Free Will. What's It All About?

[Drakim]

So, I've never thought that free will existed. It sounds too much like a last minute explanation that's put there because people are afraid of being biological robots.

But what really bothers me is the apparent lack in a clear definition and understanding amongst, well, everybody, when it comes to what exactly free will is and what it does. The responses I get usually only reinforce this because they are vague and not deeply thought about. Things like "Free will is the ability to choose your own actions", without bothering to define what one means with "choose", "you" and "actions".

I guess the simplest explanation I've gotten is that actions like a heartbeat or getting hungry is not free will, because they just happen. But things like moving your hand or jumping is free will, because you are doing them.

But what exactly does one mean with "you" in this case? The brain? What part of the bunch of atoms that makes up your brain, makes it into a machine of free will, while the atoms that makes up your heart, into a machine of automatic contractions?

Perhaps what I'm arguing over is that I keep hearing all this about what free will results in, but never any attempt to explain how it works in the first place. And to me, it sounds quite foolish to insist that you for sure know that our actions are the result of free will, but you can absolutely not explain or justify this claim even a little, either by explain where free will comes from, how it's used and why it works.

A number of questions arises. Do animals have free will? (I think any reasonable pro-free will person would say yes to at least the smartest human like animals like monkeys) What about fish? Insects? Bacteria? Will a machine that's built in a human-brain like manner have free will?

I guess I'm most of all confused about this topic. There seems to be such an agreement among many people that we have free will, but whenever I ask, nobody seems to know why they have concluded so.

So, what are your thoughts? I'd love to hear them.

[Sajberhippien]

Now THIS could do for an interesting topic!

[Al6200]

Free will is the extent to which one acts in their own rational interest. There is no other satisfactory definition. A person who is not physically pressured to make a decision, but has electrodes planted in their brain forcing them to make one choice or another is NOT free. A person who is genetically engineered to not care for their own rational self interest is NOT free, even though they are making their own choices.

Interestingly enough, though, we have to accept that more freedom is not necessarily a good thing. If people were more free, much of the freedom would be used to exploit others and take away their freedom. In fact, I've thought that there might exist an "Iron Law of Freedom", in which freedom increases as population increases until some definite point where the trend reverses. I don't if such a curve exists, but it'll be something to explore if I have time.

[Drakim]

At 2/4/09 12:38 PM, Al6200 wrote: Free will is the extent to which one acts in their own rational interest. There is no other satisfactory definition. A person who is not physically pressured to make a decision, but has electrodes planted in their brain forcing them to make one choice or another is NOT free. A person who is genetically engineered to not care for their own rational self interest is NOT free, even though they are making their own choices.

But by that definition, we'd have to define a small machine who's job is to survive (let's say we have a balance robot that walks on a line), as having free will.

And such a robot acts upon pure math. He gets data and processes it according to a pattern/system, and gets output. The same question will always get the same answer.

To some extend, you would have to say that free will is nothing but the response an agent does to the environment he is in. But how can we call it "free" when the response is predetermined by what environment that is applied?

Interestingly enough, though, we have to accept that more freedom is not necessarily a good thing. If people were more free, much of the freedom would be used to exploit others and take away their freedom. In fact, I've thought that there might exist an "Iron Law of Freedom", in which freedom increases as population increases until some definite point where the trend reverses. I don't if such a curve exists, but it'll be something to explore if I have time.

Interesting, but I don't know how relevant. Freedom in society feels like a diffrent topic.

[MortifiedPenguins]

Free will is the ability for a rational character to exercise control over his actions and decesions, be they physical, moral or religious.

The act or consequence of that decesion, that ability to logical reason, think or judge future decesions is the basis of all that today we hold dear and judge as fair. The ability to punish criminals is based upon this decesion of intent and that they had control over thier actions

[Drakim]

At 2/4/09 01:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: Free will is the ability for a rational character to exercise control over his actions and decesions, be they physical, moral or religious.

The act or consequence of that decesion, that ability to logical reason, think or judge future decesions is the basis of all that today we hold dear and judge as fair. The ability to punish criminals is based upon this decesion of intent and that they had control over thier actions

This was exactly what I was complaining about in my first post. When you say these things, what do you really mean? I don't want some abstract "free will is when agent X does decision Y in context Z". I want to hear your thoghts on how exactly free will works.

