Is free will an illusion ?

MayCaesar

From the scientific point of view, "free will" makes little sense. "Free" of what? The chemical processes in our bodies depend on how our organism is built and on what external sensory input we get; they are also the processes determining our behavior. Genuine free will would require one's ability to make a decision, at least, in part not based on any physical constraints - which is in the realm of supernatural and cannot exist in the physical world.

Consider this. You look at a person's decision-making process from the outside, making accurate measurements of every single part of their body with sophisticated detectors. The existence of free will would require that your detectors cannot connect the decisions the person makes to the physical causes behind them; your detectors would feature no data that can explain why the person acted this or that way. It would be the same as a rock suddenly starting to levitate for no reason, without any apparent cause. Existence of free will would break the principle of causality, breaking the entirety of logic in the process. As such, from the philosophical scientific point, free will is a logical contradiction.

That is not to say that our decision making is necessarily completely predetermined. Quantum effects leading to randomization of choices may (and do) exist; certain physical effects we are not aware of that lead to additional randomization may exist; finally, something truly bizarre may be the case, such as our Universe being a simulation by a being existing in an abstract space-time not bound by any physical constraints and, in turn, featuring genuine free will.

However, randomization through "free will" existing within the boundaries of our physical world logically cannot be the case.

piloteer

I'm sorry "@MayCaesar, but you've totally undermined your argument when you said, "That is not to say that our decision making is necessarily completely predetermined". If you cannot prove determinism is the force that drives ALL nature, than you can't even begin to entertain the idea that free will is an illusion. Leave us not forget that Niels Bohr has won the debate between him and Einstein (albeit, after his death). Non-locality has been proven. With that fact in place, it's impossible to prove that determinism is not an illusion. 

MayCaesar

@piloteer

The existence of "free will" assumes that we are in control of our choices. If our decision-making is randomized due to the inherent randomness in the Universe (such as the inherent probabilistic nature of Quantum Mechanics), then it is not a free will. We are still completely controlled by the physical properties of the world around us, it is just those properties that are randomized.

If you really wanted, you could interpret it as the world having a free will, and us being its hive mind drones - but that would be a purely abstract philosophical construct.

As far as the evidence against determinism goes, it is true that the Bell's theorem excludes he existence of local hidden variables - however, it says nothing about global hidden variables. It is another matter that those variables by their very design (for example, relativity prevents us from doing so) cannot be measured experimentally. This means that even if determinism exists, we can never prove its existence. With the small caveat that, perhaps, relativity theory also has its limitations, and in the future our advancements in science will let us find a loophole, allowing us to measure those variables.

This subject, however, is not related to the matters of "free will" in any way. For "free will" to exist, a human must have a certain degree of control over the physical properties of the world, rather than the physical properties of the world having full control over the human - which is impossible, according to how our science is designed. If it was possible, we would have to accept that the world is fundamentally not cognizable, and that would be very problematic logically.

piloteer

"@MayCaesar ;

MayCaesar said:

For "free will" to exist, a human must have a certain degree of control over the physical properties of the world

Prove it! That's just your vision of how to prove free will exists, but not necessarily the only way, or the actual way. Who says that for "free will" to exist, a human must have a certain degree of INFLUENCE over the physical properties of the world, is not true? On that line of thought, is "control" a real thing? Can anything actually "control" any other thing, or can they only influence them? I will concede that Bells theorem didn't prove non-locality in a universal manner, but physicists DO consider it clear evidence that non-locality is a universal law. It's difficult to have a visual conception of the ramifications of non-locality without a degree in physics. Non-locality means that everything that exists, influences every other thing in existence, and that influence has been proven to be virtually instantaneous throughout the universe. Although, the proof that non-locality is true, was only able to be produced in a tiny little space, physicists know that if that phenomena was able to exist in that tiny space, then mathematically, that phenomena has to exist universally. Non-locality is a proven fact, universally. Locality has been proven to be ineffective in describing the laws of the universe. 

piloteer

Sorry, I pressed "post" before I could make my entire argument. (I know, I'm such a dink). The argument that you made to point out that quantum mechanics has its limitations, only hurts your argument. You are literally conceding that "false pattern recognition" is a factor in how we view our universe. If ALL patterns can be subject to relativity, then we must concede that any pattern we've ever used to see our universe (past, present, and future), could ultimately be proven to be false. Since the concept of determinism relies on patterns, and ALL of those patterns could potentially be false, then determinism could also be just an illusion caused by "false pattern recognition". 

MayCaesar

@piloteer

When I roll a dice to decide whether I win or lose $100, it is not my choice what I get. My choice is whether to roll the dice or not; the outcome of that dice is outside my control.

If the Universe is inherently randomized, i.e. it effectively rolls dice all the time, and it is the only source of randomness in the human decision-making - then there is no free will, since the "choice" does not exist, and every outcome, including how we choose to act, is defined by the dice which we have no influence over.

