Sentience, free will, and that which makes us tick

[spoohunter]

Please, I do not want this to turn into a relgious debate. While the question of God is important, it is also far too difficult to get an open discourse on the matter, for obvious reasons. Besides, there are 99 other threads to go choose from on this board that deal with religion : )

Assumption A :
Our decisions are made by our brain, and nothing else. No soul, no spirit, so liver taking over the body and deciding it wants to go to the store, the brain is the sole factor in making decisions. Yes, it is influenced by outside experiences (by all sensation in fact, which is the route of knowledge), but that at the very moment that you have to make a decision the brain is the item that decides.

Assumption B :
Our brain is composed of a collection of atoms, cells, what ever you want to call it, but a collection of many small parts. If any of those parts were changed, the brain would function differently.

Assumption C :
If we take a look at an exact moment in space and time, an exact decision, where I decide to pick up a pencil, and we duplicate all conditions EXACTLY, have an identical copy of that snap shot of space and time made, I will make the same decision to pick up that pencil. IE. if all the components are exactly the same the brain functions in the exact same manner.

Conclusion : Given the above, I cannot possibly have free will.

[Bodhi]

Well, duh. Free Will is a moral or political concept, and has no place in science and empirical investigation as a real entity or phenomenon to be researched.

What is always missing from these discussions is the realization that it is the job of science to explain our "experience of free-will", not do away with it. No scientific theory should ever make anyone stop talking about free-will or holding people responsible for their actions, in the same way that quantum theory should never make anyone worry about the floor's solidity beneath their feet.

[SpearsBritney]

Yeah, I tend to agree with this. Quite a mind-fcuk though.

Here's another one I struggle with;

At what point does the past meet the future? How can you possibly measure how short the present moment really is? A milisecond, a nanosecond?

This leads me to believe that although past and future do not exist by definition, niether does the present moment.

Therefore, nothing, not time nor matter, can possibly exist, yet it somehow does.

The older I get, the more I realize just how contridictory "science", or atleast our understanding of it, really is.

[drudman]

Yes.

Note that a lack of free will does not necessarily imply determinism however, because of the possibility of randomness on the quantum level.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion : Given the above, I cannot possibly have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

Determinism doesn't prohibit free will; it enables free will. Free will doesn't mean that your actions will be decidedly randomly; it means that your actions will be caused (i.e., determined) by your wants.

What could be more free than you doing what you want because there's a deterministic cause-and-effect linkage between wanting and doing?

If you want ham, you order ham. If you want turkey, you order turkey. That's free will, and determinism is what allows it.

[maurile]

I think the notion that free will and determinism are incompatible comes from the assumption of Cartesian dualism -- that your brain is just a collection of molecules and atoms acting in accordance with the laws of physics, but the real you is something different -- a non-physical soul.

If what your body does is caused by physical events, but the real you is a non-physical soul, then the real you has no control over what happens and free will is impossible.

But if the real you isn't a non-physical soul, but is a bunch of physical events, then the fact that your actions have physical causes in no way implies that the real you isn't in control. You are in control; your actions are caused by your physical brain state; and that is free will.

[SpearsBritney]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion : Given the above, I cannot possibly have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

Determinism doesn't prohibit free will; it enables free will. Free will doesn't mean that your actions will be decidedly randomly; it means that your actions will be caused (i.e., determined) by your wants.

What could be more free than you doing what you want because there's a cause-and-effect linkage between wanting and doing?

If you want ham, you order ham. If you want turkey, you order turkey. That's free will, and determinism is what allows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

What ever it was that made him "want" turkey in the first place was determined since the beginning of time, and could not have happened any other way. His argument is that because of the causal nature of things, things can only happen one way, in one particular order.

The fact that he can "choose" whether to have turkey or not, is just another causal link in the chain, and can ultimately ONLY be decided one way and not the other, regardless of the fact that in retrospect he had two choices.

You may believe that you "chose" to respond to his post, but how could you have done so if he had not posted it in the first place? Sure there were other factors involved, but they all culminated (ultimately through pure physical reaction) into that exact moment when you "decided" to reply.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion : Given the above, I cannot possibly have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

Determinism doesn't prohibit free will; it enables free will. Free will doesn't mean that your actions will be decidedly randomly; it means that your actions will be caused (i.e., determined) by your wants.

What could be more free than you doing what you want because there's a deterministic cause-and-effect linkage between wanting and doing?

If you want ham, you order ham. If you want turkey, you order turkey. That's free will, and determinism is what allows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just calling the decision making process "free will". It is not the same as what is actually implied when people use the term.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion : Given the above, I cannot possibly have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

Determinism doesn't prohibit free will; it enables free will. Free will doesn't mean that your actions will be decidedly randomly; it means that your actions will be caused (i.e., determined) by your wants.

What could be more free than you doing what you want because there's a deterministic cause-and-effect linkage between wanting and doing?