Because, by the text definition you are giving here, a machine definitely, heck, any computer, can have free will. All you need to give the machine is some sort of problem solving logic and some problems, and it's up and about making choices of it's own free will.

Do you think a machine has free will or not? And if not, what is it with humans that gives it free will?

[Al6200]

At 2/4/09 01:14 PM, Drakim wrote:

But by that definition, we'd have to define a small machine who's job is to survive (let's say we have a balance robot that walks on a line), as having free will.

A small machine who's job it is to survive? You mean like a human?

Humans are just very complex thinking machines.

And such a robot acts upon pure math. He gets data and processes it according to a pattern/system, and gets output. The same question will always get the same answer.

It's not like human thought isn't deterministic. Few would argue that a single neuron is not deterministic, but for some reason people think that a network of billions of neurons becomes non-deterministic.

To some extend, you would have to say that free will is nothing but the response an agent does to the environment he is in. But how can we call it "free" when the response is predetermined by what environment that is applied?
Interesting, but I don't know how relevant. Freedom in society feels like a diffrent topic.

I think that having freedom is different than not being predictable. If I could give you a certain set of inputs, and predict what you'd do, you wouldn't lose your freedom. And likewise, if I had no clue what you were going to do, you could still have free will.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/4/09 01:38 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/4/09 01:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Because, by the text definition you are giving here, a machine definitely, heck, any computer, can have free will. All you need to give the machine is some sort of problem solving logic and some problems, and it's up and about making choices of it's own free will.

A machine is not a rational actor, as it is still controlled by the code and software for which it was designed for, thus negating it's ability to have free will. That machine cannot choose to not do the problem, or to delay doing the problem or any other free choice.
What you are doing is giving a way machine a variety of ways to solve a problem, not giving it it's own free will.

Do you think a machine has free will or not? And if not, what is it with humans that gives it free will?

Well, I could argue from Aristotelian ethics which state that the nature of man, the ability to gain or live by logos, is what gives us the ability of free will.

Or I could argue from a religious and metaphysical perspective that free will is a direct connection with the soul, thus only giving the human species that ability to control it's own fate.

[Drakim]

At 2/4/09 01:55 PM, Al6200 wrote:

You are no fun arguing with. We are both deterministics and thus agree on the matter. :(

At 2/4/09 02:00 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

At 2/4/09 01:38 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/4/09 01:32 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

Because, by the text definition you are giving here, a machine definitely, heck, any computer, can have free will. All you need to give the machine is some sort of problem solving logic and some problems, and it's up and about making choices of it's own free will.

A machine is not a rational actor, as it is still controlled by the code and software for which it was designed for, thus negating it's ability to have free will. That machine cannot choose to not do the problem, or to delay doing the problem or any other free choice.
What you are doing is giving a way machine a variety of ways to solve a problem, not giving it it's own free will.

Do you think a machine has free will or not? And if not, what is it with humans that gives it free will?

Well, I could argue from Aristotelian ethics which state that the nature of man, the ability to gain or live by logos, is what gives us the ability of free will.

But you are still just saying "Humans have free will. Machines does not". I want to know WHY you think humans have free will. Why does it come about? What makes it so that a human has free will and not a rock?

Or I could argue from a religious and metaphysical perspective that free will is a direct connection with the soul, thus only giving the human species that ability to control it's own fate.

If you bring magic into the debate, then all bets are off. :/

[KidneyThief]

A machine cannot have free will because it doesn't have a will in the first place. We have free will because we are able to consider our actions, machines cannot think, only follow programing.

[Drakim]

At 2/4/09 02:12 PM, stranger14 wrote: A machine cannot have free will because it doesn't have a will in the first place. We have free will because we are able to consider our actions, machines cannot think, only follow programing.

stop...saying..that..

I'm asking exactly why this is the case. Explain how you think "considering" works. Explains how "thinking" works.

Simply saying "humans have free will because they consider and think about things" does not help me at all understand your position. You are simply saying that free will exists and human qualities or something causes it.

[morefngdbs]

At 2/4/09 07:49 AM, Drakim wrote: I guess the simplest explanation I've gotten is that actions like a heartbeat or getting hungry is not free will, because they just happen. But things like moving your hand or jumping is free will, because you are doing them.

;;;;;;;
Sure certain involuntary automatic responses outside of our 'thought' processes happen.
But simply put, you decide to go have a S#!^, You then get up & go do so...an example of free wil in action. You think of it & you act on that thought.
You think you need a S#!^... You do nothing & BRRRRRIIIIIPPP your pants are full of S#!^, involuntary automatic response.

