if you like, preordained ) to a make any given decision.

Excluding any outside influence suggests the removal of any sort of evidence (whether pro or anti such and such a choice) from the process, which sounds to me that free will under this definition is nothing more than some sort of internal toss of a coin. (But I expect this not at all what Parson actually means.  )





** - At Day One (or even before).


----------



## mosaix

kronobot.com said:


> What is "free will"?  The term is thrown out there so loosely, mainly in religion to blame man for god's making man fully knowing beforehand that later on he'd consider it an abomination.
> 
> However, that's not really a definition for "free will".
> 
> How would you define what you call "free will"?  It's a free will interpretation.



It's a good question kronobot.

Let's think of writing a computer program to generate a random number. Using conventional computing it's impossible to do because everything the computer does is limited by the fact that it has no free will - everything is based on its programming or some data (seed) supplied to it as a starting point. If the starting point is repeated then the results will be repeated. The computer that provides the random numbers for the Premium Bond winners in the UK uses random emissions from a nuclear source as it's seed - considered truly random.

But, suppose I ask you to think of a random number and you supply one. How have you come up with that number? If it's truly random then free will probably exists. 

That's my definition - the ability to provide different results given identical starting points. Something a conventional computer can't do. I don't know how to test for it, but that's how I'd define it.

And because I can't provide a test for it then I don't know the answer to the question 'Does free will exist?'.


----------



## Interference

A computer can generate a random number, just as it can randomly decide whether it's going to behave today or not.  Chaos theory in action?

The human mind stores information in packages that don't appear to be accessible through solely conscious effort.  The sub-conscious, unconscious and super-conscious compartments leak into our consciousness sometimes, but not often at our behest.  So, ask me to pick a number from one to ten and I'm as likely to pick the number I last registered, whether I registered it consciously or not, as any other.  This is a fundament of Derren Brown's mentalism as well as Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

I have my doubts, therefore, as to whether "true randomness" can be proven.

Perhaps we respond to the dictates of our subconsciousness more than we realise.  Perhaps the freedom of our will is in the balancing of several factors, some of which are deterministic and others being more akin to random.  The final (conscious) choice a person makes is probably the only predictable part of the sequence, after all other data has been processed by the brain.  Which perhaps explains why some people occasionally act "out of character" and why we often pride ourselves on having complex and contradictory personalities.

As ever, this is just a Thought In Progress.  Hope it helps someone.


----------



## Ursa major

Maybe, but I've been arguing that our subconscious minds (and whatever other hyphenated consciousnesses there are) are as much a part of "us" as our conscious mind.


----------



## Interference

Agreed, some might argue that it's our most important part, that it's our conscious mind that misdirects us most often and that is most tethered to the demands of ego-fulfillment.  Some might argue that consciousness is the begetter of hedonism at its worst and smugness at its best.


----------



## Parson

Ah! Now there's the rub. Feelings are undependable and they lie! Your first paragraph could be used as a defense for determinism.


----------



## Interference

Isn't that the beauty of this discussion?  What goes for one side is equally applicable to the other, therefore both are right.  A unique (?) example of two opposites being exactly the same.  Q.E.D.


----------



## mosaix

kronobot.com said:


> It's made up of small little past influences that shaped and predetermine a person's formula for thinking



Ah, but supposing (I know it's not possible) two, or more, people existed that had identical genes, identical past lives and influences so they they had identical _formula for thinking_ (just like two computers of the same model loaded with the same random number generator and the same seed) and you asked them both in an identical fashion and at the same time to 'think of a number!'.

Would they both come up with the same number? If so - no free will.


----------



## mosaix

Interference said:


> A computer can generate a random number,



Of course it can, but given the same circumstances, the same random number generator, the same seed, it would generate the same random number the next day.



> just as it can randomly decide whether it's going to behave today or not.


If you mean a computer mal-functioning - it doesn't decide to do so - it just mal-functions like, say, a TV breaking down. There's no choice on the part of the TV either. Things just wear out.

But two computers mal-functioning in the same way would produce the same results - no free will.


----------



## Interference

mosaix said:


> Of course it can, but given the same circumstances, the same random number generator, the same seed, it would generate the same random number the next day.



LOL  That was the joke of early eight-bit computers - randomness was almost predictable 



mosaix said:


> If you mean a computer mal-functioning - it doesn't decide to do so - it just mal-functions like, say, a TV breaking down. There's no choice on the part of the TV either. Things just wear out.



Quite right.  I'm sure almost everyone with a computer has had the experience where, one morning, they've switched on and it's needed a re-boot almost immediately.  Most times you can figure out why this has been necessary, but there are occasions where you just have to accept that something utterly, randomly coincidental and beyond your ken has happened.  You might decide it's a manufacturing flaw in some component of the machine, but then you have to accept that, however high the standards of manufacture, even components are only exactly the same within a certain percentage tolerance.

Because no two things are exactly similar (using the scientific definition of that term).



mosaix said:


> But two computers mal-functioning in the same way would produce the same results - no free will.



The same could be argued of humans.  Given that humans aren't "manufactured" to the same tolerances, you can still see how different representatives of the species often react in like ways to a given set of circumstances, otherwise medicine, psychology, comedy, drama and clothes would all have to be personally bespoke.



mosaix said:


> Ah, but supposing (I know it's not possible) two, or more, people existed that had identical genes, identical past lives and influences so they they had identical formula for thinking (just like two computers of the same model loaded with the same random number generator and the same seed) and you asked them both in an identical fashion and at the same time to 'think of a number!'.



To prove pre-determination beyond a doubt, both people would need to be identical in so many fundamental ways that you'd just as easily call them the same person.

However, just the fact that they are standing in two different locations of spacetime (be it two inches apart or two miles, a difference of a millisecond between the initiation of each consciousness or of ten minutes) would be enough to introduce a random element to that experiment.  Though you might end up accepting results "within a percentile tolerance" and get on with the experiments.

Experience has to have, in my view, an impact on how an individual makes a choice.  Colour preferences are often experience-based.  Musical tastes are broader, but the preferences of eras of music are almost entirely down to associative experiences.

Different individuals have different tolerances to extreme circumstances, and I don't know if this is because of learned experience or if it's in the original design of their DNA.  Certainly a percentage of humanity is "ill" in ways that can only come to light as a consequence of our extending life-spans and some illnesses and mental imbalances are related to how a person relates to circumstances and/or surroundings. 

Likewise, no car manufacturer expects their cars to last much more than a handful of years, but a small percentage of _practically_ every model ever made will survive against the odds, either because the owner takes extremely good care of them or because one or two examples are accidentally (randomly) manufactured to the highest of standards.  Put the good car in the hands of the good owner and it could give more-or-less predictably good service more-or-less indefinitely.

So, whatever way you choose (or are compelled) to view the answer to this question in the end, it is clear that there are many, many things that lie beyond the power of choice and only a comparative handful that we can exercise that power over.  I suspect that the freedom to pick a number randomly from a given range is marginally less essential than the freedom to choose the means and manner of our happiness.  Who wouldn't gladly exchange the former for the latter?

Any day.


----------



## mosaix

Interference said:


> However, just the fact that they are standing in two different locations of spacetime (be it two inches apart or two miles, a difference of a millisecond between the initiation of each consciousness or of ten minutes) would be enough to introduce a random element to that experiment.  Though you might end up accepting results "within a percentile tolerance" and get on with the experiments.



Entirely right, Interference. That's why I've no doubt my suggestion would be impossible to carry out.

I was just trying to give kronobot a definition of "free will". Personally I doubt that it exists but I also doubt that can be proven on way or another for exactly the reasons that you give.

However, I do find interesting (although I'm not sure it proves much) that pollsters can gauge opinion of millions (and in the last general election, in the UK, extremely accurately from the exit polls) by asking questions of just a few thousands.



> I suspect that the freedom to pick a number randomly from a given  range is marginally less essential than the freedom to choose the means  and manner of our happiness.  Who wouldn't gladly exchange the former  for the latter?



What I was trying to do was somehow examine the process about how we come to decisions and whether we could test that in any way. I wasn't making any judgement on the inherent quality of those decisions.


----------



## Interference

Which brings us neatly back to Asimov's "Psychohistory" 


(If I'd known that one paragraph was all I needed to say, I wouldn't have agonised for hours over the rest of my post ... or _would_ I? )


----------



## Ursa major

But isn't our decision making the result of a chaotic process (not just in the moments during which we think we're deciding, but in all the time the connections in our brain have been made and reinforced/bypassed).

As such, our decisions should also demonstrate some degree of chaos and so cannot reallt be predetermined or completely predictably.



As for pschohistory, I thought it was nonsense when I read the first Foundation trilogy three-plus decades ago. (And I didn't have to think about free will to come to this conclusion.)


----------



## Interference

I take heart from the fact that a fiction writer can write "nonsense" and still become revered for his works after his death


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> But isn't our decision making the result of a chaotic process (not just in the moments during which we think we're deciding, but in all the time the connections in our brain have been made and reinforced/bypassed).



Probably true UM. But are you saying that that process is a function, somehow, of the brain?

If it is, given two identical brains with identical histories (I know this isn't possible), would they always reach the same decision (about _anything_ not just random numbers as in my example). 

If so what does that say about free will? And if not what does control the decision making process?


----------



## Ursa major

The whole point about chaotic systems is that their output(s) cannot be predicted from their input(s).

The best explanation I saw of this kinbd of chaos was that of a pendulum swing through a magnetic field. Either system (mechanical or magnetic) is completely predictable. Put them together and prediction is impossible.

Now think of the brain as containing billions of analogues of pendulums and billions of analogues of magnetic fields. Now where's the predictability?


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> Now think of the brain as containing billions of analogues of pendulums and billions of analogues of magnetic fields. Now where's the predictabiloty?



But the brain isn't those things, UM.

But if it was, are you saying that decision is made by a series of electrical influences on the brain and not by the person themselves - whatever a 'person' is. And what does that say about free will?

Fascinating discussion this UM, Interference.


----------



## Ursa major

It's only an analogy, mosaix.

The point is that no-one knows how and why any particular neuron in a human brain will fire. (And I've seen those scans of brain activity: millions of neurons are often firing all over the shop.) Given this, 100% prediction is an impossibility. This doesn't mean that we can't have a pretty good idea, most of the time, what some individual might say or do.

The same is, I guess, true of most populations. But this doesn't stop society and culture changing over time, sometimes as a result of small changes in narrow sections of the community.


----------



## mosaix

I think what I am trying to work out in my own mind, UM, because to me this is fundamental to free will, is the answer to two questions:

1) Is there something inside the human skull that doesn't follow the fundamental laws of physics?

2) Given two brains, identical in every respect, would they behave the same way?

I think that quantum physics maybe would say that the answer to question 2 is probably no. But this leads on to a further question:

3) Is free will just an illusion brought about by the random effects of quantum physics (or any other bio / electrical / mechanical law that gives rise to randomness).

In my view the only way that will can be 'free' is if the answer to question 1 is 'yes'.


----------



## Ursa major

Taking your points in turn:

1) No, but that's why I mentioned chaotic systems in which the combination of predictable systems gives unpredictability.

2) No, if only for the reson you've given.

3) No, because more is going on than that (chaos being one of the things going on).


(To be fair, chaotic systema translate minute changes in input conditions to wide variations in output. You could argue that one driver of the input variability is the result of the "random effects of quantum physics".)


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> Taking your points in turn:
> 
> 1) No, but that's why I mentioned chaotic systems in which the combination of predictable systems gives unpredictability.
> 
> 2) No, if only for the reson you've given.
> 
> 3) No, because more is going on than that (chaos being one of the things going on).



This is interesting.

Let's talk about 'chaos' here. If I understand correctly you are saying that chaos gives rise to unpredictability - I agree. And I also agree that this would mean that two brains would tend to not act identically.

But just extend this a little further, surely this chaos, this unpredictability means it is even more likely that any resultant decision or action is not as a result of the 'will' of the 'owner' of the brain but as the result of some random effect.


----------



## Ursa major

I think our definitions of free will may differ.


I'm arguing from the simple (simplistic?) position that free will is the antithesis of predetermination. Anything that removes 100% predictability - chaotic systems, quantum effects - reinforces free will under this definition.


----------



## Interference

Good point.  We should ask the OP first to define_ Free Will_


----------



## Ursa major

But will he answer (freely)?


----------



## Interference

We could force him - that would put the whole question to the test


----------



## Michael01

Well, I noticed somewhere in the first 111 posts that he said no one else had provided a definition (while making list of what it isn't). 

Okay, I'm really enjoying this thread.  But I want to finish reading it before I make a substantial reply.  I read half of it in one sitting, as if reading one of the most interesting books I've ever picked up; I just couldn't stop.  But now I'm tired, so I'll have to come back to it tomorrow.


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> I think our definitions of free will may differ.
> 
> 
> I'm arguing from the simple (simplistic?) position that free will is the antithesis of predetermination. Anything that removes 100% predictability - chaotic systems, quantum effects - reinforces free will under this definition.



I never thought of it that way before UM. 

My thoughts were along the lines of an entity, making a decision _because they want to. _My idea with two identical brains was to see if they would make the same decision(s) - if they did then that would tend to indicate that there was no decision involved - just a mechanical process _based on the state of the brain at that time_. 

If I am correct you are saying that even if only mechanical (probably not the right word) processes are involved as long as they are not predictable processes then they tend to indicate free will?

It's not surprising that problems like this have taxed some of the greatest brains on the planet.


----------



## Parson

Ursa major said:


> The whole point about chaotic systems is that their output(s) cannot be predicted from their input(s).
> 
> The best explanation I saw of this kind of chaos was that of a pendulum swing through a magnetic field. Either system (mechanical or magnetic) is completely predictable. Put them together and prediction is impossible.
> 
> Now think of the brain as containing billions of analogues of pendulums and billions of analogues of magnetic fields. Now where's the predictability?



I'm no physicist, but at first blush it would seem that the example is a classic example of lack of information. If (and I think its a big IF) that a mechanical system is completely predictable, and If (a somewhat smaller but still substantial if) a magnetic field were completely predicable, every logic we have at our disposal would conclude that the marriage of the two under controlled circumstances would also be completely predictable. When they are not the obvious assumption is that we have a lack of information,  faulty measurement, or faulty controls.


----------



## mosaix

Parson said:


> I'm no physicist, but at first blush it would seem that the example is a classic example of lack of information. If (and I think its a big IF) that a mechanical system is completely predictable, and If (a somewhat smaller but still substantial if) a magnetic field were completely predicable, every logic we have at our disposal would conclude that the marriage of the two under controlled circumstances would also be completely predictable. When they are not the obvious assumption is that we have a lack of information, faulty measurement, or faulty controls.


 
Hi Parson - there's a lack of information all right - on my part! I don't know which of you is correct!


----------



## Interference

If I may quote one of those "Greatest Brains on the Planet" you mentioned, Mos, Douglas Adams: 

_To explain - since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation - every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake. 

The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically to annoy his wife. 

Trin Tragula - for that was his name - was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot. 

And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic amalyses of pieces of fairy cake. 

"Have some sense of proportion!" she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day. 

And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex - just to show her. 

And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a single piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it. 

To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain ...._

I live my life by that series


----------



## Ursa major

Parson said:


> I'm no physicist, but at first blush it would seem that the example is a classic example of lack of information.


You may be right. (I was talking about an explanation given on the TV, not in a college/university.)

But then isn't our universe** a rather poor place to be if one wants perfect information? 




** - I suppose that in an infinite number of universes, there may be some (an infinite number of them, probably ) in which information can be perfect.


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> You may be right.



But as far as the randomness of quantum theory I know you are correct UM. Particles appear and disappear at random for ever-so-brief periods of time, bringing a random element to the universe that means predicting everything is not possible.

The question is: does that affect the thought processes in the brain and have an effect on free will?


----------



## Parson

mosaix said:


> But as far as the randomness of quantum theory I know you are correct UM. Particles appear and disappear at random for ever-so-brief periods of time, bringing a random element to the universe that means predicting everything is not possible.
> 
> The question is: does that affect the thought processes in the brain and have an effect on free will?



Or, at least as far as we know they are random. 

*Ursa Major wrote:*


> I suppose that in an infinite number of universes, there may be some  (an infinite number of them, probably ) in which information  can be perfect.



This statement lends itself to all kinds of tom foolery. I will satisfy myself with one less than semi serious response: "perfect information is in the eye of the beholder."


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> I suppose that in an infinite number of universes, there may be some (an infinite number of them, probably ) in which information can be perfect.



One of those infinite numbers is zero UM.


----------



## mosaix

The Judge said:


> If the legal system accepted free will did not exist, then both rehabilitation and deterrence are also non-starters.  If it is my fate and/or my biology which makes me steal, then no amount of ordinary rehabilitation or deterrence will stop me or those whose fate/biology is similar to mine.  In that event, the only options are (a) taking no action against me, leaving me free to pursue my burglarious career; (b) putting me somewhere for all time so that my fate/biology no longer impinges on others; (c) treating me to make the necessary amendments to my biology.



The fourth option is for the Judge to bow down to his/her own fate and/or biology and punish the criminal as he/her would have if he believed he had free will.

In other words the Judge could be just as much at the mercy of of his/her genes as the criminal.


----------



## Interference

I'm just amazed that _Free Willy_ exists


----------



## Ursa major

Why? It's clear from seeing the film that he was continually being framed.


