What is free will?

[rtxoff]

The purpose of this thread is trying to find an answer to the question "What is free will?".

If you look into the wiki you will find the sentence:

Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain factors.

When i think about that, free will means nothing else then random choice because choices are made because of certain factors and when you eliminate these factors, chaos is what is left behind.

So "free will" seems to be a logical fallacy. There can't be such a thing as free will with the definition above.

Maybe someone else has another definition what free will could be?

[shynung]

I don't think it's a fallacy. 'Free' literally means 'unrestrained, unimpeded'. So, take away all the factors that limit the agent in question, 'free will' means the ability to be random, unpredictable, chaotic even. in before the (highly probable) lock

Edited October 9, 2014 by shynung

[magnemoe]

The purpose of this thread is trying to find an answer to the question "What is free will?".

If you look into the wiki you will find the sentence:

When i think about that, free will means nothing else then random choice because choices are made because of certain factors and when you eliminate these factors, chaos is what is left behind.

So "free will" seems to be a logical fallacy. There can't be such a thing as free will with the definition above.

Maybe someone else has another definition what free will could be?

Factors is often limited so you have no choice, think about driving a car, you select how fast you want to drive depending on a lots of factors, speed limits, road condition, weather and the cars limits but also how much time you have, you tend to speed if in a hurry your mod at the moment is also important, you have free will here.

Now you end up in a queue and have no free will in practice: driving faster and hit the car in front is a bad idea, driving slower than the queue don't make much sense if its slow.

[Dodgey]

Wheather or not that statement is a logical fallacy depends on your interpretation of the phrase "certain factors", differing interpretations would yield different definitions. For example if "certain factors" means all variables then yes, there is no such thing as free will. This in my mind ties into hard determinism.

However if "certain factors" ment factors which bias the agent in such a way to leave the agent no sensible choice, an ultimatum, then free will could exist in the basic sense (not talking into account hard determinism). In this case if I were asked to pick either A or B with no consequences involved then that is free will. But if someone pointed a gun to my head and said pick B or die then I would not have free will in that situation.

Consequences also could be what is ment by "certain factors". If my choices do not have an effect on the outcome of a situation then it do not have free will.

I don't think that a single workable defination of "free will" exist simply because it is such a broard term with many different levels of workability as I have shown.

[Darnok]

I don't think that a single workable defination of "free will" exist simply because it is such a broard term with many different levels of workability as I have shown.

There is only one "free will" Sir and any choice we can make is result of that single universal freedom.

That freedom is ability to choose, keep and shape your views about life and world.

The choice of your car color or wallpaper on laptop is result of your freedom and it comes as result of your views.

Nobody should force you to share his views like we can see a lot in TV today, where political correctness is forcing people to obbey other people will and views or beliefs.

And if someone dare to refuse share those political correct belifs they are saying his got views from the Middle Ages and some phobias.

It is every person right to make a choice if he wants conservative, mordern or any other views you can imagine.

[Dodgey]

@Darnok

The problem with the view that we have the ability to choose is that is breaks down once you bring hard determinism into the mix. As with everything in this universe our bodies are the product of physics and that includes our brains in which our minds are situated (assuming the defination of mind is the "program" running on our brain and not a physical object). As such they are subject to the same physical laws everything else is. Cause and affect, if I were to take a perfect copy of your brain and mind as they are now, no a clone a perfect physical copy, and subjected them both to the exact same stimuli they would react the exact same way. Meaning that all we are just machines running as the laws of physics dictate. This is why I said there is more then one defination of free will.

Also as a side note what was with the Sir in that first paragraph? I'm guessing it was to emphasize something though I can't figure out what, not the tone of voice it was said in. Darn text limitations.

[Darnok]

@Dodgey that experiment is wrong, it won't work because of quantum physics.

Even if you can have exact copy of my brain on quantum level, you won't get two exact same answers. If you ask brain-1 question, same information is going to be delivered to brain-2 by "Quantum entanglement".

That is why you can't copy "human being" it just won't work. You can copy part of my body for example brain, but "me" the human, my will and my consciousness is going to stay unique and undivided. It is possible it will communicate with you on both "interfaces", but not by giving same answers

As for "Sir", I wanted to be polite.