So as for your hand moving , people can have conditions where their hand moves on its own, they shake etc. sometimes even if your trying to keep it still.

So I believe it has to be a conscious decission that is then acted upon. Even if the idea is anothers & you decide to act on their idea, You made the decission...freewill.

Sorry about the pants full of S # ! ^....but I wanted something easy for voluntary , involuntary response.

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 2/4/09 02:06 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/4/09 01:55 PM, Al6200 wrote:

If you bring magic into the debate, then all bets are off. :/

My friend, you are arguing on the idea that man has the ability to choose rationally and willingly, something that cannot be measured in any scientific way or judged in any secular or balanced perspective.

You are arguing on the central idea that man can willingly choose his futurein any subject, in any way with no physical proof being available.

According to your general stance, you are arguing magic.

You are a determinist or maybe even a fatalist with your usage of terms like "biological robot."

When one argues theology and philosophy, one has to be ready to entertain philosphocial and theological proofs and justifications.

Like I said, the replies that you will get will generally fall upong these lines. Ones brough up with the Judeo/Christian concept of free will or those brought up with the ideas of Aristotle.

Maybe you'll get a couple of predetermined Calvinists but thats about it

[KidneyThief]

You are asking the cause of free will. What you are looking for probably won't be answered here because you are asking for a scientific fact rather then a thought.

[Murtag182]

This was exactly what I was complaining about in my first post. When you say these things, what do you really mean? I don't want some abstract "free will is when agent X does decision Y in context Z". I want to hear your thoghts on how exactly free will works.

Because, by the text definition you are giving here, a machine definitely, heck, any computer, can have free will. All you need to give the machine is some sort of problem solving logic and some problems, and it's up and about making choices of it's own free will.

Do you think a machine has free will or not? And if not, what is it with humans that gives it free will?

well, some things cant be explaned properly, like "how did we get here?" people can say "god made us," but then where did he come from? i'm not atheist, but it's impossible to explane it. i think free will is the same as this, no explanation.

[Bacchanalian]

First off... as with any ideal... free will does not exist in its ideal form. So the term "free" in free will is really a relative term.

Comparing a human to a robot... one might say the human has free will, while the robot just has will. Even a simple pully has will. When the quantity of variables involved, particularly abstract variables, reaches immense proportions, we call it free will. At this point it is more or less percievable only by derivatives of itself: we would characterize an interest to do a particular thing with additional interests, rather than physical mechanics.

[Brick-top]

Interesting, but I have an answer!

Free will is basically a list of many many options and inside those options are more options in a complex system we call society. You pick one based on your own biological and mental capabilities. If these options decrease you have less free will.

But it's not as black and white as that. Let's say for example you want a cookie. You only have one type of cookie but a large veriety of other foods in the house. You have free will to pick that treat but you don't have free will to eat another type of cookie. However you have the free will to buy another brand. But you only have enough money to buy a cheap brand so you don't have free will to buy a more expensive product etc etc etc.

So yeah that's my hypothesis. A large verity of options based on your own mentality.

[AntiangelicAngel]

I feel like we just have emotions attached to our actions that has a personal impact as a relation to our behavior. This creates the appearance of responsibility, but clearly, the process by which our actions occur is too complex to predict in any reliable fashion.
Any denial of free will shouldn't be an excuse to behave in a brutish fashion. That is why its dangerous to discuss the theoretical lack of free will, people think that if they don't have control for their actions, it isn't their responsibility if they rape or pillage.

[Drakim]

At 2/5/09 11:20 PM, Brick-top wrote: Interesting, but I have an answer!

Free will is basically a list of many many options and inside those options are more options in a complex system we call society. You pick one based on your own biological and mental capabilities. If these options decrease you have less free will.

That's the boring-but-probably-correct answer D:

But it's not as black and white as that. Let's say for example you want a cookie. You only have one type of cookie but a large veriety of other foods in the house. You have free will to pick that treat but you don't have free will to eat another type of cookie. However you have the free will to buy another brand. But you only have enough money to buy a cheap brand so you don't have free will to buy a more expensive product etc etc etc.

So yeah that's my hypothesis. A large verity of options based on your own mentality.

But did you choose to want a cookie? Are you just fooling yourself as you eat the cookie, while believing yourself to have made the choice, it was actually your situation that resulted in the action, not your "will"?