(Luckily, he wasn't being animated, otherwise he'd be in a cel - in fact, lots of them - to this day.)


----------



## Interference

Although, if he joined the fish general infantry, he might be Sea G.I.ed.  Then he'd have to do as ordered.  Free will?  Don't make me laugh.  Your choice


----------



## Ursa major

It would have to be more than a fluke for him to get into the _fish_ general infantry. He's a mammal.


----------



## Interference

His mam'll help, I'm sure.  She's a big fish.


----------



## Ursa major

What about Grampus?


----------



## Interference

He'll shoal less reticence after a few drinks.


----------



## HareBrain

Yes, my beautiful thread lives! IT LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVES!!!!

Thank you, Mosaix.


----------



## mosaix

HareBrain said:


> Yes, my beautiful thread lives! IT LIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVES!!!!
> 
> Thank you, Mosaix.



Yes, Harebrain but is that by choice or was it ordained?


----------



## Interference

It chooses to live, but does it exist?


----------



## mosaix

What made me look up this old thread was a radio program on Determinism, not something I'd heard of before.

Basically Determinists say that the Universe was created with a specific set of laws and given that everything in the Universe operates by those laws then, from the moment the Universe was created, everything that was going to happen was already determined.

Food for thought.


----------



## Interference

Very much so, although determinism also allows that the _concept_ of free will should also be part of our psychology.

I think we've already said here how impossible it is to prove either, as the freedom we seem to experience may be only the experiential _appearance_ of freedom, while the religion deftly straddles both concepts by allowing that God gave us freedom of choice while determining the hour of our birth and the hour of our death.  Contradictory?  Perhaps, unless we accept that the path we take from one to the other is where the choice comes in.

On a positive note, if we have freedom of choice and mess up big-time, then we only have ourselves to blame.  Equally, if we have that freedom and are hugely successful, then we only have ourselves to congratulate.  If, on the other hand, it's all predetermined, than we may as well just sit back and enjoy the ride.


----------



## Ursa major

mosaix said:


> Basically Determinists say that the Universe was created with a specific set of laws and given that everything in the Universe operates by those laws then, from the moment the Universe was created, everything that was going to happen was already determined.


 
I don't think that follows, though.

One example given of how chaos operates in a simple system involves swinging a piece of iron on the end of some string secured to a fixed point over a magnet. We understand the mathematics of how a pendulum swings; we understand the mathematics of magnetic attraction**. However, neither helps us to determine the path of that piece of iron, i.e. _we_ cannot determine it.


The Universe consists of countless parts and countless interactions, some of which are near enough random. We also believe that the position and momentum of each of those countless parts cannot be simultaneously known. On top of that, no-one is sure if the universe is finite. (Even if "our universe" may be, some proponents of M-theory postulate that what we can observe is merely a part of one 'brane which may or may not come into contact with others. And then there's the multiverse....)

So, for all intents and purposes, determinism doesn't really work in the simple sense that we tend to think it does, i.e. "Fate said I had to nick that Plasma TV."




** - Which is better? Fight!


----------



## Interference

Ursa major said:


> The Universe consists of countless parts and countless interactions, some of which are near enough random....



Even if each was precisely pre-determined, it would be impossible for us to predict any outcome whatsoever since our brains aren't (yet?) quite as godlike as we might wish.

On the other side of this spinning, flipped coin, if most things freely determined their own fates, we'd be in exactly the same position.

So, since to us (subjectively) whether or not free will exists is ultimately irrelevant, the question changes to What would we do differently if we found out for certain that Free Will doesn't exist?

In paraphrase of Dawkins, our Universe would be no different whether God existed or not, so why encumber ourselves with the concept in the first place?


----------



## Ursa major

If we didn't have annoyingly persistent defence lawyers on the look out for any and every reason to have the cases against their clients thrown out, we could probably accept perfect determinism (i.e. "everything is preordained and so not subject to will"). However, we do have them, and so cannot even conceive of it.


----------



## Interference

Isn't that really what the insanity defence is all about?  Free will is presumed for all but the insane who "can't help"  but act in a predictably anti-social manner.


----------



## Parson

Only this forum would resurrect this thread.
Of course it was all ordained from the beginning of time.
Any thought to the contrary would simply stem from what we were supposed to be thinking at the time.


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> I don't think that follows, though.
> 
> One example given of how chaos operates in a simple system involves swinging a piece of iron on the end of some string secured to a fixed point over a magnet. We understand the mathematics of how a pendulum swings; we understand the mathematics of magnetic attraction**. However, neither helps us to determine the path of that piece of iron, i.e. _we_ cannot determine it.



But that's not to say that given the identical starting point the pendulum wouldn't operate in an identical way. And just become _we_ can't determine it means nothing. There's lots of things _we_ can't determine but that doesn't mean to say they're not following a set of basic laws. Or perhaps you're saying the the piece of iron and the magnet are somehow operating outside the laws of the universe?

But, looking back through thread, I see we've been here before. 



> If we didn't have annoyingly persistent defence lawyers


Or bent coppers...


----------



## Ursa major

I'd be surprised if we hadn't. 

And they're following _all_ the laws of the universe, simultaneously. 

It's the identical bit that gives us the get out. Assuming that the restrictions associated with the Uncertainty Principle aren't simply failures of ours as observers, but are part of the fabric of the universe, one couldn't set the pendulum in motion from a known point with a known momentum, if only because we couldn't be sure of the piece of iron's starting momentum and so couldn't determine what it would be even after the precise application of a force (in this case, gravity); and one certainly couldn't replicate the conditions or outcome (except by chance ).


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> I'd be surprised if we hadn't.
> 
> And they're following _all_ the laws of the universe, simultaneously.
> 
> It's the identical bit that gives us the get out. Assuming that the restrictions associated with the Uncertainty Principle aren't simply failures of ours as observers, but are part of the fabric of the universe, one couldn't set the pendulum in motion from a known point with a known momentum, if only because we couldn't be sure of the piece of iron's starting momentum and so couldn't determine what it would be even after the precise application of a force (in this case, gravity); and one certainly couldn't replicate the conditions or outcome (except by chance ).



Just because we can't replicate the starting point doesn't mean to say the outcome wouldn't be the same if we could.

In instances where we can replicate the starting point the outcome is as expected and we all live our lives on that assumption. Given the same set of starting conditions physical, chemical and biological systems perform as expected: jet engines, bread recipes and poppy seeds. When they don't it is because the starting conditions weren't as required: worn parts, wrong temperature, no water.

Even formulae with chaotic tendencies produces the same chaotic results given the same initial arguments.

It's only when we come to the human brain we seem to think that this doesn't apply. That seems a little convenient and requires some thought.


----------



## Interference

Intriguingly and somewhat annoyingly, when I look back through this thread I notice that my views haven't changed very much at all.  A minor difference here and there, but overall the same.

Does this mean I've stopped thinking or that I'm right  ?


----------



## Parson

There are less complimentary reasons why your views have not changed.


----------



## Interference

But everyone around here is far too polite to say what those are


----------



## Moonbat

I'm not.
It's because you are pig headed and stubborn 

I agree with Mosaix, that systems that seem chaotic only seem that way because we don't have a high enough level of precision to understand the system fully.

Isn't this one of those arguments that can never really be proved either way? can I be agnostic on the matter of free will?

An interesting point to note would be how illusionists (I'm thinking Derren Brown here) can get people to choose the option that they want them to choose, and so would be providing evidence that the choice by the individual was not down to free will but manipulated by them to choose the colour/animal/card that they had preordained. But...if an illusionist can do this with certain technicques then it is not evidence for the fact that normally they would have the choice?

On a simplification level does free will equate with choice? I'm not sure that it does.

If I give you three choices, one could argue that the option you pick will be as a result of your experiences through life, and therefore (if we knew enough about your life) we could predict accurately which one you would choose and so the choice is moot.
My three options are

a) Hat
b) Cheese
c) Cheese Hat


----------



## HareBrain

Moonbat said:


> But...if an illusionist can do this with certain technicques then it is not evidence for the fact that normally they would have the choice?


 
It doesn't mean they have any more choice, just that the manipulation (by genetics, life experience etc) is too subtle to be revealed -- as would also be the case with the illusionist if he didn't reveal himself. If he remained secret, the subject would be convinced they acted under free will.


----------



## mosaix

Interference said:


> Intriguingly and somewhat annoyingly, when I look back through this thread I notice that my views haven't changed very much at all.  A minor difference here and there, but overall the same.
> 
> Does this mean I've stopped thinking or that I'm right  ?



The important thing, Interference is that you should consider at all whether or not your views change. I think this is very healthy.

Last year I made a concious effort to challenge everything I thought I knew to be 'correct' on an ongoing basis. Part of this is trying to discover the origins and sources of my 'beliefs' and whether I believed them because I had been taught them at a young age and still accepted them without thought or I had acquired them through experience and logical reasoning.

Some of my feelings (views), I think, are inbuilt. As an example I think there's a bit of Neanderthal in all of us and, in me, this gives rise to racism or as I prefer to call it 'tribalism'. There was a natural fear amongst cavemen of the stranger coming over the hill - he was going to 'invade our territory, steal our women etc.' I think this is still a gut reaction in a lot of people today - certainly me. I'm not ashamed of this - I can't control my genes but I can say "I'm a rational human being, able to rise above my caveman origins - welcome." 

I seem to have gone off topic.


----------



## HareBrain

mosaix said:


> The important thing, Interference is that you should consider at all whether or not your views change. I think this is very healthy.
> 
> Last year I made a concious effort to challenge everything I thought I knew to be 'correct' on an ongoing basis. Part of this is trying to discover the origins and sources of my 'beliefs' and whether I believed them because I had been taught them at a young age and still accepted them without thought or I had acquired them through experience and logical reasoning.
> 
> Some of my feelings (views), I think, are inbuilt. As an example I think there's a bit of Neanderthal in all of us and, in me, this gives rise to racism or as I prefer to call it 'tribalism'. There was a natural fear amongst cavemen of the stranger coming over the hill - he was going to 'invade our territory, steal our women etc.' I think this is still a gut reaction in a lot of people today - certainly me. I'm not ashamed of this - I can't control my genes but I can say "I'm a rational human being, able to rise above my caveman origins - welcome."
> 
> I seem to have gone off topic.


 
To me, that's right on topic (unusually for this thread), because you're describing the attempt to make yourself conscious of your subconscious influences, so you can decide whether they're helpful or harmful. To the extent that free will exists at all, it must be the result of exactly this process, and the world would be a lot more civilised if more people tried it.


----------



## mosaix

HareBrain said:


> To me, that's right on topic (unusually for this thread), because you're describing the attempt to make yourself conscious of your subconscious influences, so you can decide whether they're helpful or harmful. To the extent that free will exists at all, it must be the result of exactly this process, and the world would be a lot more civilised if more people tried it.



More food for though, HairBrain. Thank you.


----------



## Ursa major

Moonbat said:


> I agree with Mosaix, that systems that seem chaotic only seem that way because we don't have a high enough level of precision to understand the system fully.


But one can never get anywhere near that precision. Apart from anything else, a lot of reality at a quantum level seems to be _truly_ probabilistic. This isn't just because we don't have the tools to see what's happening at an ultra-microscopic scale. Who knows what effect of the brief existence of a particular () pattern of events in the quantum foam might be? 

As this foam is, to mix metaphors, sewn into the very fabric of the universe, it must undermine perfect determinism at every turn.


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> But one can never get anywhere near that precision. Apart from anything else, a lot of reality at a quantum level seems to be _truly_ probabilistic. This isn't just because we don't have the tools to see what's happening at an ultra-microscopic scale. Who knows what effect of the brief existence of a particular () pattern of events in the quantum foam might be?
> 
> As this foam is, to mix metaphors, sewn into the very fabric of the universe, it must undermine perfect determinism at every turn.



The fact that you say 'who knows' means that we don't know, so your use of the word 'must' seems a little out of place.

But, in every instance _that we can measure_ the laws of the universe (as established shortly after the big bang) hold supreme. Same input - same output.


----------



## Ursa major

I would have thought the construction, who** knows, which strongly implies that no-one does (or can) know, is a perfect companion to a phrase which, spelt out, says: must undermine a theory which says 'the outcome can only go one way, a way that is, and always has been, predetermined'.


(Re the laws of the universe: isn't it more of a case 'same input, _probably_ same output'? )



** - Given the context, this is a cosmic who. (Not the Doctor, though.)


----------



## reiver33

Perception can be induced. For example; it’s a sunny day, you’re lying on your back on a grassy hillside, just watching the clouds. Someone says ‘Do you see the dragon?’ and suddenly you do – previously random light and shade transformed into a stylised image.

Perception is retrospective. An incident in the here and now can cause you to see past events in a new light. The end of _The Usual Suspects_ is a case in point.

The correct quantum mechanical definition of parallel universes is "universes that are separated from each other by a single quantum event." This infers the continuous creation, or spawning, of alternate realities since the Big Bang. 

However, to paraphrase Einstein, ‘God does not play dice’ – the universe is based on a consistent set of physical laws which govern its operation. A determinist would thus say there are no random acts, merely ignorance of all the factors which influence a given event. Of course a determinist is thwarted at the sub-atomic level, where merely observing an act can change the outcome.

Despite this you can adopt a ‘black box’ approach to inherently unknowable events – it doesn’t matter _how_ a given result is achieved as long as the input (cause) and output (effect) can be measured and quantified. In _Jurassic Park_ Jeff Goldblum attempts to explain Chaos Theory by dripping water onto Laura Dern’s hand – no two drops behave the same. I would say that if you drip water onto my hand, my hand gets wet – it’s simply a question of perspective.

Based on the above my argument is that the traditional multiverse of alternate realities doesn’t exist. The universe we currently live in is the result of deterministic systems, even if these are unobservable. It is the only possible end result.

Of course this deterministic universe has dire consequences for the concept of ‘free will’. Given that environmental factors have, at least in part, an influence on mental development (the old ‘nature versus nurture’ debate), then human behavior becomes just another unknowable – but quantifiable – system. 

As it stands psychiatry is more of an art than science, although we already acknowledge the concept of behavioral imperatives that can influence, even dictate, our actions. There are things that make us laugh, make us cry, make us fall in love at first sight. The greater our understanding of psychopathology, the more fine-tuned these stimuli can become. Given this model of human behavior, ‘random’ acts would ultimately be revealed as a series of learned and/or instinctual responses, working in combination.

And yet…

Self-awareness sets us apart from the universe. ‘I think, therefore I am’ is its own proof of existence. It is not a learned response or instinctive behavioral trait. This isolated intellect, this voice in my head which can express conscious thought, is what makes everyone unique. This self-awareness, the ‘mind’, resides within the physical brain, almost as a lodger. It can end up a prisoner of the flesh due to infirmity or injury, but it can also exert uncommon control over its host (psychosomatic illness, bursts of superhuman strength). 

In a very real sense what we believe to be true can fashion our individual reality.   

In a very real sense every human is a ‘loose cannon’ in a deterministic universe.


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> (Re the laws of the universe: isn't it more of a case 'same input, _probably_ same output'? )


 
No. 

And thanks for a very interesting post, Reiver.


----------



## Peter Graham

> Basically Determinists say that the Universe was created with a specific set of laws and given that everything in the Universe operates by those laws then, from the moment the Universe was created, everything that was going to happen was already determined.



I think we have to be careful to differentiate a hypothesis from a fact.

What - if any - evidence do the Determinists have which supports their theory?  

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

I like your entry, Reiver.  I think it overviews the situation succinctly.

This is my own, convoluted, misunderstandable take on the matter to date:

I just realised that I have actually learned something new, after all, in the interim between lives of this thread.

Yes, Mos is right that the instincts for survival and procreation are inescapable (as noted in another thread, at least one suicide attempter found himself thinking "I want to live" before hitting the river) and don't really fall under our control very much.

But we are capable of wishing to terminate our lives, which is something commonly believed to be unique to us.  We do (probably) all know people who don't wish to procreate, others who have relatively little suitable contact with members of the sex that would enable procreation or those who take vows not to.

These would seem to be choices made which are contrary to the most basic of instincts in all living creatures.

So, how do they come about?

If this were a true thesis, I'd make fewer generalisations and support my propositions with data, but I'm not that dedicated and don't want to wade through reams of contradictions searching for the ones that support me, so I'm just riffing here.  Please take it as such and see if anything makes sense to you.

We're born with neurons hanging around in our brains which are mostly waiting for connections to be made (check out the BBC Christmas Lectures).  This is how we record and recall experiences.  The more an experience is repeated, the stronger are the connections made.  The less the repetition, the weaker the connections and in some cases they disconnect altogether.  We learn when to smile and laugh, when to be angry, and we start to build up a database of likes and dislikes.

By the age of 7, the bulk of our learning has finished.  From now on we are establishing our own characters.  By the age of 30 it begins to get harder to learn anything new without sustained effort and practice.

And the purpose of all this is to install subroutines in our responses so that we can react quickly when familiar (usually survival- or procreation-based) situations arise.  Hence we reflexively respond to alien noises in the night or reflexively react to what we have come to appreciate as a beautiful face.  Or word, come to that, since we, as creatures of language have an affinity for a well-turned phrase, as well as ankle.

When the unfamiliar arises, we search through our subroutines and find the nearest match which will tell us how to respond.  If such a search comes up empty, then we create a fantasy to accommodate the event or situation.  Sometimes the fantasy is effective and a new subroutine is created.  This is part of what we call imagination.

