Does free will exist?

[Xuenay]

(I posted this essay on my website (SHAMELESS PLUG - GO SEE MY SITE HERE), and I thought you folks could help me find any possible holes it has.)



free will
n.
1. The ability or discretion to choose; free choice: chose to remain behind of my own free will.
2. The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will.
(dictionary.com)

You might think, "that's a stupid question. Of course we have free will. In fact, just to prove I have free will, I'm going to take this sandwich and eat it. I'm hungry, and I'm eating it of my own free will, so there obviously is free will. Hah."

But pause there for a second... why exactly did you decide to eat that sandwich? To prove me that you had free will, and because you were hungry. It could be said that if you hadn't read this page, and if you hadn't been hungry, you would never have eaten the sandwich. Thus you can't be said to have done that out of your free will - these two factors made you do it.

You might protest that, yes, though those factors influenced your decision to eat it, you were still the one who ultimately made the decision to eat it. But what is you? If you take the "you" you're now, and the person you were, say, five years ago, the two aren't really the same person. They're different. They make different decisions in the same situation. What is it that causes that difference? It's the experiences you've obtained during those five years. Time has shaped you to be different, it has changed your personality. The "you" is really nothing more than an infinitely complicated computer program, programmed to be like what it is by what has happened to it. A computer program might also make a choice, comparing different variables and then making that choice based on how it has been programmed, but that does not give it free will.

It's true that you make the choice based on your own thoughts - one mind is making one choice. But that's not necessarily free will. In reality it's just an illusion of free will. After all, two people don't react the same in the same situation. And if you know them well enough, you can predict how they will react. And if you know and can take into account, every single event that has ever happened to them in their entire lives, then you also know what they will do if they end up in a certain situation. If somebody told you every event that was going to happen to them, you could also predict how they reacted, to every single choice in their whole lives. Most likely they'll think they're making a choice, and they probably even are, but since the outcome of that choice is pre decided, it cannot be truly called free will.

Looking at the definitions of free will listed above, neither definition can be considered true - it's not really you who's doing the choosing, it's just how you're programmed to respond to situations. And the second is obviously false, since external circumstances are the very thing that gives us a personality.

One might argue that even if we are nothing more but machines programmed to act in a specific way, we still have the ability to think for ourselves. Those thoughts may be molded due to the way our lives went, but we still have a mind of our own. We are not bossed around. We decide what to wear, whether to drive or take a bus to work, whether or not to marry, etc. To this I ask - if all of your decisions are predetermined, how can it be called free will?

The conclusion, even though unpleasant for many, is obvious - we are just living machines, programmed to act in a specific way, with no true free will of our own.

[Mr Bean]

All well and good but there are other desisons that are a obvious matter of free will

1. The most Obvious, The desison to take anothers life, needlesly or with purpose is a big one
2. If there was no free-will how come no one has madethemsleves insanly rich on the fact of selling blue widgets, we must have blue widgets we must have blue widgets.....


Third is a case example, I'm a good case study of Free will, if you tried to predict my actions you would even will knowledge of every single action I've ever done to predict what I'm going to do next

My Friend however is a better example. While he's not random for the sake of random he is a most puzzling case for those that think we are nothing more than pre-programed robots

For example he and I where talking about Rommel's actions in Northern Africa and disscusing where he had gone wrong when he exused himself for a glass of water, when he came back I was about to begin when he suddly said he wished to go back-packing accross Europe for a month
While most people might nod and smile polietly know him I knew better and it was no suprize five days later I was driving him to the Airport. Now I checked carefuly, Aside from a picture of some flowers there was nothing at all dectorations or anything else between him and that glass of water, When I asked around I found he had not been planing any trips, Nor had informed anyone this was simply somthing that camed to him and he being him wasted no time in getting what it was he wanted
Of course some might say this was simply Random other might accuse me of lieing(Don't I don't lie unless absoulty nessary and NEVER when trying to prove a point)

Free will while a tricky subject can best be sumed up in the classic, I think therefor I am method

Besides Ocuhms Razor backs me up on this, We have all the apperances of Free will, Besides unfounded speculation there is not real proof we don't, logicly we do have free will, Its simply than say its all the gods, or we are nothing more than a computer program

[Xuenay]

1. The most Obvious, The desison to take anothers life, needlesly or with purpose is a big one

Uhh, I don't really see what that has to do with this.