[CaptainKipard]

Oh boy. I'm going to have so much fun with this topic.

Here we go!

Is everyone ok with an article by Sam Harris as a source? He's a well known neuroscientist, but some believe he also eats babies...

Before you read it though make sure you understand statistical significance and also keep in mind that the idea of a free will came about before people knew anything about anything.

Anyway here it is. tl:dr Decisions happen in your brain before you're aware of them.

@Dodgey that experiment is wrong, it won't work because of quantum physics

Just wow. I could have made money on the fact that someone would sooner or later bring up quantum physics.

I don't think it's a fallacy. 'Free' literally means 'unrestrained, unimpeded'. So, take away all the factors that limit the agent in question, 'free will' means the ability to be random, unpredictable, chaotic even.

You are restrained though. You're forced to do things according to your emotions and reasoning. In other words, your brain controls you and your self awareness is only a helpless observer.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Helix935]

personally i define it as:

The capability of a conscious subject to perform any action that they are capable or have known to be capable within defined or undefined boundaries of their physical or otherwise form or vessel...

i did not take this from a dictionary, i am just very literal especially since i had to make sure that it isn't misinterpreted

[Rainbowtrout]

Preliminary reminder, keep religion out of this.

(On topic, free will is doing what you want. Basic, but possibly true.)

[CaptainKipard]

personally i define it as:

The capability of a conscious subject to perform any action that they are capable or have known to be capable within defined or undefined boundaries of their physical or otherwise form or vessel...

That's a poor definition given that you're leaving a huge hole in it by using the word "undefined". It's meant to be a definition.

(On topic, free will is doing what you want. Basic, but possibly true.)

Are you free to do things you don't want to do?

DO you always do what you want to? as in, when you're exercising restraint, is that your free will?

Edited October 9, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[rkman]

So "free will" seems to be a logical fallacy.

I hope it never happens to you, but try think of what you said there if you're ever robbed at gunpoint. Over-thinking things notwithstanding, that is (actually, the opposite of that) what is meant by "free will".

[Helix935]

That's a poor definition given that you're leaving a huge hole in it by using the word "undefined". It's meant to be a definition.

ok how about this:

The capability of a conscious subject to perform any action that they are capable or have known to be capable within defined boundaries that may or may not be know to the subject of their physical or otherwise form or vessel...

although of course this talk of free will can easily turn into an anti-society rant if it is allowed to go out of control so tread lightly

[rtxoff]

I hope it never happens to you, but try think of what you said there if you're ever robbed at gunpoint. Over-thinking things notwithstanding, that is (actually, the opposite of that) what is meant by "free will".

It actually already happened to me, i got robbed and i faced a 9mm gun pointed toward my head. It's an very unpleasant feeling you get from it, but in just that moment you feel nothing, you are incapable to do anything else beside give the robber your money and watch him get away. The bad feelings come afterwards when you process what actually happened. I don't wish to anyone to get in such an situation. However i don't see how this contradicts to what i said initially, it's only one more clue in favor of deterministic thinking. Human controlled by it's program (survival instinct in this case) unable to fullfill it's own will. Also my statement that "free will is a logical fallacy" referred to the bad definition of "free will" in wikipedia. Maybe someone can work out a definition of it whithout such an fallacy.

[Darnok]

(On topic, free will is doing what you want. Basic, but possibly true.)

Not! Free will is about views not about actions.

Your actions are limited by free will of other people, that is why you can't run naked on street, but you still have free will

If it would be about actions then person who can't afford new car wouldn't have free will, until he gets enough money.

[shynung]

You are restrained though. You're forced to do things according to your emotions and reasoning. In other words, your brain controls you and your self awareness is only a helpless observer.

Those may be part of the limiting factors of 'free will'. For example, I don't fully understand quantum mechanics, so my responses to threads that discuss them would be limited. Also, given a specific, defined goal, one's action becomes much more predictable, further limiting his possible responses to certain situations. A competent rocketeer trying to go to the moon will never attempt to burn retrograde, which would run against his goal. Note, however, that his eventual action does not necessarily agree with his intentions (his navigation system might be malfunctioning, for instance).