Sometimes we have a nice little pattern of subroutines going along prettily and all is right with the world when the unexpected (external) crisis imposes itself and we initiate Pain Mode.  A lover jilting us, or having an affair, will do this very neatly with repeatably predictable results.  Another subroutine we return to time and again.

And sometimes we notice that this is happening and we don't actually like it anymore.  When consciousness takes over the creation of one or more subroutines, we become innured to the pain of, for example, murder (a soldier will rationalise taking a life, but only when he's done it a few times can he comfortably do it again).  We can create new connections or disconnect old ones which allow us either to empathise more with or less with the pain of others.

Pre-determining is, accordingly, something we train ourselves to do in order to interact comfortably and automatically with other members of our society; to survive in a hostile arena; to find a mate.  So what happens when someone from another society comes along?  If their cultures are radically different from our own, we have to access our like/dislike subroutines first and then either assimilate these new cultural routines into our own or choose not to.  If we choose the latter, we could be accused of racism.  If our immediate society is also racist, we can reinforce these subroutines quite nicely, thank you.  Otherwise we may take steps to overcome them.

Importantly, though, we can take those steps, with conscious effort, if the need arises or if other influences, either internal or external, prevail.

So, it seems to me that our responses to most things that we are likely to encounter are determined by our surroundings, with a little help from our genes.  We accept influences which appeal to us or which make demands on us and may then make conscious efforts to alter our most common (perhaps anti-social) patterns of behaviour and neuron connection.  When we "fall in love", we adapt to our partners' patterns.  When we are caught robbing banks, we adapt to the Law's.

I'm not sure where this leaves "free will", except back in the box that says "too complicated to be certain, but if it walks like a duck and shoots ducks like a duck...."


----------



## Huttman

Parson said:


> The Parson rushes in "where angels fear to tread" and says "Yes." Free will exists, but it is also all foreordained/predestined. Logical nonsense, but not all truth is logical.



_"Logic, logic. Logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end."_

Being one of my favorite Star Trek quotes from Spock, I kind of forced the association here with your statement, Parson. I hope you don't mind. I also don't know how I missed this thread so I would like to chime in with my opinion, as I have no facts to offer that would not just be someone else hearsay. 

Parson, you and I might have a rarer than most outlook on freewill because we believe it is the most important gift (or one of) given us by our creator. I think the most valuable aspect of being human is that it makes us different than every other living creature on this planet. Animals might have a _basic_ freewill they enjoy, but humans have a higher and moral freewill. Whether our decisions are pre-known by the Creator of this universe is perhaps a discussion for another thread, but I will say I believe in Him and I have come to understand that He does not always _use_ that ability at all times. Do you read the last page of every book, every time?
OK, back to subject from our point of view, and that's just it. From my point of view, I had a choice to make whether I was going to comment on this thread because I have an interest in this subject, or pass on it. My decision was weighed with the fact this is going to have a spiritual shadow for me and not all people are...comfortable with that, and I liken myself the peace-maker, not the war-monger.
 Freewill, I will conclude, makes us who we are. Decision after decision patterns us a lifetime of choices, through carefully thought out plans to spontaneous trips that are cherished for a lifetime. To me, having someone upstairs is a comfort factor, knowing any situation in my life that might arise that I am uncertain about, that it will be OK, that I'll get through it. Beyond that, this is my adventure, and freewill is wonderful from my perspective, from putting trust in a (now) known God, to which flavor ice cream sounds good in my shake. I see now why I love the entire Star Wars saga so much, it shows inherently similar situations for a father and a son, and it shows the different paths they took and the different results of their freewill choice(s).
Is there anything other than freewill that could make ourselves so proud of a decision we've made?


----------



## Parson

*Huttman*,

I can see that we share a lot of agreement on this topic. I believe that the question of "Does free will exist?" is primarily and ultimately a question of religion/philosophy.

(On the religious side of this question we are dabbling in Calvinism vs.  Arminianism.)


----------



## Huttman

Parson said:


> *Huttman*,
> 
> I can see that we share a lot of agreement on this topic. I believe that the question of "Does free will exist?" is primarily and ultimately a question of religion/philosophy.



That is indeed a happy thought. Thank you for your response, Parson.



Parson said:


> (On the religious side of this question we are dabbling in Calvinism vs.  Arminianism.)



I had no idea what these two things were, so I looked them up:
http://the-highway.com/compare.html
I only read the top two explanations for the comparison as we are going out soon to see a certain saga's episode one in 3D.  I would have to agree with both, and quick reading would suggest they are both right except they disagree with man's 'faith' offering to God as one says it is a gift and the other says is it not. The book says obedience, not sacrifice is more agreeable to God, as as to whether that in itself is a gift....I have thought about what we as sinning humans can 'give as a gift' to God. I have come to the conclusion the only thing of value we can give back that was not originally intended for us (live a good life and get good things out of it/undeserved kindness/walk modestly with your creator) is sorrow. We can feel bad for what has happened to God's (perfect) creation(s). Everything was perfect until the fall. If we dare ask him how he _feels_, it might give us an insight not taught in church and be an unexpected 'gift' of understanding not many people share. It has been for me a path of closeness to God I never thought possible at one time.


----------



## Parson

It is near bed time here after a busy weekend --- Of course Parsons have no other kind --- so I might not be functioning on all cylinders, but as I read what you've wrote I'm not quite sure you understood what was being said in the article you referenced. 

The shorthand version (and understand that there are more nuances than this) is that Calvinism believes that free will is largely an illusion. God makes the first move toward humanity and each move that humanity makes toward God was predestined by God. While Arminianism has human free will as the beginning point of salvation and life. 

I know of very few people who would be purely Calvinist or Arminian. In Christian circles my reading would be that most theologians have a slightly hybrid Calvinism. But secular philosophers would be fairly strongly on the side of free will. They do not see the need for a "God" in the equation simply a nearly personified evolution as shown in the "need" to pass on genes to the next generation. This evolution than functions as "godlike."


----------



## mosaix

Peter Graham said:


> I think we have to be careful to differentiate a hypothesis from a fact.
> 
> What - if any - evidence do the Determinists have which supports their theory?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Peter



I don't know Peter. You'll have to ask them.


----------



## Ursa major

I'm sure they'll either be determined to give Peter that information, or be so confident that its delivery is not preordained that they won't bother.


----------



## Interference

That's determination fur ya.


----------



## Peter Graham

> I believe that the question of "Does free will exist?" is primarily and ultimately a question of religion/philosophy.


I'm not sure that can be right.  An omnipotent creator must have chosen to give us free will.  He also set the bounds in which it can be used - I cannot exercise my free will to sprout wings and fly.  In addition, those of us who use it improperly can look forwards to an eternity in the blazing pits.  So, a God-given free will is very far from truly free.  At best, it is a deliberately engineered test which results in hideous punishments for those of us who fail.  

In a godless world view, there is a stark choice.  Either our impulses and reactions are governed by unseen laws of the physical universe (in which case we don't truly have free will, even if we think we do) or we are living in a chaotic world which came about, if not by chance, at least for reasons entirely unconnected with humanity (in which case we do have free will, but it doesn't matter two hoots how we use it).

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Ursa major

Thanks for cheering us all up, Peter.


----------



## HareBrain

Some philosophies contend that the universe is a physical manifestation of consciousness. In its original state, this consciousness is capable of free will, as it has pure and total information, but this capability does not exist in its "descended" state (atoms etc). According to this philosophy, the purpose of evolution is to develop from a state of complete unconsciousness back to the original, and at present we are barely emerging from the first.

By positing consciousness as something that can exist independent of a physical brain, this philosophy allows for the possibility of free will without either a judgemental creator or chaotic laws. What it doesn't answer adequately is why this consciousness would muck about manifesting itself physically in the first place.


----------



## Huttman

Peter Graham said:


> I'm not sure that can be right.  An omnipotent creator must have chosen to give us free will.  He also set the bounds in which it can be used - I cannot exercise my free will to sprout wings and fly.



Ah, but you can, Peter. Although those wings might not sprout from your back but your creativity and your eyes watching and copying the natural world. People fly all the time on metal or carbon fiber wings.



Peter Graham said:


> In addition, those of us who use it improperly can look forwards to an eternity in the blazing pits.  So, a God-given free will is very far from truly free.  At best, it is a deliberately engineered test which results in hideous punishments for those of us who fail.



Yet another misguided or just plain lie from the church of old that has been incorporated into literature and religious teachings for centuries now. Life is a gift, for those who abuse it (or others) their life will go out like a light switch.  For God to keep someone alive for eternity because they were 'bad' for a few years in that eternity is sadistic and cruel and NOT justice. That is not our creator. The bad things on this planet we are doing to each other. Well, not the members of this forum, of course. We are all very civil and understanding


----------



## Peter Graham

> Ah, but you can, Peter. Although those wings might not sprout from your back but your creativity and your eyes watching and copying the natural world. People fly all the time on metal or carbon fiber wings.



But that's not the point.  The point is that the exercise of divinely given free will is limited by whatever boundaries the Almighty has decided upon.  "_You can do it X way but not Y way_" (as in your example) is a limitation.  You will no doubt seek to argue that there are jolly good reasons for this, but it is a limitation nonetheless.  




> Yet another misguided or just plain lie from the church of old that has been incorporated into literature and religious teachings for centuries now.



Says who?  I accept that the modern, mainstream church has become a bit more touchy-feely and a bit less hysterical about cackling demons prodding sinners with toasting forks, but people tend to create the gods they want and I am not aware of any overarching authority which states that everyone else got it wrong and only now are certain elements at the more liberal end getting it right.  

Free will simply does not fit any model which has at it's heart an intercessive, omniscient deity.  We can only ever do what he has allowed us to do.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Peter Graham

> By positing consciousness as something that can exist independent of a physical brain, this philosophy allows for the possibility of free will without either a judgemental creator or chaotic laws. What it doesn't answer adequately is why this consciousness would muck about manifesting itself physically in the first place.


To me, that sounds like religion-lite - there is an ultimate purpose, but not one that takes the form of an intercessive and punishment-happy creator.

Ursa makes a good joke, but I find it rather comforting to think there is no higher purpose of any sort.  I wasn't alive until 1990* and not being alive did me no harm at all.  It's difficult to see how being dead is going to be any different.

I don't want to stray from the OP, but even a disinterested higher purpose is suggestive of a framework which is potentially at odds with notions of free will.

My guess is that our free will is less free than we think it to be, largely because we are social creatures who, consciously or otherwise, are heavily influenced  by our environment.  However, I fall short of a totally mechanical "_if X, then Y_" approach, because it seems to me that the multitude of factors which could potentially affect any decision, however small, are such that any one of us could feasibly respond in more than one way.  

Regards,

Peter

*  I might be lying.


----------



## Huttman

Peter Graham said:


> But that's not the point.  The point is that the exercise of divinely given free will is limited by whatever boundaries the Almighty has decided upon.  "_You can do it X way but not Y way_" (as in your example) is a limitation.  You will no doubt seek to argue that there are jolly good reasons for this, but it is a limitation nonetheless.



I agree, there are limitations for humans to exist. I for one don't want to be a shape shifter and turn into a bird, but I am happy being human with the possibility of still being able to fly in another way (artificial gravity trousers anyone?). I cannot be angry at God for not allowing me to eat dirt and not get sick when there are so many other wonderful choices. I can not conceive, personally, any restriction that would allow me not to enjoy life more. Free will to make choices exists, but there are consequences to all choices. Beyond that, free will does not exist to counter the physical laws we are bound by, but there are ways around everything. We cannot exist in the vacuum of space, but we can travel through it with proper equipment. I guess that is enough for some, not all.






Peter Graham said:


> Says who?



Says me. See more explanation below.



Peter Graham said:


> I accept that the modern, mainstream church has become a bit more touchy-feely and a bit less hysterical about cackling demons prodding sinners with toasting forks, but people tend to create the gods they want and I am not aware of any overarching authority which states that everyone else got it wrong and only now are certain elements at the more liberal end getting it right.



That is because the lies of the mainstream church has been revealing it's ugly face over the last few decades, especially. If one does not just take someone else's word for it and really studies the bible, the thought of suffering forever is abhorrent to God. It also does not make sense for the reason I stated that you did not quote from me. There is just no love or mercy in eternal torment.





Peter Graham said:


> Free will simply does not fit any model which has at it's heart an intercessive, omniscient deity.  We can only ever do what he has allowed us to do.



I do agree, you are right, Peter, free will with limitations. Free will to make choices, but limitations that we are physically bound by. Does that sound right?...says me finally summing it up in a few sentences.


----------



## Ursa major

Would those be life sentences? 









​


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Huttman,



> I can not conceive, personally, any restriction that would allow me not to enjoy life more.



How about a lack of disease?  You will no doubt argue that oppression, starvation, war, inequality etc are all human created conditions, but it's difficult to run that argument for disease.



> Free will to make choices exists, but there are consequences to all choices.



And here is the rub.  The consequences of "misusing" our free will are out of all proportion to the offence committed.  _You_ may not believe in the burning pits (which I still say places you in a small minority even of those who subscribe to the Abrahamic faiths), but you still believe in a difference of treatment which is broadly expressed as eternal life for some and the light going off for everyone else.  As a proportion of our *eternal* lives, our *mortal* lives are infintessimally small.  There is no suggestion in any of the theology with which I am familiar which states that we can go on exercising free will once we have passed (or failed) God's little salvation test.

A laboratory rat who is put in a maze and can go one way for cheese and one way for nothing is not truly exercising free will.  They are forcibly put in a situation where all they can do is make a choice between two eventualities.  To succumb the rats who "fail" to an eternity of punishment or banishment seems odd, to say the least.



> Beyond that, free will does not exist to counter the physical laws we are bound by,



Precisely.  And if God created the world, it was presumably him who also determined how the physical laws of his creation would affect us.  So, he limits our supposedly "free will", just as we limit the choices of the lab rats.




> If one does not just take someone else's word for it and really studies the bible, the thought of suffering forever is abhorrent to God.



I am afraid that depends entirely on which bit of the Bible you choose to study.  The Bible is hopelessly riven with contradiction and attempts by intelligent and eminent theologians to square the circle put me in mind of horses and stable doors.  They decide on the conclusion before they consider the (largely self-serving) evidence.  If you want the Bible to be about fire and brimstone, it is easy to find the passages which support such a reading.   The so called "warped" versions of religion practised by terrorists, cultists and so on are every bit as doctrinally sound as the more socially acceptable manifestations practised by thoroughly decent, tolerant folk such as yourself.




> There is just no love or mercy in eternal torment.



Nor is there in eternal banishment.



> Free will to make choices, but limitations that we are physically bound by. Does that sound right?...says me finally summing it up in a few sentences.



I can certainly understand - and respect - your argument.  But for me,  you are having it both ways.

Best regards,

Peter


----------



## Moonbat

It is a shame that God has snuck his nose into this argument (does God have a nose? Why would it need one? and what would it smell?) anyway.



> A laboratory rat who is put in a maze and can go one way for cheese and one way for nothing is not truly exercising free will. They are forcibly put in a situation where all they can do is make a choice between two eventualities.


 
Wasn't this the initial argument about free will that we were having, that the Rat isn't actually able to make a choice because the 'choice' they make is dependant upon all the experiences that they have had up to that point? I guess that is the determinism side of the argument, and without having two identical (in every way including experience) rats taking identical tests and seeing if they (possibly we will need more than 2) choose different paths we will never know if the choice can be made independantly of prior experience.

To be fair the Rat has several options, from standing where it is, to moving slowly backwards and forwards, to dancing like a mouse, to going left or right at the junction. I think I'm missing part of your argument Peter as I'm almost certain I agree with you on the whole 'does free will exist' argument.

Wasn't the answer we came to, 'we don't know, but it looks like it does'?


----------



## Peter Graham

> I think I'm missing part of your argument Peter as I'm almost certain I agree with you on the whole 'does free will exist' argument.



For me, the lab rat analogy only works in a world created by an intercessory deity.



> Wasn't the answer we came to, 'we don't know, but it looks like it does'?



That's probably the conclusion if there _isn't_ an intercessory deity.  Although I'd go one step further and argue that the evidence as it stands allows us to be fairly confident that we do indeed have free will.  If we don't know for sure, but it looks that way, let's take that as a given until or unless the contrary can be proven.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Moonbat

So what is the evidence that 





> 'allows us to be fairly confident that we do indeed have free will'


 Just out of interest.


----------



## Peter Graham

Because it seems to be that way and no one has done any more than suggest that it isn't

We all act as though we do.

We believe it is acceptable to punish people for bad behaviour.

We reward good behaviours.

Our societies are based on responsibility.

All of these _may_ be conditioned by our environment, but most - if not all of us - don't really believe that, any more than we believe that we might be imagining reality.  We only say that stuff during dope-fuelled, late night student debates.  We steadfastly avoid walking under trains to test the theory.  We steadfastly get annoyed with folk who upset us - politicians and journalists being the current bogeymen of vogue - and demand that they take responsibility for the terrible things we've decided they've done.  We wouldn't think that way if we genuinely believed that none of us could help anything we did.

We might be wrong, but the fact that we think we aren't is hardwired into pretty much everything we do.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

Huttman said:


> I can not conceive, personally, any restriction that would allow me not to enjoy life more.



I'm still working my through the negatives - do you mean that you _can_ conceive of restrictions to being allowed to enjoy life more?  Or that "not enjoying life more" is something you aspire to doing and you can't imagine anything that would hold you back from that goal?