2. If there was no free-will how come no one has madethemsleves insanly rich on the fact of selling blue widgets, we must have blue widgets we must have blue widgets.....

People who've studied the way human minds are "programmed" have taken advantage of the knowledge and tried to make us buy blue widgets. This nefarious knowledge is known as "marketing tricks".

When I asked around I found he had not been planing any trips, Nor had informed anyone this was simply somthing that camed to him and he being him wasted no time in getting what it was he wanted
Of course some might say this was simply Random other might accuse me of lieing(Don't I don't lie unless absoulty nessary and NEVER when trying to prove a point)

It would seem completely random, yes, but that's not yet indicative of free will. He might have heard the idea from somewhere, forgot about it, and had it buried in his subconsciousness until it popped up again. This is why you can't effectively predict people's reactions - you simply can't know everything that has happened to a person.

Besides unfounded speculation there is not real proof we don't, logicly we do have free will, Its simply than say its all the gods, or we are nothing more than a computer program

Uhh, logically we don't have free will, as my essay explained. I don't see what logic would indicate that we do have free will.

[SPOOFE]

The best argument in favor of free will is the very fact that we can ponder whether or not we have free will.

[Xuenay]

The best argument in favor of free will is the very fact that we can ponder whether or not we have free will.

That does not cause us to have free will any more than a computer designed to analyze a problem would have.

[Mr Bean]

And would not the programer have to have free will or his programer or somewhere up the line?

I see you ignored my Ochums Razor bit

[Xuenay]

And would not the programer have to have free will or his programer or somewhere up the line?

"Programmer" in a non-literal sense. It refers to 1) evolution & genetics and 2) all the experiences you've had in your life.

I see you ignored my Ochums Razor bit

I really don't see how Occam's Razor factors into this.

[Mr Bean]

Ochums Razor
The simplest theroy is often the true one
Which is simpler?

[Darth Wong]

This is a very old question which has been posed by phillsophers for centuries. At the risk of sounding overly dismissive, I would argue that they're wasting time, because the answer depends on how you define "free will".

In order to "prove" that there is no free will, you simply define free will as being that which is completely un-influenced by anything outside yourself. However, since everything in the universe is influenced by interaction with its environment, that is a trivial solution. In essence, you define free will as something that is inherently impossible, you point out that it is impossible, and then you raise your hands in mock triumph.

Conversely, if a more reasonable definition of free will is used (ie- free will is individual behaviour that cannot be predicted in advance by examining external influences, unlike the behaviour of predictable physical systems), then it is very easy to show that free will exists. In short, the unpredictability of individual actions acts as proof of free will. Once again, you simply define free will in such a manner that it is easily proven, and then you raise your hands in mock triumph.

In both cases, the proof rests upon the definition (which most people do not explicitly provide, hence the confusion).

[Nova Andromeda]

--I agree with Darth Wong that the answer depends on the definition of free will. However, let me also point out that most people define free will as their ability to choose between options. This idea of free will does not exist in reality. Since there is only one past, we cannot switch decisions made in the past, and any point in the future will eventually become a point in the past, our destiny is fixed.
--It should be noted, however, that the nature of a person is very strongly linked to their destiny and their environment is not the only thing that determines their destiny. Just in case you were thinking of sitting around since your destiny if fixed.

[Master of Ossus]

Free will, in my opinion, does not exist. People are forced, by their personalities and circumstances, to make choices as they interact with each other and the world around them but their choices are already made for them before they begin thinking about them. When someone makes what appears to be a decision, it is because they were predisposed to take that position on the issue due to their upbringing and genetic factors.

