Does free will exist?

[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]

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]

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]

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

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).

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.