Free will?

[NIN]

First off, I'm not quite sure if this is in the right section...I guess that in some sense this could be considered more of a philosophy question than a science one. Anyways, here goes:

 

Most people probably believe that we have free will, and that all of our actions are completely decided by, well, "us".

 

I'm not so sure about it, though. Here's my reasoning:

 

Most of the universe seems to work in very exact clockwork patterns. If you mix A amount of B chemical with X amount of Y chemical, it will always produce the same results. No variation. Of course, you could say that something like flipping a coin is random. But is it really? The amount of force you flip it with, which side is face-up to begin with, how far it has to fall etc. are all factors in how it will land. So doesn't it boil down to exact physics?

 

With that being said, if things typically aren't random and are always decided by every tiny factor involved, who's to say that our brains are any different? If a certain person is placed in a certain situation, wouldn't they always make the same decision? Obviously you couldn't test this because if you put a person in the same situation twice, they'd essentially be a different person the second time, as they'd know the results of what happened the first time.

 

Can anyone provide any arguments against my theory? Does anyone agree with it?

 

Thanks, NIN.

[bascule]

If a certain person is placed in a certain situation, wouldn't they always make the same decision?

 

Yes, but that decision is their free will.

 

If they didn't make the same decision in the same situation how would that really be "their" decision?

[Sisyphus]

People often talk about "free will" without a clear idea in their minds what it is they are talking about, but only what it isn't. For example, saying that free will can't be deterministic. But if you ask them if "free will" just means the choices they make are totally random (i.e., not deterministic), they usually say no to that, also. But deterministic and random are the only two options, meaning their "free will" is just a totally nonsensical idea.

 

Me, I sidestep the question entirely, and just define free will as a subjective experience of conscious minds. It doesn't matter what physical processes that consciousness emerges from - its existence, as with all experiences, is self-evident.

 

Just as an aside, there are non-deterministic aspects to the universe - not coin-flipping, really, which you correctly point out is predictable, but stuff on the scale of quantum mechanics. These things are random but obey laws of probability, which when added together into things on the everyday scale yield basically deterministic outcomes most of the time. If you flip a coin once (assuming it's random, bla bla), you have a 50/50 chance of either outcome. If you flip a coin 10 trillion times, you're basically guaranteed to have almost exactly half heads and half tails, even though there is a very small but finite chance you'll get heads 10 trillion times. Similarly, there is a finite probability that all the electrons in the matter of the floor underneath you will randomly be somewhere else at the exact same moment, and you'll fall right through. But the probability is so small that we can say with great confidence that that will never happen over the history of the universe, and we can safely act as if it's deterministic.

 

Anyway, how big of a role randomness plays in the brain is not something that's entirely settled, AFAIK. bascule will say that it basically plays no role at all, and as far as I'm concerned he's probably right, but it doesn't really matter as far as "free will" is concerned, even though there are plenty of people who will pretend that it does, and try to wedge "free will" into quantum mechanics. But those people are behaving foolishly.

[granpa]

what would u do with it (freewill) if you had it?

Edited May 5, 2009 by granpa

[GDG]

"Free Will" -- wasn't that a movie about a whale?

 

Seriously, I would first define the concept as "the belief that we consciously control our thoughts and actions." Of course, that just escalates the question into "what is consciousness"? Sidestepping that, I'll just say that "I know it when I feel it"

 

A great deal of our thinking occurs "below" the level of consciousness. For example, think about how you read: some part of your subconscious brain has to recognize the signals from your eyes as indicating a screen, and that there are letters on the screen, and that the letters form words that you recognize, and that you know the meanings of each of those words, and then that you understand the thought that was (hopefully) conveyed by those words. Your conscious mind is probably involved only at the last step (if then).

 

Studies show that your brain (i.e., subconscious) makes an identification, or a choice or decision, milliseconds before you are consciously aware of it (and sometimes even reacts before you are consciously aware of what you are reacting to). So are you "there", or just along for the ride? Other studes show that you can consciously override the subconscious decision, at least in some cases.

