What is free will?

[Karla]

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.

Aaron Sloman once wrote a really good paper going through every possible definition of free will and demonstrating how it was inadequate. I can't find the paper on-line anymore although I am sure I have a copy on some hard disk somewhere. I just see the concept of free will as a quagmire on a par with the concept of 'qualia'.

[-Velocity-]

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

What, do you believe that life == magic? Science supports no such beliefs, as those beliefs are not supported by any evidence. You're free to believe whatever you want though... but if there was something magical about how cells work, we'd have probably found it by now.

The reality is overwhelming evidence supports the idea that the living cell is essentially a highly complex nano-electro-chemical-mechanical machine. It thus possible to create wholly synthetic life forms that are just as "alive" as we are. (However... why would we re-invent the cell- an incredibly complex machine- when we can just modify naturally evolved life forms much more easily?)

I like to toy with the idea that multicellular organisms are just colonies of single cellular organisms, sorta like an ant colony, just many orders of magnitude more complex and organized. That actually makes the brain a hive-mind

Edited October 10, 2014 by |Velocity|

[CaptainKipard]

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.

I don't think the complexity of a system or practical unpredictability should warrant putting it in a class of it's own. It's just an extreme case of a spectrum.

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...

I don't see the distinction.

The question "What is free will?" presupposes that free-will exists.

Strictly speaking yes, but that's a use-mention distinction. I think OP was asking what is "free will", as in asking for a definition of a concept rather than implying that it exists.

Aaron Sloman once wrote a really good paper going through every possible definition of free will and demonstrating how it was inadequate.

I'd like to read it. I put "Aaron Sloman" and "free will" into google and it came up "Four concepts of freewill". Is that it?

[rtxoff]

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

I would be interested to read it, maybe post a link so anyone who likes can do it?

[Mr Shifty]

I don't think the complexity of a system or practical unpredictability should warrant putting it in a class of it's own. It's just an extreme case of a spectrum.

This is pretty much the definition of reductionism. It would be really hard to understand the rise of human civilization with reference only to the operation of biological cells and their interaction with each other and their environment. Certainly that's all civilization really is; but it's not nearly a useful way to study it.

[Karla]

I like to toy with the idea that multicellular organisms are just colonies of single cellular organisms, sorta like an ant colony, just many orders of magnitude more complex and organized. That actually makes the brain a hive-mind

And conversely you can take it the other way and think of corporations as multi-people organisms in the same way that an ant or bee colony can be understood as a single organism.

Either way it can quite often be useful to think in terms of the rise of complexity over time. For example, when trying to understand what emotions it can be fruitful to think of how single cellular organisms might have inadvertently started to communicate to each other via chemicals when they sensed the same chemical environment that they were affecting.

[Karla]

This is pretty much the definition of reductionism. It would be really hard to understand the rise of human civilization with reference only to the operation of biological cells and their interaction with each other and their environment. Certainly that's all civilization really is; but it's not nearly a useful way to study it.

I really recommend reading Eric Chaisson. He's an astrophysicist but he writes about the rise of complexity from the big bang to modern day society. I found it really eye opening because you start to see how complexity arises from thermodynamic gradients created by perturbations in the big bang and driven by the expansion of the universe. The book is "Epic of Evolution: Seven ages of the Cosmos" but he also has some papers on-line that discuss this. I first came across his work at a very opportune moment when reading the New Scientist. You can think of the biological age as just one stage along the arrow of time.

Another fantastic book is "Into the Cool: Energy Flow, Thermodynamics and Life" which is more focused on abiogenesis but discusses the subject in terms of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

Edited October 10, 2014 by Karla

[Karla]

I'd like to read it. I put "Aaron Sloman" and "free will" into google and it came up "Four concepts of freewill". Is that it?

I googled it and then found a link to it further down the page

http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/research/projects/cogaff/Aaron.Sloman_freewill.pdf

It's been a very long time since I read it though.

[TeeGee]

Free will can't exist if you believe in dualism or determinism. The brain is made of atoms and atoms always obey the laws of physics, the end.

