Does Free Will Exist?

[Pedersen]

Now, Pedersen..."mysterious ways"... bleh! What's wrong with "God does stuff that we'll never understand"??? Makes perfect sense to me! After all, that's pretty much part of the definition of divinity, isn't it??? So, saying it's a cop-out is just as much a cop-out if you can't prove it!

Nothing's wrong with it per se, until it becomes used as a cop-out. Saying "Using the words we've made up as a people makes illogical things happen, but I still believe those illogical things. Therefore, it's God moving in mysterious ways" is a total cop-out.

Saying "I do believe in God, and I believe God has a plan. I don't understand that plan, though. Therefore, God moves in mysterious ways" is markedly different.

One indicates issues with logic, and the other indicates statements of belief. Hence, my cop-out remarks.

[Slytovhand]

OH... OK.....

[DrT]

I'll put out my answer: I do not believe free will exists. Basically, to steal a phrase from Scott Adams, we are all "moist robots". We have very sophisticated organic chemistry which manages to use some sort of reasoning process to lead us to make decisions. However, make no mistake: That reasoning process is part of the programming we are following.

Well, lesse if I can go against the moist robot argument:
- you infer we are following a programming. Who programmed it? ie: who made the neuronal pathways that we will follow to arrive at a decision.
They weren't made before we were concieved. Two twins (ie: same genetic makup, same deck of card to start with) will have different though processes. If the programming (neuronal pathway) was not made before we were concieved, then it's after. What has influence on these pathways? The pathways themselves (us, our senses, etc). Outside influence is coded through our perception of it, hence our pathways. These pathways can ignore this or that signal from the outside, because they were formed that way, by themselves.
We made ourselves.

How? By our own decisions. Consciously or not, we made them.

If we made ourselves, through decisions that did not involve any outside influence, we have free will.

-Plasticity: our mind is plastic. The neuronal pathways in our brain are not set. It is felt as a change of mind, and it is the fruit of a feedback loop in our brain which can alter the decision process because of outside parameters, but more importantly BY ITSELF.
No, I won't dig the paper out of the net. I probably don't suscribe to the journals they are published in.

But here's an example: Pavlov's dog.
1- a dog in a cage. A sound is made (S), shortly after food is brough (F). In response to food, the dog salivates (SL). Completely unconscious reaction (this is important, because you take away the possibility of the subject faking it).
S -> F -> SL
2- after a few times, a sound is made, and salivation happens. without the food. Dog learned that sounds means food, so he cut the middle man
S -> SL.

So far the robot hypothesis holds. One can program such as learning algorythm.

Now, continue the experiment:
3- after a while, as the sound is emitted but the food keeps on not showing, salivation stops.
How?
Well, the neuronal pathways dissociated the food from the sound, so solivation didn't happen.
So, who did the reprogramming? Itself. The neuronal pathway is able to change, by itself.

Now that does attack the robot hypothesis, but one can still say that the brain is programmed to ignore the sound if after a given time the food doesn't come.

Then, take two dogs.
Twins. Lived in identical cages their whole life. Same environment. Same feeding time. Everything.
repeat experiment. Measure the time it takes for them to dissociate sound from food (ie: stop salivating in response to sound).

It won't be the same lengh of time.

Why? How can their programming be different is the outside influence was identical? Look inside. Throughout their lives, their pathways got programmed differently as they took different decisions, consciously or not.


If I can reprogram myself, don't I have free will?

[Pedersen]

Who programmed it? ie: who made the neuronal pathways that we will follow to arrive at a decision.
They weren't made before we were concieved. Two twins (ie: same genetic makup, same deck of card to start with) will have different though processes. If the programming (neuronal pathway) was not made before we were concieved, then it's after.

And it's before we actually have our first thoughts. In order for our brain to have a thought, the brain must exist. In order for the brain to exist, the first neural pathways must already be laid down. So, no, we don't make ourselves. Biology makes us. And biology is what makes our decisions for us.

-Plasticity: our mind is plastic. The neuronal pathways in our brain are not set.

You are correct. Computer programs have a similar concept available to them called a "neural net", which strengthens some pathways and weakens others. I doubt you're saying that those programs have free will, though.

Then, take two dogs.
Twins.

Which neatly ignores one little fact: Identical twins are not identical at the genetic level.

Why? How can their programming be different is the outside influence was identical? Look inside.

Look very far inside. They wound up having different perceptions of the same experiences because at a cellular level they are different. Their neural pathways were formed differently from the beginning. This resulted in them experiencing identical events in a different fashion, which results in them being individuals that act differently to the same stimulus.

If I can reprogram myself, don't I have free will?

Unfortunately, no. Not unless computers which use neural networks and thus change their behavior in response to differing inputs are classified as having free will.

[DrT]

And it's before we actually have our first thoughts. In order for our brain to have a thought, the brain must exist. In order for the brain to exist, the first neural pathways must already be laid down. So, no, we don't make ourselves. Biology makes us. And biology is what makes our decisions for us.

Woa.
biology makes the decision for us ? Biology is the science of the living. How can that make decisions?
don't drop words like that, would ya ?
But you refer to the biological programming, hence the neuronal network. see below.

Which neatly ignores one little fact: Identical twins are not identical at the genetic level.

Nah, I dismiss a little study done on a little sample of humans that got published in a little journal
I'm talking experimental animals, genetically identical.

Look very far inside. They wound up having different perceptions of the same experiences because at a cellular level they are different. Their neural pathways were formed differently from the beginning. This resulted in them experiencing identical events in a different fashion, which results in them being individuals that act differently to the same stimulus.

I agree: their neuronal pathways are different, because they formed differently. you infer that this change was done by an outside influence. I'm saying this changes comes from within, idenpendantly of outside influence.

Unfortunately, no. Not unless computers which use neural networks and thus change their behavior in response to differing inputs are classified as having free will.

Computer neuronal network do not have an automatic feedback loop. they do not question their decisions without an outside input making them question it.

Humans, and high animals, are wired in such a way that the decision is questionned whether or not outside inputs changed.


Now, let's face it Pedersen: neither you nor I know how the brain works.
Not a scientist in the world does.
You are basing your absence of free will theory on the assumtion that the brain is a data processing machine which workings can be defined and set.
This is not the case.
It processes data, but the output is not predictable (as I said, two identical subjects will not reprogram themselves at the same speed). there's always a variation, that remains unexplained.

Through the same fact, though, my opinion cannot be proved. I personnaly tend to believe that the plasticity of the brain lies within: the neurons in a network can reinvent themselves. one neuronal network will question the relevance of another, which in turn can question the first. This loop is inside, and gives us free will.

[Pedersen]

biology makes the decision for us ? Biology is the science of the living. How can that make decisions?

define:biology: characteristic life processes and phenomena of living organisms; "the biology of viruses"

So, yes, biology makes the choices.

Nah, I dismiss a little study done on a little sample of humans that got published in a little journal
I'm talking experimental animals, genetically identical.

Unfortunately, genetically identical in a multicellular organism is impossible for a number of reasons.

First, cell death. We are unable to control when individual cells die in an organism. As a result, two animals which are clones of each other will have different cellular life/death cycles. This will result in small, subtle differences throughout the body. These small differences can easily result in changes in the neural pathways of the brain. For these purposes, I'm only discussing post birth.

Second, pre birth: The cellular division can (and will) result in differences that we cannot see, and sometimes that we can see, even in cloned animals.

It is impossible to have a pair of multicellular organisms be completely identical.

However, let us assume (for the sake of argument) that it actually is possible. That, somehow, we have two genuinely identical dogs. If such is possible, and if the dogs have been identical since birth, and if the dogs have had 100% identical experiences throughout their lives (none of which is actually possible, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is), if everything about these dogs lives and physical makeup is actually genuinely identical, then they will respond identically to the same input.

Try it from a different angle: By our understandings, the brain is responsible for decision making. Any decision that occurs is solely subject to the brain. As a result, if we have two genuinely identical brains, and give them the same criteria for a decision, then the electrical impulses that we eventually perceive to be a decision will follow the same pathways and provide the same result. Unless, of course, you are stating that the free will portion of the brain actually exists outside the brain? And, if so, I have to ask: Does it float nearby, or does it go off on its own on occasion?

Computer neuronal network do not have an automatic feedback loop. they do not question their decisions without an outside input making them question it.

Neural Networks: Unsupervised learning In unsupervised learning we are given some data x, and a cost function which is to be minimized which can be any function of x and the network's output, f. The cost function is determined by the task formulation. Most applications fall within the domain of estimation problems such as statistical modeling, compression, filtering, blind source separation and clustering.

Whether or not they have automated feedback loops depends on how they are built.

Now, let's face it Pedersen: neither you nor I know how the brain works.
Not a scientist in the world does.

Actually, a great deal is known about the function of the brain. Not all of it is known, but a lot of it is. And the more we learn, the more it looks like the brain is very much just a very powerful neural network.

[DrT]

So, yes, biology makes the choices.

calling it biology gives the illusion of an outside entity. it's like saying the computer doesn't do the calculation, electronic does.

Unfortunately, genetically identical in a multicellular organism is impossible for a number of reasons.

it doesn't change my argument, so let's put this aside for now

However, let us assume (for the sake of argument) that it actually is possible. That, somehow, we have two genuinely identical dogs. If such is possible, and if the dogs have been identical since birth, and if the dogs have had 100% identical experiences throughout their lives (none of which is actually possible, but for the sake of argument we will assume it is), if everything about these dogs lives and physical makeup is actually genuinely identical, then they will respond identically to the same input.

That is your assumption. You will not be able to prove it, neither will I be able to prove the opposite to its full extend.
There is not room in your reasoning for randomness. I'll bring that up later.

Try it from a different angle: By our understandings, the brain is responsible for decision making. Any decision that occurs is solely subject to the brain. as a result, if we have two genuinely identical brains, and give them the same criteria for a decision, then the electrical impulses that we eventually perceive to be a decision will follow the same pathways and provide the same result. Unless, of course, you are stating that the free will portion of the brain actually exists outside the brain? And, if so, I have to ask: Does it float nearby, or does it go off on its own on occasion?

you're oversimplifying the workings of a brain, and thus missing the aspect that actually governs the free decision.

Let's look at decision making as a network of interacting neural loops, talking to each other.
That's you, weighing the several possibility for your actions.

One neural loop will finally take over and you'll make a choice.
You tell me that this taking over can be predestined, I will infer it cannot.

1-these are not 2 loops, or 10, but millions. They are all subjected to random impulses from other parts of the neural system, and in a body they are also subjected to signals from the endocrine system (blood). Thus one need to account for random change in the networks.
Unless you can predict randomness (and I invite you to Vega), then you can't predict the decision that will be taken.

2-one good example to back up my randomness argument: inovation.
how, in a network that is set, can you have innovation. We are talking today through a medium that was absolutely uninimaginable 50 years ago. How can it be possible, in a set neural network kind of life ?
These are random inputs. Whether or not the neural network accepts, dismisses, builds on these random inputs give it free will.

Actually, a great deal is known about the function of the brain. Not all of it is known, but a lot of it is. And the more we learn, the more it looks like the brain is very much just a very powerful neural network.

Wrong.
A great deal is known about neurons.
Network of neurons ? well, no.
Check the work done in Australia on the 'rat brain'. This actually a bunch of rat neurons in a petri dish, that can somewhat learn (at least within the definition of the experiment). The scientists in charge of that experiment, and their competitors, will not be able to explain to your how it learns.
They can tell you how to make it learn faster or slower, maybe. but giving you a model of exactly how ? No.
Neither can they predestine the decision making of that bunch of cells, because they can't predict random impulses.

So if they can't figure out cells in a flat petri dish, they're clueless in front of a highly hierarchic, fractal, neural network like the brain.

[Slytovhand]

Why are we talking 'biology' (or not, as the case may be?? )

I thought the argument was theological? (or was that the other thread??)

Either way, doesn't it go deeper than mere neurons? Down to actual atomic and subatomic particles and waves... stuff that isn't random?

And no, DrT, I don't agree with the use of the word 'random'... unexplained. Unpredictable to current sciences. etc. But truly random.. nope - don't buy that! Not when, our wonderful little bunch of scientists are able to calculate so much with physics out there in the stars (or, at least, getting closer and closer to calculating).

The only thing (at the moment) that is considered 'random' is at the level of quantum mechanics... and even that they're thinking it isn't truly random - but follows rules and laws we haven't ascertained yet.

Question - was the state of the universe (size, shape, duration, etc) determined before the Big Bang?

Answer that, and you get closer to the 'Free Will' argument.

[DrT]

Why are we talking 'biology' (or not, as the case may be?? )

because it went there

Either way, doesn't it go deeper than mere neurons? Down to actual atomic and subatomic particles and waves... stuff that isn't random?

did you just say that subatomic particles and waves are not random ? light is a particle AND a wave, but can't be both at the same time. When is it one or the other ? when it suits the observer.

position of electrons are not set. We know the areas where they PROBABLY are, within a certain interval of confidence...

And no, DrT, I don't agree with the use of the word 'random'... unexplained. Unpredictable to current sciences. etc. But truly random.. nope - don't buy that! Not when, our wonderful little bunch of scientists are able to calculate so much with physics out there in the stars (or, at least, getting closer and closer to calculating).
The only thing (at the moment) that is considered 'random' is at the level of quantum mechanics... and even that they're thinking it isn't truly random - but follows rules and laws we haven't ascertained yet.

Well, no actually.

very soon as you start doing physics to a certain level, you multiply assumptions, and work on proability, interval of confidence, etc. Random is put aside and encased into these, and ignored otherwise nothing would get done.

even engineers talk in 'interval of confidence'. you won't find one that will tell you: there's a hundred percent chance this bridge will hold. They'll tell you that it's safe within the safest marging or error.
there's always a random chance than, well, it will fall and they won't know why.


I'll stand with my random, thank you very much ;p

[Pedersen]

because it went there

Indeed it did. And I didn't go far enough, my bad. I think XKCD describes it extremely well.

did you just say that subatomic particles and waves are not random ? light is a particle AND a wave, but can't be both at the same time. When is it one or the other ? when it suits the observer.

Actually, from research that I've read, the general opinion is leaning towards them not being random. Rather, what appears to be random is controlled by mechanisms we do not yet understand. That is a very far cry from random.

position of electrons are not set. We know the areas where they PROBABLY are, within a certain interval of confidence...

This is due to limitations in the devices that can measure these things, not due to inherent randomness in their position.

even engineers talk in 'interval of confidence'. you won't find one that will tell you: there's a hundred percent chance this bridge will hold. They'll tell you that it's safe within the safest marging or error.
there's always a random chance than, well, it will fall and they won't know why.

This confuses "random" with "we don't know". They are, most definitely, not the same thing. Consider, for example, a plane crash. At the time of the crash, we don't know the root cause of it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be random. It's only after investigation that we are able to find out the cause, and only then that we discover that it wasn't random.

I'll stand with my random, thank you very much ;p

You're more than welcome to be as wrong as you wish

Seriously, though, more and more research is showing that less and less is actually random. Although, here's something else for you to ponder:

Since randomness is the source of free will, doesn't that mean that free will itself is random? And doesn't that mean that, instead of free willed beings, or programmed automatons, that we are just randomly moving through our lives, bouncing off one another?

[Slytovhand]

Edit: was typing up when Ped posted....



Ah.. but that's still working on a human 21st century understanding of things... which is where the whole argument about free will came in the first time (which is why we've conveniently bypassed anything esoteric).

If you were 'God', would you know the exact position and speed of those subatomic particles? How about how light actually works?? That's the sort of level of predictability we're looking at - and why. Not so much can we determine it, but is it knowable.

So - sure, your engineers may not know why - but that doesn't mean there isn't a reason for it.. and that reason is ascertainable.

[DrT]

This confuses "random" with "we don't know". They are, most definitely, not the same thing. Consider, for example, a plane crash. At the time of the crash, we don't know the root cause of it. For all intents and purposes, it might as well be random. It's only after investigation that we are able to find out the cause, and only then that we discover that it wasn't random.

random: cannot be predicted.

you may want to assume that everything can be put into mathematical equations and predicted. But do not forget: these math your are using will be based on assumptions.

there is always a marging of error in science. Those ignoring it paid enough of a price for it.

Since randomness is the source of free will, doesn't that mean that free will itself is random? And doesn't that mean that, instead of free willed beings, or programmed automatons, that we are just randomly moving through our lives, bouncing off one another?

you want me to disagree with the randomness of life ?
I won't. A great many unfathomable things happened in my life for me to disagree with that.

we are free willed being moving randomly through our lives. Able to steer our boats on the river of life to a certain extend, but never really able to take it exactly where we want to.

[Flyndaran]

I'm a rationalist atheist. To assume free will is to assume an outside force able to direct, but not be affected by, this reality.
I am, mostly, my brain, a physical object that took its programming from biology and environment.
I would like to believe in free will, but I would also like to believe in an afterlife, fairies, and magic. No evidence for any of them.

[Slytovhand]

Interesting view there, Flyn..esp that free will assumes an outside force....

Also - yes, there is actual evidence for those other 3 things you mentioned - but evidence alone doesn't convict.

[Flyndaran]

Interesting view there, Flyn..esp that free will assumes an outside force....

Also - yes, there is actual evidence for those other 3 things you mentioned - but evidence alone doesn't convict.

Aside from whatever you consider evidence rather than anectdotes...

What do you consider free will? What stops me from bludgeoning my girlfriend? I would say it's my biology and upbringing making it a non-issue. I'm inherently a non-violent person and was raised in a manner to enforce that nature.
Do you see free will as the ability to analyse a situation and make informed decisions based on one's priorities and limitations? I see that as the very definition of intelligence that every animal uses to the best of its ability.

I think a definition would clear up quite a bit of confusion I'm having with everyone's counter arguments for free will.