Free will by definition has to involve decision-making not completely bound by the laws of physics. If it is completely bound by them, then it is completely controlled by them, and every human is a slave to the laws of physics completely determining their behavior, outside their control. It might appear as free will due to how we interpret the world around us unconsciously - but in reality, it is not what it seems from our limited everyday experiences. We think we make choices; in reality, physics makes choices for us, and we merely execute them, as my computer right now is executing a computational script I wrote for it, with no degree of freedom and with every computational action strictly based on the data that is fed to the program. 

The simplest way to understand it is to simply envision our brains as organic computers, with both the hardware and the software created by external factors outside our control. Our hardware and software tells us what to do and when, and we are simply following the instructions, unable to escape our programming.



I have a degree in physics, but I am hardly a scientific mastermind. To me, determinism with non-local hidden variables could mean something like this: at the moment of its emergence, the Universe "rolled a dice", a very large dice with an incomprehensible number of dimensions (possibly an infinite number of those). It got some prediction of the future and then fit this prediction with a very complicated mathematical function. This function is as much a property of the Universe as, say, gravity, and it defines how exactly quantum effects are resolved in every situation. There is no violation of relativism (or, you could say, there was at the moment the Universe appeared - but we do not believe the laws of relativism apply to that moment in the first place), there is just an infinitely large abstract database of the results which are retrieved every time quantum randomness is involved.

It would be somewhat similar to how it works in the Superstring Theories, with their hidden dimensions - only here, instead of space-time dimensions, we have very abstract dimensions.

To me, however, the take-away here is that the determinism of such complexity would effectively be the same as lack of determinism, and it is merely a matter of interpretation and not the actual physics. Unlike the Superstring Theories, the theories on determinism do not give any predictions we can verify experimentally.

piloteer

"@MayCaesar ;

Again, I'm sorry but, something that "is merely a matter of interpretation", does not constitute a proof. Not in science, and certainly not in debate. 

piloteer

Dammitt. I hate that damm, "Debra al prediction" thingy. This is literally the WORST TIME for it to go against me. I can't think of a worse debate to have that thing go against me.

MayCaesar

@piloteer

That is the point: there cannot exist a proof of something that is simply a matter of interpretation. Simply put, whether determinism exists or not, according to the modern science, is a moot question, since the answer does not affect the observable data in any way.

The question on existence of free will is not exhausted by whether the Universe is deterministic or not. Impossibility of existence of free will follows simply from the basic assumption that everything in the world is a subject to causality; if that is not the case, then our basic logic breaks and we are unable to conceive of that aspect of the Universe, let alone decide how to categorize it.
And even if we on purpose ignore this objection, then, while free will cannot exist in a deterministic Universe, in a non-deterministic one it might or might not exist. The Universe not being fundamentally deterministic does not mean that free will exists, since the lack of determinism can come from a multitude of sources, many of which have nothing to do with our consciousness.

Joeseph

Our ability to choose our fate is not free, but depends on our biological inheritance.its central idea can be quickly conveyed. Nothing can be causa sui - nothing can be the cause of itself. In order to be truly morally responsible for one's actions one would have to be causa sui, at least in certain crucial mental respects. Therefore nothing can be truly morally responsible.

Professor Saul Smilansky advocates a view he calls illusionism—the belief that free will is indeed an illusion, but one that society must defend. The idea of determinism, and the facts supporting it, must be kept confined within the ivory tower. Only the initiated, behind those walls, should dare to, as he put it to me, “look the dark truth in the face.” Smilansky says he realizes that there is something drastic, even terrible, about this idea—but if the choice is between the true and the good, then for the sake of society, the true must go.

piloteer

"@MayCaesar ;

I couldn't disagree with you any harder! Non-locality has proven that everything that exists is an axiom of influence, that influences every other thing. Where did you get the idea that we as living beings, are somehow dispossessed of the laws of physics? Furthermore, where did you get the idea that we need to be able to control physical matter to have free will? Is it not true that all we need to do is influence energy, motion, or even linear events to cause change? Simlpy because we exist, we cannot help but constantly alter everything that exists. Your idea that we are only the product of events that preceded us is outdated. Locality (which is where your idea derives from), has been proven to be ineffective in describing the laws of physics.

MayCaesar

@Joeseph But the interesting consequence of this reasoning is that, due to the presence of determinism, the society will develop in the predetermined way, and nothing can change that. In fact, the proposal of Professor Smilansky in itself was predetermined to appear at this exact moment in time. Whether the ivory tower will be built and the knowledge of determinism will be confined there or not, is already determined, and all we can do is passively (and, again, in a predetermined way!) observe the predetermined events unfolding.

Even if someone, deeply internalizing the idea of determinism, comes to the conclusion that "Nothing matters then, since everything is predetermined" - then even this conclusion was predetermined. It is an infinite loop of predetermined events that is very difficult to untangle logically.




@piloteer I feel like we are talking about different things. My argument is not based on locality; locality is an idea related to determinism, not to free will. My argument with regards to free will is based on the simple principle of causality. I am also not sure why you state that the idea of us being merely the products of preceding events is outdated; in fact, it is the logical foundation of the modern science, and if it ever becomes outdated, then the entirety of our science will have to be discarded.