The ONLY way free will can exist is if you believe in Idealism/solipsism; the idea that ONLY your mind is real and that everything outside it is the illusion. And since everyone can never doubt they have a mind and live ENTIRELY within the confines of one, solipsism is the ONLY true fact in our existence. Everything else and everyone else is a lie.

Think about it like the universe = your perceptions ONLY. That's all that is real. Only your mind and your perceptions.

Reductionalists can't grasp that concept for some reason...

Which has led me to another disturbing theory... maybe not all humans are truly sentient/conscious creatures. We have varying levels of emotionality and intelligence; why not expand that trait to sentience and consciousness? Maybe reductionalists are just automatons programmed to SIMULATE real human emotions without actually feeling them.

I guess the real question is; what is REAL? As far as I know, the only person I know exists = ME.

[CaptainKipard]

This is pretty much the definition of reductionism. It would be really hard to understand the rise of human civilization with reference only to the operation of biological cells and their interaction with each other and their environment. Certainly that's all civilization really is; but it's not nearly a useful way to study it.

I had to look that up, and I think I'm a reductionist now. The wiki says that reductionism doesn't preclude the possibility of emergent phenomena, which leaves the door open for self-awareness and I'm fine with that.

The ONLY way free will can exist is if you believe in Idealism/solipsism

What makes you think that solipsism precludes determinism?

Edited October 10, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[WestAir]

In regards to free will and cognition: The sum is greater than the whole of the parts.

You could argue deterministic principles that would suggest free will is the result of some chemical balance or programming within neural cellular biology, and that cognition and free will don't exist, but I disagree. On the MACRO scale of things the end result is still free will. Just like we're unsure what effect gravity has when we get down to quarks and fermions, it's highly possible free will and cognition break down at the cellular level and become building blocks. That doesn't invalidate the very real, very obvious in my opinion, end result.

Edited October 11, 2014 by WestAir
Cut a paragraph so my reply was shorter.

[Alchemist]

What, do you believe that life == magic? Science supports no such beliefs, as those beliefs are not supported by any evidence. You're free to believe whatever you want though... but if there was something magical about how cells work, we'd have probably found it by now.

The reality is overwhelming evidence supports the idea that the living cell is essentially a highly complex nano-electro-chemical-mechanical machine. It thus possible to create wholly synthetic life forms that are just as "alive" as we are. (However... why would we re-invent the cell- an incredibly complex machine- when we can just modify naturally evolved life forms much more easily?)

I like to toy with the idea that multicellular organisms are just colonies of single cellular organisms, sorta like an ant colony, just many orders of magnitude more complex and organized. That actually makes the brain a hive-mind

Of course it's not magic. But there's another interesting feature - with finely-tuned highly organized system we often get some kind of "technological singularity" (usually reached through coevolution of multiple factors) when consequences of higher level processes become more significant that the base low-level processes (or to be more precise, the high level processes start adjusting low level processes efficiently). Past this point it becomes difficult to describe higher level processes by the lower level processes alone (if we get the precise image of the low level situation we would get the same result, but the base concepts of low level don't show this outcome directly). This is the very moment when total becomes something much more than the sum of its components.

There are multiple examples of such jumps: biochemistry - life, neurons - mind, transistors - computer, multiple levels of technological advancements that changed humanity's ways of life...

It's not magic, but if you just take the base concept without knowing the approximate solution you won't probably get even close to the desired result...

Mind is determined by neuron interactions the same way as life is determined by biochemistry, but thought process influences neuron pathways the same way as living organism produces its biomolecules.

This kind of determinism allows explaining some features but it never gives you the full picture unless you get ultra-precise image. It's not magic, it's just another level of complexity.

And I also see no reasons why it could be impossible to create a human-level or even much more advanced living mind on electronic hardware. We just don't know the starting solution yet.

[bsalis]

My view on this is that "Free Will" is an illusion.

However, illusions are as real as anything else you wish to point at... sometimes more so.

[Dispatcher]

I think free will is the ability to choose or act (or not act) without compulsion.

[CaptainKipard]

What do you mean by compulsion?

[TeeGee]

What makes you think that solipsism precludes determinism?