What I'd consider 'free will' is the randomness, or unpredictability, of one's action when given an almost-equivalent set of choices. For example, if a man with no knowledge of the local road network encounters the first 4-way intersection in a town, he is just as likely to turn left, as he is to turn right or go straight. However, we cannot, for all practical purposes, predict his decision with 100% accuracy; that is left to his 'will' to decide.

Edited October 9, 2014 by shynung

[Thourion]

You are restrained though. You're forced to do things according to your emotions and reasoning. In other words, your brain controls you and your self awareness is only a helpless observer.

Is my brain part of me? Am I part of my brain? Are they both the same thing in the end?

What if my brain feels sad, is eating chocolate a need of the brain thats controling me to eat it? Or am i forcing my brain to get happy, cos im eating chocolate? Or does the need for chocolate, or the purchase/consumption of it, comes from an outside factor anyway?

Like an ad, or some discount on the market, or some chemical subs, in the chocolate, who body and brain got needy off, and i havnt consumed for some time?

One way or the other, one of them has to have free will. Either my brain, or body, or the outside factor that wants/happens to control me.

Because its either someone or something has free will, or we are all interconnected (humans, organisms, celestial bodies, spirits, martians, klingons, stock market, singularities, the robber with the gun, the right turn on the road that is filled with dump, the guy that made that road, the guy that filled the road with dump), that we control each other in a loop.

Does the loop have free will?

In the end i feel Free will is just that, a will that is free. What you will isnt always something you can do, but that doesnt mean its not there. Even on a loop, i think that started from something that had free will.

[shynung]

One way or the other, one of them has to have free will. Either my brain, or body, or the outside factor that wants/happens to control me.

Because its either someone or something has free will, or we are all interconnected (humans, organisms, celestial bodies, spirits, martians, klingons, stock market, singularities, the robber with the gun, the right turn on the road that is filled with dump, the guy that made that road, the guy that filled the road with dump), that we control each other in a loop.

Does the loop have free will?

In that case, it would look more like a complicated Rube Goldberg machine, in which every single thing has an influence on the next thing it touches, literally or otherwise. And this loop would have had a beginning: the big bang, similar to how Rube Goldberg machines has to be tripped by something.

If that's true, then the only 'free will' that ever existed is the one happened at the big bang; in an infinitely small length of time, in which the original configuration of the entire universe, similar to the seed pattern on a Conway's game of life, is defined, and then left to the laws of nature (which may be defined at the same time as well) to shape and forge.

[-Velocity-]

I don't think there is any specific correct definition, it depends on the context and how narrowly or broadly you want to define it.

At the absolute most degree, assuming there is no supernatural soul, then our brains are just chemical computers. Every one of our decisions is dictated by the arrangement and configuration of our neurons, the chemicals being fed to them, the states of the neighboring neurons, etc., plus probably a slight random "noise" created by quantum mechanical effects. If significant enough, the quantum effects would make our behavior slightly non-deterministic, but not in any way that we have any control over. Thus, there is no free will; nothing that is constrained entirely by the laws of physics could have free will.

This definition came up recently in a discussion about sapient machines, where someone claimed a sapient machine would not have free will. My point was that as long as our brains are entirely described by the laws of physics, then there is no reason a machine couldn't have the same amount of free will that we have, regardless of what your definition of free will is. Depending on your definition of free will, machines could have even more free will than we do.

But anyway, what I described above is the most absolute definition. There are other definitions of free will obviously, such as how constrained we are by society or laws or our upbringing or whatever to make certain choices.

So what "free will" means depends on the context, and there is no single answer. I don't think you'll get anything meaningful out of this topic, really.

Edited October 9, 2014 by |Velocity|

[ZedNova]

In my opinion "Free will" means that nothing is set in stone by the universe or predetermined 100%, whatever might happen can be changed by anything or anyone.

For example, we know that the sun will die in around 5-7 Billion years, killing off all life on this planet and perhaps swallowing it up. Do we have to be here when that happens? No, we don't, there's no universal law stating that we must stay here for that.

[CaptainKipard]

ok how about this:

The capability of a conscious subject to perform any action that they are capable or have known to be capable within defined boundaries that may or may not be know to the subject of their physical or otherwise form or vessel...