Could you explain how you define "free will"? Free from what exactly? If it is not free from the causality, then, in my view, it is a pure product of the past events and we have zero control over it. And if it is free from the causality, then we have serious logical issues, since the entire body of our logic is based on the chain of causal connections.

piloteer

"@MayCaesar ;

Perhaps now you see why Einstein was such an ardent opponent of non-locality. He was afraid to come to the conclusion that our entire universe, and our existence is anarchy. In the end, Einstein never truly conceded to Neils Bohr, but he said that he could think of no elementary method to disprove him. Yes, the laws of nature as we HAD known them, have been turned inside out. Much of the basis for the entire body of our logic that is based on causality, has been disregarded. There seems to be no method nor foundation to our universe. I understand that you think this is all irrelevant when it comes to free-will, but I say it's of the utmost relevance. I fail to see why this is such an unsettling concept to you. Since its inception, modern science has been shocking people with its findings. Physicists are always on the cutting edge of a new scientific vision. The materialistic view of our universe has been scrapped. Idealism reigns supreme! Just our mental vision of our immediate surroundings, and of our universe, is projected onto our surroundings and our universe, and that does affect our surroundings, and our universe. 

When you came to that predetermined view of our existence, I hope you took into consideration the fact that our concept of time is skewed. Time is not linear, it's relative. Time is distance. What time it is right now, is relative to where you are in the universe and how near or far you are from other objects. If everything in the universe is predetermined, then would it be daft of me to suggest that we could conceivably figure out the future based on patterns that have governed the past? Lets say, for the sake of argument that we've created a computer that can predict the future. Lets say that I get the first read out of the information, and it tells me that MayCaesar is going to burn himself by being careless with a cup of coffee (ouchy). Well, since I would be very sad to know that this could happen, I run out and buy you a cup of ice-coffee and you drink that and I save you from a possible burn that could ruin your day. It would seem to me that once we come into possession of the information of the future, we can alter it. So predeterminism is a fallacy. The reason it's a fallacy is simly because the future is not predetermined, it's relative. It is unscripted.

How much does "false pattern recognition" come into play when we're talking about predeterminism? If it's not zero percent, then it's probably pretty close to one-hundred percent. You even said it yourself when you pointed out that "relativity theory also has its limitations, and in the future our advancements in science will let us find a loophole, allowing us to measure those variables." If all patterns could potentially be discredited as time passes, then is pattern recognition even a viable source of information on how the universe is governed? Do we know for sure that we as humans actually possess every possible sense we need to truly gather every bit of information possible? Let me answer that one. Yes!! We absolutely know for sure the we DO NOT possess all the possible senses needed to perceive our universe. Around 80% percent of our universe is made up of something that we can't even perceive (dark matter), because we lack the senses to be able to perceive it. Dark matter is not just a vacuum of empty space, it actually is affecting everything. It is a thing, we just can't see it, hear it, touch it, or taste it, but it's all around us and affecting us. If we lack the ability to even perceive the vast majority of our universe, how can we be sure that pattern recognition is an accurate indicator of how our universe is governed? Are the patterns that we think we see in the past, which gives the illusion of controlling the future, actually accurate? Are there really patterns at all, or are patterns just an illusion played on us by our senses, or our lack of senses?

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

You say ..... 
Even if someone, deeply internalizing the idea of determinism, comes to the conclusion that "Nothing matters then, since everything is predetermined" - then even this conclusion was predetermined. It is an infinite loop of predetermined events that is very difficult to untangle logically.

My reply ..... But why would you want too untangle it?   Tests and studies have been done to demonstrate that humans actually preform better and behave better if they believe they have free will even though the opposite I believe is true 

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

To claim one had free will is to say that person  has the capacity to choose his or her course of action would you agree ? 

MayCaesar

@piloteer

Properly done science should not depend on what we "want" to be true and what we are "afraid" of being true. That said, we are all humans. Einstein was also a human, with human flaws. He always had trouble accepting certain concepts that "felt" wrong to him ("God does not play dice"), even if logically and based on evidence they seemed to be true. This is understandable, but it is not logical. A purely logical approach only cares about the truth, no matter how unsettling it may seem. 

You are wrong in our stance on causality and materialism. It has not changed significantly in the last few centuries, and our conviction in the ability to use causality-based logic and to use the observable data for learning about the Universe is stronger than ever before, given how successful this approach has been so far. Nothing has been shattered, and science does not "turn our entire world upside down" ever; if it does, then it is pseudo-science, because it did not pay enough attention to the observable facts. When we learned about relativistic and quantum effects, it was not that we suddenly realized, "Everything we thought to be true was wrong". We merely realized that our established theories were not applicable to the domains we previously had not dealt with. Newton mechanics still holds as it has always held, for example; we just know now that it does not describe the entirety of the mechanical effects.

Existence of determinism does not imply the ability to predict the future, just like existence of space does not imply the ability to instantaneously teleport to some point in that space. And even if you could predict the future and act on it, then, in case of determinism, you predicting the future and acting on it was also predetermined. Nothing has been violated, you simply need to adjust your interpretation of what happened.