Pedantry _can_ be fun


----------



## Moonbat

All good solid reason Peter but unfortunately none of them are proof, in fact some of them are beliefs and that leads us to less solid ground.

I'm sure I could come up with convoluted (and possibly flawed) arguments as to why these statements aren't true, or at least are fallible, but I'm choosing not to.


----------



## Parson

I am not sure we have to throw God into the mix to have this discussion about free will vs. determinism. Unless by "God" you mean "godlike." If I understand the prevailing evolutionary theory correctly you could make a pretty good case for evolution being the deterministic factor. 

In that scenario each of us is moving along the path which most likely allows us to  pass our genes into the next generation. This makes evolution deterministic and on the macro level at least, no free will. 

We have generally been speaking on the micro level, "Do individuals have free will?" instead of asking the question on the macro level; "Does humanity have free will?"


----------



## paranoid marvin

What we do is goverened by our morals, our fears, our beliefs. By the time we are old enough to be capable of making concious decisions, our brains are already too filled with stuff to make any choice we make 'free'.


----------



## Huttman

Interference said:


> I'm still working my through the negatives - do you mean that you _can_ conceive of restrictions to being allowed to enjoy life more?  Or that "not enjoying life more" is something you aspire to doing and you can't imagine anything that would hold you back from that goal?
> 
> 
> Pedantry _can_ be fun



What I meant was, with all the human restrictions we have, I cannot imagine not being able to enjoy life to the fullest anyway. I love life and being alive, my creativity, imagination, and understanding give me untold joy, mid-life crisis looming not withstanding (I am human after all). There is a flip side to that as living in this world under present conditions is not...a paradise situation for even what I perceive it could be. Without going into it too much, I have a hope of this world being without conflict, sickness and death someday; and that gives me an optimistic view of the future. 



Peter Graham said:


> How about a lack of disease? You will no doubt argue that oppression, starvation, war, inequality etc are all human created conditions, but it's difficult to run that argument for disease.



See above comment for response to that one.





Peter Graham said:


> And here is the rub. The consequences of "misusing" our free will are out of all proportion to the offence committed. You may not believe in the burning pits (which I still say places you in a small minority even of those who subscribe to the Abrahamic faiths), but you still believe in a difference of treatment which is broadly expressed as eternal life for some and the light going off for everyone else. As a proportion of our eternal lives, our mortal lives are infintessimally small. There is no suggestion in any of the theology with which I am familiar which states that we can go on exercising free will once we have passed (or failed) God's little salvation test.



Hmm...Thanks, I have noticed that rather small minority I'm in, too. I have to say, with the harshness of this world's history and current condition, don't you think it possible for a lot of the bible to be taught inaccurately as well? No person ever did anything to deserve to have life in the first place. It's impossible. All that is asked of us is basically the golden rule. For someone to inherit eternal death rather than eternal life, I'm would suspect they would know better but choose not to be nice anyway. In my experience, the harsh judge god sitting there with his checklist waiting to make a mark against you and throwing a few storms your way for a laugh is much more a cynical creation of this cynical world.



Peter Graham said:


> The Bible is hopelessly riven with contradiction and attempts by intelligent and eminent theologians to square the circle put me in mind of horses and stable doors.



If you have an example in mind, please let me know. I do know of advise that goes both ways from Proverbs; It says *not* to answer a foolish person so as not to become equal to them and the next verse says *answer* a foolish person so they do not become wise in their own eyes. Contradiction or advise to measure the situation and apply one or the other which ever is fitting?



Peter Graham said:


> They decide on the conclusion before they consider the (largely self-serving) evidence. If you want the Bible to be about fire and brimstone, it is easy to find the passages which support such a reading. The so called "warped" versions of religion practised by terrorists, cultists and so on are every bit as doctrinally sound as the more socially acceptable manifestations practised by thoroughly decent, tolerant folk such as yourself.



Reminds me of a news story about bin laden who did that very thing; taking his Koran and using it _completely_ out of context to justify his horrific behavior.



Peter Graham said:


> I can certainly understand - and respect - your argument. But for me, you are having it both ways.



But I like cake



paranoid marvin said:


> What we do is goverened by our morals, our fears, our beliefs. By the time we are old enough to be capable of making concious decisions, our brains are already too filled with stuff to make any choice we make 'free'.



_"Hmmm. That is why, unlearn you must, what you have learned"_  - says the little green guy sitting there eating kettlecorn popcorn with 3D glasses on


----------



## Warren_Paul

paranoid marvin said:


> What we do is goverened by our morals, our fears, our beliefs. By the time we are old enough to be capable of making concious decisions, our brains are already too filled with stuff to make any choice we make 'free'.



I agree with this. As a culture, free will for many things is taken away from us. We have the ability to choose, but because of the consequences our actions might have, we are forced into making a particular choice in every situation. Hence there never really was a choice at all.

For instance, we could choose to murder someone, but if we did, there is a 99.9% chance we will likely be caught and punished for our crime. Most people, with the exception of the odd one, don't want to face the consequences of their actions, which means they couldn't choose to commit murder... so for them, there was no choice in the first place - it was already decided for them by the law.


Another example:


We can choose what careers to study towards at university, but very few people actually seem to end up working in those careers afterwards, yet you have to work to live, or if you don't work, then the government welfare systems will try to force you into any old job. They wanted to work a particular career, but the choice was taken away from them by economy/businesses/government. They ended up working in a job they had no choice but to take.


And lastly - and please don't jump down my throat for mentioning it, it is just an example.

if we wanted to take a religious view on the matter, specifically Christianity. The bible teaches there is heaven and hell, right? To get into Heaven you have to follow the laws set down by God, otherwise you might end up in hell. But since nobody really wants to go to hell (if they believe in heaven and hell), they have no choice but to follow God's laws. We have the ability to choose, but in the end it is taken away from us by laws.



So my belief is that, psychologically, we have the ability to choose, but because we are told something is wrong to do, we don't make those choices, which means 'free will' is just something we like to believe exists.


----------



## Peter Graham

Hi Huttman,



> I have to say, with the harshness of this world's history and current condition, don't you think it possible for a lot of the bible to be taught inaccurately as well?



Yes.  Although we have a secondary problem, namely that if the Bible isn't true at any metaphysical level - either because there is no god or because there is a god, but s/he isn't a Christian one - then there is no such thing as inaccurate Bible teaching.  We could, of course, teach the Bible like we teach _Tess of the D'Urbervilles_ and we could therefore teach it inaccurately in terms of content and structure, but that's about it.



> No person ever did anything to deserve to have life in the first place.



This makes a dangerous assumption that life is a gift.  I realise this is the Christian view, but it isn't a given.  For most people who live now or have ever lived, life has been average at best and deeply unpleasant at worst.  




> If you have an example in mind, please let me know



Read Leviticus and the Gospel of Mark next to one another.  They simply aren't talking about the same god.  Attempts are made to square the circle by pointing at one badly translated NT passage (can't remember the citation, I'm afraid), but the textual inconsistencies are overwhelming.  The god of the OT is a misogynistic, violent, jealous, vengeful bully.  No reading of the OT can get away from that.  The god of the OT would enjoy nothing more than burning people in hell for all eternity, so church leaders who report that to their congregations are acting with impeccable logic.  




> . I do know of advise that goes both ways from Proverbs; It says *not* to answer a foolish person so as not to become equal to them and the next verse says *answer* a foolish person so they do not become wise in their own eyes. Contradiction or advise to measure the situation and apply one or the other which ever is fitting?



Contradiction clear and simple.  One can spin it all one likes, but look at what the text actually says.  Assuming it was translated correctly*.  And assuming that whatever document it was translated from was also translated correctly.  And so on through however many versions that have ever existed between now and the originals being written down.



> Reminds me of a news story about bin laden who did that very thing; taking his Koran and using it _completely_ out of context to justify his horrific behavior.



He didn't.  He just used a different context.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## Interference

I wonder if the Bible couldn't be viewed as a collection of ancient self-help books.  I get a distinct feeling from the New Testament that there was a considerable amount of teaching and guidance that didn't make it to the final edit(s).

That the OT God and his NT characterisation are different may derive from the needs of the Chosen People in their relevant eras.  Perhaps, after the thousands of years of conflict, war and ethnic cleansing, someone thought it was time for a new mind-set.  I think, though have no scholarly examples to explain why I think this, that the current collection of books should probably not be presented, as they are, within the covers of a single book.  It has caused confusion.  It's a little like asking people to accept that there is something mystical about the alphabet simply because dictionaries and encyclopaediae use it extensively to co-ordinate their explanations of life and understanding.

What has happened, I suspect, is that some books have been compiled together which, for the most part, support each other and require little in the way of detailed explanation for the jist to be imparted.  The books which have been left out, but which could have been included and perhaps should be included if we are to have a more rounded understanding of the times, are those most likely to highlight this or that apparent contradiction or confusion.

The Koran appears to be different in one subtle respect: While the Bible is said to be a collection of writings by people who were "Inspired by the Holy Spirit" and collected together by a select committee similarly inspired, the Koran purports to be the Living Word of Allah.

Incidentally, there are different versions of the Bible, including variations in translation, even among Christian communities, but that is more to do with freedom of speech than freedom of will, I suspect.

Religious indoctrination, from whatever source, is guidance towards how to enjoy and experience life more fully and contentedly.  But they aren't the only source of this kind of kindly suggestion.  Right up to today there are authors who encourage us to turn our bad experiences around, to view them in a new perspective and to take hope from the trials under which we labour.

Psychiatrists and psychologists try to help us analyse our decisions and to identify the ones which underpin our most regular habits, good and bad, and the similarities between stages of psychological analysis, self awareness, alchemical myth and spiritual enlightenment are, I think, astounding.  Such contradictions as there are between them seem, to me, to be matters of opinion at best and interpretation at worst.

The common ground that these all seem to occupy is that of encouraging us to exercise our free will, but to do so in the morally, ethically and prudently "right" way.  The Bible directs us towards finding the Love of the Creator and applying that Love to every cell in our bodies and the prize is that we will become miracle-workers on Earth and live in Heaven after death.  Isn't it interesting that what self-help books there are describe a very similar kind of injunction to locate the centres of our self-worth and, through this, exercise some kind of magical thinking enabling us to become healers and mind-readers.  Psychic books tell us that the centre of our being is at the centre of the Universe where all consciousness meets.  And Jung spoke just as loudly of the Common Unconscious as a psychological origin for consciousness.

So, all along we are being told how to access freedom of will.  Does this suggest we don't have it until we've jumped through the appropriate hoops?

If we accept that most of our waking life is spent in some kind of day-dreaming state, whereby we perform familiar acts with repeatable subsets of actions, that we adopt and entrench habits that allow us to engage with Reality with the minimum of effort, that we rarely have cause to recall a specific event in a normal day and have to make anniversaries out of everything out-of-the-ordinary, then it seems that we show little sign of actually exercising freedom of will.

But if we further accept that we are capable of reaching outside our containment areas of habit, ritual and mundanity as circumstances require or as intent to develop and progress demands, then it becomes clear that we are capable of stretching ourselves beyond our programming to a place where free will becomes more likely.

Perhaps this is the conscious exercising of our consciousness.  And perhaps it is a capability and not a given.  Perhaps true Freedom of Will is not possible until we have explored the limitations within which our Will currently operates.

I hope this isn't too rambling and incomprehensible, because I think I may actually be on to something here.

Who'd 've thunk it...... ?


----------



## Parson

Not bad for an amateur theologian and philosopher. I would pick some with your view of how the Bible came to be and how it differs from the Koran, but your point about free will is well made and you might indeed be on to something.

(Of course, I'm still going to believe you are wrong.   )


----------



## Interference

High praise indeed. 

Ty, Parson 


I'm right, btw


----------



## Huttman

Interference said:


> I'm right, btw



You are, except the going to heaven part, as it's a little more in depth than an all encompassing thing. It's amazing what that (those) book(s) actually have in them once one dives into it. I'd love to share but this open forum might not be the best place because it would be off subject from the thread. Nice post, by the way.

_Hi Peter!_ I just wanted to make one last comment on your reaction to my previous post. The Proverbs I quoted are sound and reasonable advise as we make choices every day in our lives. E.g. what is the best way to go from point A to point B and avoid the heaviest traffic. If I'm wrong, forgive me, but I sense an animosity about the source of the example I gave. Basically, I look at it as choices in everyday life we make, _that_ gives us free will. I can see and respect your view on the thread topic too, and there is soundness to it. I just don't feel confined by it if that were the case so it's really a non-issue for me, personally. I thank you for the past posts as it has given me more thinking material and I'm a thinker-oh how my head spins some times! Thanks again. -Norman


----------



## Peter Graham

> If I'm wrong, forgive me, but I sense an animosity about the source of the example I gave.



You mean animosity towards the Bible?  Certainly not.  I think the NT is by and large an excellent source of morality and the stories in the OT are absolutely fantastic, even if God does come out of them looking like a nasty piece of work.

My concern is with seeing the Bible as anything more than a collection of myths and stories.  Very good myths and stories - just like the myths of the Norse gods or the Greek gods - but still only myths and stories.  Myths hold a mirror up to us, but it is not necessary to argue that they are factually or historically accurate in order to take the message on board.  

To get back on topic, there was a terribly interesting programme about good and evil on  Horizon the other night (BBC 4).  I think it has particular relevance to the debate on free will.  Did anyone see it?

Regards,

Peter


----------



## HareBrain

Peter Graham said:


> there was a terribly interesting programme about good and evil on Horizon the other night (BBC 4). I think it has particular relevance to the debate on free will. Did anyone see it?


 
I assume it's not the same episode (the write-up doesn't mention morality) but Horizon tonight on BBC2 is about how much, or how little, of our actions are conscious.

From Radio Times:



> There’s a lovely scene in this Horizon where the director gives each of the brain scientists he interviews a marker pen and a sketch pad. Then he asks each of them to show on paper how much of what the brain does is conscious, and how much unconscious, in their view. They vary: one shades in a tiny square, which he says is the conscious brain’s contribution; another shades off about a tenth of the page. But they all agree that, like an iceberg, the great majority of our brain activity lies below the surface. The sense we are consciously in control is an illusion – and the programme goes on to illustrate this with wonderful experiments involving golf, knitting and chasing toy helicopters.
> 
> 
> *About this programme*
> 
> People assume they are in control of their lives, deciding what they want and when they want it - but scientists now claim this is simply an illusion. Experiments reveal that what a person does and what they think can be very different, with the unconscious mind often influencing the decisions they make, from what they eat to who they fall in love with. Horizon reveals to what extent people really do control their own destiny.


----------



## Ursa major

I think we may have been round this particular loop before.

The assumption that seems to be being made is that just because one is unaware of how some (the vast majority?) of one's decisions are made (because they're made by one's subconscious), one hasn't made them. True, one may be said to have not made a _conscious_ decision, but that's just building the expected answer in by manipulating the question.

One, where one is the combination of all one's brain functions (conscious and unconscious), makes all those decisions, for good or ill, understandable or not.


----------



## HareBrain

Yes, but I don't think anyone's ever argued that some outside agency makes the decisions for "one" (apart from as a point of unprovable theology). And you could say the same about a robot, but I don't think anyone would credit it with free will.

Part of the point of my original post was to discuss the possible discrepancy between what drives our behaviour and what we believe drives our behaviour -- in other words, whether we are deluding ourselves as to how we work, surely an important question -- and whether scientific evidence exists to support that. It looks as though the Horizon programme will make some attempt to discuss that.


----------



## mosaix

HareBrain said:


> It looks as though the Horizon programme will make some attempt to discuss that.




Horizon is, unfortunately a mere shadow of its former self. Let's hope this one isn't as dumbed down as some of the ones broadcast recently.


----------



## Ursa major

I suppose what drives one's nature is that endlessly-argued-over balance between nature and nurture; or, to relate it to this thread, the balance between what is in one's genetic makeup and what experiences have driven one's brain to be connected up in the way it is. (And those connections are driven by experience whether they are considered to be supporting one's conscious thought processes, one's unconscious thought processes and - if that's how the brain works - both.)

Yes, we do delude ourselves _if_ we believe that only conscious thought processes can deliver decisions. But once we accept that isn't true, what next?


----------



## mosaix

Ursa major said:


> Yes, we do delude ourselves _if_ we believe that only conscious thought processes can deliver decisions. But once we accept that isn't true, what next?



Not sure it matters, UM. You are still you and I'm still me. We've got by OK so far.


----------



## Ursa major

I'm not sure it matters either, mosaix, except in the sense that it may undermine some people's self-image as rational beings. (Not that there's ever been much evidence for that ludicrous proposition. )


----------



## HareBrain

Ursa major said:


> Yes, we do delude ourselves _if_ we believe that only conscious thought processes can deliver decisions. But once we accept that isn't true, what next?


 
Once you start to question, and where possible examine, what drives your wants, decisions and beliefs (rather than believing that because they were conscious, they must have been rational) you can hopefully avoid some of the worst ones.

Culture and parental influence has a very powerful grip on people's beliefs, which (I think) they often try to rationally justify, because that's easier than the difficult process of examination. You can probably never be free of the influence of such values, but it might help, where they clash with others, to realise where they come from and why we subscribe to them.


