What is free will?

[shynung]

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

I'd imagine it would be similar to setting a Roomba free to roam a maze, and then programming it to always turn left when encountering an obstacle, no matter what the sensors detect.

[Francesco]

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.

no, when you eliminate all factors, free will is what's left.

actually, you have free will to act in spite of those factors.

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.

you have free will in the sense of having the choice of driving your car the safest way, or the most effective/quickest way.

you can't think of free will as "I can do anything I want".

so you could say that you have free will, but within a certain range of choices.

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.

false.

you do. you can choose to die.

not the best choice, probably, but still a choice.

the mistake here is arguing that since you're probably gonna direct your will towards what's most convenient to you (surviving, or not crashing your car, as in the example above), then you don't have free, absolute will.

If my choices do not have an effect on the outcome of a situation then it do not have free will.

false.

free will is not a God-like ability to influence any and every event in the universe.

@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).

citation needed.

the brain is inside the head, yes, but is the mind as well? I don't think so.

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.

super-false.

you can choose to act in spite of your emotions.

that's what makes us human, if you ask me - the capacity to override instincts.

and self awareness is precisely what allows you to do that.

there is a grain of truth to that, though, in the sense that your range of choice at the present moment is limited by your history, your past experiences, your brain physiology...

so all these things concur to creating a sort of panel of possibilities you can choose from.

Wow. Great topic. Two more pages to read, and a lot of work still left to do.

Arrrrgh! Do I have free will to choose which one to go after first?? :D

[CaptainKipard]

is the mind as well? I don't think so.

It doesn't look like you finished your thought.

you can choose to act in spite of your emotions.

that's what makes us human, if you ask me - the capacity to override instincts.

Yeah...with your reasoning, I already said that. Your emotions and your reasoning are both still deterministic.

and self awareness is precisely what allows you to do that.

This is just a baseless assertion, which is bad enough, but it's also demonstrably wrong. As I already posted, neurological studies show that awareness of making a decision follows the decision being made by the brain. For the love of christ I posted that link in the very same post you're responding to. What are you doing?

Edited October 9, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Dodgey]

@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".

My understanding is that the neurons in your brain are too large to be able to be effected by quantum physics, though I'm not sure of what you mean here, quantum physics isn't just a catch all term, what affects are you talking about here?

Also no information isn't going to be delivered to either brain via quantum entanglement, that isn't how it works. A real physicist would probably kill me for saying this but you cannot transmit information between two entangled particles, all you can do is observe one flicker in and out of existence (that's where a physicist cringes and kills me) and know that the other particle is doing the same.

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 .

There are many reasons why you cannot copy a human brain or mind and quantum entaglement is the least of your worries. Your second sentence confuses me, are you implying that your mind exists else where than your brain? Becasuse the example of the two same brains says otherwise, perhaps you misunderstood me.

no, when you eliminate all factors, free will is what's left.

actually, you have free will to act in spite of those factors.

Yes but the extent of your free will depends on how you interpret "factors" as I showed on my first post.

you have free will in the sense of having the choice of driving your car the safest way, or the most effective/quickest way.

you can't think of free will as "I can do anything I want".

so you could say that you have free will, but within a certain range of choices.

Doesn't this contradict your first statement? You started off by saying once you remove all factors you have free will (again what do you define as factors?), but then you said free will is the ability to act in spite of those factors (defination of factors). Just those two statements are contradictory unless you define factors a certain way though even then I'm not sure.

However in your next statement you say that free will isn't being able to choose to do anything you want (I assume that is what you ment), that you have free will within a range of factors. This contradicts your first statement so I'm confused as to what you define free will as.

false.

you do. you can choose to die.

not the best choice, probably, but still a choice.

the mistake here is arguing that since you're probably gonna direct your will towards what's most convenient to you (surviving, or not crashing your car, as in the example above), then you don't have free, absolute will.

It isn't false if the defination of free will uses is the interpretation of "certain factors" which I listed above the example, I was demonstrating that there can and are different workable definitions depending on the situation and your interpretation of what "certain factors" is. I quote; "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."

false.

free will is not a God-like ability to influence any and every event in the universe.

I didn't say it was, in anycase it not false assuming that "certain factors" means consequences. These are all depend on what is ment by factors or certain factors.

citation needed.

the brain is inside the head, yes, but is the mind as well? I don't think so.