At 2/5/09 11:23 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: I feel like we just have emotions attached to our actions that has a personal impact as a relation to our behavior. This creates the appearance of responsibility, but clearly, the process by which our actions occur is too complex to predict in any reliable fashion.
Any denial of free will shouldn't be an excuse to behave in a brutish fashion. That is why its dangerous to discuss the theoretical lack of free will, people think that if they don't have control for their actions, it isn't their responsibility if they rape or pillage.

That's pretty easy. If criminals have no free will over their actions can can't help but to steal, then we as a society have no free will over our actions and can't help but to arrest them and bring them to justice.

The free will problem would only appear if only some people had free will.

[Brick-top]

At 2/6/09 08:27 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/5/09 11:20 PM, Brick-top wrote: Interesting, but I have an answer!

Free will is basically a list of many many options and inside those options are more options in a complex system we call society. You pick one based on your own biological and mental capabilities. If these options decrease you have less free will.

That's the boring-but-probably-correct answer D:

A million ramblings would probably give a semi-right answer eventually.

But it's not as black and white as that. Let's say for example you want a cookie. You only have one type of cookie but a large veriety of other foods in the house. You have free will to pick that treat but you don't have free will to eat another type of cookie. However you have the free will to buy another brand. But you only have enough money to buy a cheap brand so you don't have free will to buy a more expensive product etc etc etc.

So yeah that's my hypothesis. A large verity of options based on your own mentality.

But did you choose to want a cookie? Are you just fooling yourself as you eat the cookie, while believing yourself to have made the choice, it was actually your situation that resulted in the action, not your "will"?

That depends on how many buy cookies but I used it in an example because it was a treat and not required in our daily diet. Also (in this society) it's easy to obtain. I knew you were going to say that so I mentioned the other food alternatives showing you had chosen the cookie and/or have the ability to get some.

[Drakim]

At 2/6/09 10:06 AM, Brick-top wrote: That depends on how many buy cookies but I used it in an example because it was a treat and not required in our daily diet. Also (in this society) it's easy to obtain. I knew you were going to say that so I mentioned the other food alternatives showing you had chosen the cookie and/or have the ability to get some.

But what the choice of food among the foodstuffs just the result of your will, or just external influence? Would you have gotten that cookie if your mom never gave you cookies during your childhood? Can you credit your choice of cookie to your free will, or your mother's baking?

[Aughiris]

There is no free will. Imagine the following. You have two entities. One is your average human. The other is a robot, a mechanical human, whose CPU is programmed and instructed EXACTLY like a human brain. He needs food, water, and sleep. He feels emotions. He can think rationally about thinks. He knows love. All in all, he thinks EXACTLY like a human. EVERYTHING about him, except perhaps the material he is made from, is human.

Now why would the human have a 'free will' and the robot not? This concludes that either everything in the universe has a 'free will', or that nothing has a 'free will'.

[Brick-top]

At 2/6/09 11:02 AM, Drakim wrote: But what the choice of food among the foodstuffs just the result of your will, or just external influence? Would you have gotten that cookie if your mom never gave you cookies during your childhood? Can you credit your choice of cookie to your free will, or your mother's baking?

My mother doesn't bake we buy them as is. I'll eat anything and I don't recall eating cookies as a small child, it was mainly pasta which I eat less of today however we still buy it.

But I get your point, external influences can have an effect but it's that level of effecting that's unknown. In my case it's rather low based on the 'cookie hypothesis'

[Leeloo-Minai]

At 2/5/09 11:20 PM, Brick-top wrote: But it's not as black and white as that.

But what if it is?

[Brick-top]

At 2/6/09 02:39 PM, Leeloo-Minai wrote:

At 2/5/09 11:20 PM, Brick-top wrote: But it's not as black and white as that.

But what if it is?

What if it's not?

FREE WILLY!

[Leeloo-Minai]

You could always take the WIlliam Wallace FRRRREEEEDOMMMM shout anglee as a good follow up, too.

[Proottalfain]

At 2/6/09 01:51 PM, Aughiris wrote: There is no free will. Imagine the following. You have two entities. One is your average human. The other is a robot, a mechanical human, whose CPU is programmed and instructed EXACTLY like a human brain. He needs food, water, and sleep. He feels emotions. He can think rationally about thinks. He knows love. All in all, he thinks EXACTLY like a human. EVERYTHING about him, except perhaps the material he is made from, is human.