If you want ham, you order ham. If you want turkey, you order turkey. That's free will, and determinism is what allows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just calling the decision making process "free will". It is not the same as what is actually implied when people use the term.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think that's exactly what is actually implied when people use the term.

Imagine two killers -- one who chooses to murder in cold blood, and one who sleepwalks and has no idea what he's doing.

We'd say that the first one acted according to his free will and the second one did not -- precisely because the first one engaged in a decision-making process and the second one did not.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
What ever it was that made him "want" turkey in the first place was determined since the beginning of time, and could not have happened any other way.

[/ QUOTE ]
"Could not have happened" is a counterfactual -- it talks about what happens in other possible worlds where some things are different and some things are the same. Certainly there are possible worlds where he didn't want ham, like the ones where he is Muslim.

Whenever we say something could or couldn't have happened differently, there's implicitly an "if only X" in the statement. So what's the "X"?

It seems to me that for purposes of assessing moral responsibility (which is usually the context of discussions about free will), "X" is simply "he wanted to." If a man is a killer because he wanted to be one, then he could have not been one if only he'd wanted to not be one. So he's responsible. If, on the other hand, he was coerced and became a killer even though he didn't want to be (for instance, because he was drafted into an army) then we can't blame him for it.

Ultimately, there are two different kinds of freedom: the freedom to do whatever you like, and the freedom to choose what things to like. I'd say we have the first kind, and that is what is meant by "free will." We probably don't have the second kind.

[Larimani]

Actually time is not continuous. The shortest interval of time of Quantum Time is around 10^-34 sec (don't quote me on this value).

So I guess the present is that interval of time between the past and the future.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Conclusion : Given the above, I cannot possibly have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]
Why not?

Determinism doesn't prohibit free will; it enables free will. Free will doesn't mean that your actions will be decidedly randomly; it means that your actions will be caused (i.e., determined) by your wants.

What could be more free than you doing what you want because there's a deterministic cause-and-effect linkage between wanting and doing?

If you want ham, you order ham. If you want turkey, you order turkey. That's free will, and determinism is what allows it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're just calling the decision making process "free will". It is not the same as what is actually implied when people use the term.

[/ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I think that's exactly what is actually implied when people use the term.

Imagine two killers -- one who chooses to murder in cold blood, and one who sleepwalks and has no idea what he's doing.

We'd say that the first one acted according to his free will and the second one did not -- precisely because the first one engaged in a decision-making process and the second one did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, you misunderstand. I'm saying that the decsion making process itself is not actually free, for the reasons stated by the OP. It does have the illusion of being a free process, and it is this essential "freeness" that I referred to as being what people imply when they use the term.

[BadBoyBenny]

I don't think assumption C is necessarily correct or possible.

[IPSC]

[ QUOTE ]

Assumption C :
If we take a look at an exact moment in space and time, an exact decision, where I decide to pick up a pencil, and we duplicate all conditions EXACTLY, have an identical copy of that snap shot of space and time made, I will make the same decision to pick up that pencil. IE. if all the components are exactly the same the brain functions in the exact same manner.

Conclusion : Given the above, I cannot possibly have free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think assumption C is possible due to the uncertainty principle. If the brain is nothing more than a complex interaction of particles then taking your "snapshot" will disturb the very flow your trying to measure. Making a copy will not be possible.

I don't know if we have free will, but I'm fairly confident our actions are not deterministic.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think assumption C is possible due to the uncertainty principle.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is possible, it just may not be correct. It is possible that the uncertainty principle is wrong. (Ultimately, it is impossible to test whether the universe is completely deterministic or partially indeterministic. For anything that appears to be indeterministic, it may just be because we haven't found the pattern yet.)

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know if we have free will, but I'm fairly confident our actions are not deterministic.

[/ QUOTE ]
Our actions are definitely at least mostly deterministic. The quantum effects of particle behavior are at least mostly canceled out on the macro level of human brain activities.

[Cooker]

There is much interesting research going on investigating exactly what our brains actually are doing. It is very unclear how we initiate our actions, and I doubt it is even safe to say with 100% certainty that humans even are sentient to the extend we believe. I am too lazy to post proper sources, but there was a recent experiment where people were told to randomly flick their wrist at a later time. Their brain activity was monitored and it turns out that the signal was sent from the brain after the wrist was flicked.

In some sense, the human brain allows us to operate at a higher level than other animals (similar to thinking on higher levels in poker) which is probably what our biologial niche actually is. Human brains have a theory of the mind for other animals built in, and I think it is possible our conscinousness is simply a by product or this. Being aware of other animals intentions made us aware of ourselves, but we are still mostly animals responding to the direct stimuli around us with fairly preprogrammed responses. This is why I am drawn to poker by the way.

[Popinjay]

The existence of a soul (perhaps divine and perhaps not) does allow for free will. The problem is how does one go about proving a soul exists?