Is there any evidence that the mind exists outside of the brain? All evidence that I know of points towards the opposite.

super-false.

you can choose to act in spite of your emotions.

that's what makes us human, if you ask me - the capacity to override instincts.

and self awareness is precisely what allows you to do that.

there is a grain of truth to that, though, in the sense that your range of choice at the present moment is limited by your history, your past experiences, your brain physiology...

so all these things concur to creating a sort of panel of possibilities you can choose from.

So no, not super false then. I think that Cpt. Kipard addresses this the best in his response.

[Mr Shifty]

Looks like we have a few overlapping definitions of the idea of 'free will.' It might be helpful to summarize what's been discussed:

1) At a basic level the particles that make up our brains are governed by physical laws that are either purely deterministic or are subject to stochastic randomness; neither situation makes room for human choice. But that's probably an unnecessarily reductive view. Choice can be totally determined at the basic physical level, but seem free (and for all intents and purposed be free) at a higher level.

2) We also know that decisions are made by the brain before the conscious mind is aware of them. If we define free will as the ability of the conscious mind to make decisions, then it surely doesn't exist. But, this isn't as problematic as it seems: it's undeniable that some process occurs inside the brain when making decisions. The a posteriori justification for the decision presented by the conscious mind need not be a false justification. In other words, just because the driver chooses where to go doesn't mean the passenger didn't also want to go there.

3) None of the above matters that much when you consider that it at least appears that we can make decisions. Obviously there is no such thing as a completely unrestrained decision. We're always affected by our physiological state (emotions, bodily needs, libido, etc), by our particular environmental situation (at work, at home, outside, driving, etc), by our culture and upbringing, by our values, our instincts, the people we're around, etc etc etc. But we do seem to have the ability to make decisions in the presence of adverse stimuli. I can choose to forgo that donut even though I'm hungry and I really want it.

And maybe that's the best way to define free will: It's the apparent ability of humans to make decisions in the presence of two or more competing factors in the decision. Or, if we want to include 'reason' in the definition we could say: It's the apparent ability of humans to choose the option represented by reason when other factors dictate against it. Of course then we're left with the task of defining reason.

[Tery215]

Do people with fewer choices have "less" free will because the decisions are based on logic and need? Because they have fewer ways to express their ability to choose?

Do people with more choices have "less" free will because the decisions get more and more arbitrary? Does the fact that their choices are chosen seemingly randomly take away from their free will?

Probably not.

Free will can be considered the ability to make decisions with dynamic boundaries.

[magnemoe]

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

Now if you watch animals you see that it look like they have free will too, even primitive ones like insects. Randomness in behavior is a survival trait, harder to predict for predators and if one unknown action is disaster the ones who did not do it survive.

Humans is different as in the depth of the thought process, ever played poker, most don't bluff if you have .... cards from the start, they bluff then their high stake gamble don't pay out.

[notfruit]

Free will is a movie about a boy and a whale developing and unlikely friendship and - Oh wait.

Well to me free will is just being able to make wrong decisions. [ Religion Omitted ]

[Godot]

Well, according to some neuroscientists free will is the illusion that the brain creates for the consciousness, to let it believe that the decision (to perform an action)

was a free decision, and not an automated response of neurons to environmental cues and internal states.

(a view more or less supported by PET Scan experiments which showed that the necessary neuron groups (to perform an action) already fired, before the subject made the decision to perform this action)

[magnemoe]

Well, according to some neuroscientists free will is the illusion that the brain creates for the consciousness, to let it believe that the decision (to perform an action)

was a free decision, and not an automated response of neurons to environmental cues and internal states.

(a view more or less supported by PET Scan experiments which showed that the necessary neuron groups (to perform an action) already fired, before the subject made the decision to perform this action)

Oversimplification, this might true in some setting who are mostly emotional like my driving speed on highway however its still contains lots of rational elements like road conditions and chance of police controls. In other scenarios like poker you do strategy, yes the strategy is based on your feelings but you analyze and come to an conclusion.

In other settings again you find you have to follow your feelings because all facts are not present, like then I bought an used car, three cars, the one I wanted most was a bit over my budget and a bit to old. The cheapest car was too small to be comfortable so I went for an middle ground.