[Master of Ossus]

I also agree with Darth Wong in that the existence of free will is entirely dependent on its definition, my previous post is referring to my personal definition of free will. For a really, REALLY good discussion of the topic, read Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s Slaughterhouse Five. Truly a phenomenal book, and possibly one of the greatest works of the period.

[Mr Bean]

Slaugherhouse Five? I remeber that book, gaaaaaaah soo confusing at first, I had to read it twice to understand it and I hated every minute of it!
The charaters where patheic, The ending predicitable and how does it tie in with free will?

[Xuenay]

Ochums Razor
The simplest theroy is often the true one
Which is simpler?

Theory: There is free will
Theory: We are living computers and there is no free will

I don't really think the first theory is that much simpler.

This is a very old question which has been posed by phillsophers for centuries. At the risk of sounding overly dismissive, I would argue that they're wasting time, because the answer depends on how you define "free will".

Which is the reason the definitions of free will were the first thing mentioned in my original post.

[Darth Wong]

Ochums Razor
The simplest theroy is often the true one
Which is simpler?

Theory: There is free will
Theory: We are living computers and there is no free will

I don't really think the first theory is that much simpler.

One common problem with Occam's Razor arguments is that people don't often agree on the definition of "simpler" (for example, creationists believe that divine intervention is a "simpler" theory because it is more easily explained to children). The proper definition has to do with the number of terms involved. In this case, neither theory involves an extra term. The only terms are the human brain and its external influences. Therefore, Occam's Razor does not favour either solution.

This is a very old question which has been posed by phillsophers for centuries. At the risk of sounding overly dismissive, I would argue that they're wasting time, because the answer depends on how you define "free will".

Which is the reason the definitions of free will were the first thing mentioned in my original post.

The definition you quoted was a two-parter, the first part of which was rather vague and open-ended.

In any case, I don't see why free will should require that one is completely "unconstrained" by external influences, to use the second part of your definition. When you drive a car, 99.99% of the car's actions are dictated by its inherent structure, the laws of physics, the actions of other drivers, traffic lights, laws, etc. In effect, you are heavily constrained by the nature of the car. Does this mean that you have no control over the car's movements? Of course not.

Freedom is not a simplistic all-or-nothing proposition. There are "degrees of freedom", to use an engineering term, rather than drawing a false dilemma between zero freedom and total freedom. You don't need to be completely free of external constraints in order to have free will, which I see as a problem with your argument. In short, your definition is overly strict,

Another problem I see in your argument is that you claim the lack of free will leads to predictability. As you put it, "if you know and can take into account, every single event that has ever happened to them in their entire lives, then you also know what they will do if they end up in a certain situation"

This is where your argument stumbles into logical fallacies (not to mention unfalsifiable theorems). You can prove that individual behaviour is not free of external influences without necessarily proving that it is predictable, even in theory. There are a lot of systems in nature which are unpredictable even if they aren't sentient at all. What about the possibility of randomness? What about the possibility that there is inherent unpredictability in complex systems? You are making a logical leap from "not completely free of outside influence" to "predictability".

One final concern is that the distinction between internal and external phenomena is fuzzy. When people start describing the inherent nature of your own brain as an external influence, I would submit that the data is being skewed to fit a conclusion.

[David]

Ochums Razor is b/s and I wish people would quit using it on these forums. The simplest answer seems hardly ever to be the right one.

[Darth Wong]

Ochums Razor is b/s and I wish people would quit using it on these forums. The simplest answer seems hardly ever to be the right one.

Don't blame Occam's Razor for the actions of those who would misquote it. Occam's Razor makes perfect sense when it isn't being butchered.

In a mathematical equation, if you need 15 terms in order to reach an accurate curve fit but some other guy comes along and achieves an equally accurate fit using just 3 terms, his equation is obviously superior. Your equation must have 12 redundant terms, since those extra terms do not seem to improve its accuracy.