----------



## mosaix

HareBrain said:


> Once you start to question, and where possible examine, what drives your wants, decisions and beliefs (rather than believing that because they were conscious, they must have been rational) you can hopefully avoid some of the worst ones.
> 
> Culture and parental influence has a very powerful grip on people's beliefs, which (I think) they often try to rationally justify, because that's easier than the difficult process of examination. You can probably never be free of the influence of such values, but it might help, where they clash with others, to realise where they come from and why we subscribe to them.



Very true HB. For the past couple of years I've tried to examine my 'belief systems' in some detail. Some quite minor things - why do I read this newspaper? Why do I listen to that radio program? I've gone as far as changing my behaviour in an attempt to understand things better. 

The result? - I've found out that there's some absolute cr*p on the radio if you look for it. 

Still, I think the exercise is, fundamentally, a healthy one.


----------



## RJM Corbet

This is a big one. I haven't read the thread, just the title.

There is free will.

There is the law.

But I think any system of co-existence between superior and inferior civilizations must enshrine the _Law of Free Will_, as it is enshrined in cosmic law.

A 'superior' civilization may advise and warn an inferior one, but may under no circumstances interfere UNLESS INVITED.

This is also the issue of prayer: that even God is constrained by the _Law of Free Will_ from interference in the affairs of man, unless invited to do so?


----------



## Huttman

RJM Corbet said:


> This is also the issue of prayer: that even God is constrained by the _Law of Free Will_ from interference in the affairs of man, unless invited to do so?



_Since you asked_.....I have made comments before and mixed the subject of free will with a creator/deity, but I will stick more to the question at hand. 
It is from my understanding that you are correct with the notion as you already know of mankind's fall, it is up to the individual to earnestly seek God out. Humanity thought they could govern themselves as well as God so they separated themselves from Him. There are scriptures that say his symbolic eyes are roving about the earth searching the hearts of mankind, it says also he wants nobody to be destroyed, not even evil doers, but some will give him no choice. God follows a set of principles for himself, and I thought that was very interesting as it made Him more real to me, and He must do so perfectly because everything made it to this point. If God followed man's principles the universe would be stuck on the side of the road or need much maintenance after the warranty ran out.
So more to the prayer thing, nothing escapes His notice, not even prayers, but they are not all heard. Since he really already knows what any individual needs before they ask it, he is looking for humility in the heart to inspire. God is not a football fan. Sorry, but it's true.


----------



## Michael01

Huttman said:


> So more to the prayer thing, nothing escapes His notice, not even prayers, but they are not all heard. Since he really already knows what any individual needs before they ask it, he is looking for humility in the heart to inspire. God is not a football fan. Sorry, but it's true.


 
I've always been told that they are all heard, but you don't always get the answer you want. Like, sometimes the answer is, "No." Not saying this is or isn't what I believe, just that this is what I've been taught.


----------



## Huttman

Yeah, I've heard that too, I like it. It sounds...optimistic. Something I was told as a child and the principle is sound. I think what I wrote really was in line with that. By heard, I meant answered in the way they thought. I guess that could be a definitive no, or maybe not just yet....


----------



## Ursa major

All of which leads to the big question: why is there no customer complaints number or URL?


----------



## RJM Corbet

Huttman said:


> ... So more to the prayer thing, nothing escapes His notice, not even prayers, but they are not all heard. Since he really already knows what any individual needs before they ask it, he is looking for humility in the heart to inspire. God is not a football fan. Sorry, but it's true.


 
Yes, but the point is that because a person has free will, and because even God is not allowed to overstep that line, God can't help someone unless they ask for help ...


----------



## Huttman

Generally speaking, it seems as if humans always (perhaps by fear) put limitations, borders, parameters, fences around everything. Maybe even in my attempting to explain what is in my head, it has come out as seemingly limitations on God's part. That is not my intent. So I thought about it and came to the conclusion the only thing God cannot do is _force_ us to do anything such as believe in him. Not because he does not have the ability to, but because it would take away our freedom of choice. Some would call that free will.

Oh, Ursa, there is a customer complaints department, it's called prayer. It just does not have to be so _formal_ as the world would have you believe. But you already knew that, huh?


----------



## Michael01

Huttman said:


> So I thought about it and came to the conclusion the only thing God cannot do is _force_ us to do anything such as believe in him. Not because he does not have the ability to, but because it would take away our freedom of choice. Some would call that free will.


 
Now I've also been told that God "cannot _lie_." Not to mention that Paul said, "God is love." If God is love, he is incapable of hate, too. In my mind, these things mean that he does have limitations of some kind.


----------



## Interference

God isn't _actually_ a person, you know.  People have limitations, as do animals, tooth-brushes, apple trees and planets.  God, if I understand the various writings I've skim-read properly, is, conceptually, an all-embracing, Universal consciousness, unhindered by divisions of nature or dimensions.  Having consciousness ourselves allows us to become connected with God, though God is always connected with us.  It is we who are limited or who limit ourselves.

Some philosophies, which I like, see Love as balance and Hate as imbalance.  The more we balance our natures, the closer we come to understanding Love as a concept whose opposite is not Hate, but Fear.  It's not unlike what Hippies have been telling us for years, but they were usually too distracted by hedonistic ego-pleasures to follow it to its ultimate extent.  And who can blame them.

When Bible scholars talk of God being Love, some of them realise that they are really asking us to discard everything that creates imbalance and conflict and embrace only those things which bring balance and harmony to ourselves and others.

We are free to choose to do this.  However, the influences and disturbances of the World we inhabit make it difficult and the vast majority eventually fail.  For this reason, retreats and monasteries and isolated Tibetan temples sprang up to enable people to pursue their spiritual purposes without distraction.

How easy would it be to choose this simplicity of life and gain our souls?  Except, of course, that by now most of us are really, really fond of our material distractions and think that the whole Spiritual Enlightenment thing is fine in _theory_, but....


----------



## Huttman

Interference said:


> God isn't _actually_ a person, you know.



Did God tell you this or did you come up with this one on your own? I mean no sarcasm here, but unless you are sure, maybe you should feel a little silly sometime and ask him.


----------



## Huttman

Michael01 said:


> Now I've also been told that God "cannot _lie_." Not to mention that Paul said, "God is love." If God is love, he is incapable of hate, too. In my mind, these things mean that he does have limitations of some kind.



Lofty eyes, a false tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart devising hurtful schemes, *feet* that are running to badness, a false witness that says lies, and anyone sending forth contention with others. These are all things that are said God hates. Does he hate *feet* that he created? No. All the above things come from a bad heart. Of all of those things listed, no one would like it if they were hurt in some way as a result of those things. Those things do not make life better. If you hate what is bad, then God hates what is bad. There is a proper way to do or view everything.


----------



## Interference

Huttman said:


> Did God tell you this or did you come up with this one on your own? I mean no sarcasm here, but unless you are sure, maybe you should feel a little silly sometime and ask him.



I'm sure.  If God were a person, we'd call Him Jess and use a small H on 'him'.


----------



## Parson

The Parson bites his tongue and doesn't comment on the ideas about God, but will say that when he writes about God in the pronoun sense he doesn't use a capital letter on the pronoun. It is an out of date writing convention, even in theological circles.


----------



## Ursa major

Parson said:


> It is an out of date writing convention, even in theological circles.


Flying off at a tangent - yes, I know; I don't usually do this  - and recalling that this site is mostly involved with fiction....

It may be true that at the current time, in the places you or I inhabit, you are right. But in describing other societies, they may still have (or have returned to having or have only recently developed) this convention, in which case the writer would be remiss in not using it. And where multiple PoVs are in play, some may follow the convention and others not, helping to remind the reader where each of the "narrating" characters are coming from, at least on this issue.

(Oh, and it also might help writers to avoid confusion where He and he - and/or She and she - identify different characters/entities.)


----------



## Parson

Ursa, I think I understood what you were saying there. So, Okay, in the society that I normally inhabit the use of a capital to reference the deity in pronoun is considered out of date, but this may not be so in every society, and it will sometimes help in writing fiction. 

Does this discussion prove the existence of free will?


----------



## Ursa major

Maybe...?



_(Or I could have said, "I'll let you decide." )_


----------



## mosaix

Parson said:


> Does this discussion prove the existence of free will?



Only in as much as you _think_ you have the choice to use a capital letter or not...


----------



## Moonbat

New scientist this week has dubbed itself 'THE GOD ISSUE' all capitalised


----------



## Michael01

Huttman said:


> Lofty eyes, a false tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart devising hurtful schemes, *feet* that are running to badness, a false witness that says lies, and anyone sending forth contention with others. These are all things that are said God hates. Does he hate *feet* that he created? No. All the above things come from a bad heart. Of all of those things listed, no one would like it if they were hurt in some way as a result of those things. Those things do not make life better. If you hate what is bad, then God hates what is bad. There is a proper way to do or view everything.


 
Okay...you got me. But at least I can say God doesn't hate _people _- just the things they _do_.


----------



## Huttman

That would be a logical conclusionsays the guy with the pointy ears.


----------



## Michael01

A logical conclusion that would be.


----------



## Interference

Parson said:


> The Parson bites his tongue and doesn't comment on the ideas about God, but will say that when he writes about God in the pronoun sense he doesn't use a capital letter on the pronoun. It is an out of date writing convention, even in theological circles.



Oops 

Of course, I suppose in the end, it's your choice whether to bite the ol' tongue or not, but please don't self-harm on my account  

I guess I'm just an old-fashioned wannabe-theologian, at that


----------



## mosaix

Moonbat said:


> New scientist this week has dubbed itself 'THE GOD ISSUE' all capitalised



Interestingly, in this issue, there's a review by *Graham Lawton* of a book by *Sam Harris* entitled *Free Will*. (Simon and Schuster £6.99)

Lawton says _'We either live in a deterministic universe where the future is set, or an indeterminate one where thoughts and actions happen at random. Neither is compatible with free will.'_

He doesn't say that he is quoting from the book so I assume he is summarising. 

According to Amazon:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/1451683405/?tag=brite-21

'This title has not yet been released.'


----------



## Ursa major

mosaix said:


> Lawton says _'We either live in a deterministic universe where the future is set, or an indeterminate one where thoughts and actions happen at random. Neither is compatible with free will.'_


I'm surprised he doesn't add: "Are you with me or against me?" or some other phrase that denies the complexities and grey areas inherent in existence.


----------



## Michael01

If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong? Without the ability to freely make decisions, then any "wrong" a person does is...what, biological? genetic? misfiring synapses? Fix the brain or the genes, or eliminate those that can't be fixed would be the proper solutions, then, right? No sense locking people up, otherwise.

I don't know. I'm inclined to think that free will exists and that people are responsible for the decisions they make. If anyone has an argument for why people are still responsible without free will, I will be interested to read it.


----------



## mosaix

Michael01 said:


> If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong?



Well the judge and jury don't have any free will either - they just _have_ to punish people.


----------



## Michael01

Wow...I wasn't expecting that answer, Mosaix - even though I did walk right into it.


----------



## HareBrain

It's a good question. The conclusion I've reached is that even if no one is able to operate indepenently of the external influences on their conscious mind -- i.e. has no true free will -- society can only really operate if it holds people to account for their actions, to some extent. The question is, to what extent? And if it started being more lenient to lawbreakers based on the idea that they weren't truly responsible, how many others would use that as an excuse to behave differently?


----------



## Ursa major

Lots I imagine, given that many people already do what they like in some instances, either believing that what they do isn't a big deal and harms no-one, or believing they won't get caught**. (At the extreme, look what happens when the rules break down completely, war zones, for example.)



** - Examples range from various traffic offences (speeding, use of phones while driving, etc.) to those rioters who took to the streets last summer only because they thought the police wouldn't stop them (which in many cases was true) and further believed that once they'd left the scene, no-one would come looking for them (which in many cases has proved to be less true).


----------



## Michael01

I'd thought that it might be necessary for _society_ as a whole to take responsibility. "Punishment" might be inappropriate, but something would have to be done. While the technology does not exist, we would, of course, have to continue with the old way of holding individuals responsible. But then, with the right advances, we could directly eliminate the behavior with treatment of some kind.


----------



## Interference

Who revived this thread, anyway - and _why_???


----------



## Michael01

Because we don't have a choice...?


----------



## Moonbat

> If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong?


 
Punishment restricts the wrongdoer's opportunities, as they have less chances in life they are less likely to be as succesful reproductively and so, eventually, the society can breed out the bad people. 

That was not a serious answer that I believe in, but my argumentative nature made me type it.


----------



## Michael01

Moonbat said:


> Punishment restricts the wrongdoer's opportunities, as they have less chances in life they are less likely to be as succesful reproductively and so, eventually, the society can breed out the bad people.
> 
> That was not a serious answer that I believe in, but my argumentative nature made me type it.


 
Well, I suppose we'd have to eliminate conjugal visits, then. Otherwise, I apologize for contributing to something of a derail here. It really was a choice I made. I don't think it was written in my genes. 

Despite my devil's advocate questions, I actually do believe in free will. Unfortunately, I will have to take a bow and admit that I cannot argue it convincingly.


----------



## Huttman

Michael01 said:


> If there is no free will, what's the point in punishing people for doing wrong?



Some would say doing bad is its own punishment. Sure, it seems some people exposed for corruptness led lives of disgusting opulence based on stealing from others, but that is always short lived. Personally, I think we punish ourselves or reward ourselves, based on our perspectives. I believe in a greater reward fulfillment, too.



Michael01 said:


> Without the ability to freely make decisions, then any "wrong" a person does is...what,* biological? genetic? misfiring synapses?* Fix the brain or the genes, or eliminate those that can't be fixed would be the proper solutions, then, right? No sense locking people up, otherwise.



I think it is a combination of these things plus others like what we are exposed to (especially early on). Habits are formed over time and as we become accustomed to certain things, our brain makes connections to solidify that habit, whatever it may be, a way of thinking, smoking or eating habits. We can change how our brain is wired, we just need to be disciplined about it because it is *not* easy, especially the older we get. 
It is a shame America is so jail crazy. It does not work. We need to educate people better from the start and rehabilitate those that are in jail now and have a better system to not encourage disobedience in the first place. Easy, right?



Michael01 said:


> I don't know. I'm inclined to think that free will exists and that people are responsible for the decisions they make. If anyone has an argument for why people are still responsible without free will, I will be interested to read it.



No arguments here, Number One. I'm inclined to think the same way.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Interference said:


> God isn't _actually_ a person, you know ... When Bible scholars talk of God being Love ...


 
I think cosmic 'love' is the glue that binds existence in the sense that all things are one. As above, so below.

We have free will to do whatever we chose, within the limits of our ability, I can bark like a dog but not wag the tail I don't have. However, whatever we do, eventually, the individual 'spark' of light within us is a part of the 'whole' light of God, whatever name one uses, and the true purpose of life reveals itself as making closer contact with the 'light'. 

It means darkness is just a lack of light, not the opposite ...


----------



## Interference

aAll the hippiesque terminology has become cliched through repetition, but in that language, Love is Harmony and balance (_All You Need Is Love_ states it quite unequivocally) while fear is its reverse (bad vibes, literally, disharmonious cacophony).  This, to me, is a neat summary of the Universe we exist within, though.  As you so rightly, in my view, observe, "as above, so below" relates us directly to the potential harmony of the entire Universe, allowing us to achieve Unity within and without.

Attaining that is a matter for us and how we choose to exercise our free will.  Some do it through drugs, some through religion, some join cliques, others join sects, the rest don't bother to give it a second thought.

"There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be" doesn't say "you had no choice but to do the things you did that led you here" but rather, "your choices are leading you to what you will become as part of the Cosmic Quilt you form a stitch on"

What we need here is a bespoke Hippy Thread


----------



## RJM Corbet

Interference said:


> ... What we need here is a bespoke Hippy Thread


 
I think a lot of that came from the acid experience originally.

The truth can't really be expressed in words, whatever truth is, to misquote Pontius Pilate. It's written in a language of symbols, the kaballah etc, like mathematics for the initiate to comprehend and unravel.

But in this free will thread, you're free to stick your hand in a fire, then unlikely to repeat the mistake. Free will allows murder, but the law does not.

Cosmic law, unlike natural law, will always catch you out in the end, because there's no time beyond this natural dimension. So whatever you do, it will lead you to 'truth' eventually. Something like that ...


----------



## HareBrain

That is not dead which can eternal lie ... bwahaha

I thought this article in today's Observer might be of interest.


----------



## Huttman

_Yet with strange aeons even death may die..._

I like this quote form the article_ -_* As much as we like to think about the body and mind living separate existences, the mental is not separable from the physical. - David Eagleman

*Or 'soul', for that matter.


----------



## Ursa major

There's no need to be rude....


----------



## RJM Corbet

Sometimes it seems to me that we are all like fleas trying to understand the nature of the dog we live on ...


----------



## Huttman

Woof! 
It's _Worf._


----------



## RJM Corbet

Huttman said:


> Woof!


 
Perhaps the difference is that, unlike fleas, we do try to understand?
Maybe they do?


----------



## Huttman

I think it is safe to say fleas have more of a action/reaction instinct to them. I think humanity has something special in the understanding our place in existence thing. Human kind are special, unique. But don't take my word for it...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9XZH3e6-mPc


----------



## hopewrites

whether it does or not, we (as humans) wish very much for it to.
I was thinking the other day about paradoxes and why they are uniformly forbidden. What is so taboo about creating a paradox? and then it hit me. paradoxes confirm predestination, predestination excludes free will. If I build a time machine and go back in time to pick up a pebble that I would otherwise trip on walking down the street, free will is now no longer an option. I am predestined to walk down the street and not trip on the pebble just as I am predestined to build a time machine and go back in time to pick it up.
It's no longer a matter of chose, but something I must do.