[WestAir]

Question:

If an organism or agent existed, capable of super omnipotence: The ability to create and destroy anything from the smallest of quanta to the largest cosmos, unimpeded by any higher force or plane of existence, could it be said to have free will? Or would it, too, be in the grey margin some commentators place the human brain within?

[Dodgey]

Question:

If an organism or agent existed, capable of super omnipotence: The ability to create and destroy anything from the smallest of quanta to the largest cosmos, unimpeded by any higher force or plane of existence, could it be said to have free will? Or would it, too, be in the grey margin some commentators place the human brain within?

I would consider it to be within the grey area as you say it. Though it opens up the discussion of whether or not an omnipotent would be an intelligent being, as all of its thought process would already have taken place.

[78stonewobble]

Well, according to some neuroscientists free will is the illusion that the brain creates for the consciousness, to let it believe that the decision (to perform an action)

was a free decision, and not an automated response of neurons to environmental cues and internal states.

(a view more or less supported by PET Scan experiments which showed that the necessary neuron groups (to perform an action) already fired, before the subject made the decision to perform this action)

Well, those neurons are "you" too... And if I remember correctly, you can choose how those neurons react, over time, even if what you "learn" is mostly... well whatever .... happens to you in life.

[Godot]

Well, those neurons are "you" too... And if I remember correctly, you can choose how those neurons react, over time, even if what you "learn" is mostly... well whatever .... happens to you in life.

Those Neurons are me, too, correct.

But that also means that "I" cannot choose how those neurons react ...

if we can exactly recreate the same conditions (like neuronal setup, neurohumoral levels, environmental cues etc. )

will think the same thoughta and react in the same way.

I am, in this case, just a determinist automaton ... albeit a very complex one

[Error404brain]

Free will is the ability, if we are put twice in the exact same conditions(same state of mind, same time, same everything), we would react differently.

I don't think we do have free will, but we can't be for sure (we can't just restart the universe for to see if we react the same).

We can have free will : basing your decison upon the roll of a dice

Please excuse my bad english, I am still learning.

[rtxoff]

Hmmm, maybe we are determinist automatons but our complexity allows us to analyze and process our sensorial inputs in a very sophisticated way. The product of all this is the human beeing. Even if under exactly the same conditions we would react in the exactly same way this might NOT be an argument for lacking of free will. The question is more like: Is free will compatible with determinism? That is the point where the opinions get seperated. To answer this question we still have to learn more about the human brain because we still do not understand it to an full extend.

Also some interesting questions:

Can there be a program that acts different every time under the same exact conditions? (Random number generators won't work when they start with the same seed)

Is our brain really running such an program?

Does the biology allow us to have something like an hardware random number generator?

[Alchemist]

Well, according to some neuroscientists free will is the illusion that the brain creates for the consciousness, to let it believe that the decision (to perform an action)

was a free decision, and not an automated response of neurons to environmental cues and internal states.

(a view more or less supported by PET Scan experiments which showed that the necessary neuron groups (to perform an action) already fired, before the subject made the decision to perform this action)

Even if the decision is made by some deeper semi-automatic evaluation and response mechanisms and only then "vocalized" by higher thought processes, let's not forget that the evaluation mechanisms are usually based on previous experiences and to some extend the conscious evaluation of these (of course, there sometimes are some deeper psychological imprints that may stand against conscious evaluation). The subconscious decision-making might just work as the optimization mechanism for faster decisions. Because if the body does what the mind would decide anyway and based on the same factors the mind will use for this decision (including previous conscious decisions) it's not against the free will of the mind. Unfortunately sometimes these paths may diverge, but that often is linked to psychiatric issues.

[Alchemist]

Hmmm, maybe we are determinist automatons but our complexity allows us to analyze and process our sensorial inputs in a very sophisticated way. The product of all this is the human beeing. Even if under exactly the same conditions we would react in the exactly same way this might NOT be an argument for lacking of free will. The question is more like: Is free will compatible with determinism? That is the point where the opinions get seperated. To answer this question we still have to learn more about the human brain because we still do not understand it to an full extend.

Don't forget that we are talking about analog system with rather high noise level. Determinism in such systems is rather probabilistic and after multiple consequential steps we can get relatively wide spectrum of probable outcomes even if we know the initial values well enough.