Alright. Next question is, what objects are conscious and why.

although of course this talk of free will can easily turn into an anti-society rant if it is allowed to go out of control so tread lightly

Yeah some people try to do that but what they don't realise is that even simple clockwork machines can be made to self-preserve to a degree so that line of "reasoning" goes out of the window.

Even if animals don't have free will, their deterministic brains will do everything they can to keep safe (because life is about survival), and that means doing things like keeping psychopaths away from society.

-snip-

All you're doing is redefining something else and calling it "free will".

Is my brain part of me? Am I part of my brain? Are they both the same thing in the end? -snip-

The analogy is a Taxi

The car is your body. It has needs.

The driver is your brain. It is in control of the car.

The passenger is your ego. You think you're in control, but as neurological studies suggest, the driver makes the decision and only makes "you" aware of it once it's ready to act.

In that case, it would look more like a complicated Rube Goldberg machine

I like this analogy.

At the absolute most degree, assuming there is no supernatural soul, then our brains are just chemical computers. Every one of our decisions is dictated by the arrangement and configuration of our neurons, the chemicals being fed to them, the states of the neighboring neurons, etc., plus probably a slight random "noise" created by quantum mechanical effects. If significant enough, the quantum effects would make our behavior slightly non-deterministic, but not in any way that we have any control over. Thus, there is no free will; nothing that is constrained entirely by the laws of physics could have free will.

This definition came up recently in a discussion about sapient machines, where someone claimed a sapient machine would not have free will. My point was that as long as our brains are entirely described by the laws of physics, then there is no reason a machine couldn't have the same amount of free will that we have, regardless of what your definition of free will is. Depending on your definition of free will, machines could have even more free will than we do.

I think I agree with this

But anyway, what I described above is the most absolute definition. There are other definitions of free will obviously, such as how constrained we are by society or laws or our upbringing or whatever to make certain choices.

I'm pretty sure OP is not talking about societal factors, only what's in your head.

Edited October 9, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Darnok]

OMG... free will is not about what action I can or can't pick. Choice of action or item is a result of free will.

To have free will you doesn't need context or permission from other people, because you have right to have it since you are born.

You have right to have views and beliefs you like and all your choices comes from what you believe. If you believe red is "your color" then you possibly buy red car.

Of course our life and other people have impact on us, so our views and beliefs are changing over time, sometimes one person forces other person to share his views, that is not right, because we have right to keep our beliefs as we want to.

If free will would be about actions like most of you are saying, then policeman wouldn't be able ask you to show him your id/documents... because using your free will you would be able to refuse. And refusing policeman is crime, but we can't be punished for using our free will

In most countries is constitution and if you read it, it says about freedom, and that you can not be punished for using your free will, but you can be punished for your actions.

If free will would be about choice and actions... remember that every action that violate other person free will makes you criminal, so policeman by simply giving you order to slow down and pull over, would become criminal, because you don't want to do that action and he forced you

[CaptainKipard]

Darnok I think there's a language barrier here. It's really difficult to figure out precisely what you're trying to say. A lot of it is completely off topic.

[shynung]

All you're doing is redefining something else and calling it "free will".

That's what I think is free will. I realize that I may be wrong, but I have yet to understand enough to prove or disprove this belief.

Though, if I later find evidence against it, I might fall back to the Rube Goldberg analogy.

Which may or may not prove/disprove whether 'I' actually possess 'free will'. I'm not sure anymore.

Edited October 9, 2014 by shynung

[Alchemist]

One thought that seems to correlate with free will question: life and evolution.

If to analyze organic life on larger scale there's nothing "set in stone", everything is a subject to change should it prove inadequate (with exception of cases when something becomes inadequate too fast and causes extinction) or something much better arises. While physiology and instincts are subjects of long-term evolutionary processes (so for a single individe it's kinda not a subject of change, but that still is product of evolutionary processes), personal knowledge gets overwritten relatively easily in new circumstances and society tends to undergo massive changes on scale of decades (besides, society influences personal knowledge and knowledge can override most instincts).

Maybe "free will" is just the evolutionary variability at and around the personality level. That is the ability to alter and even discard some things we learned previously based on new data and so make adequate decisions in changing environment.

But there is always the question of what happens to free will if we artificially set some trait as "not a subject to change"...