There is no such thing as free will: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » There is no such thing as free will » There is no such thing as free will

There is no such thing as free will

DrifterOfTheSun
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 31

Posted 09/03/09 - 11:28 PM:	#61
Go_ wrote: Free will, if it were to exist, would exist as a special subset of determinism. If some sort of determinism doesn't hold then free will is impossible. People who believe in free will aren't saying that free will is random. They are saying that the term "free will" refers to events that are determined by conscious choice. That electrons do not move according to Newton's mechanics is neither here nor there in regard to the determinism v free will debate. What you need to show is that electrons move as a result of human will -- and good luck with that! Go to a quant scientist, and he’ll explain to you. Now arguing with you would be childish. Ps: I don’t give a damn even if you believe that elephants hold earth.
Before starting an argument, do some research, it might be proven it is right/wrong

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 97

Posted 09/04/09 - 03:19 AM:	#62
mway wrote: So firstly you say 'we are those unconscious processes resulting in that choice', but then next message you say free will is only executable by a conscious being? I don't understand, didn't you just say the opposite? No, that is not the opposite, free will is a word ascribed to conscious beings. You do know that computer programs and robots make choices as well right? A conscious being designed it that way.

rigelrover
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 05, 2009

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 560

Posted 09/04/09 - 04:56 AM:	#63
ragus wrote: mway wrote That's not a software app or a program! That's a statement. You are right, of course. But I took that he meant a program written with these sort of logic statements to form a software app. I still have not seen evidence that such a program exists or could exist (though I tend to think it will someday if it is harbored in something like an organic substrate). That is not the issue that I have with mway's statement. Instead my issue is that he is unwilling to accept, by reason, evidence, and Occam's razor, that free will is most likely the best way to describe the nature of our kind of consciousness. That is of course withholding that we do not, yet, know how to explain the exceptionally high state of entropy that a free will agent would have embody if it where to maintain actual free-from-outside-influence free will. One possibility that Chalmers presents is that consciousness has always been around; another, that could be thought of as happening at the same time, is that it is spread out throughout the universe, so that local high entropic states are unessential, but a universal entropic law is manifest. On second thought, such a law is manifest (2nd Law of ThermoDyn)...
I am more interested in questions than answers; dialog than dictation. If we can reasonably believe that there is not just a breach, but a fundamentally unclosable gap between the individual mind and the ultimate nature of the reality; the primordial thing in itself, then 'true' mystery does exist.

aletheist
Professor

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Feb 06, 2009
Location: Olathe, KS

Total Topics: 12
Total Posts: 623

Posted 09/04/09 - 06:25 AM:	#64
mway wrote: Firstly Dreyfus' criticisms are outdated. Humans beings work exactly like a digital computer. Another bald assertion for which you have offered no substantial support. mway wrote: Our senses convert environmental data (with a fair amount of data loss), and are processed based on a spacio-temporal classifcation system, resulting in an output to either itself or output senses back into the environment. Does the brain always process information by means of discrete operations? Is the mind a device that operates on individual bits of information in accordance with specific rules? Can all knowledge be formalized and expressed in terms of logical relations? Can everything that exists be represented as a set of facts, each of which is independent of all the others? These are the four basic assumptions of AI--biological, psychological, epistemological, and ontological--and it seems to me that Dreyfus's objections to them still stand. Clearly you disagree, but you have offered no justification; instead, you demand that those of us who think otherwise go off and study some more until we come around to your view. mway wrote: When people say AI can't be created, they are practically saying that the 'human being' is a machine which is off limits to scientific discovery, a paradigm I find completely illogical. Your mistake here is thinking that the human being is a machine (or like a machine) at all. mway wrote: Alethiest, you are either very unschooled or still pretty young if you think duality is appropriate. I think it would be highly likely that if you went and actually studied neuroscience your beliefs would change. Wow, more condescension (and hubris). A little more humility might suit you better. Some of the best educated and most experienced people in the world, today and throughout history, are unabashed dualists--no doubt including plenty of neuroscientists. In any case, schooling and age are no guarantee of wisdom.
"Be attentive, Be intelligent, Be reasonable, Be responsible." - Bernard Lonergan (1904-1984)

mway
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2009

Total Topics: 14
Total Posts: 509

Posted 09/04/09 - 07:45 AM:	#65
aletheist wrote: Another bald assertion for which you have offered no substantial support. Does the brain always process information by means of discrete operations? Is the mind a device that operates on individual bits of information in accordance with specific rules? Can all knowledge be formalized and expressed in terms of logical relations? Can everything that exists be represented as a set of facts, each of which is independent of all the others? These are the four basic assumptions of AI--biological, psychological, epistemological, and ontological--and it seems to me that Dreyfus's objections to them still stand. Clearly you disagree, but you have offered no justification; instead, you demand that those of us who think otherwise go off and study some more until we come around to your view. Your mistake here is thinking that the human being is a machine (or like a machine) at all. Wow, more condescension (and hubris). A little more humility might suit you better. Some of the best educated and most experienced people in the world, today and throughout history, are unabashed dualists--no doubt including plenty of neuroscientists. In any case, schooling and age are no guarantee of wisdom. I'm tried of using humility, as I am sick of the common misconceptions pushed by people who know only outdated information. Yes the brain does process information in discrete operations. Start by reading about heirarchical temporal memory and recurrent spike neural networks, these should set you off on the right track. There is also an abundance of neuroscience journals on the mechanisms of specific brain components, and it would be worthwhile for you to read the vast number of eeg and fmri analysis on various damaged and defective brains. Another good decision would be to disregard most philosophical only writings on consciousness, and stick to the science. Check the dates on the information you regurgitate regarding the brain and mind, as anything pre early 90's (whilst a useful stepping stone) is most likely outdated. A good overall read for beginners worth mentioning is Dileep George's thesis on brain architecture as well. I'm not quite sure how to concise over a decade of research for you in a manner that you will find adequate, other then for you to wait until my results are published. If you are passionate about this topic, and do truly seek the answers, then I don't see it as too much of an ask that you put in the effort.
Lame is to Wav, as the Brain is to Reality.