That I believe strongly enough in free will that I have a 'natural' disinclination to create or perpetuate a paradox which would negate the free will I believe in, is strong enough evidence for me that free will is something that humanity will protect for a long time to come.


----------



## RJM Corbet

hopewrites said:


> ... I am predestined to walk down the street and not trip on the pebble ...



Hmmm ... I've applied my flea brain to this one and come to the conclusion that the difference between FATE and DESTINY is more than just semantic.

Free will allows us to control our own fate. You can decide which side of the street you walk on.

But not the day of your birth or, I believe of your death, or the children you will have, etc. Those things are destiny.

You know, like Christopher Reeve was paralysed in a riding accident. He might think: Oh, if I hadn't done that ...

But if he hadn't been on that horse, perhaps he would have been hit by a car or something, that day. Somehow God needed that to happen to him, for his soul's development, which is what we're really here for?

The common theme of all religions is that we're not in this world for fun.

There was a time in John Lennon's life apparently, when he'd just walk across the road through New York traffic without looking, to the screeching of tyres and blasting of horns, testing the belief that he wouldn't die that day unless he was meant to.

And when he did die, he was shot in the back on his way to the corner shop for milk. Nothing he could have done about it.

Perhaps by exercising our free will wisely, in the direction of inner not outer things -- being 'in but not of the world' -- we may be able to soften certain hard strokes of destiny. 

Something like that?

EDIT: Huttman, sorry I didn't ignore your post but found nothing to add to it. Agree fully ...


----------



## hopewrites

I agree that fate and destiny are similar yet separate. For me it is perspective that separates them.  I chose not to ask my fate of any who might provide it to me, because I don't want knowing to bring it about. For me destiny is the fate one actively seeks. For example the person whos death is foretold to them can attempt to escape their fate or peacefully embrace their destiny.

What I was trying to point out with the paradoxes is that because of free will one can nether travel to the past or future, as nether could happen the same way more than the way they happen when they are given the chance to be the present.

"You can never step in the same river twice" kind of deal.


----------



## RJM Corbet

hopewrites said:


> ... What I was trying to point out with the paradoxes is that because of free will one can nether travel to the past or future, as nether could happen the same way more than the way they happen when they are given the chance to be the present.



Or because we exist in the dimension of nature?

Nature in the sense of all that we can perceive and know, including the stars, dark energy, quarks, etc.

All that exists in nature exists by virtue of time. We try to measure the time to the big bang, the age of the earth, etc. We can't see beyond time. The room of nature is defined by walls of time, within a greater house that surrounds and contains and permeates the time/space dimension of nature, but is not contained by it? 

The greater wheel that turns the lesser wheel of nature. Call it spirit, doesn't matter the name?


----------



## j d worthington

Here's an interesting bit of information on this one. The relevant portion begins at 4:42....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qX_d4TDmz0&feature=relmfu


----------



## HareBrain

Not so much "an interesting bit of information" as a summary of mine and others' arguments throughout this thread, and from someone with the scientific background to give it serious credibility. The video is excellent generally (not the most visually innovative I've seen, but that's actually quite refreshing).


----------



## Moonbat

That was interesting. It seems, if I understood right, and from a neuro-physiological POV, that the decisions we make, in the micro sense, like moving our arm, are precipitated by an un-conscious thought. The fact that the thought rises un-consciously before I (the witness) have a chance to realise it does not stop it from being my thought, but it does suggest that I had no conscious control over it.

I think when you get to the Macro part of the decision, like choosing to go to a specific university the descision can be made logically and the pros and cons weighed up and then a descision reached.

For example, I recently moved to Honiton. My GF (now Fiancee) and I had decided to move to Devon, we looked at lots of towns and ended up with 5 in a shortlist. We then used a scoring method to see how each one rated on a set of different aspects, then looked at which one came out top (Honiton)

Now, although I can't say why we chose exactly which numbers for each aspect, or why those specific aspects, at some point an un-conscious decision was made to use those aspects, but at a larger level I can see why we chose Honiton.

Sam also said that if neuroscientists were wathcing my brain they could decide which arm I would move seconds before I was aware of it, I'm not sure that it is truly seconds, some descisions are made in less than a second (I'm thinking of sporting descisions) and although I'm sure there could be a similar pre-cognition that is detected in the brain before I jink right past a defender, I don't think it would be seconds before I did it, the defender's movements would have dictated what I would do and only when I have observed it (even if my actual observation was un-conscious and prior to my conscious realisation that I can go past him on the right)

There is, it seems, a line draw below the I that is conscious, and because many descisions within my own body and brain happen beneath this line they cannot be ascribed to me (the consciousness of Moonbat) yet the body and brain are mine and the descsions come from within me. I don't consciously breathe, in fact to hold my breath takes conscious effort, but would you say that I (the conscious Moonbat) don't breathe, I guess not.
I don't consciosuly digest my food, in fact I have no conscious control over it, but the food is digested by me and my body.

Before I became self aware (around the age of two whilst looking in a mirror in my Mother's bedroom - it could be a false memory) were my actions and thought conscious when I have/had no 'I' to witness them?

It seems it all comes down to the line between consciousness and unconciousness, which is a poorly understood line (I think) and so maybe my unconscious mind is affected by my conscious mind.


----------



## HareBrain

Moonbat said:


> Sam also said that if neuroscientists were wathcing my brain they could decide which arm I would move seconds before I was aware of it, I'm not sure that it is truly seconds, some descisions are made in less than a second


 
I really don't think he said seconds, but I can't quickly find the bit to check.

Re your decision to move, the argument is that the entire rational process you went through was generated by your unconscious mind, even your apparently conscious contributions to it. What we tend to think of as our conscious self, the "I", is only an observer of what has already arisen in the brain (thought as well as sensory information) and its effects. If you've ever attempted meditation, you quickly realise that the mind generates thought without any prompting by the conscious; it chatters like an agitated monkey. Rational thought is just the same activity, but more closely focused. We cannot choose what to think, because we are only aware of a thought once it has arisen. The closest to free will would appear to be to decide how we react to what we think, but even this reaction is a thought, and again, we haven't decided to have it.

What I find interesting is the idea that the highest states of consciousness, the goal of meditation, are those in which no thoughts arise at all.

So if even our rational decision-making isn't the exercise of free will, what would free will be like if it existed? How would we know it? To be free of influence by a brain, it seems to me that it would have to be a quality possessed only by an entity without a brain, which is a matter for philosophical or spiritual speculation.


----------



## Moonbat

> What we tend to think of as our conscious self, the "I", is only an observer of what has already arisen in the brain


 
This is what I was trying to refer to as the line between consciousness and unconsciousness, the self/observer/witness/I may not be aware of the descision, but the unconsciousness is still part of my brain, it resides inside my brain. Although a descision to move a limb registers unconsciously before I realise (consciously) that I will do it isn't that just because the way the brain is wired? If we all had to consciously focus on moving a limb to the point where we thought about it and could 'hear' (not really the right word for thought) that thought in our minds, as the *'I' *the observer, then we would suffer from much slower reaction times, and an inability to walk and talk or listen at the same time.

If a descision is made at a neuronal level then *I* wouldn't expect to know about it until a short while after the firing of that neuron. My consciousness could never be so precise or fine tuned to notice/witness every neuron that fires, and consicously be aware of it. I guess we don't know enough about the path of a thought through the brain to really see when a cascade of firing neurons turns into a conscious thought, and even if we do (and I'm sure one day we will) can it be said that the firings prior to that point are unconscious and therefore outside of the influence of the I that witnesses consciousness. - I hope that made some sense  

I might be straying from the argument of free will, but I think I'm still in the ball park.

He says 'would allow scientists to predict which hand I was going to move seconds before I'm consciously aware of it.' at about 9:02


----------



## j d worthington

The thing is (and the research is increasingly supporting this): there _is_ no "I". "I", the ego, is a construct, an emergent property of ongoing processes in the brain. It can be altered by drugs, injury, illness, any number of things. There are, for instances, cases of patients whose brains have had to be split, who develop into two distinctly different personalities. One case I've heard spoken of (by the physician involved) became, on one side, devoutly religious, whilst the other was atheist. Fully developed personalities, mind you; two different egos.

The idea of the "I", or what Daniel Dennett has called "Cartesian theatre", is quickly being dismantled, and is going to force a reassessment of how we think about consciousness in general. Sam Harris addresses this in either this or the companion video (I cannot recall which) and, again, neuroscience is confirming this more and more....

EDIT: Ah, I see this point has already been addressed. Still, "I" hope the above isn't entirely useless....


----------



## Parson

*J.D. *I am frustrated that you put that video up. It is entirely too interesting and thought provoking. I am "wasting time" instead of doing my work. 

But.... I don't really have a choice.

Okay, Thanks, I too agree but for different reasons that free will does not ultimately exist. But that the concept helps us to act in moral and ethical ways. I wish I really had time to think and dig at what he is saying. I feel as though he is putting together a paper wall. It looks impressive but it is easily penetrated. --- But *I *don't have time to deal with it.


----------



## Ursa major

Apart from the rather extreme example JD mentions, I'm not sure that there ever could be a true "I" all the way down, if only because the brain supports massive parallelism. To use the simple examples Moonbat mentions, it would take a we to cope consciously with digestion, breathing, dribbling the ball all at the same time. And yet that's just a small fraction of what anyone dribbling a ball is doing, all at the same time.


Regarding the assertion that none of our decisions are made by our conscious selves, I'm not sure that's true. Suppose you were buying a house and had written down a list of suitable criteria (number of bedrooms; near to/far from a busy road; near a good school; off street parking/garage; sea view; close to/far from a station; that sort of thing). While your subconscious might affect what was on the list - although these things don't tend to be spur of the moment choices, particularly where a couple, or a whole family, is involved in drawing the list up - I think the conscious mind would be completely on board with the result. Then comes the disappointment that goes with meeting those criteria using the budget you have. But let's assume there's a house that meets them all, and another house that "feels right".

If you were to choose the latter, rather than pick the most suitable house, _I_ wouldn't call that rational thinking (whether the I was the conscious I or some subconscious process), but "going with a hunch" or, to be rather less kind, wishful thinking. You might, later, say that you were happier in that house than you would have been in the suitable one, but as with all such decisions in real time, that's no more than an opinion (as there's no way to make a true comparison**). If you chose the suitable house, it seems to me that that is both rational and the result of a rational, conscious process.


Some of us are anal enough (not that I'm saying that the relevant decisions are made _that_ far away from my conscious self ) to make lists when we buy things: cars, cash ISAs***, houses, audio equipment, PCs, peripherals....

However, I do concede that even I am probably driven by my subconscious's decision making for much of what I (decide to) do. I simply do not believe (and my subconscious - which as Moonbat points out, is still me, agrees with me, though probably complexly) that's the case all of the time.


** - Unless the "suitable" house was, say, hit by a juggernaut or a meteor.

*** - Tax-free savings accounts.


----------



## HareBrain

Parson said:


> I too agree but for different reasons that free will does not ultimately exist. But that the concept helps us to act in moral and ethical ways.


 
This is a valid point. Sam Harris says something similar later in the video, not about free will so much as the concept that one person might be deemed more valuable than another -- his point there is that although some viewpoints might rationally judge one person more or less valuable than another, it greatly benefits society for people to believe that we are all of equal worth.



Ursa major said:


> Apart from the rather extreme example JD mentions, I'm not sure that there ever could be a true "I" all the way down, if only because the brain supports massive parallelism. To use the simple examples Moonbat mentions, it would take a we to cope consciously with digestion, breathing, dribbling the ball all at the same time. And yet that's just a small fraction of what anyone dribbling a ball is doing, all at the same time.


 
The "I" JD referred to is the ego, the observer that controls nothing but believes it controls everything. It is the constructed sense of self. Although it rationally acknowledges that the body does the work of digestion, moving muscles etc, it nevertheless has the overriding sense that all those functions are part of it and, if not actually controlled by the will, then delegated by the will to subconscious processes. But because it secretly knows it doesn't really exist, the ego strives ever harder to coinvince itself that it does, and that it is all-important, and that it WILL NOT DIE, somehow.



> If you chose the suitable house, it seems to me that that is both rational and the result of a rational, conscious process.


 
But that choice might well depend on how you perceive yourself, or want to perceive yourself, as a maker of rational decisions or not. And where does that self-image come from?


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> The "I" JD referred to is the ego, the observer that controls nothing but believes it controls everything. It is the constructed sense of self. Although it rationally acknowledges that the body does the work of digestion, moving muscles etc, it nevertheless has the overriding sense that all those functions are part of it and, if not actually controlled by the will, then delegated by the will to subconscious processes. But because it secretly knows it doesn't really exist, the ego strives ever harder to coinvince itself that it does, and that it is all-important, and that it WILL NOT DIE, somehow.


I don't know about you, but I (the conscious me) have never considered that I am in any way in charge of digesting my food. I've got Biology A and O levels, but I don't think that has equipped me to even start controlling my digestion. And how many people can, through will alone, regurgitate stuff without drinking salt water or putting their fingers down their throat. (I know some people can, but I expect it takes rather a lot of training, and all they're doing is reversing the direction of peristalsis in one very short length of the very long digestive tract.) And the world is full of people who don't believe their 'I' will survive the rest of them; and quite a few of them worry about it (sometimes at great length, if you've ever had to listen to them ).

Personally, I also believe the conscious self is an emergent feature, which is why there's a small possibility that you might, one day, see a conscious AI (just before they kill you ), but that doesn't mean that only "explainer", "rationaliser", or "tomorrow the world" functions have emerged. Just like the guys who can regurgitate at will, I believe the conscious self can affect the world around, albeit with the aid of the subconscious mind. (I wonder if one example of this is my conscious correcting of all the typos with which my subconscious mind litters my posts.)




HareBrain said:


> But that choice might well depend on how you perceive yourself, or want to perceive yourself, as a maker of rational decisions or not. And where does that self-image come from?


If I state, at the beginning of my search, that I want a four-bedroomed detached house, away from the main road, in a given school's catchment area, within ten minutes of a railway station (on foot) and then, months later, choose just such a house, I don't think my self-perception comes into it. I will have made a conscious choice based on earlier criteria. (If I end up buying a two-bedroomed bungalow at a major road junction next to a sink school and twenty minutes drive from a train station whose service runs to three trains a week, then yes, something other than 'I' - although still the whole me - has likely chosen for me.)


----------



## HareBrain

Can any decision be called conscious if all the thoughts that comprise the process arise from the unconscious?

I would like someone to give me an example of a thought they have consciously chosen to think.


----------



## hopewrites

does choosing to unthink count?


wait before I ask that, could someone explain the I/Ego thing a little better to me? because I dont think I have one of those...


----------



## HareBrain

hopewrites said:


> does choosing to unthink count?


 
How does that choice arise? How does it start? What is the process?




> wait before I ask that, could someone explain the I/Ego thing a little better to me? because I dont think I have one of those...


 
It's merely the identity, an awareness of yourself as a separate personality. If you've ever reflected on your own thoughts or behaviour or memories as a (to some extent) self-contained being who exists as the same person through time, then you do. It's the mental avatar you use in the real world, to interact with other mental avatars (ie people).


----------



## Moonbat

HB, I would like you to picture, in your mind's eye, an Orange Penguin.

Now, if I'm right, you read the sentence, thought consciously, 'ok I'll humour the partially insane Moonbat and picture an Orange Penguin' then you thought about one enough to picture it in your mind's eye. Does that count?

But it comes down to the point I made before that although the very start of the thought process, which could be as small as a single neuron firing, being too small and fleeting for the conscious mind to notice and so it is only recognised as a thought when thousands (if not factors of 10 more) of neurons fire in sucession/unity to create a significantly large enough 'thought' to be recognised as such.

The I as an emergent property of intelligence is the sum (or more than) of its parts, so can any single part be recognised by it, I would doubt it, but I still think that the thought/descision belongs to the brain that creates it and although it happens beneath the consciousness it can't be dismissed as not being controlled.


----------



## Ursa major

Given that we cannot remove the mind from its environment, I doubt we could ever say that any given decision originated in either our conscious or subconscious minds. In many (the vast majority?) of cases, there will have been some external stimulus. Perhaps not an obvious one, or one that occurred immediately** before that decision, but it will have contributed to the result. (For example, your question prompted this response.) The need to find a house may have been prompted by being laid off, resulting in a need to move area to obtain another job.



** - For example, someone may have asked you what the name of a former colleague was, but the name only emerges days later.


----------



## j d worthington

The question of conscious/subconscious (which is a term that is, so far as I understand, no longer used professionally; they prefer "unconscious", to avoid the idea of physical levels in the mind/brain) is a dubious one itself. What we call the "conscious" mind is simply those portions of the ever-ongoing thought processes which momentarily are strong enough to "call our attention" to them, but are themselves largely made up of a myriad of "unconscious" thoughts, motivations, reactions, etc.

It is like an engine which is constantly running; the bulk of the time, the noise it makes becomes simply unnoticeable; but when one of a series of sets of circumstances combine to produce an unusual sound, it may call attention to itself simply by that fact....


----------



## Ursa major

I'm glad you mentioned the unconscious, JD, because it reminds me of a description of one aspect of the learning process, i.e. the Four Stages of Competence (which I may have mentioned before, somewhere ).

