Does free will exist?

[Interference]

it is the actual experience, rather than the knowledge, in which the value lies.

Oh, that's clever! Just one thing I have to work in before I can completely assimilate it, the nature of experience which requires some interaction with Time. Given that even Timeless beings may have some sensations, and one of these sensations may be referenced as "the passage" or "flow" of time, it's entirely possible that "experience" can have some low-level impact on their/its existence, something like blood-flow in the body, perhaps. An unconscious requirement. If the AKU is making progress, I doubt if that is its "purpose", but it may certainly be a requirement.

Very clever, very interesting, very thought-provoking. Damn. Where's me drum 'n' bass. Must - stop - the - think--ing

 

[Chinook]

The trouble with a subject like this is that you have to define pretty much every word you use. Like "matters"

Matters: Makes a difference. Is important. What is relevant. Ripples out across the universe in waves of space-time affecting anything and everything in some way, no matter how small.

 

[HareBrain]

But that said, if you allow for free will (as you do), I presume you accept that it would be quite impossible to correctly identify the point at which free will ends and automatic response begins.

In practical terms, yes.

You might even argue that people with strong wills are better able to exercise free will.

Only as long as they choose to exercise it. Otherwise they just more doggedly pursue those courses of action suggested to them by their non-conscious influences (whilst at the same time believing those actions to be the result of their free will).

I still maintain that people's decisions to do stupid, irrational or pointless things is the best evidence of free will, so is it the case that criminals who commit ridiculous crimes or who commit other crimes in a totally dopey fashion should be treated more harshly than those who think them through properly, on the grounds that those in the latter category are evidencing more signs of being prompted by automatic response rather than free will?

I don't accept your premise, Peter, because no one does things that seem truly stupid, irrational or pointless to them, at the time.** Or if they do (OK, I accept there are cases) it's the conscious mind that realises the activity is pointless, but the non-conscious influence that keeps them doing it. I'll expand the example I gave a couple of pages ago. Take the case of a man who buys two bars of Green & Black's organic chocolate, intending to make them last him a week. He eats one whole bar on the way home from Waitrose, just because he's peckish and it's something to do whilst walking, and when he gets home, even though he's already stuffed, he eats the other one too, robotically breaking off chunks and popping them into his mouth while he peruses the latest Chrons posts, and he keeps doing it even though he feels sicker and sicker, even though his conscious mind is pointing out that this is not only pointless, but detrimental to his appetite and his waistline. So what's making this hypothetical (cough) person do this? If his conscious mind, the only part of him capable of exercising free will (as I have defined it) is unable to exercise it because of some other element, what is that element?

So I would contend that activities that seem stupid, pointless etc to the person doing them, are evidence for a lack of free will rather than the reverse. Just because our non-conscious minds have evolved as a result of survival-based evolution, does not mean that everything they suggest to us is in our own best interests.

And the results of those experiments I've linked to seem to show that most acts, however pointless they might seem to others, are rationalised by the conscious mind after the non-conscious mind has decided to go ahead with them. The ego-consciousness, with its all-pervading sense of self-importance, doesn't want to accept that it might not actually be in control of the mind/body of its host, so it fools itself into thinking that almost every action is in fact of its own making. It's like a child in the passenger seat of a car, with a toy steering wheel, who wants to believe himself the driver, so when the car turns left he turns the wheel left as soon as he notices the movement, and convinces himself that he's the one who made it happen.

(It's probably more subtle than that, but I exaggerate to make the point.)

** even if the only point is to stave off boredom

 

[Ursa major]

Take the case of a man who buys two bars of Green & Black's organic chocolate, intending to make them last him a week. He eats one whole bar on the way home from Waitrose, just because he's peckish and it's something to do whilst walking, and when he gets home, even though he's already stuffed, he eats the other one too, robotically breaking off chunks and popping them into his mouth while he peruses the latest Chrons posts, and he keeps doing it even though he feels sicker and sicker, even though his conscious mind is pointing out that this is not only pointless, but detrimental to his appetite and his waistline. So what's making this hypothetical (cough) person do this? If his conscious mind, the only part of him capable of exercising free will (as I have defined it) is unable to exercise it because of some other element, what is that element?

Speaking as someone who doesn't keep packets of biscuits in the house - mostly becuase I know what will happen (I'll eat them all in quite a short time), and the rest of the time because I have eaten them all - I can say truthfully that I do not feel an unconscious urge to eat them. I eat them because I like eating them. (True, they don't make me feel sick, but they would be a factor in increasing my waistline).

So I can make a number of conscious decisions: The good one is not to buy the biscuits. The less good one is to buy them. The worst is to keep eating the biscuits because the pleasure I derive from this activity outweighs any advantages I see in waistline control.

Now it may be that a hypothetical werehare () is just absentmindedly shovelling chocolates into his mouth. but I don't really buy that. It seems to much like an excuse: "Sorry, but I couldn't help myself."

My evidence is that I can keep biscuits in the house and not wolf them down if I choose not to (and have successfuly done this on many occasions); it's just that I'd rather not give myself that choice, given my bias towards scoffing the lot.

 

[HareBrain]

Now it may be that a hypothetical werehare () is just absentmindedly shovelling chocolates into his mouth. but I don't really buy that. It seems to much like an excuse: "Sorry, but I couldn't help myself."

OK, I (for yes, 'twas I all along!) could have helped myself, but because it wasn't actually a horrible exeprience, there wasn't enough stimulus for me to do so. But I can eat chocolate past the point where I cease to derive any immediate positive benefit from it (a situation that's called in Economics "negative marginal utility") and it's interesting that at the same time that I'm thinking what a stupid thing to do, I am also coming out with some kind of justification for it. And the most common one is, "once this bar is finished, it will be over and I won't have to worry about it any more". Which is ridiculous, but I know I'm not the only one to experience this.

So what's going on there? Is my consciousness (the part of it that's not appalled at my gluttony) rationalising as best it can a ludicrous behaviour "forced" upon me by some kind of non-conscious craving? Or is it only pretending to do so, in order to provide me with evidence for my cherished world-view that our minds behave in that way, perhaps because I once read a similar argument in Julian Jaynes's The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind and was so impressed by the wordiness of the title (not to mention with myself for making it through those 1200 pages) that I now seek any opportunity to align my ideas with those of its author?

Well?

 

[Ursa major]

That your conscious mind is rationalising the situation as it is happening suggests that it is going along with the activity, and thereby sanctioning it.

Which is an act of will, is it not?

 

[Peter Graham]

I'll expand the example I gave a couple of pages ago. Take the case of a man who buys two bars of Green & Black's organic chocolate, intending to make them last him a week. He eats one whole bar on the way home from Waitrose, just because he's peckish and it's something to do whilst walking, and when he gets home, even though he's already stuffed, he eats the other one too, robotically breaking off chunks and popping them into his mouth while he peruses the latest Chrons posts, and he keeps doing it even though he feels sicker and sicker, even though his conscious mind is pointing out that this is not only pointless, but detrimental to his appetite and his waistline. So what's making this hypothetical (cough) person do this? If his conscious mind, the only part of him capable of exercising free will (as I have defined it) is unable to exercise it because of some other element, what is that element?

Noting is "making" you do it. You are choosing to do it. You aren't driven to do it by some urge you cannot control and which you are powerless to resist. It's only chocolate - not crack cocaine or smack!

You know it's not sensible to eat all the chocolate in one go, but you like the chocolate, so you do it anyway. You are making a perfectly conscious and free choice. But (and perhaps turning your own arguments against you) you probably don't want to think that you are the sort of person who is so quick to indulge in appetite-busting, waistline-swelling activities. So you seek out some element - something which is stifling your ability to make a free choice not to eat that second bar - something which ultimately makes your decisions someone (or something) else's fault and/or responsibility.

Perhaps this is your ego point - the cult of self in action. We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong. Look at the excuses people come out with to justify businesses failing. It's always the world economy, or the decisions of the Treasury, or the evil banks. It's never the fault of the person who's borrowed up to the hilt on the basis of a flimsy or self serving commercial venture which is never going to work in the first place.

Regards,

Peter

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Déjà vu, I say.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Déjà vu, I say.


Wait, didn't I just say that..?

 

[HareBrain]

It's only chocolate - not crack cocaine or smack!

Hmm, a South American plant product that's swamped the western world and is now contributing towards a health crisis -- can you spot the difference?

But (and perhaps turning your own arguments against you)

Ooh, verbal judo!

you probably don't want to think that you are the sort of person who is so quick to indulge in appetite-busting, waistline-swelling activities. So you seek out some element - something which is stifling your ability to make a free choice not to eat that second bar - something which ultimately makes your decisions someone (or something) else's fault and/or responsibility.

Perhaps this is your ego point - the cult of self in action. We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong.

Oog! Akh! Ghhhff ...

*shuts down for ten-year programme of in-depth self-examination of mental processes*

 

[Interference]

We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong.

It's self preservation, which has helped us survive till now. I don't think survival is a matter of choice.

 

[GrownUp]

Noting is "making" you do it. You are choosing to do it. You aren't driven to do it by some urge you cannot control and which you are powerless to resist. It's only chocolate - not crack cocaine or smack!

You know it's not sensible to eat all the chocolate in one go, but you like the chocolate, so you do it anyway. You are making a perfectly conscious and free choice. But (and perhaps turning your own arguments against you) you probably don't want to think that you are the sort of person who is so quick to indulge in appetite-busting, waistline-swelling activities. So you seek out some element - something which is stifling your ability to make a free choice not to eat that second bar - something which ultimately makes your decisions someone (or something) else's fault and/or responsibility.

Perhaps this is your ego point - the cult of self in action. We are keen to see ourselves in control - and to take the credit when things go right - but we are less keen to be held responsible when things go wrong. Look at the excuses people come out with to justify businesses failing. It's always the world economy, or the decisions of the Treasury, or the evil banks. It's never the fault of the person who's borrowed up to the hilt on the basis of a flimsy or self serving commercial venture which is never going to work in the first place.

Regards,

Peter

Chocolate is a law. Like gravity. One falls downwards. One eats chocolate. That part has nothing to do with free will. I mean, I can fall over and then regret it. Taking care to wear sensible shoes, or watching where I'm going, are part of my free will and effect how often I trip.
But the construct of the Universe with its patterns of movement are what I'm moving through. Just because I fall over doesn't mean it's all my fault. The Universe helped, surely.

 

[Sorcerer]

Only if you want it to !

 

[Parson]

Free will for me is the ability to make decisions regarding my life without outside influence. Which, if you read through the thread, I argue is impossible.

 

[Ursa major]

For me, free will means that you are not programmed** (or, if you like, preordained ) to a make any given decision.

Excluding any outside influence suggests the removal of any sort of evidence (whether pro or anti such and such a choice) from the process, which sounds to me that free will under this definition is nothing more than some sort of internal toss of a coin. (But I expect this not at all what Parson actually means. )





** - At Day One (or even before).

 

[mosaix]

What is "free will"? The term is thrown out there so loosely, mainly in religion to blame man for god's making man fully knowing beforehand that later on he'd consider it an abomination.

However, that's not really a definition for "free will".

How would you define what you call "free will"? It's a free will interpretation.

It's a good question kronobot.

Let's think of writing a computer program to generate a random number. Using conventional computing it's impossible to do because everything the computer does is limited by the fact that it has no free will - everything is based on its programming or some data (seed) supplied to it as a starting point. If the starting point is repeated then the results will be repeated. The computer that provides the random numbers for the Premium Bond winners in the UK uses random emissions from a nuclear source as it's seed - considered truly random.

But, suppose I ask you to think of a random number and you supply one. How have you come up with that number? If it's truly random then free will probably exists.

That's my definition - the ability to provide different results given identical starting points. Something a conventional computer can't do. I don't know how to test for it, but that's how I'd define it.

And because I can't provide a test for it then I don't know the answer to the question 'Does free will exist?'.

 

[Interference]

A computer can generate a random number, just as it can randomly decide whether it's going to behave today or not. Chaos theory in action?

The human mind stores information in packages that don't appear to be accessible through solely conscious effort. The sub-conscious, unconscious and super-conscious compartments leak into our consciousness sometimes, but not often at our behest. So, ask me to pick a number from one to ten and I'm as likely to pick the number I last registered, whether I registered it consciously or not, as any other. This is a fundament of Derren Brown's mentalism as well as Neuro-Linguistic Programming.

I have my doubts, therefore, as to whether "true randomness" can be proven.

Perhaps we respond to the dictates of our subconsciousness more than we realise. Perhaps the freedom of our will is in the balancing of several factors, some of which are deterministic and others being more akin to random. The final (conscious) choice a person makes is probably the only predictable part of the sequence, after all other data has been processed by the brain. Which perhaps explains why some people occasionally act "out of character" and why we often pride ourselves on having complex and contradictory personalities.

As ever, this is just a Thought In Progress. Hope it helps someone.

 

[Ursa major]

Maybe, but I've been arguing that our subconscious minds (and whatever other hyphenated consciousnesses there are) are as much a part of "us" as our conscious mind.

 

[Interference]

Agreed, some might argue that it's our most important part, that it's our conscious mind that misdirects us most often and that is most tethered to the demands of ego-fulfillment. Some might argue that consciousness is the begetter of hedonism at its worst and smugness at its best.

 

[Parson]

Ah! Now there's the rub. Feelings are undependable and they lie! Your first paragraph could be used as a defense for determinism.