 

My speculation is that consciousness is more involved with memory: this is the function that turns our daily experience into a story, rather than a database of sensations. When you get home, and someone asks you "how was your day today?", you respond with an extemporaneous story (assuming you don't just answer "OK"), making a small history out of your personal experiences.

 

Returning to the point: whether your decisions arise from your subconscious or your conscious thoughts, all arise from your brain, which has to obey the laws of chemistry and physics. Is that deterministic? Perhaps, although the brain is so complex that I suspect that as a system it is chaotic (or at least mathematically complex), and thus not predictable. Regardless of whether the decision originates in your conscious or unconscious thoughts, it is still yours.

[granpa]

consciousness is that which we percieve controls our actions. but whenever we become aware of something controlling our actions we 'transcend' it. as a result, the illusion is created that nothing controls our actions. that our actions are 'free'. that our consciousness samehow transcends deterministic cause and effect. its simply an illusion.

 

we can never be aware of what controls our actions because that awareness would change things. its like the unexpected hanging paradox where the prisoner can never be aware of what day is the last day that he can be hanged on because that awareness would change the fact.

[bascule]

People often talk about "free will" without a clear idea in their minds what it is they are talking about, but only what it isn't. For example, saying that free will can't be deterministic. But if you ask them if "free will" just means the choices they make are totally random (i.e., not deterministic), they usually say no to that, also. But deterministic and random are the only two options, meaning their "free will" is just a totally nonsensical idea.

 

It's only a nonsensical idea if you think "free will" means "freedom from causality"

[granpa]

Yes, but that decision is their free will.

 

If they didn't make the same decision in the same situation how would that really be "their" decision?

I would simply call that their 'will' not their 'freewill'. how does freewill differ from will in your opinion?

[Severian]

People often talk about "free will" without a clear idea in their minds what it is they are talking about, but only what it isn't. For example, saying that free will can't be deterministic. But if you ask them if "free will" just means the choices they make are totally random (i.e., not deterministic), they usually say no to that, also. But deterministic and random are the only two options, meaning their "free will" is just a totally nonsensical idea.

 

I would almost agree with that (I disagree with Bascule's redefinition of the term). However, I would just say that this makes free-will incompatible with, or rather unexplainable using, the scientific method. It is our scientific ansatz that either things are random or are predictable, but reality needn't really be like that.

 

I do think though, that you have to accept either that you have no free-will, or the existence of non-predictive phenomena.

[Tsuyoiko]

I find Daniel Dennett's view of free will very plausible. In his book Freedom Evolves he tries to show how free will and determinism are both true and compatible.

 

His version of free will is the ability to make decisions by anticipating likely outcomes, and predicting which course of action will lead to favourable results. Dennett argues that this really only makes sense in conjunction with determinism, because it's determinism that gives us the ability to make predictions.

 

This interview gives a good overview.

[Mr Skeptic]

People often talk about "free will" without a clear idea in their minds what it is they are talking about, but only what it isn't. For example, saying that free will can't be deterministic. But if you ask them if "free will" just means the choices they make are totally random (i.e., not deterministic), they usually say no to that, also. But deterministic and random are the only two options, meaning their "free will" is just a totally nonsensical idea.

 

I went through the same thoughts when considering free will from a scientific perspective. I concluded that "free will" as I wanted it to be is a scientific impossibility. Even if we have a soul, that too would be controlled by deterministic and/or non-deterministic processes, which as you noted are the only two possibilities.

 

My conclusion is that "free will" in reality is a combination of random processes passed through a deterministic process. The random processes provide the "spark", initiative, or unexpectedness, while the deterministic processes provide values, morals, character, intelligence, and personality. And, of course, there is a significant feedback loop as well.

 

Me, I sidestep the question entirely, and just define free will as a subjective experience of conscious minds. It doesn't matter what physical processes that consciousness emerges from - its existence, as with all experiences, is self-evident.

 

Consciousness is a funny thing. I'm fairly certain that consciousness is largely an illusion. Almost everything we do is subconscious, and consciousness is largely a construct for justifying what we did (or think we did!).