Simply put, these are:

_Unconscious incompetence_, where one does know how to do something but is unaware or unconcerned that learning one or more new skills can sort things out.
_Conscious incompetence_, where one is aware of the lack of skill, and so can set out to learn it (or them).
_Conscious competence_, where one has to consciously apply the skill.
_Unconscious competence_, where one is able to apply the skill "without thinking about it", i.e. the conscious mind is not involved in every aspect of the skill, only in directing its use when necessary.
This seems to fit in very well with JD's observation about the involvement of the conscious mind only when this is seen to be important or necessary.


----------



## hopewrites

HareBrain said:


> How does that choice arise? How does it start? What is the process?


I'll get to that, but I want to be sure I understand your question in full before I apply the answer that came to mind. Which the more I think on it, the easier I see how you could/would deflect my answer... maybe.



> It's merely the identity, an awareness of yourself as a separate personality. If you've ever reflected on your own thoughts or behaviour or memories as a (to some extent) self-contained being who exists as the same person through time, then you do. It's the mental avatar you use in the real world, to interact with other mental avatars (ie people).


while I reflect often, the being who reflects is not always the same. I have multiple avatars that interact with others, and rotate through them as situation demands. Sort of like, multiple personality without the disorder, because we know of each other and (for the most) part try to work together. But no one amongst us is prominent or in permanent control. Which is why I said I dont think I have one an I/ego as it has been described here.


----------



## HareBrain

I started to try to respond to several of then above points, but I've concluded that it only makes sense to have this kind of discussion in a pub beer garden.


----------



## Moonbat

Are you inviting us all out for a beer then HB?


----------



## HareBrain

Absolutely. There's nothing like a pint of tepid suds and a pointless discussion on speculative topics on a warm summer's evening in a country pub garden, spitfires flying overhead, nightingales tuning up, the waft of rosebay and willowherb from the freshly opened packet of posh crisps ...


----------



## Moonbat

I just read through the last page of this thread and I thought I'd keep it alive..

Being that I am in Olympics mode I considered the whole idea around false starts.
As far as I know, a false start is when a sprinter (as only they have blocks) puts pressure on the block sooner than it is considered humanly possible to react to the starter's gun. It has been said that a twitch can set them off, but let's look at the reaction time setup.

From Wikipeadia



> In track and field spints the sport's governing body, the IAAF, has a rule that if the athlete moves within 0.10 seconds after the gun has fired the athlete has false started.This figure is based on tests that show the human brain cannot hear and process the information from the start sound in under 0.10 seconds


 
The gun is fired, and (somewhat unfairly) the speed of sound will reach each of the sprinter's ears at a different time (I wonder if they have put things in place to stop this, like speakers behind each sprinter?) but then it is considered that it takes 0.1 seconds for the sprinter to react, this includes hearing the sound, processing the information and sending a response to the muscles. How does this sit with Dr Sam Harris' notion of people making a descision before they are aware of it? Could it be shown that the reaction is faster than 0.1 seconds, but it is only when the brain is aware of it that they move?
I wonder if this kind of reflex action can be thought of as conscious at all? 
If the sprinter moves too soon, could they argue that it wasn't them (the I/ego) that chose to move, it wasn't their choice or a result of them exercising their free will?


----------



## HareBrain

A sprinter is trained to respond to the gun. It isn't a conscious decision, any more than flinching when you hear a loud noise.

The 0.1 seconds would be the time it takes for the brain to register the noise, and for the muscles to react to the resulting impulse.


----------



## RJM Corbet

Free will, or pre-will?

It sounds like just another example of health&safety/rules&regulations greysuits making life easier for themselves at the expense of those who are actually doing something with their lives, and trying to justify their own fat salaries by making like they're doing something useful ...


----------



## Ursa major

Moonbat said:


> The gun is fired, and (somewhat unfairly) the speed of sound will reach each of the sprinter's ears at a different time (I wonder if they have put things in place to stop this, like speakers behind each sprinter?)


Such speakers are used, so I imagine major events - the Olympics, world championships, major meetings - would probably use them.

Given that the TV coverage of individual 100m races are inevitably dominated by the sprinters wandering about, trying the blocks, etc., you'll have plenty of opportunities to check this out for yourself over the next few weeks.


_Or, by "sound will reach each of the sprinter's ears at a different time" were you wondering that, say, the left ear might get a... er... head start over the right ear? _


----------



## Morbius

Free will? No, I don't think so. Not in the popular meaning of that term. The traditional wide spread belief in individual freedom & dignity is appealing but upside down.

I think B.F. Skinner had it right and consider him the greatest psychologist of the 20th century._ It's not that there's a body with an autonomous person inside, but a body that IS a person that displays a complex repertoire of behavior._ 

All human behavior can be traced back to controlling relations with the environment.


----------



## Moonbat

Recent article in New Scientists suggests that the brain activity prior to a choice being made (the readiness potential as it has been dubbed) might not be the sub-conscious choosing before we are aware of it but merely some background 'noise' in the brain. 

In the new experiment people were asked to to decide, after hearing a tone, whether or not to tap on a keyboard. The readiness potential was present even if they decided not to tap on the keyboard, suggesting that it does not represent the brain preparing to move. They are still unsure as to what it does represent.


----------



## Gordian Knot

Part One: Defining Our Terms.
In order to decide if something exists, it helps to first decide what it is. I.E., how do we define free will. Here is one dictionary definition of "free will".

_the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion._

What do you think of that definition. Accurate? Inaccurate? Accurate to a point, but lacking in some way?

Part Two: Discussion.
Historically in Western cultures, free will was a requirement of the Christian condition. In order to determine if a person rides the elevator up or down when they die depends on the choices they make in their mortal lives. This remains true to this day for all intents and purposes in Western religious beliefs.

I do not bring this up to create a religious discussion. Merely acknowledging that the Church was a dominant power in Western thinking on the subject. And still is.

From a modern physicist's point of view, the smaller the things we study, the more random they act. To the point that randomness runs the quantum world, so to speak. Quantum physics seems to make the conclusion that because the tiniest particles act randomly, then randomness is the essence of everything. Hence free will is an illusion.

Personally I have issues with this quantum approach. Namely that because things apparently act completely at random in the world of the very small, Ergo, Ipso, Facto, Columbo, Orio, the world of the very large acts the same.

That is an If//Then argument I am in no way ready to accept at this time.

Then there is the side road theory that our conscious minds rarely make any decisions, because that actually happens in the subconscious. I.E. when we believe we have made a decision consciously, in reality it has already been made subconsciously. There does seem to be a lot of study to suggest this is true.

My reaction is So What? Is our subconscious not OUR subconscious? It's not like our subconscious belongs to someone else, or is some other entity, right? Suggesting that we make a decision at a different level of our consciousness does not change the fact that it is WE who have made the decision. It just changes where our decision was made.


----------



## Ursa major

Gordian Knot said:


> Personally I have issues with this quantum approach. Namely that because things apparently act completely at random in the world of the very small, Ergo, Ipso, Facto, Columbo, Orio, the world of the very large acts the same.
> 
> That is an If//Then argument I am in no way ready to accept at this time.


Me neither. And even if we had a theory of everything, operating at all scales, it isn't clear to me that quantum randomness is observable at the level of the neuron. (I'll admit ignorance here: such research may exist, but I'm unaware of it.)



Gordian Knot said:


> Then there is the side road theory that our conscious minds rarely make any decisions, because that actually happens in the subconscious. I.E. when we believe we have made a decision consciously, in reality it has already been made subconsciously. There does seem to be a lot of study to suggest this is true.
> 
> My reaction is So What? Is our subconscious not OUR subconscious? It's not like our subconscious belongs to someone else, or is some other entity, right? Suggesting that we make a decision at a different level of our consciousness does not change the fact that it is WE who have made the decision. It just changes where our decision was made.


Here's proof that great minds (great subconsciousnesses?) think alike.


----------



## mosaix

Gordian Knot said:


> From a modern physicist's point of view, the smaller the things we study, the more random they act. To the point that randomness runs the quantum world, so to speak. Quantum physics seems to make the conclusion that because the tiniest particles act randomly, then randomness is the essence of everything. Hence free will is an illusion.



For me, it means the opposite. If there is true randomness in the universe then we have unpredictability and that would seem to imply free will not the lack of it.

If, on the other hand, everything is predictable then there is no choice and no free will.

Regarding the randomness of the quantum world I see, in your post, you have introduced the word 'apparently'. Very wise. Just because particles at the quantum level _appear_ to act randomly doesn't mean to say that they aren't obeying a set of laws that we just don't comprehend.


----------



## goldhawk

Sorry Gordian, but quantum mechanics are not random; each possibility has its own probability. What will happen is based on those probability. For example, if you throw an electron at a proton, chances are that they form a hydrogen atom. There is an element of chance, yes. But random, no.

As for free will, see attached.


----------



## Gordian Knot

Thank YOU Ursa! I was beginning to believe I was the only person who saw little distinction between the two as far as who was making decisions.

Mosaix, Your logic concerning randomness and unpredictability is reasonable. It is not how I understand physicists thinking on the subject. Their view appears to be that because everything is SO random, what we perceive as the free will of a choice is simply a roll of the dice. Hence not free at all. As one adds up more and more decisions, the graph would look like a standard bell curve.

Off topic, but relevant, methinks, is the entire science of quantum mechanics as a viable theory.   Our technology at this time is so completely unable to view down far enough, I have to take the entire concept as mere theoretical imagination.

Science works by the scientific method. I.E. one imagines a theory, tests it to see if said theory is correct. If your result is indeed positive, the test must be repeated many times, always with the same result. If that is true, your theory must then be repeatable entirely independent of yourself. If they also get the same results, one has a reasonable expectation you are on the right track.

The scientific method is impossible in quantum physics as we cannot test the theories in the first place, much less have them repeated independently.

The rest of this is scientific gobbledy gook, so feel free to ignore. But this stuff truly fascinates me!

The smallest thing we can accurately measure are protons and neutrons at 10 to the minus 15th meters. That's 0.000000000000001 m.

No length smaller than this can be confirmed.

We speculate that a Neutrino sits at 10 to the minus 24th meters.

And we speculate that a string measures at 10 to the minus 35 meters. A string is a one dimensional object that never the less vibrates in all other dimensions. Or so the theory goes.

To me this is analogous to testing the ocean at a 1 meter depth, and extrapolating from there what it must be like seven miles down at the bottom. Looked at in that way, quantum mechanics does seem to border on the absurd!


----------



## Gordian Knot

Gold, you posted while I was writing my post. With your examples you are discussing the very TOP level of the quantum world. In that, to my understanding, the quantum world begins at 10 to the minus 14m.

As one burrows down, down, down, the randomness becomes more and more, errr, random. To the point that we cannot even know what form a particle will take. Because it can be one of any number of forms.

I should also in all fairness, admit that my knowledge of QM is modest at best. Maybe just enough to be dangerous!


----------



## Moonbat

Is random the right word, or should we be using uncertainty or probability?


----------



## goldhawk

It's more correct to say the quantum mechanics is not deterministic; it's is probabilistic. That means it's not completely random; random meaning unpredictable.

The scientific method is to think of a hypothesis; come up with an experiment that will prove it false; run the experiment and see. If the experiment doesn't prove it false, think of a lot more and run them.  If you hypothesis is not proven false by them, write a paper for peer review. If a lot of other people cannot come up with an experiment to prove it false, your hypothesis becomes a theory.

Modern scientists use the term theory and law as the same thing. They use theory these days so it won't be confused with the judicial system.


----------



## mosaix

Gordian Knot said:


> Mosaix, Your logic concerning randomness and unpredictability is reasonable. It is not how I understand physicists thinking on the subject. Their view appears to be that because everything is SO random, what we perceive as the free will of a choice is simply a roll of the dice. Hence not free at all. As one adds up more and more decisions, the graph would look like a standard bell curve.



To quote from the editorial in this week's New Scientist:

_Does it matter if we have free will? Science has been casting doubt on the concept almost from its beginnings. At first, it was the laws of physics that gave pause for thought. The Newtonian 'clockwork universe', in which everything unfolds predictably from any given starting position, seemingly affords little scope for human autonomy.

That deterministic vision was overthrown by the introduction of quantum randomness.


_


> As one burrows down, down, down, the randomness becomes more and more,  errr, random. To the point that we cannot even know what form a particle  will take. Because it can be one of any number of forms.


It may not be random it may just be unpredictable - there is a difference.


----------



## mosaix

goldhawk said:


> That means it's not completely random; random meaning unpredictable.



I'm not entirely sure I agree with that, Goldhawk.

I have written random number generators in the past. An observer would say that the output is unpredictable - because they don't know the formula used to generate the random number. As soon as the formula is known then the output becomes predictable.

I suppose what I am trying to say is that just because something appears unpredictable doesn't mean it's necessarily random - maybe we just don't understand the fundamental laws (formula) yet.


----------



## goldhawk

mosaix said:


> I have written random number generators in the past. An observer would say that the output is unpredictable - because they don't know the formula used to generate the random number. As soon as the formula is known then the output becomes predictable.



That's why they're called pseudo-random number generators. 



mosaix said:


> I suppose what I am trying to say is that just because something appears unpredictable doesn't mean it's necessarily random - maybe we just don't understand the fundamental laws (formula) yet.



But we do know some of the laws of quantum mechanics and one of them says we can't know everything. We can only predict what will probably happen; there is always an element of chance. The universe is not deterministic.


----------



## mosaix

goldhawk said:


> But we do know some of the laws of quantum mechanics and one of them says we can know everything. We can only predict what will probably happen; there is always an element of chance. The universe is not deterministic.



I think you mean we *can't* know everything. 

Because we can't know or predict leads us to think that chance is involved, which strikes me as a little arrogant on the part of humanity. The fact that we can't know or predict surely means that we can't prove whether chance is involved or not. 



> That's why they're called pseudo-random number generators.


And that's exactly what I mean. There may be a pseudo-chance generator at work.


----------



## goldhawk

mosaix said:


> I think you mean we *can't* know everything.



Oops. Fixed. Thanks.


----------



## Ursa major

If you'd have put that word in the box with the cat, we wouldn't have been able to tell whether it was a can or a can't and might have assumed you'd used the correct version.


----------



## Gordian Knot

Moonbat said:


> Recent article in New Scientists suggests that the brain activity prior to a choice being made (the readiness potential as it has been dubbed) might not be the sub-conscious choosing before we are aware of it but merely some background 'noise' in the brain.
> 
> In the new experiment people were asked to to decide, after hearing a tone, whether or not to tap on a keyboard. The readiness potential was present even if they decided not to tap on the keyboard, suggesting that it does not represent the brain preparing to move. They are still unsure as to what it does represent.



I'm not sure this experiment proves what they suggest. After all, the brain may be preparing to move, but chooses in the end not to move. Readinesss "potential" is just that. It does not preclude the potential not be acted upon, does it?


----------



## mosaix

Gordian Knot said:


> I'm not sure this experiment proves what they suggest. After all, the brain may be preparing to move, but chooses in the end not to move. Readinesss "potential" is just that. It does not preclude the potential not be acted upon, does it?



You need to read the article in full before coming to a conclusion, GK.


----------



## RJM Corbet

I choose my fate. 

Should I post this?

Or maybe I should erase it?

No, I'll post it.

Uh, but should I?

EDIT: Should I erase all these words and write new ones? But I must write at least 7 characters -- no choice about that. So now my fate, over which I do have have a control, has become my destiny, over which I have none ...


----------



## Gordian Knot

RJ, your post is less about free will and more about over thinking the little things!


----------



## RJM Corbet

Gordian Knot said:


> RJ, your post is less about free will and more about over thinking the little things!


 
Little _choices ..._


----------



## RJM Corbet

Thread killer, me 

But I was trying to define a distinction between 'fate' and 'destiny' that's more than just semantic: in the sense that we have a large measure of control over our own personal fate, but very little or none at all over our destiny.

The people born in a certain place and now caught up in war, for instance, can't change the fact. It's destiny.

What you choose to do in any situation, that's what decides your fate. So your own fate becomes the accumulative knock-on effect of the result of your own choices.

But destiny is far more over-reaching?


----------



## Parson

I think that you have to define terms. In popular understanding fate and destiny are very near synonyms. I would believe that without making a precise definition that most people would not see any nuance between them. --- Well maybe "fate" tends to foresee the future in a bit more negative and unchangeable way, while "destiny" tends to foresee the future in a more positive and hopeful way. But either could be used in the opposite sense. There might be a hint of working toward your "destiny," while fate just happens. 

So ---- I do think that there are things that we work toward and might or might not achieve, but ultimately I would disagree that we are "masters of our own fate" and would agree that there is a destiny for each human.


----------



## Ursa major

I'm not sure which came first, but I can see how fate could be seen as negative, and destiny as positive, based upon their one difference (likelihood).

Destiny is something that may happen, should one fight (literally or figuratively) for it:
"Why do you want the throne, My Lord, knowing how many must die for it?"
"It is my Destiny."​Fate seems to be something that will** happen: "It was his fate to strive for significance, but be doomed to anonymity."



** - In books, that is. I believe in neither fate nor destiny.


----------



## goldhawk

Ursa major said:


> "It was his fate to strive for significance, but be doomed to anonymity."



To me, that sentence is talking about the past, not the future. As in you can't know someone's fate until they're dead.


----------



## Gordian Knot

The struggle to accept that free will is an illusion is a difficult one for me. But people a whole lot smarter than I am are saying that it is so. Now if it were a person, or a couple of people I wouldn't be too impressed, but the preponderance of physicists and cosmologists seem to agree that free will is indeed illusion.