Now why would the human have a 'free will' and the robot not? This concludes that either everything in the universe has a 'free will', or that nothing has a 'free will'.

I find this to be a pretty good explanation. My own explanation is that Free will and emotions are only mechanisms to keep the human species alive. If humans did not believe in Free will, they would commit suicide.

I have a very logical mind. I believe in no magic, as you call it. We are made of atoms and all that happens in our brain is only atoms interacting. Think of it like a pool table. Good pool players know what will happen when they hit the white ball. Pool balls have no free will. Now imagine the atoms in our brain to be like pool balls. When our brain gets an input (the queue hits the white ball), it reacts accordingly. That's what Drakim said earlier; the same question triggers the same answer. But what makes the illusion of free will and the complexity of the human brain is that the question always changes. Sure, the queue can hit the white ball in the same way as before, but the other balls are now disposed differently, thus a new answer. The question is not "If the queue hits the white ball like that, what will happen?", it is "If the queue hits the white ball like that and the other balls are disposed like that, what will happen?"

If you have seen the movie Memento, it's the story of a guy who can't make new memories. So his brain doesn't change (The pool table resets after each shot). So what happens is that if you ask him the same question twice, he will answer the same thing twice. He solves this problem by putting polaroid pictures in his coat pockets, thus altering the input.

I meditated a lot on this subject and even made a topic about is a while ago: http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/topic/1007 193

[Aughiris]

I agree with you one hundred percent. People need to believe that they are worth something. That they can change their surroundings. That they are unique. That they have a destiny. That their life has a meaning and a purpose. That they have a free will. Because if they would believe they don't, they would kill themselves, because what is the purpose of your life if it has no purpose?

And you're right about saying that people would kill themselves if they'd believe this. Just writing this stuff makes me feel sad :(

[Proottalfain]

At 2/6/09 05:44 PM, Aughiris wrote: I agree with you one hundred percent. People need to believe that they are worth something. That they can change their surroundings. That they are unique. That they have a destiny. That their life has a meaning and a purpose. That they have a free will. Because if they would believe they don't, they would kill themselves, because what is the purpose of your life if it has no purpose?

And you're right about saying that people would kill themselves if they'd believe this. Just writing this stuff makes me feel sad :(

Were you replying to me? Because if you don't quote the person's post, people think you're replying to the original poster. I assume you replied to me seeing from the content of your post.

[Bacchanalian]

At 2/6/09 05:44 PM, Aughiris wrote: I agree with you one hundred percent. People need to believe that they are worth something. That they can change their surroundings. That they are unique. That they have a destiny. That their life has a meaning and a purpose. That they have a free will. Because if they would believe they don't, they would kill themselves, because what is the purpose of your life if it has no purpose?

And you're right about saying that people would kill themselves if they'd believe this. Just writing this stuff makes me feel sad :(

Excuse me? They need to believe that they have free will... and they need to believe they have a destiny? I think you've done an even better job of illustrating the disconnect between meaning and will than I ever could have.

But more to the point. A person who lacks a purpose to their life will not kill themselves, because humans pursue multiple purposes - derivatives of the desire to affirm. As long as we have a means to affirm ourselves, we are sustainable. The draw of a universal or absolute purpose is that it becomes a constant - hyper-real. However, we are social creatures, and the larger influences in our lives are actually our purposes toward others. These are numerous and varied, and the affirmation reciprocated in others' judgements is more than enough to sustain us. Infact, the universal constants we invent are sustained by social reinforcement. The beauty of this is that you don't even have to be aware of the purpose, philosophically/ consciously/ existentially, to be inspired into action by another human being.

[The reason you feel sad is that removing a constant creates ambiguity, and ambiguity is not comfortable. That and you're developing a self-fulfilling prophecy.]

Free will provides responsibility, which makes the self an affirmable thing. Once you've absolved yourself of responsibility, you can either kill yourself, or do what ever you want. More often than not, the individual will choose the latter course of action, as it indulges their interests. In cases that the former is chosen, it's usually under the umbrella of the latter. Oh, and since the person is pursuing indulgence, they've actually added artifice to artifice.

The logical product of realizing that there is no free will, would be complete inaction... but that's still a decision... thereforrrree...

...The concept of the self is unavoidable, and I think everyone should realize that while some things aren't real, they are effectively real; no ideal exists ideally; and the term "free" is relative.