Another question: is the idea of "I'm doing this not because someone told me to do this, but because my own experiences also agree with this" manifestation of free will even if it also is rather deterministic?

[-Velocity-]

Hmmm, maybe we are determinist automatons but our complexity allows us to analyze and process our sensorial inputs in a very sophisticated way. The product of all this is the human beeing. Even if under exactly the same conditions we would react in the exactly same way this might NOT be an argument for lacking of free will. The question is more like: Is free will compatible with determinism? That is the point where the opinions get seperated. To answer this question we still have to learn more about the human brain because we still do not understand it to an full extend.

Also some interesting questions:

Can there be a program that acts different every time under the same exact conditions? (Random number generators won't work when they start with the same seed)

Yes, random number generations can be based on a chaotic system or a quantum state and generate random numbers without a seed. But to equate randomness with free will is ridiculous. If something is random, then NO ONE CHOSE IT. Randomness is just as different from free will as determinism is.

Again, the strictest definition of free will is a calculation/decision/computation made where at least some part of that decision is not decided by the laws of physics, and is instead decided by some non-physical component that embodies "will" and "purpose". Without this non-physical component, the decision was decided wholly by pre-determined, known physical laws operating on the decision making "machine". At "worst", the decision was only subject to quantum non-determinism, and as others point out, quantum non-determinism may actually be an illusion itself. Quantum non-determinism certainly isn't under anyone's control, and thus cannot be a component of free will anyway!

By this definition, free will is non-deterministic, but it is NOT randomness. The ONLY WAY it can exist is if there is some "higher" universe where souls exist and that these souls can be "tapped" by decision-making machines to empower them with free will. Occam's razor says entertaining such an idea is ludicrous, so we almost certainly do not have free will under this definition.

Edited October 10, 2014 by |Velocity|

[CaptainKipard]

The more I read the more I think that "free will" is a nonsensical concept that can never be defined.

Even if you try to get away from the physical or biological factors determining your actions, you can always ask "what is controlling your brain, and what rules does that thing follow", and then we're back to determinism again.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Albert VDS]

Free will is the thing which lets a being do what ever it wants. You could argue that it's just acting upon rules and that there is no free will.

But I would say it is because of rules that make free will possible.

Like a video game, it has a set of rules, but you have freedom with in it.

[shynung]

The more I read the more I think that "free will" is a nonsensical concept that can never be defined.

Even if you try to get away from the physical or biological factors determining your actions, you can always ask "what is controlling your brain, and what rules does that thing follow", and then we're back to determinism again.

It could be determinism, but with a specific twist: the amount of input variables of the decision-making algorithm could be very large, so that the chances of all the variables being exactly the same are very small. In the end, we have a machine that is very hard to predict, but also being non-random.

[Alchemist]

Maybe free will is not about choosing actions "uninfluenced by certain factors" or even "in spite of certain factors", but quite opposite "considering all the factors and options" - the ability to reevaluate certain aspects based on all the knowledge instead of following a single set of directives, the ability to discard or modify older principles instead of dismissing incompatible new data... adjusting the mind to the changing environment...

Determinism? Biochemistry is rather deterministic, too. But does it makes organic life something less than life?

[Karla]

The question "What is free will?" presupposes that free-will exists. I don't believe in free-will in as much as I don't think it can ever be properly defined.

Definitions are tools and they must be useful. It is not useful to talk about free will when trying to figure out how a brain works or how we can build an A.I.

The concept of free-will can only ever be useful when refering to something external to an agent. For example, "I signed the contract out of my own free will rather than because a gun was put to my head". This may be useful in a legal context but unfortunately does not help with discussions involving philosophy, science or engineering. It's not a useful term when discussing the internal workings of an agent's brain because there is no clear demarcation between when you would and would not use it.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Karla

[worir4]

Yey, philosophy!

Plato says that the body limits the souls free will. He says the soul is trying to gain knowledge through reason, not empirical knowledge. The body distracts the mind by its desires for food, entertainment etc.

So he believes that our body is restricting our minds will. in that sense we don't have free will!

I think free will is being able to play Kerbal, enjoy it, and then walk away and do SOMETHING ELSE in their free time. Man i wish i had free will...

(I wrote a 3000 word essay on this and got an A. I can post it if you want)