Of course just because a whole bunch of smart people think something is true; that doesn't necessarily make it so. But if one believes in science and the scientific method, weight has to be given to the majority opinion.

My working solution to this conundrum for now is that I think that the with small scale stuff free will does exist. Deciding what I am going to have for breakfast just isn't complex enough to be driven by the combination of my biology and societal experiences.

As decisions grow more complex, and also requires a larger number of people involved in making that decision, I could see a case made that in that situation that free will takes a back seat to a more social phenomena that can be predicted much more accurately.

As an aside to the above, but very relevant; we all know of a particular situation where free will disappears completely. That is when a crowd becomes a mob. The mob mentality appears to suspend individual choice and becomes a collective driving force all its own.

We know that people have done truly horrific things as part of a mob that they would never have done as an individual. Sure there are horrible individuals. Typically though a mob is a group of "normal" people who have their personal social consciences overridden by the mob mind.

That is most certainly a definite example of the complete loss of free will. Or so it seems to me.


----------



## goldhawk

Sorry Gord, but there is not a preponderance of physicists and cosmologists that believe this, a majority, yes, a preponderance, no. The future of the universe is not a predictable as they would have you believe.


----------



## Ursa major

goldhawk said:


> To me, that sentence is talking about the past, not the future. As in you can't know someone's fate until they're dead.


Of course it's talking about the past. Until someone dies, one doesn't know whether their destiny was their fate or not.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Destiny is the destination you're heading towards; fate is how close you get.


----------



## Ursa major

One has to wonder how many farm boys, on believing the talk about their destiny (sorry, *THEIR DESTINY*), have perished fruitlessly, probably as part of a diversion which facilitated the overthrow of the Evil One by an even more Evil One.

I also expect their stories mostly remain to be written.


----------



## Gordian Knot

goldhawk said:


> Sorry Gord, but there is not a preponderance of physicists and cosmologists that believe this, a majority, yes, a preponderance, no. The future of the universe is not a predictable as they would have you believe.



Ummmm. Methinks you are splitting hairs here. The words mean essentially the same thing!


----------



## RJM Corbet

goldhawk said:


> ... The future of the universe is not a predictable as they would have you believe.


 
Most of 'my' electrons are close to 'me'. That's a quantum probability.

But some of my electrons may be in Australia, on Mars, the Moon. That's a quantum possibility.

And a single electron may have a knock-on effect with possibly huge consequences?

It's still astounding that the possibility of sentient life having originated from a few chemicals shaken up together under the right conditions is greater than all the atoms in the universe.


----------



## Huttman

Hmmm...Curious. What do you think Spock would say about those odds?


----------



## Ursa major

The "real" Mr Spock - i.e. not the one who quotes improbable statistics off the top of his head in the TV show - might suggest that we have insufficient information to calculate such odds.


----------



## paranoid marvin

Ursa major said:


> The "real" Mr Spock - i.e. not the one who quotes improbable statistics off the top of his head in the TV show - might suggest that we have insufficient information to calculate such odds.


 


Or simply raise an eyebrow...


----------



## mythmaker

What a question!  It plagues me daily.

I am coming to the conclusion that it does - but it is futile against pre-destination.

There have often been things I have wanted to do and wanted to achieve - but despite great efforts and seeming ability - I haven't managed to do so.  It has been like sitting on a dead horse, and trying to make it gallop.  But it remains motionless.  It will never run.

On the other hand, other people achieve their goals easily, as if they were "meant" to do so.  It is as though these people have climbed on a horse that is alive and champing at the bit!  They give it a gentle nudge and it gallops for them, effortlessly.

Free will meant that I was able to climb on to the dead horse.  The wrong horse for me!  Predestination dictated that I would never make that horse gallop.

Has I "chosen" to mount the correct horse - the horse in tune with my predestination - it would have galloped.  Unfortunately, I was never told which horse to ride.

Make sense?!?

Now I have re-read my post, I think I prefer Interference's:  "Something is making me say yes".  Inspired!!


----------



## Gordian Knot

Interesting logic Mythmaker. But I'm not buying it! lol. Maybe predestination dictated which horse you would pick. Or maybe a whole lot of other possibilities were involved in which horse you picked.

Or have you considered you picked the right horse, and didn't know how to make it run? Or couldn't make it run for some other reason?

It may come as a shock to some, but my opinion is that whether there is free will or not is irrelevant! If one is to be a fully functioning human being, one who wants to become all they can, it is important to ACT as if there was free will.

Because to accept one has no free will is to stop trying. After all, why bother if you cannot change anything.

No, act like you have control of your life, and let the chips fall where they may.


----------



## Huttman

That was very well sai....written, Gordian Knot!


----------



## mosaix

Gordian Knot said:


> Because to accept one has no free will is to stop trying.



But if you've no free will, there isn't a choice, you just _have_ to keep trying.


----------



## HareBrain

Gordian Knot said:


> It may come as a shock to some, but my opinion is that whether there is free will or not is irrelevant! If one is to be a fully functioning human being, one who wants to become all they can, it is important to ACT as if there was free will.



The last bit is true (and we have little control over it anyway) but as I think i probably said somewhere in the vast wasteland of bandwidth above, it is relevant in the consideration of crime. If we accept that criminals have no free will, surely we must remove the punitive element of sentencing? (Leaving rehabilitation, deterrence and protection of the rest of society.)

OTOH, there are those who would use a perception of lack of free will to excuse their own antisocial behaviour, so it might be important for society to behave as though there is free will, even if it suspects there is  not.

in summary: time for dinner.


----------



## Gordian Knot

mosaix said:


> But if you've no free will, there isn't a choice, you just _have_ to keep trying.



Of course there is that! lol. Clever.


----------



## Galacticdefender

I think there is most definitely free will. I am typing this right now of my own accord, am I not? I think just the fact that we can discuss wether or not we have free will is evidence enough that we do.


----------



## Parson

Or that the way we came to be who are makes it inevitable that we would discuss this.

This is fun, but really just an endless circle of logic.


----------



## Huttman

An endless circle can be symbolic of something that goes nowhere and never finds the answer or is an all encompassing understanding. Semantics. There is a satisfying truth and answer to EVERY question or puzzle in existence. I do not doubt we are of our own accord to go left or right. Some might say, (e.g.) since I cannot survive without air, water or proper sustenance, I do not have free will. I believe there are many ways to look at issues that come up. That being said, I'm sure a proper psychologist, knowing it's a circle reasoning thing, would be more interested in _why_ someone feels they don't have free will while others do feel they do. Even God, for those of you who do believe, has set a law for himself and exists in it perfectly. You have heard the term, with great power comes great responsibility, and it is true. Without restraint, there would be chaos. Actually, without it, *nothing *would exist.

I guess the real question would be, not _does free will exist_, but, _are you happy with the free will you possess?_


----------



## Parson

Huttman said:


> An endless circle can be symbolic of something that goes nowhere and never finds the answer or is an all encompassing understanding.


You are now sounding like your avatar.


> Semantics. There is a satisfying truth and answer to EVERY question or puzzle in existence.


Perhaps, but I have nodoubt that there are many questions to which I, and I will be so bold as to say humanity will never find a satisfying answer to. 





> I do not doubt we are of our own accord to go left or right. Some might say, (e.g.) since I cannot survive without air, water or proper sustenance, I do not have free will. I believe there are many ways to look at issues that come up. That being said, I'm sure a proper psychologist, knowing it's a circle reasoning thing, would be more interested in _why_ someone feels they don't have free will while others do feel they do. Even God, for those of you who do believe, has set a law for himself and exists in it perfectly. You have heard the term, with great power comes great responsibility, and it is true. Without restraint, there would be chaos. Actually, without it, *nothing *would exist.
> 
> I guess the real question would be, not _does free will exist_, but, _are you happy with the free will you possess?_



As a Christian of Calvinist persuasion I find your last sentence very insightful. And certainly the truth of "with great power comes great responsibility" is transparent to anyone who values the benefits of human community.


----------



## HareBrain

A series of simple propositions:

1. What we call conscious decisions are thoughts.

2. Although these thoughts are based on previous thoughts, in chains that we might call a decision-making process, we do not decide to have any individual thought. The thoughts happen without us calling them forth.

3. If these individual thoughts are not called forth by our own volition, if we do not _choose_ to think them, then how can any decision that happens at the end of a chain of thought be said to be one made by free will?

To expand: anyone who's ever tried meditating knows that thoughts just arise in the mind; you don't call them, they just come, seemingly randomly (but actually based on a large number of factors in brain activity).

You can say to yourself "I'll think about what to have for dinner", but that thought itself wasn't called forth, wasn't decided upon; you just had it, because it was getting near dinner time, you were hungry, etc. Think about it: you cannot describe the process by which you decide to think about what to have for dinner except by starting with a thought that arises spontaneously. And then this leads to a chain of thoughts that makes up the decision -- but each of these thoughts itself arises spontaneously, the result of brain activity driven by previous thoughts/brain activity. And what we might call the final thought in this process, which is the actual decision about what to eat, itself arises spontaneously. The decision has been made for you by wherever the thoughts come from. Which is "you" in the wider sense, of course, but not the narrower "you" that observes them arising: the conscious self.

Except for instinctive reactions, you cannot make a decision that is not a thought, and you cannot decide to have any thought. You just have them. Your observation of the process, and identification with it, is what creates the illusion of conscious free will.


----------



## Gordian Knot

It is an interesting argument HB. I do have some issues though. One is you make it sound as though thoughts come from some nebulous limbo. Or to use your words "The decision has been made for you by wherever the thoughts come from."

The thoughts had to come from your brain right? Unless you are under the evil control of Emperor Zogg! If your thoughts came to your consciousness out of your brain, Ergo, ipso, facto, Colombo, Orio, are they not by definition "your" thoughts?

If they are indeed your thoughts, the conclusion that results is your decision.


----------



## Ursa major

I'm guessing that one can, at least to some extent, train one's subconscious to supply certain thoughts (or type of thoughts) to one's conscious mind.

Many years ago, I had no interest in coming up with puns, and neither did my subconscious. Now puns frequently appear in my head unbidden, because it's what my subconscious has been "trained" to do (presumably because reacting, and adapting, to the conscious mind's desires/"requests" is how at least part of the subconscious mind works).


----------



## Huttman

I was going to put this in my previous post but I did not want to over do my point I was going to say about having choice to go left or right is still very much about stimuli. This worlds economics flourish through a subtle and gross bombardment of advertising and chemically enhanced stimuli. But we have a choice to say no to that cupcake! Freewill and serenity now!

Seriously, the ability to choose is a precious thing. You could say it is a gift. The desire to go against the popular has truly made the most monumental changes in this world, even if it was for just one person.


----------



## HareBrain

Gordian Knot said:


> If your thoughts came to your consciousness out of your brain, Ergo, ipso, facto, Colombo, Orio, are they not by definition "your" thoughts?
> 
> If they are indeed your thoughts, the conclusion that results is your decision.



In my post above I said this (perhaps not clearly enough), but I make the distinction between "you" as an overall person (including the unconscious) and the "you" that I think is what most people instinctively mean by the conscious self, which I maintain to be the observer of the results of brain activity rather than its controller.


----------



## Moonbat

It sounds to me that HB is proposing a difference between Conscious Free Will and Subconscious Free Will. this is not an argument against free will but more whether it is driving or a passenger.



> Many years ago, I had no interest in coming up with puns,


 
I thought this was the beginning of a Pun addicts confession, possibly a family intervention had occurred. 

We have been discussing this for a while now and I think we have gone round several times, but due to the causal nature of time it is nigh on impossible to every know if a choice is free or not, and some of the science (possibly alluded to earlier in the thread) suggests that, as HB says, the choices are not something the conscious 'you/I' is aware of placing the freedom of our will firmly in the subconscious.

If we agree that free will is Subconcious and as Ursa mentioned the ability to train our subconscious is possible, where does that leave us?


----------



## HareBrain

Moonbat said:


> It sounds to me that HB is proposing a difference between Conscious Free Will and Subconscious Free Will. this is not an argument against free will but more whether it is driving or a passenger.


 
I think "subconscious free will" is a contradiction in terms. What would separate our "subconscious free will" from that of an amoeba? It would be no more "free" than a rock that falls because it is pulled by gravity. (We are rocks who believe we choose to fall.)



> We have been discussing this for a while now and I think we have gone round several times



Actually, though this thread has gone round and round, I've found it useful in making me think ("me" in the wider sense of course), and my opinion has changed since it started. I used to believe that true free will might be possible if we could only rid our decision-making of the effects of unconscious elements (genetics and past experience). Now, since I observe that all thought arises unconsciously, I don't think there's any possibility of it at all. (Nor do I think it much matters except as a philosophical point.)



> If we agree that free will is Subconcious and as Ursa mentioned the ability to train our subconscious is possible, where does that leave us?



It leaves us as automata who don't experience ourselves as automata. Our conscious selves are observers along for the ride. But the fact that we don't (and possibly can't) experience ourselves as automata is crucial -- if we did, it would be psychologically devastating.

The interesting question that arises from this, I think, is what is the "observer" and why do we have it, if it has no effect on our actions?


----------



## Ursa major

HareBrain said:


> It leaves us as automata who don't experience ourselves as automata. Our conscious selves are observers along for the ride. But the fact that we don't (and possibly can't) experience ourselves as automata is crucial -- if we did, it would be psychologically devastating.


 

It seems to me that we _are_ automata, however our decision-making process works:

by making our own decisions (conscious mind and/or subconscious mind), based, at least partly, on external stimuli88
by following a programme (predestination;
by receiving commands (from a separate soul*** or a deity***).
I think we lose the sense of whichever form our decision-making is in operation simply because:
we have a conscious mind, that appears to be, for all intents and purposes, single threaded, but doesn't always follow what we might regard as logical thinking, the latter because:
the massive parallelism of our brains provides so many different logical arguments that we cannot determine all of the consideration that have gone towards the final decision. And, for some reason, we seem to think of the normal human brain as a "perfect" machine, which seems both illogical (very few things are or can be perfect) and misguided (because the brain is an analogue system, one to which Boolean logic probably can't easily be applied.)
Possibly.




HareBrain said:


> The interesting question that arises from this, I think, is what is the "observer" and why do we have it, if it has no effect on our actions?


Many believe that this is merely an emergent property of our brains, which is why some people think that, eventually, IT systems will achieve consciousness.



** - I know that this doesn't sound like the usual definition of an automaton, but if our brain isn't following (its own) "instructions" (low level ones, at the neuron level, out of which bigger ones emerge), including instructions to rewrite instructions, what is it doing?

*** - All this does is move the ground on which the argument plays out; it doesn't change the argument (except to allow some people to say we've entered one or more areas of ineffability).


----------



## Gordian Knot

HareBrain said:


> In my post above I said this (perhaps not clearly enough), but I make the distinction between "you" as an overall person (including the unconscious) and the "you" that I think is what most people instinctively mean by the conscious self, which I maintain to be the observer of the results of brain activity rather than its controller.



Actually I did understand what you were saying. My interpretation is different. The mechanisms by which the conscious and the subconscious function are indeed different. Don't think many would debate that point. I believe different is good though!

Saying the conscious mind is just an observer is, in my opinion, not giving that part of our active thought process its just due. Similarly suggesting that the subconscious drives all smacks of passing the buck. It is the modern equivalent of "The Devil made me do it" in the sense that we are saying our actions are processed on a level for which we have no control.

In actuality I tend to lean towards the concept that the neither is in complete control; rather that both work side by side to allow us to make our decisions. Or in your words, both participate in the "control" of how decisions will be made. The conscious mind brings in stimuli, the unconscious parses that stimuli and passes suggestions back out to the conscious mind.

As for the comment that we have gone round and round on this issue, my question would be what's your point?  Philosophical topics are by nature, inherently difficult to pin down as there are precious few solid truths to work from. Going round and round is not an effort in futility however. Each trip around the discussion brings out different ideas, different suggestions.

In other words, it is the journey that is the point, not the destination.


----------



## HareBrain

Gordian Knot said:


> Saying the conscious mind is just an observer is, in my opinion, not giving that part of our active thought process its just due. Similarly suggesting that the subconscious drives all smacks of passing the buck. It is the modern equivalent of "The Devil made me do it" in the sense that we are saying our actions are processed on a level for which we have no control.



I agree that buck-passing in not very attractive, but the attractiveness or otherwise of an idea has no bearing on how true it is (whatever Keats said).



> In actuality I tend to lean towards the concept that the neither is in complete control; rather that both work side by side to allow us to make our decisions. Or in your words, both participate in the "control" of how decisions will be made. The conscious mind brings in stimuli, the unconscious parses that stimuli and passes suggestions back out to the conscious mind.



How does the conscious mind bring in stimuli? How does it do anything with the suggestions passed to it by the unconscious?

I maintain that to show the conscious has anything to do with our actions, either one of these would have to be the case:

1. Our decisions are not wholly dependent on thought (or instinct), or

2. We can choose which thoughts arise in our conscious minds.**

My observation of my own mental activity suggests both those are false. I'm willing to be shown to be wrong, but I'd like to see these particular points tackled (or the preceding assumption).


** This is a tricky one. I could think "I will next think of a blue elephant", and think of a blue elephant. But I would say this is a chain of thoughts, each arising from the unconscious into the conscious, but influenced by the previous ones.


----------