Pattern recognition is simply the only way we found to gain relatively accurate knowledge of how the Universe works consistently. I do not think anyone has ever reasonably claimed that patterns can explain everything - they, however, are the only entity that can explain something. Without patterns, there is nothing to explain, since nothing can be categorized, and, in general, "anything goes".

I have no problem with the concept of free will. I simply realize that it has no place within the framework of strict logic. Some modified form of logic, not constrained by causal connections, could very well lead to the conclusion of the existence of free will. But this is not the same logic as what we nowadays call "logic". It is something else, something requiring a completely different conceptual paradigm, or even a completely different language, to explore.


@Joeseph ;

Untangling it is not necessary, indeed. But the entire premise of this suggestion is suspect. If the professor believes that everything is predetermined, then would it even make sense to publicly claim that this is not the case, if it cannot affect anything - since, again, everything is predetermined?

There are some interesting logical loops involved in the principle of determinism. I agree that it is more practical to believe that we have free will (I know I act as if I had free will, for one) - but if the free will does not exist, then what we believe does not depend on us and only depends on the predetermined sequence of events, and so whether we believe we have free will or not is not our choice.

In any case, this is hardly grounds for a debate. This is simply an interesting side of the matter.

piloteer

MayCaesar said:

@piloteer

You are wrong in our stance on causality and materialism. It has not changed significantly in the last few centuries, and our conviction in the ability to use causality-based logic and to use the observable data for learning about the Universe is stronger than ever before, given how successful this approach has been so far. Nothing has been shattered, and science does not "turn our entire world upside down" ever; if it does, then it is pseudo-science, because it did not pay enough attention to the observable facts. When we learned about relativistic and quantum effects, it was not that we suddenly realized, "Everything we thought to be true was wrong". We merely realized that our established theories were not applicable to the domains we previously had not dealt with. Newton mechanics still holds as it has always held, for example; we just know now that it does not describe the entirety of the mechanical effects

I beg to differ. The big bang theory, non-locality, the findings of the double slit experiment, even the theories being put fourth by Dr. James Gates. NONE of this is pseudo science, they are giant holes in the materialistic view of our universe. The materialistic view held that energy can't be created or destroyed. The big bang theory handled that idea. ALL the energy that exists was created, and it was created at a precise point in time. Materialism held the belief that for something to influence something else, it has to be in close proximity to it. Non-locality put a cigarette out on that idea, and it has since burnt to ash. Materialism held the belief that we cannot influence the past, and electrons move in the same manner as matter, and that electrons certainly do not change their behavior simply depending on whether we are observing them or not. They do not act as if they know when we're watching them. Woops, the double slit experiment (which is conclusive), proved that we can influence the past, and electrons do know when they're being observed, and will act differently when they are observed closely.  Dr. James Gates wanted to find out what the smallest thing is before it can even be considered a "thing" any longer. What he claims to have found is that everything that we would consider to be a thing is made of ones and zeroes. It doesn't just resemble computer code, it's a specific kind of computer code that was created in the 1940s, and is still widely in use today. I'm not sure what you consider "pseudo science", but Dr James Gates is on the cutting edge of actuall science, and I wonder what his opinion would be on your opinion of pseudo science. I would love for you to be able to tell Copernicus that science doesn't turn the world upside down!!!! The idealist view of the universe is slowly replacing the materialistic view. 

You have not really properly addressed my proposal that "false pattern recognition" may play a huge part in our concept of "predeterminism". You also didn't properly address my proposal that "pattern recognition" is possibly ineffective in describing the laws of physics and the universe. All you did to try and refute that, was to pretty much claim that pattern recognition is all we got. It's not really a retort if you agree with me. What I was trying to do was question whether pattern recognition is even effective at all, or are the patterns that we recognize false, or just an illusion created by us. If patterns are just illusions, then predeterminism is absolutely and undeniably false. I guess I can't expound on those arguments until you give them a proper response. I was also trying to elude to the idea that we may not have the senses needed to properly see the universe as it really is. Lets say for instance that we somehow synthesized an extra sense ability, and that in turn gave us the ability to perceive dark matter and understand it for what it is. What if this dark substance disproves every pattern we've ever believed in. Can the idea of paternal predeterminism still stand if our perception of patterns are false, or if we were to someday conclude that all patterns are false because they're just illusions?

Another thing I'm getting confused about is whether you're making an argument for determinism, or PREdeterminism. They are not the same. Determinism doesn't necessarily deny that free-will exists, in so far as to say that our existence does affect the future and we can affect ourselves (to a point). Determinism says that we can't control the circumstances that caused our existence and we can't control the circumstances that causes us to make the decisions that we make, but determinism doesn't deny that we can affect the future. Determinism doesn't state that the future is determined, just the now. Predeterminism is pretty cut and dry, but I'll give my opinion on what it means. Predeterminism means that we are in a chain reaction of events that cannot be altered in any way, shape or form, because each event causes the next event. Just to be sure we're on the same page, I'm making an argument for neither. I'm gonna be honest right now, I'm not sure what word to use for what I'm talking about. Maybe nondeterminism, or undeterminism, not quite sure. Feel free to let me know what word you think I should use. 