That's the logical basis of Occam's Razor, and it works just fine. The problem is that when most people say "simpler", they mean "easier for a simpleton to understand" rather than "accomplishes the same job with fewer terms".

[Shadow WarChief]

There is no free will.

My reasoning?

Let us examine pool. You hit the ball, and you can trace its trajectory using the angles and eventually determine where the ball will end up.

of course, it never ends up EXACTLY where you think it will because you didn't factor in certain variables into your equation: The smoothness of the velvet covering. The indentations on the ball and cue from frequent use etc.


But if you factored those in, you would get a more accurate answer because you still did not factor in how many stray velvet "hairs" are sticking up from the pool table, which in turn throws off your calculations slightly.

But what if you could calculate every atom that would come into effect? Every quark? Everything? You'd have the perfect calculation and would be able to determine EXACTLY where the ball would land.


But let's apply that to us. What if we knew how every single particle in the universe reacted to another. Assuming you could do the calculations, you would know how every particle would eventually react with another the same way you can calculate where the pool ball will go.

And becauase you can exactlely calculate where every atom will be, by extension you know where every atom in you is and what it will react with, and you know what you will do. Fate, essentially. And of course, because there's fate, there's no free will.

[Darth Wong]

Heisenberg Uncertainty Theorem. Look it up.

[David]

Ochums Razor is b/s and I wish people would quit using it on these forums. The simplest answer seems hardly ever to be the right one.

Don't blame Occam's Razor for the actions of those who would misquote it. Occam's Razor makes perfect sense when it isn't being butchered.

In a mathematical equation, if you need 15 terms in order to reach an accurate curve fit but some other guy comes along and achieves an equally accurate fit using just 3 terms, his equation is obviously superior. Your equation must have 12 redundant terms, since those extra terms do not seem to improve its accuracy.

That's the logical basis of Occam's Razor, and it works just fine. The problem is that when most people say "simpler", they mean "easier for a simpleton to understand" rather than "accomplishes the same job with fewer terms".

Okay then, maybe it's not bs, but I still wish people would cease using it here because they are butchuring it.

[Lagmonster]

I reflect back on my teaching and realize that even in school, I was given only the most superficial explanation of Occam's Razor, the version that seems to pop up in bad arguments all over the place. Without further study on my part, I'd have probably misinterpreted it too, particularly the 'simpler theory' part.

I believe that while we teach our kids, we don't teach our kids the details of what we teach them, if that's not too obtuse. I now know that my schooling at least presented a decent selection of the basics (lots of math and language arts, national history only, surface-skimming in biology, physics, chemistry) but failed to provide any more in-depth instruction that would have made what I learned of any use.

Someone tell me that it isn't impossible to teach kids the fundamentals, and then *make sure that they know how those fundamentals are applied*.

[Mr Bean]

Ahh Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

You can never know the exact postion to anything because the mear act of measuring it changes its location

What a waste of my 700th post
Oh well

[Shadow WarChief]

Yes I know that you can't measure anything without changing it. But simply because you can't measure it doesn't mean it doesn't have a set value. The pool ball still bounces off angles even if you don't do calculations.

[Eleas]

"Ahh Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

You can never know the exact postion to anything because the mear act of measuring it changes its location

What a waste of my 700th post
Oh well "

My God Beanie, you'll be the first poster to reach 1000!

Unless I catch up. Shouldn't be too hard.

[Steven Snyder]

I cannot buy into the concept of Free Will (we have a choice when it comes to decision-making) because we live in a cause/effect universe.

Every cause creates an effect
Every effect had a cause

A decision you make is an effect, which again causes other events. You cannot make a decision (an effect), without being first stimulated into action by your environment (a cause).

Every thing you do is an effect based on a number of causes in your life.

If you take a man and put him in a specific situation he will react a certain way. If you then take that man away, erase all memory of that event, and then put him back into that specific situation, he will again react the same way.

Since there cannot be a spontaneous effect with no cause, you cannot make a decision without something first causing it. Therefore you don't have free will.