What is Free Will?

[David Sklansky]

3) For those who do not understand what I'm trying to convey, I will give an example. Let's say that we take your brain and study every single neuron in it. We then create an electronic version of it where every single neuron is simulated or replicated. The question is: is this electronic brain going to behave any differently than you?

Yep. Quantum Theory

[Larimani]

Quantum theory advocates randomness of some events. Are you implying that some neurophysiological events occuring in the brain are random? If you are, then you are implying that behaviour and cognition is not deterministic. However, that does not imply free will! I merely implies that you cannot predict behavior or cognition because there is a random element to it.

Do you see why?

[udontknowmickey]

[ QUOTE ]


You guys are all confused. People can be proved to have free will by the reduction to absurdity argument. Assume there is no free will for humans. That means the future can be predicted by a super intelligent entity. But if he tells you his prediction you can choose to disobey it. You have free will. Ants don't.

Put another way, anyone who wonders if they have free will, does.


[/ QUOTE ]

Ignoring the fact that you didn't answer the question, which I think was an excellent one that proponents of free will (to me) have never been able to answer.

Let me get this straight.

1)Assume you don't have free will

2)This means some superintelligent entity can predict what you're going to do

3)You can now choose to disobey that prediction

4)Contradiction!

If you're assuming that you don't have free will, how can you have a choice in step 3? All you're stating is:

assume you don't have free will. But you do have free will! Contradiction!

reduction to absurdity indeed.

Wouldn't it be far more accurate to say:

1) Assume you don't have free will
2) A super intelligent entity knows exactly what you're going to do, and tells you this
3) Because he's figured you out perfectly, you end up doing exactly what he says

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
3) For those who do not understand what I'm trying to convey, I will give an example. Let's say that we take your brain and study every single neuron in it. We then create an electronic version of it where every single neuron is simulated or replicated. The question is: is this electronic brain going to behave any differently than you?

Yep. Quantum Theory

[/ QUOTE ]

As larimani has pointed out, the fact that your actions cannot be predicted does not establish Free Will. If it did, an atom of plutonium would have Free Will.

The argument you employed earlier:

"You guys are all confused. People can be proved to have free will by the reduction to absurdity argument. Assume there is no free will for humans. That means the future can be predicted by a super intelligent entity. But if he tells you his prediction you can choose to disobey it. "

has been debunked many times. Basically, if the super intelligent entity is part of the system he/she/it is analyzing, then the results of disclosing that analysis must be accurately predicted. The entity must completely analyze and predict its own behaviour in order to predict our reaction to that behaviour. But this obviously contradicts the notion that either of us has Free Will.

GG

[Little Fishy]

decent read

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
If you haven't read this yet it might give you some insight. As far as I can tell, "free will" is not provable, or, by making certain assumptions, one can prove both determinism and free will, making the whole thing moot. The concept really doesn't mean anything at all when you get right down to it.

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, your last sentence gets it exactly. It is significant that no poster has even attempted to offer a definition.

GG

[Bodhi]

I majored in philosophy as an undergrad, and believe me, I spent a lot of sleepless nights over these issues. Eventually I came to the position that our every-day language need not be consistent with physics or neuro-science. It would be plainly stupid for a scientist to come up with experiments to find out "which part of the brain creates free will." What's more, some notion of voluntary action is necessary if you want to say that people do things and are not just inanimate objects getting moved around by other forces.

rationality is necessary for agency.

[gasgod]

[ QUOTE ]
What's more, some notion of voluntary action is necessary if you want to say that people do things and are not just inanimate objects getting moved around by other forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

My translation: Free Will is true because I want it to be true.

Or did you mean something else?

GG

[obsidian]

I'm pretty sure I read this in a book (Ender's game series I think), but the question of free will is really one of those questions that is meaningless to answer. Whether our decisions and actions are the result of an extremely complex chain of events that appears to be free will, or we actually do have free will doesn't matter. Human life simply cannot go on unless the illusion of free will exists.

I also don't understand how Christianity and the lack of free will can co-exist. Christianity depends on free will to explain the existence of evil. However, I think claiming God is both omniscient and infallible directly contradicts free will. If someone or something is able to 100% accurately predict what you will do (and absolutely cannot be wrong), you do not have free will.

[Larimani]

You are completly right. An undeniable proof of the abscence of free will would be very bad for humanity.