Perhaps in other words I am asking are there still accepted methods of showing proof and truth other than science?

[spoohunter]

I have never had so many people on a message board understand these points so thoroughly.

Now, a soul, could very well come under the same criteria. A soul must be made out of "something" (other wise it is nothing). This soul may very well be subject to the same laws of cause and effect of your brain. If it is different, then it makes different "choices". None the less, I do not believe in the soul, so I will not persue this path of the debate.

Randomness, or "The Uncertainty Principle" while defeating determinism, changes nothing on the free will side of things. Randomness does not equal choice.

[usmhot]

All this debate about free will and no definition??

First, a lot of posters seem to be assuming that 'free will' means that if it were possible for the Universe to be exactly the same in every detail at different times then a decision made by someone would be different the second (or third, etc) time round. So, the assumption that it would never be different implies that there is no 'free will'.
Personally, I'm not satisfied with this as a definition at all. Even in a random decision making process its not unlikely that the same decision would be made. So supposing that the same decision would be made tells us nothing about what 'free will' is.
In other words, the leap from the 3 (debatable) assumptions to the conclusion is meaningless unless you define what you mean by 'free will' properly.

If I may be so bold, I'd like to present an initial attempt at such a definition. I believe that the following definition is as close to what spoohunter was getting at in the first place.

'Free will' is a trait of a sentient being that causes it, when presented with multiple options from which is must pick a subset, to make its choice in a way that could not be determined by another sentient being even if it had all possible information about the state of the Universe at that moment.

I am undecided myself about whether 'free will' exists or not (by the definition given above), but the only avenue down which I think its possible is chaos theory / complexity. And I would expect it to be an emergent property of the complex system known as the brain.

[David Sklansky]

'Free will' is a trait of a sentient being that causes it, when presented with multiple options from which is must pick a subset, to make its choice in a way that could not be determined by another sentient being even if it had all possible information about the state of the Universe at that moment.

I am undecided myself about whether 'free will' exists or not (by the definition given above), but the only avenue down which I think its possible is chaos theory / complexity. And I would expect it to be an emergent property of the complex system known as the brain.

I don't think chaos theory meets your requirements. But quantum theory does.

[usmhot]

"I don't think chaos theory meets your requirements. But quantum theory does."

Of course, there is no underlying explanation for why sufficiently complex systems become chaotic, and it may very well be a manifestation of quantum behaviour. (Which may become apparent if/when we ever manage to unify the different theories.)

But to get back to the point, is the given definition of 'free will' sufficiently rigorous and acceptable? If not, where does it fall short? And if it is, do we think that choas or quantum behaviour (or whatever) provide a means of achieving 'free will'?

[Cooker]

I have been thinking a lot about quantum mechanics (having graded a graduate physics course I know a little about the subject), and I don't think it is well understood enough to make statements about what is and is not allowed in this sense. Many people hear that it is a "probabilistic" theory and make incorrect assumptions about what this means.

Ususally, the probabilitstic nature of QM is invoked only when the details of some interaction cannot be worked out. This is usually called wave function collapse when an observation takes place in QM, but in reality observations never take place, we just can't (or are too lazy) to consider the QM states of the detectors and include all interactions. In principle, we could calculate and evolve the wave function of the entire universe deterministically allowing for no magic fluctuations. The universe would progress just as it must governed by the Schroedinger Equation.

However, we do know that QM is not the final picture and QED (the best understood extension of QM which includes special relativity and electro-magnetism) certainly contains fluctuations and probabilistic averages instead of a deterministic wave function. Still I am not sure how well time evolution is understood in QED. All I have ever done is use it to calculate scattering cross sections on homeworks.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
'Free will' is a trait of a sentient being that causes it, when presented with multiple options from which is must pick a subset, to make its choice in a way that could not be determined by another sentient being even if it had all possible information about the state of the Universe at that moment.

[/ QUOTE ]
The problem with that notion of free will is that "could not be determined" means random.

Suppose my neurons are somehow hooked up to a Geiger counter such that if it clicks so many times within a certain period I will order ham, otherwise I will order turkey. My choice is therefore totally random: it cannot be predicted ahead of time by another sentient being even if it had all possible information about the state of the Universe at that moment.

Would that constitute free will? Letting my "choices" be dictated by a Geiger counter?

I'd say the opposite. My choice to order ham is a free choice only if another sentient being can predict whether I'll order it if he has all possible information about the state of the universe (including information about whether or not I prefer ham to turkey).

[wozo30]

Wouldn't free will give you the ability to do anything?? Fly for example which may seem unreasonable but just walking for a parapalegic is unreasonable. They are missing those pathways and connections that lead to a certain outcome. Though the brain is complex it is not random at all. Also that would be selfish to think that we would be the only species with free will. We are limited by the laws of physics and the language of mathmatics that explains them. Sure Quantum M invokes a certain amount of uncertainty but it doesn't reveal anything magical.