beewing
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 06, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 09/06/09 - 06:34 PM:	#66
Confused.com wrote: Free will does not exist. We are a product of our experiences and our genetics. Any choices we percieve to have are in fact an illusion due to our lack of knowledge of how our brain works. We only have the illusion of choice. Am I justified in saying this? Discuss Yes The sum of my genes and experiences has led me to write my first post here. It was my destiny My destiny was determined not long after the big bang, I take a more Bohmian view to quantum mechanics. My self awareness is an evolved feedback loop, using the senses and other brain/bodily functions to create a conciousness, of which I am me. I know the choices I'm making right now, to have the day off work and read philosophy, have already been decided long ago. So why is my favourite saying IT'S YOUR CHOICE WHERE YOU STAND IN THE WORLD? Most people through struggle can stand anywhere in the world, physically or socially. If you lack that freedom, if shackled in irons, you have the choice to take a stand within your mind. Even though I know the choice is an illusion, this truth is too advanced for my biology. It seems that believing in free will for me is like believing in a god - I do it because biologically I don't think we've evolved past those beliefs, and it seems to give me more quality of life. I excuse this illogic, my entertaining the thoughts that there is alot more to discover, and possibly 'life' is a very special thing in the universe.

asgebison
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 22, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 10

Posted 09/07/09 - 01:00 PM:	#67
Mway wrote: "So firstly you say 'we are those unconscious processes resulting in that choice', but then next message you say free will is only executable by a conscious being? I don't understand, didn't you just say the opposite?" I don't think those processes are unconscious because we are those processes. We want to choose A over B because that is who we are. Determinism affects who I am, but not what I choose. In other words, even though I will definitely choose A, I do so because I wanted to. I am not forced by my wants, I am my wants. It may make me prefer A, but I am that me that chooses A. I am still making a choice even though I can change. Edited by asgebison on 09/07/09 - 04:55 PM

TheAmazingRandall
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 07, 2009
Location: Satellite orbiting the earth

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 2

Posted 09/07/09 - 04:50 PM: Subject: Hopefully I did this right. If not then shut up	#68
Hi everyone. Allow me to welcome myself. Welcome. I didn't read every post so I hope this hasn't been already posted exactly. I read the answers some people gave to this thread and two problems I'm seeing immediately are (1. No one has given a clear definition of "free will" or at least one most can agree with and (2. Comparing the mind to a computer. Instantly when comparing the mind to a computer it seems impossible that any such kind of free will exists since computers themselves don't even have free will. Computers only do what they're programmed to do. A little known fact about computers(somehow) is that they cannot randomly generate information. Take the slot machines in Las Vegas for example. We're told over and over that the computers are random and that there is not a number of presets programmed into the computer(so much so that it seems random). But it turns out this is the only way that it works. A man who worked in Vegas had exposed this fact of computers to make himself a millionaire in a very short time. He was caught and punished after programming the machines to allow him to win several jackpots and taking home about 9 million dollars before actually being caught. After his sentence, he explained for the Discovery channel how he did it and in his own words said "it's a little known fact, but computers actually can't do random things". Knowing this about computers, how is it that a computer sufficiently explains what the mind is and how does comparing a computer to a mind serve to explain things like choice, being specific in our reasoning, feelings and senses, or learning when a computer can do none of that on it's own. A computer seems like a superior mathematician compared to a human being, but you would be the superior if you memorized all those problems and answers yourself and the computer would be just a crappy box on the table. Before you decide if free will is a real thing it must be defined, the definition must be scrutinized if needed and then you must take what's useful from the definition to determine what about our understanding of free will is actually true or useful in helping us determine what is true about free will. After this, the questions of who has free will and when and most importantly why must be answered. My understanding of free will is based on the Buddhist definition of free will where total free will is an illusion because of our needs(food, water, pornographic cartoons) but we do freely choose where and what we eat and whether or not we want to be naked while we're eating. It can't be determinism. There wouldn't be computers to post this on or any kind of technology, or any kind of philosophy since people would just be doing the same things over and over again. Yes, free will exists because I'm here writing to you about it out of choice.

onisani
angry panda

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 06, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 174

Posted 09/10/09 - 03:33 AM:	#69
It seems to me that "free will" is an empty expression. Events are either caused or uncaused. These are the only two possibilities. If an event is caused by a prior event, then it is determined by it. If an event is uncaused, it is random. Therefore, events are either determined or random. There is no other possibility. An act of free will is an event which is by definition neither random nor determined. The concept is therefore meaningless. I'm curious to hear what everyone thinks.

ragus
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 23, 2006

Total Topics: 16
Total Posts: 2187

Posted 09/10/09 - 04:23 AM:	#70
onisani wrote Events are either caused or uncaused. These are the only two possibilities. That reminds me of the (old) joke about the little boy caught playing with his willy. His mum told him that if he continued the practice he'd go blind but that if he desisted he'd have perfect eyesight. There was a long pause while the dichotomy sunk in and then he asked if he could do it a little bit and wear glasses. What is it about all events that make them either caused or uncaused?
"A word in your ear is like an untethered goat in a field" Wittigenstein

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.