Also, your idea of how free-will functions is rather oversimplified. It seems like you think that if free will exists, we would be able to control, or contort, or manipulate matter, or time, or both. I would tend to disagree. Of course we can't control the circumstances that put us here, but as long as we can influence the now, and our influence is a manifestation from us alone, we have free-will. As long as we are able to choose whether to take action because of a certain event, or not act at all, we are experiencing free-will. I also wonder if you think that every judgement we ever make is solely based on our emotions. If so, I'll concede that we cannot control our emotions, but I will never concede that we solely act on our emotions. Sometimes we can have conflicting emotions, so no matter what judgement we make, we would be acting contrary to at least one of our emotions. I think the idea of predeterminism being based on the idea that we are slaves to our emotions is fairly easy to topple. 

Your idea of predeterminism SEEMS only to work when it comes to inanimate objects. There are objects that, from the very moment they became large enough to be considered an object, to the moment they are melted, or smashed back into energy, they will never be directly influenced by any living organism. These objects existence could be considered to be predetermined (if we don't take non-locality into consideration), but what about living organisms? What science are you trying to invoke that proves that our decision is not actually ours, but it belongs to the movement of the universe? If it's based on sequential predeterminism, I challenge you to dislodge my proposal that our concept of time is skewed, non-locality is what is driving the movement of our universe, false or illusory pattern recognition is at play, and influence is all we need to have free-will, not control.

Joeseph

@MayCaesar

You say ....In any case, this is hardly grounds for a debate. This is simply an interesting side of the matter.

My reply .... I was merely addressing what you said I’ve no wish to turn it into another debate 

piloteer

Joeseph said:

Professor Saul Smilansky advocates a view he calls illusionism—the belief that free will is indeed an illusion, but one that society must defend. The idea of determinism, and the facts supporting it, must be kept confined within the ivory tower. Only the initiated, behind those walls, should dare to, as he put it to me, “look the dark truth in the face.” Smilansky says he realizes that there is something drastic, even terrible, about this idea—but if the choice is between the true and the good, then for the sake of society, the true must go.

I'm not sure who professor Smilansky is, and I'm equally not sure why he would consider determinism to be a "dark truth". I don't believe there are any solid facts to support determinism, but some people take comfort in having faith in it. People who believe in the bible or koran, put faith in their god, and in the end that god represents determinism, or even predeterminism. They want to "know" that god made a plan for them. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson, who's a confirmed atheist says that he takes comfort in knowing that our fate is determined. It's obvious that Mr Smilansky doesn't like the idea of determinism, but instead of trying to convince others that free-will is real, like I'm trying to do, he's opted out of the debate, all for the purpose of defending elitism. Exactly what does he mean by, "the initiated"? Although, it's not surprising to hear that a professor is propagating elitism. I'm sure he would consider himself to be one of the "initiated".

MayCaesar

@piloteer

You are misrepresenting a great deal of scientific knowledge. We do not believe that the Big Bang "created the energy". Non-locality does not contradict anything we had known for a long time, it simply revises our interpretation of it. Double-slit experiment did not put a dent in materialism, it simply led us to better understanding on what matter actually is and what kind of matter are possible.
We often build upon and improve our ideas; that is what science does. We never chop the whole science away in favor of something more accurate. If we do have to do that, then our science had not been done properly - which is extremely rare, since our methods are very modern, and cross-checking techniques have reaches levels of sophistication not seen ever before.

Pattern recognition has nothing to do with determinism; it is about how we describe the world. The practical usefulness of this approach can be seen simply from the fact that you are reading this comment right now, posted from likely thousands miles away on a sophisticated electronic device and delivered to you over a wireless network. Is this approach limited? Perhaps. But if there is something in the world that absolutely cannot be described in terms of patterns, then that something is inherently inconceivable by a human mind, and hence should not be talked about.

I am not making an argument in favor of anything. Determinism/non-determinism is a purely philosophical category, it is an interpretation of the world that does not have any observable consequences. I am not sure why you brought it up in the first place; determinism does not have a direct relation to the matter of free will. However, both free will and determinism are related to a third concept: causality. If we accept that causality is at the core of our timeline, then free will does not exist and the world can be interpreted as deterministic. If we do not accept it, then this judgment does not have to be made - but not accepting causality has very far-reaching consequences which, I feel, you have not truly though through. 

I will repeat the question I asked before: how do you define free will? Free from what? You seem to define it as just an ability to make choices. But by that definition, the neural network program I wrote a few months ago also has free will, since it makes choices on whether to give significance to a certain data point, or to discard it. Even my coffee machine has a free will then, because it chooses when to stop supplying the water with energy. It is obviously how, extending it even further, we can come to the conclusion that every single object in the world has free will: every object's behavior can be interpreted as consisting of making choices.