Determinism claims that the subjective comes from the objective realm, which always obeys the laws of physics 100% of the time.

Solipsism states that only mind(s) exist. There are no laws or rules that govern the mind; at least not that I am aware of.

If you claim that the mind is chained by the body, you are a dualist and cannot believe in free will. It's illogical.

The ONLY solution to this problem is idealism/solipsism.

Which leads to the conclusion that nothing is actually REAL, only perceived.

Edited October 11, 2014 by TeeGee

[CaptainKipard]

Determinism claims that the subjective comes from the objective realm

Nope.

Solipsism states that only mind(s) exist. There are no laws or rules that govern the mind; at least not that I am aware of.

You're not answering the question, you're just repeating yourself in other words.

Determinism and solipsism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You're just making a baseless assertion.

[Dispatcher]

I think free will is the ability to choose or act (or not act) without compulsion.

I mean that I can choose what to do without being required to do so by any entity (you, for example) or compelling circumstance. Otherwise we could not be responsible for our actions; rather, the compelling entity or circumstance (a flood, for example) would dictate our actions.

[ZetaX]

So is reality (by determinism) such an entity¿ If not, why¿

[CaptainKipard]

I mean that I can choose what to do without being required to do so by any entity (you, for example) or compelling circumstance. Otherwise we could not be responsible for our actions; rather, the compelling entity or circumstance (a flood, for example) would dictate our actions.

Are physical laws compelling circumstances?

[Javster]

It's a campaign to liberate William who is trapped in enemy territory!

Sorry, had to make that joke...

I'm still not sure what random means in this case.

[TeeGee]

Nope.

You're not answering the question, you're just repeating yourself in other words.

Determinism and solipsism aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. You're just making a baseless assertion.

What the heck are you talking about?

Solipsism = only the subjective is REAL

Reductionalism = only the OBJECTIVE is real.

That is as mutually exclusive as it gets.

[Dodgey]

@teegee No they are not. Solipsism is the position that the position that we can only be sure that our mind exists, that we could all be brains in vats or in a coma and we wouldn't know the difference.

To be a solipsist is to simply say the only thing we can know for certain is that my mind exists. And due to the imperfections in our senses and their ability to be fooled it is possible that our perception of the universe is an illusion. Its a statement on what we can know for certain. (Depending on the varity of solipsism).

I'm not too sure what you specifically mean by reductionism as it has a few different meanings. Do you mean that everything is just a sum of its parts which can only be reduced down to a certain level?

Determinism if that is what you ment states that for every event there is a set of circumstances which only cause that event. Example a+b always equals c.

In any case I don't see how relates to solipsism as they address two different things.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Dodgey

[TeeGee]

No they are not. Solipsism is the position that the position that we can only be sure that our mind exists, that we could all be brains in vats or in a coma and we wouldn't know the difference.

To be a solipsist is to simply say the only thing we can know for certain is that my mind exists. And due to the imperfections in our senses and their ability to be fooled it is possible that our perception of the universe is an illusion. Its a statement on what we can know for certain. (Depending on the varity of solipsism).

I'm not too sure what you specifically mean by reductionism as it has a few different meanings. Do you mean that everything is just a sum of its parts which can only be reduced down to a certain level?

No brains in a vat, only MY mind is known to exist. Everything else is an illusion. The universe is a construct of MY perception that is an expression of MY mind. That's it.

Reductionalism is not a very good word; lets go with Realism or physicalism.

Solipsism is meant in terms of Idealism.

Therefore basically I am arguing Idealism vs Realism. Objective vs subjective. Idealist vs physicalist.

Physicalists and dualists cannot believe in free will. Idealist can.

Edited October 12, 2014 by TeeGee

[CaptainKipard]

TeeGee. We're not accepting your definitions of these words. You seem to be pulling them out of nowhere.

And again you're just repeating yourself. Can you please take a step back, make sure you have your definitions right, and only then draw conclusions.

Determinism is completely irrelevant to solipsism. Even if the universe is an illusion or a product of your mind then your mind can still potentially be deterministic and lacking free will.

I'm not sure there's anything in common in these two concepts that would make them mutually exclusive. It's apples and oranges.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard