I will give £500 to anyone who can prove that we have free will

[Tycoon]

No, I understand what you are saying, I just don't buy into it. You are essentially saying that you don't think which sounds contradictory when you realize that that is how you came to your conclusion.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, could you reword it?

[LadiesMan217]

Sorry, let me rephrase it. You have come to the conclusion that we do not actually think but the fact that you came to that conclusion is proof that we do.

[Tycoon]

Sorry, let me rephrase it. You have come to the conclusion that we do not actually think but the fact that you came to that conclusion is proof that we do.

You are assigning more meaning to events than actually exists. What you call thought is merely chemical reactions in the brain. What you call choice is merely chemical reactions in the brain. Chemical reactions have causes and effects, therefore when you make what you would call a "choice" you couldn't have made any other choice because there were a specific set of external factors that determined that choice.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Tycoon You are assigning more meaning to events than actually exists. What you call thought is merely chemical reactions in the brain. What you call choice is merely chemical reactions in the brain. Chemical reactions have causes and effects, therefore when you make what you would call a "choice" you couldn't have made any other choice because there were a specific set of external factors that determined that choice.

Is there a source or a study you can cite to support your claim? I know you must have one because I have heard this idea before so I know one should exist. Unfortunately, if this way of thinking were to become universally accepted it will just lead to a chaotic environment where no one can really be held responsible for any action they make. All I know is I would have a slam dunk case for acquittal in court should I ever be charged with theft or murder, for example. "Your honor, I didn't choose to rob that bank, it was the chemical reactions in my brain that did, I have no control over any thing in my life and here is a study that proves it." Bang, Bang(Judge's gavel) "Case dismissed".

[Tycoon]

Is there a source or a study you can cite to support your claim?

I haven't the slightest clue, but I don't see any need for one. It's common sense.

Unfortunately, if this way of thinking were to become universally accepted it will just lead to a chaotic environment where no one can really be held responsible for any action they make. All I know is I would have a slam dunk case for acquittal in court should I ever be charged with theft or murder, for example. "Your honor, I didn't choose to rob that bank, it was the chemical reactions in my brain that did, I have no control over any thing in my life and here is a study that proves it." Bang, Bang(Judge's gavel) "Case dismissed".

Simply because your choices are predetermined doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make the right choices. If you exert a level of control then you will have been predetermined to have done so, but it will still result in a better choice.

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Tycoon Simply because your choices are predetermined doesn't mean that you shouldn't try to make the right choices. If you exert a level of control then you will have been predetermined to have done so, but it will still result in a better choice.

So you have no support for your claims and you have contradicted your claims. How can I try to make the right choice when my choice is predetermined? The only way is by actually choosing to do so. It is impossible for you to make your claims when so much about the brain and how it is unknown to us. We hardly have any understanding of how it works. Pretty much all we know is chemicals that it uses and what those chemicals do and what sections of the brain are used for which type of thought because those sections light up on a computer screen. I'm obviously oversimplifying but I am partially right and I think you know what I am saying. We just do not know how this lump of gray matter in our skulls produces thought.

[oades11]

Quote by: Leveller The computer analogy you bring up is an excellent example of how we don't have free will. If you enter data into a computer program, it will process the information, run it through its algaraythms and produce a result. enter the same data into the same program again, and the result will be the same. Even a 'random' feature on a CD player follows a certain pattern to select the next track, run the data through exactly the same algarythm again, and it will 'randomly' select the same track. Human brains work like computers, although admitadly vastly more complex, the principle is the same, data is input, run past the information available, the possible outcomes are weighed and a conclussion is made. as 'Jack-Sparrow' says : "If a given mind where put in the same outer and inner circumstances multiple times, it would be bound to make the same choices every time." Assuming that EVERY variable was identicle, surely this would be true? Allow me to put to you a hypothetical scenario, which I will call 'Levellers twins' You have 2 geneticly identicle new born babies, in EVERY concieveble way, they are identicle, they are born simultaneously, and they are each placed in an identicle room, identicle surroundings. for the first 10 years of there lives, every detail of there upbringing is kept identicle. they are given identicle meals at identicle times, they are shown identicle educational programs on identicle TV's, they have identicle interactions with identicle researches. For 10 years NOTHING happens to one which does not happen in absolutely the same way to the other, right down to the subatomic level. Then after 10 years, each is placed in a room with 10 doors and told they have the free will to open 3 of the doors, will they choose to open the same 3 doors? Assuming that EVRY SINGLE VARIABLE has been accounted for and made identicle, have we any reason to suppose that they would not choose the same 3 doors? If they do not open the same 3 doors, then there are 2 possibile reasons, eithe man does have free will, or some variable was overlooked. I would wager that the latter is true. Of course this experiment is well beyond our ability to carry out, we could not, as it stands carry out this experiment to the neccesery degree of accuracy, nor do I think this experiment, for moral reasons, should be carried out. But nethertheless, the hypothesis stands. In everything we have so far come to understand though science, and they way the world works, we have learnt that EVERYTHING happens based on laws, patterns, or reasoning on some level, infact it is a governing scientific principle that, for a hypothesis to be proved, it must be possible to re-create the circumstances, and repeat the result of the orrigional experiment. Heisenbergs principle is based on our limmited understanding. As it stands, your correct, we cannot know the exact position and momentum of a particle, that by no means, means we will never be able to, it is simply that our science is, as yet, not advanced enough to messure this phenominen. You are using the uknown to try and justify an assertion about mankind. It is blatantly flawed to try and prove that something is the case, by citing our own limitations of understanding. Free will does not exist, we appear to have it because every human brain is vastly complex. Each one built differently, and exposed to a vast array of different experiences and information. All you can prove is that we have limitied understanding, you cannot prove that we have free will Cheque book is still closed

Alright, I'm getting very frustrated that my posts are getting ignored. Have I been alienated by Volconvo users? What have I done to deserve this intellectual neglect?

You've mentioned randomness, but only with respect to artificial computers, i.e. the circuitry in a CD player. I am not sure this is the same as the seeming randomness of subatomic behavior. The determinist's argument can only hold if we knew exactly how such behavior was governed. I would not be so arrogant as to say that simply because we don't understand subatomic interactions, like quantum mechanics, and can veritably predict such behavior, that the alternative to determinism, i.e free will, is true. To be candid, there is no objective way to prove, apodictically, that either one of these is true.

I'm playing the devil's advocate here, because I've always found the determinist's argument to be stronger. However, I have a small suspicion that perhaps one day we will understand the quantum universe and it's 'seemingly' random behavior, and realize that it is not random at all. Until that day comes, though, I must reserve judgment. Especially with the postulation of dark matter/dark energy and crazy ideas of theoretical physics, that day does seem like it's a long way away. We'll need another Einstein to change the current scientific paradigm so that these things can come into focus.

I think one of the major issues I have with determinism, though, is that the possible ramifications for a person wholeheartedly believing in it could be dire. Would it not free us of all consequences entirely? Would it not be the case that moral decisions no longer matter at all, since our current circumstances were all set in motion long, long ago, in the most infintessimal moment after the BB (or God, if you're a deist)? So perhaps it is not that determinism seems to make more logical sense, but because I simply want to believe in free will that I desperately cling to such a scenario.

More bizarrely even, this post of mine reminds me that the idea of causality, and thus, determinism, depend on the notion of time being uniform and unchanging. However, the concepts of time dilation and the collapsing of space-time, particularly with the phenomena of black holes, etc, seem to put a severe kink in the armor of determinism- since, of course, time is not uniform and perhaps does not affect quantum dynamics at all. (I've hypothesized that quantum behavior is not predictable because quantum interactions act only inside of the fabric of space-time and are not bound by the rules of causality that are obviously entailed in a time based system.)

I realize this is a considerable amount of speculation, and the last part about time seems almost nonsensical after rereading it. But bear with me, I hope to get some good input and perhaps we can learn a thing or two from this debate.

[Tycoon]

How can I try to make the right choice when my choice is predetermined?

Because it may be predetermined that you make the right choice. Your efforts still affect your choices, but when they do it is predetermined that they do.

The only way is by actually choosing to do so.

Again, I have not denied your ability to make choices, only that it is predetermined that you do so. If you choose to make the right choice then it was predetermined that you would.

It is impossible for you to make your claims when so much about the brain and how it is unknown to us. We hardly have any understanding of how it works. Pretty much all we know is chemicals that it uses and what those chemicals do and what sections of the brain are used for which type of thought because those sections light up on a computer screen.

And is that not enough information? It is known that thought comes in the form of chemical reactions, and chemical reactions always have a cause and an effect. In this case the cause is external stimuli, and the effect is thought.

We just do not know how this lump of gray matter in our skulls produces thought.

You may be looking for more than there is. If the answer is just that thought is a chemical reaction, would you be satisfied?

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Ty You may be looking for more than there is. If the answer is just that thought is a chemical reaction, would you be satisfied?

I'm okay with that, but I don't believe that anything in this life is predetermined and I think that is where our disagreement is. How do you know that by what I think I am controlling what chemical reactions are happening in my brain? In that situation my choice would not be predetermined. Can you prove to me that it does not work that way? Since you could not even provide a source for your position I don't think you can.

[Tycoon]

I'm okay with that, but I don't believe that anything in this life is predetermined and I think that is where our disagreement is. How do you know that by what I think I am controlling what chemical reactions are happening in my brain? In that situation my choice would not be predetermined. Can you prove to me that it does not work that way?

I thought we just agreed that thought is likely just a chemical reaction. A choice is a thought, is it not? Therefore choice is just a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions in the brain are caused by information coming from the senses, which is in turn caused by external stimuli. I have said this over and over again, and it's pretty basic biology.

If you really need me to get a source then I will. I haven't wasted my time doing that until now because it's really just elementary knowledge of the nervous system.

[Tycoon]

This is the most basic description of the brain's function that I can give, cited from Wikipedia. We have no control of the signals we receive or their processing, it all occurs on an entirely subconscious level.

Brain - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Brain : Neurobiology : Function Vertebrate brains receive signals through nerves arriving from the sensors of the organism. These signals are then processed throughout the central nervous system; reactions are formulated based upon reflex and learned experiences. A similarly extensive nerve network delivers signals from a brain to control important muscles throughout the body.

This will be my last post of the night; I need to get some sleep, as much as I hate the idea of spending a third of my life unconscious.

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: Oades11 Alright, I'm getting very frustrated that my posts are getting ignored. Have I been alienated by Volconvo users? What have I done to deserve this intellectual neglect? You've mentioned randomness, but only with respect to artificial computers, i.e. the circuitry in a CD player. I am not sure this is the same as the seeming randomness of subatomic behavior. The determinist's argument can only hold if we knew exactly how such behavior was governed. I would not be so arrogant as to say that simply because we don't understand subatomic interactions, like quantum mechanics, and can veritably predict such behavior, that the alternative to determinism, i.e free will, is true. To be candid, there is no objective way to prove, apodictically, that either one of these is true. I'm playing the devil's advocate here, because I've always found the determinist's argument to be stronger. However, I have a small suspicion that perhaps one day we will understand the quantum universe and it's 'seemingly' random behavior, and realize that it is not random at all. Until that day comes, though, I must reserve judgment. Especially with the postulation of dark matter/dark energy and crazy ideas of theoretical physics, that day does seem like it's a long way away. We'll need another Einstein to change the current scientific paradigm so that these things can come into focus. I think one of the major issues I have with determinism, though, is that the possible ramifications for a person wholeheartedly believing in it could be dire. Would it not free us of all consequences entirely? Would it not be the case that moral decisions no longer matter at all, since our current circumstances were all set in motion long, long ago, in the most infintessimal moment after the BB (or God, if you're a deist)? So perhaps it is not that determinism seems to make more logical sense, but because I simply want to believe in free will that I desperately cling to such a scenario. More bizarrely even, this post of mine reminds me that the idea of causality, and thus, determinism, depend on the notion of time being uniform and unchanging. However, the concepts of time dilation and the collapsing of space-time, particularly with the phenomena of black holes, etc, seem to put a severe kink in the armor of determinism- since, of course, time is not uniform and perhaps does not affect quantum dynamics at all. (I've hypothesized that quantum behavior is not predictable because quantum interactions act only inside of the fabric of space-time and are not bound by the rules of causality that are obviously entailed in a time based system.) I realize this is a considerable amount of speculation, and the last part about time seems almost nonsensical after rereading it. But bear with me, I hope to get some good input and perhaps we can learn a thing or two from this debate.

I will address you, although my understanding of quantum theory is limited.

As I understand it, scientists made massive advances when they started to assume randomness at the quantum level.

The randomness at the quantum level would only be measurable at the quantum level, it doesn’t manifest itself as any measurable randomness on 'our level', as the idiosyncratic randomness of the 'quants' can be said to statistically even out as the laws of physics... which are virtually not random at all.

Am I correct?

[LadiesMan217]

Quote by: Tycoon I thought we just agreed that thought is likely just a chemical reaction. A choice is a thought, is it not? Therefore choice is just a chemical reaction, and chemical reactions in the brain are caused by information coming from the senses, which is in turn caused by external stimuli. I have said this over and over again, and it's pretty basic biology. If you really need me to get a source then I will. I haven't wasted my time doing that until now because it's really just elementary knowledge of the nervous system.

I don't think I ever disagreed with the fact that thought is obviously biological caused by chemical reactions and electric thingamajiggers firing in the brain and stuff. I am disagreeing that because of the fact my choices and your choices are predetermined. You seem to be making a big leap there. It makes about as much sense as someone arguing for Predestination and other religious views and you don't strike me as religious nut but you could be offering some of the best support I have ever heard for those ideas, but that isn't saying much.

[Thanatos]

Quote by: Jack_Sparrow I will address you, although my understanding of quantum theory is limited. As I understand it, scientists made massive advances when they started to assume randomness at the quantum level. The randomness at the quantum level would only be measurable at the quantum level, it doesn’t manifest itself as any measurable randomness on 'our level', as the idiosyncratic randomness of the 'quants' can be said to statistically even out as the laws of physics... which are virtually not random at all. Am I correct?

Perhaps its my fault that this debate is going in circles for not providing an explanation of chaos theory.

For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.

The short answer is that every detail matters eventually. Do you know why the weather channel is so frequently wrong and does not even try to forecast far into the future? Even the tiniest little seventh decimal place variation in any variable at all in the computer can and often does lead to a completely different forecast especially after a long period of time. You may have heard this called the butterfly effect.

[Raze]

Honestly, freewill is just a term developed by mankind to create structure, and convoluted principals within our society. Could it be real? Yes, but just as much no. It's an ideal, and can't be defined. To try and define it will only lead to endless banter (like the Life, and God debates). Would it be nice to better understand that which surrounds us? Yes, but you'd have to reach the peak of nirvana to do so, and no one will (believing sometimes isn't enough for discussion).

[oades11]

Quote by: Tycoon Again, I have not denied your ability to make choices, only that it is predetermined that you do so. If you choose to make the right choice then it was predetermined that you would.

Then you cannot still call it a choice. It is the illusion of a choice based on our finitude, our limited understanding of the universe.

Quote by: Leveller Human brains work like computers, although admitadly vastly more complex, the principle is the same, data is input, run past the information available, the possible outcomes are weighed and a conclussion is made. as 'Jack-Sparrow' says : "If a given mind where put in the same outer and inner circumstances multiple times, it would be bound to make the same choices every time." Assuming that EVERY variable was identicle, surely this would be true? Allow me to put to you a hypothetical scenario, which I will call 'Levellers twins' Assuming that EVRY SINGLE VARIABLE has been accounted for and made identicle, have we any reason to suppose that they would not choose the same 3 doors? If they do not open the same 3 doors, then there are 2 possibile reasons, eithe man does have free will, or some variable was overlooked. I would wager that the latter is true. Of course this experiment is well beyond our ability to carry out, we could not, as it stands carry out this experiment to the neccesery degree of accuracy, nor do I think this experiment, for moral reasons, should be carried out. But nethertheless, the hypothesis stands.

As Thanatos has already hinted at, regardless of our ability to set up such circumstances, the universe itself could never set up those circumstances either. Environments are determined, at the most basic level we know of, by subatomic interactions, which seem to operate outside the laws of causality.

Quote by: Leveller In everything we have so far come to understand though science, and they way the world works, we have learnt that EVERYTHING happens based on laws, patterns, or reasoning on some level, infact it is a governing scientific principle that, for a hypothesis to be proved, it must be possible to re-create the circumstances, and repeat the result of the orrigional experiment. Heisenbergs principle is based on our limmited understanding. As it stands, your correct, we cannot know the exact position and momentum of a particle, that by no means, means we will never be able to, it is simply that our science is, as yet, not advanced enough to messure this phenominen. You are using the uknown to try and justify an assertion about mankind. It is blatantly flawed to try and prove that something is the case, by citing our own limitations of understanding. Free will does not exist, we appear to have it because every human brain is vastly complex. Each one built differently, and exposed to a vast array of different experiences and information. All you can prove is that we have limitied understanding, you cannot prove that we have free will Cheque book is still closed

Just as no one can prove free will, no one can disprove it either. The same goes with determinism, and even the notion of God. It ends up coming down to a probability, does it not? Even Richard Dawkins would not completely rule out the notion of a God; on a scale from 1-7 with 1 believing absolutely that He exists and 7 believing absolutely that he does not, Dawkins says he is a 6.9, because of the probability Occam's Razor presents.

Quote by: Thanatos I implied that force and no technology no matter how advanced can do this because you're trying to gather information that does not technically exist. The particles themselves do not "know" where they are. I hate using anything connected to What the Bleep do we Know because the rest of it is made of fail, but they do a good job for the double slit experiment. YouTube - Dr Quantum - Double Slit Experiment Hey, I never expected to get paid. There's one interpretation of quantum mechanics where we sort of don't have free will. YouTube - Schrodinger's Cat for real The accepted answer to Schrodinger's cat is that the uncertainty of things larger than a virus (the smallest particle ever to pass the double slit experiment) is generally small. Relative to a human observer the position of something like a cat is only uncertain to a very small degree because its easy to measure. We'd know immediately because the box had stopped vibrating from purrs and was slightly cooler because it was no longer making body heat. The other answer is that when you open the cat container the experimenters are now in a superposition themselves. There is one completely real "world" where the cat is dead and another equally real one where the cat is alive. Google quantum multiverse. The two explanations are almost certainly both partly right. Now, if you take into account the fact that it is possible to map all possible "worlds" my actions can be predicted. You know that if the cat will live the first time I'll probably test it again and if it doesn't you'll know what the PETA members who club me to death might be thinking, and you'll be able to draw outcome trees for how their trials will go...basically you know the list of all possible things that can happen instead of truly knowing what will happen. Really I knew this all along, but its a quibble and might not satisfy you personally.

A few things I'd like to comment on. First, the Schrodinger's cat experiment, at least as demonstrated in the video, didn't make sense to me. The British guy in the video makes it sound as though the radioactive material 'chooses' to release a particle of radiation. As if that's not strange enough giving radiation anthropomorphic qualities, the experiment itself seems nonsensical. If the cyanide was left unopened (though I realize it wasn't really cyanide), wouldn't the radioactive material have already released a particle and consequently, the cyanide? The rate of decay of the radioactive material would determine how long it would take to kill the cat. I must be missing something in this thought experiment, I just don't follow.

Quote by: Morality Games . . . the randomness of microscopic particles is not directly related to the development of our mind, so why are people citing out the principles of quantum physics as proofs for any kind of freedom of the will? From the (apparent) randomness of the microscopic came the orderliness of the macroscopic, and everything about us except our most fundamental constitution (atoms and their constituents, which make no functional differece in our thinking or behavior) is part of that order. Plus, even if our will was influenced by randomness, that does not make it free ... just fundamentally out of control.

Everything is dependent and directly related to the (seemingly) inherent randomness or degree of disorderliness that exists in the quantum world.

Quote by: Jack_Sparrow I will address you, although my understanding of quantum theory is limited. As I understand it, scientists made massive advances when they started to assume randomness at the quantum level. The randomness at the quantum level would only be measurable at the quantum level, it doesn’t manifest itself as any measurable randomness on 'our level', as the idiosyncratic randomness of the 'quants' can be said to statistically even out as the laws of physics... which are virtually not random at all. Am I correct?

That's the thing. The quantum world is hardly measurable at all. My understanding of quantum theory is also very limited, as all of ours surely is in at least some way. When you say that the (seemingly) inherent randomness of quantum mechanics does not manifest itself on 'our level', I'd say that such behavior is just not noticed. Einstein was never satisfied with quantum theory either, especially because of how counterintuitive it seemed. Above in a previous post, I hypothesized that quantum mechanics operated inside the fabric of time, not around it like every thing else on 'our level'. That would kind of explain the superposition of quantum particles, how they can seemingly be in the same place at the same time, because time does not exist for them, just as causality would not either. However, the idea that observing quantum behavior- e.g. the wave/particle duality via the double slit experiment which Thanatos linked us to- changes that very behavior, is very curious and perplexing to me. I assume this is related to the idea that the radioactive material 'chooses' to either release or not release radiation- however, was it the cat that was the observer which made that a paradox? This blows my mind.

[minorwork]

Quote by: Leveller Free will is often used as a trump card by religious people to explain why bad things happen, I intend to thoroughly quash this trump card. Get going before the credit crunch really sinks in, I'm not adding any interest to this bet.

Pay yourself. Post #9. You said, "Free will is an illusion..." An illusion is something. After all it is this post's subject if nothing else, so "free will" exists.

It looks to me like you intend to squash it as, in its illusory sense taken by the theists, an explanation as to why bad things happen. Or good things too, I suppose.

The illusion presents itself in the everyday world as a very convincing illusion, as Tycoon points out. So convincing, in fact, that it is the very basis of justice systems. When asked by a judge that you quit exposing yourself in court, it will take a lot of talk to convince the judge that control is "out of your hands", so to speak. The judge might insist on your surrender of the $500.

[Tycoon]

I don't think I ever disagreed with the fact that thought is obviously biological caused by chemical reactions and electric thingamajiggers firing in the brain and stuff. I am disagreeing that because of the fact my choices and your choices are predetermined. You seem to be making a big leap there. It makes about as much sense as someone arguing for Predestination and other religious views and you don't strike me as religious nut but you could be offering some of the best support I have ever heard for those ideas, but that isn't saying much.

I don't consider predestination to be a big leap, but rather a logical conclusion. If you have no control over the biological processes called choice then you and everything about you is merely a result of cause and effect.

I am not religious at all, and my belief in predestination does not support religion at all. To the contrary, the belief that all events are predetermined supports the idea that were God to exist God would be the source of all suffering.

[Tycoon]

Then you cannot still call it a choice. It is the illusion of a choice based on our finitude, our limited understanding of the universe.

I call it choice only for lack of a better word, not to mention that it helps people understand the concept of predetermination if the idea of choice is still explained but then disproved.

[Jack_Sparrow]

Quote by: Thanatos Perhaps its my fault that this debate is going in circles for not providing an explanation of chaos theory. For want of a nail the shoe was lost. For want of a shoe the horse was lost. For want of a horse the rider was lost. For want of a rider the battle was lost. For want of a battle the kingdom was lost. And all for the want of a horseshoe nail. The short answer is that every detail matters eventually. Do you know why the weather channel is so frequently wrong and does not even try to forecast far into the future? Even the tiniest little seventh decimal place variation in any variable at all in the computer can and often does lead to a completely different forecast especially after a long period of time. You may have heard this called the butterfly effect.

I agree it matter