This view is not logical, and it misses the "why?" of these matters. When I let go of the rock I hold in my hand, it does not drop because it chooses to - it drops because the gravity compels it to. When my computer gives me the parameters of a linear fit of the set of data I fed it, it does not decide on this value because it chooses to - it decides on this value because its programming compels it to. When I get stabbed with a knife, I do not feel pain because I choose to - I feel pain because my neural system coordinates with my brain in order to generate the pain signal, compelling me to take action. 

When I choose what to eat in the morning, an apple or a pear, it may seem like my choice depends solely on me. And it somewhat does. However, such a superficial judgment misses the cause of what is happening. Namely: what is "me"? I am not an abstract entity in an abstract space. I am a body, a machine, consisting of organic components. Every decision is based on the functioning of this machine. Just like the calculator sees the "2+2" input and reacts with "4", I see the "apples or pears?" input and react with a choice favored by my organism.

Can we make choices? Yes. But to fully investigate the matter, you should not stop here. You should ask further: "Why? How? How does our choice-making process work?" And if you dig deep enough, you will see that, unless you discard the principle of causality, you cannot envision a model in which your choices are not directly dictated by the state of the world around your consciousness - and, in fact, that consciousness as well is a product of the world.

You can say, "Causality does not always apply", and then your argument will be valid. If you choose to go down that route, let me know, and I can explain how far-reaching the consequences of such a judgment will be. Long story short: "Nothing can be made sense of". It is the death of intelligence. But it might not be so obvious at the first glance, so I can elaborate further if you like. This ties up directly to your notion of our concept of time being skewed: it might be, and it probably is, but rejecting causality is not the solution to this problem; it is a capitulation before it, leading to the lands where no knowledge can exist, and that is... bad.

piloteer

Well then. I guess you leave me no choice but to open a jar that I can't ever get the lid back onto! I absolutely deny causality in every form conceivable, it's an illusion. Non-locality is the death of causality. It's stipulation is plain as day. Everything influences everything, and it does it instantaneously. We are in an echo chamber of influence. One question though, it seems like you actually agree with me, but you fear the ramifications. Why? You said it yourself, although I don't agree with you, you said non-locality wasn't anything new to the scientific world when it was first discovered to be true. Einstein seems to have had the same fears as you about it, but it was proven in the early 70s, and as far as I can tell, the world is still turning. Did you have a specific date for the death of intelligence? Is it actually intelligent to ignore how things may actually be? Who says that if something is devoid of a pattern then humans can't conceive it? Who says that we shouldn't talk about these things? Many artists try and do just that, they try to defy the patterns. Should we abolish art? 

I don't deny the usefulness of patterns. I'm not anti-pattern. I just question its accuracy when it comes to interpreting our existence. And I only question its accuracy, I don't deny it outright. 

I'll be honest, I'm only now beginning to realize how deeply passionate people get about the determinism vs free-will debate. I would never point the finger or look down on anybody for needing determinism to be true. I understand that it is comforting to many people to know that there's a method to our existence. I can't say that I'm not just as guilty of needing a security blanket, but my "faith" is bound to the other side. I understand that giving up security for anarchy may seem illogical, but giving up my choice in what I consider to be a universe of anarchy is even scarier. And what about the people whose entire life has been nothing but pain and suffering? I could never bring myself to look one of them in the eyes and tell them that their pain was planned before they were even born! 

MayCaesar

@piloteer

Non-locality simply means that the event occurring at a given point in space-time is defined by more than just the immediate properties of that point. It is by no means threatening to causality - it is, however, threatening to the popular over-reaching interpretation of the result of the Bell's Theorem, stating (erroneously) that the speed of light limit coupled with the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics prohibits any non-observable effects from affecting the observable world. Causality still holds; in fact, non-locality is impossible without causality, because non-locality connects the cause (hidden variables) to the effect (observational consequences). Without causality, neither locality nor non-locality make much sense.

I am not sure what you refer to when you say that I am afraid of the ramifications. I am not; I believe that knowledge should be pursued for the sake of knowledge, and its authenticity is a practical reward in itself. I am simply saying that rejecting causality leads to the stance that destroys one's ability to acquire knowledge, or even to conceive anything of substance about the world. It is not a wrong view per se, but it is a practically poor philosophical stance. It is much like taking 2+2=5 as an axiom and trying to derive everything from there: you can, of course, but you will quickly come to countless contradictions that will lead you to conclude that your math is dead.

---

Think about some effect in the Universe. Let it be something we cannot easily explain - but something we can observe. We accumulate experimental data with regards to that effect. This data, suppose, does not have any seeming pattern to it, does not have a seeming cause. We keep collecting it. In the end, suppose, we decide that no pattern can directly describe this effect. Then we can solve the problem by assuming that this effect is observationally random (as, for example, Quantum Mechanics states), and attributing the cause to some hidden unobservable effects - which, like we do with Superstring theory, we can try to nonetheless categorize. 

If you think about it hard enough, you will see that absolutely anything that we can see as happening can be scientifically categorized and put into the framework of causality, no matter how random or crazy this something is seen.

Then ask yourself: if something by its very nature cannot be put into the framework of causality... Then what does this something have to be? It has to be something we cannot even describe in words. Something the data of which does not exist in the way in which we can work with it. This something is the entity philosophers have been trying to describe for centuries: "inconceivable entity". If such an entity exists in the world, and if we ever get to interact with it, then not only will we not be able to describe it in any way, but, in fact, it will destroy our brains, as they cannot handle having to deal with something by its design incomprehensible and inconceivable. Suffice to say our minds are not such an entity, otherwise our intelligence would be impossible.

I assume hence that such an entity cannot exist. Maybe I am wrong, and it is probably a manifestation of the anthropic principle. But I better be right, just as we better be right that the equation 2+2=4 holds in all cases and never becomes 2+2=5. Imagine if this latter assumption was not true... Our brains would break instantly if we got to live in the world with observable effects caused by such a change for just 1 second.

---

So consider my argument as an expression of my confidence in our logical apparatus and the causality principle it originates from. If that principle does not hold, then our Universe by its nature is inconceivable for humans, and any discussion at that point is moot. Assuming we want our discussions to have any meaning, I do not see how that desire can be reconciled with the principle of broken causality.

That is not to say that disagreeing with the existence of causality is objectively wrong per se. No, not quite. Rather, I would say, it is at strong odds with the fact that we are still around and did not go extinct moments into our appearance on this planet. You can reconcile these two in some elaborate way, I suppose, but the resulting philosophical construct would be something truly bizarre.

For all practical and philosophical purposes, the model that we are organic machines following our programming works just fine. We do not give up our ability to make choices, and we do not even have to give up the notion that we have these choices and that they are ours. We merely acknowledge that, just like everything else, our lives are fully defined by the laws of physics in this Universe - with no practical ramifications of such a conclusion.

Imagine a complex artificial intelligence we write, that far surpasses us in intelligence. Does it have to give up the fact that it was created by us and will always follow its programming in order to feel free? Not in the slightest. It can live happily knowing that it was started by the Universe, and now it is free to experience life in this Universe with unclear future. As can we.

piloteer

"@MayCaesar ;

If you cannot prove that all actions in our universe are really just reactions (which you cannot), then your entire argument is invalid. Non-locality has indeed proven that the old world view of linear causality is false. It has absolutely proven that not all actions in our universe are reactions to prior circumstances and that initial actions are possible and happen frequently. If you truly want to make your case for outdated causation circumstance, then you must start by disproving non-locality. Just casting non-locality aside as an overreaching theory does not do anything to dismantle it. I can make the same claim about gravity, but that doesn't do anything to dismantle the truth. Furthermore, I don't think you recognize what the true implications on non-locality actually mean. It absolutely does mean that everything that exists, influences every other thing in existence. It absolutely does prove that we are not in a continuous chain-reation event. First dismantle non-locality, then I will be converted to your view!

The old view of materialism is indeed being chipped away and disregarded as invalid. What you consider scientific findings that only alter our perception of materialism, I (and many scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers do too)  consider proof that materialism is invalid. If you disagree, then please, show us how  the fact that all the energy that exists WAS created, doesn't affect one of the most important foundations of materialism (materialism claims that energy can't be created or destroyed). While your at it, just go ahead and disprove the findings of the double slit experiment, and the evidence that shows we can influence the past and electrons know when they're being observed, because that is more evidence of materialism being invalid.

Another aspect of this discussion that I don't think we've touched upon enough is in a social manner. How do you think predeterminism is implemented in a social manner? Do you believe that we are imprisoned by social attitudes? Where do you fall on the nature vs nurture debate, and do you even believe it's relevant in this discussion? (depending on your opinion, it may or may not be) How is predeterminism implemented on an individual basis? Are you trying to argue that an invisible mechanism is governing our actions? The only thing I could think of that would make sense in that kind of argument is the idea that we are guided by our emotions (which I firmly disagree with). If you don't believe it's our emotions that is forcing every action we make, then please do tell, what mechanism is forcing our actions? ( remember, if you can't disprove non-locality, you will need to approach this from a different angle).

seanb

Just a few thought on free will, from what I have been reading.

 

Where intentions themselves come from and what determines their character in every instance remains perfectly mysterious in subjective terms. We do not know what we intend to do until the intention itself arises. To understand this is to realise that we are not the authors of our thoughts and actions in the way that people generally suppose. The intention to do one thing and not another does not originate in consciousness, rather it appears in consciousness.

Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions and you would need to have complete control over those factors.  Are people able to wish away desires, pains, obsessions, unwelcome thoughts and confusions? Does a depressed person have the free will not to act depressed? People have competing desires and in some unfortunate cases, these desires are pathological.

 Additionally, to say we have free will is to say that our actions cannot be merely lawful products of our biology and our conditioning. A person’s genes, upbringing, environment would play a massive part in how one’s mind would be calibrated in reacting and dealing with life events. For instance, does a person born into a cult with no access to the outside world have the opportunities to access information to know any better that they should abandon the cult?  Are there other thoughts and considerations available to these people to think and act any differently?

piloteer

Hello "@seanb, welcome to DI. One issue I find with your argument is, if intention is coming from a "perfectly mysterious" plain, how are we able to automatically assume we're not able to influence it in any way? If it's a mystery, can we actually confirm that it's totally out of our control, or spectrum of influence? This seems to be a little bit of a jump to a conclusion. Another thing to consider here is subconscious thoughts or actions. Is this mystery plain actually a mystery, or is it just an illusion because the intention stems from our subconscious? Are we unable to influence our subconscious? I think it would be daft to think our subconscious isn't influenced by us. Another thing to consider is, perhaps our view of intention is not totally accurate. If we consider intention to be instantaneous, your argument holds some water, but what if intention is not an instantaneous phenom? Perhaps what makes up an intention is a sequence of events, (impulses, or information) but our brains are not able to process the events in a sequential manner. For instance, we will see something before we hear it.

 Do we really need to have complete control over every aspect of our thoughts or actions to have free will? Is control even real? Nothing can truly control any other thing, but it can influence it, and influence can have deeper ramifications than control (assuming control is real). Your not the first person I've heard use that argument, but to me, it seems incomplete.

Your social argument falls flat on its face with me. What your claiming here only works with people who are aware of social attitudes. There are people who exist who are totally incapable of realizing social attitudes, social standings, social hierarchy and manners. Also, you don't take into consideration people (like myself) who don't really care about social structure, standings, or manners. Those things only come into my consideration when it directly affects me. Personally, I think that's the case with everybody but I'm just not as good at hiding it. Social determinism really only seems to work in a social manner, but not in a natural manner. 

When it comes to the natural aspect of your argument, I think my influence argument covers that as well. Claiming that we are controlled by our DNA or nature, is really the same kind of argument that claims "since we can't control the fact that we exist, we must not be able to control anything". As I've said before, that argument seems incomplete.

I have to admit, your argument seems strikingly similar to an argument made by an opponent in a debate that I lost on DDO. (I lost because the only person who voted on it said that his decision was predetermined. That made me cry) . Anyway, welcome to DI.

seanb

Thanks piloteer for the welcome and kindness. We are definitely in agreement in that there will always be some degree in which we can influence the actioning of our thoughts and intentions, though it would be difficult to narrow down why thoughts and intentions appear in the conscious at certain times. I must state my position clearly “just because we don’t entirely have free will, doesn’t mean we are powerless. I would also make the distinction between sub-conscious thoughts and actions and deliberate actions. For instance, I might sub consciously shift in my chair while engaged in a computer game, compared to me waking up tomorrow with a pain in my back which motivates me to go see a doctor. (Deliberate conscious decision)

I contend that the impetus behind thoughts is embedded in a range of experiences (emotional, spatial, sensational, and desired) that we could not consciously be aware of or in control of, at any given moment; as well as genes and upbringing that were not of our own choosing. For example, your free will does not allow you to choose your own sexuality, it just is. Similarly, if you wanted to act differently, you would have to be aware of everything that influences your thoughts/actions, which include environmental factors, current mood, and influences of other people, past experiences as well as other available thoughts and considerations at the time.

When you said “Claiming that we are controlled by our DNA or nature, is really the same kind of argument that claims "since we can't control the fact that we exist, we must not be able to control anything". I would respond by saying that yes there are things in which we can control in our existence, but if we are biological wired (IQ etc ) and brought up a certain way (not disciplined properly, stunted by physical and emotional trauma, schooling, nutrition, chance etc.) it will limit and influence our behavioural capacity as well as impeding our ability to make alternate healthy decisions as well as channelling bias towards a single decision. Shortly, we can put it in terms of “our inputs will greatly impact our outputs”.

Are we unable to influence our subconscious? Yes we can by having new experiences. For example, our ability to drive a car: once we get skilled we stop thinking which gears to use, which pedals to press, or which mirror to look at, yet can always become aware of what was done once we think about it. But also the sub-conscious is filtering large portions of information in each moment, the conscious is not influencing this filtered information and unaware of what information it is taking in.

Lastly, I want you to think about something you want(can be object, car, new house etc); now I want you out of your own free will, not to want it. Similarly, I want you to think about anything you don’t want, now try to want it. When I do this thought experiment I can’t will myself not to like something that I want, it just is. I would also oppose the idea that we choose out of our own free will, unpleasant feelings like anxiety, pain, urges and conflicting emotions.

I hope I have explained my position better, and thanks for the welcome.

AlexOland

 Well, even though I am materialistic, I think this question right now is not answerable. I know that physically, free will should not be possible. But by the same logic, we should not exist. Why and how the atoms would create sentience is still a mystery. I think free will is very improbable BUT we still do not understand some concepts about our existence, therefore it would be too early to arrive at a conclusion.

 "Just because we do not know anything about X, does not mean we can't talk about Y." Someone might respond with this so let me answer it beforehand. You can not simple this situation down to that. We know very little about our existence so commenting on a key aspect of our existence would not be right. That is the argument.