Support NeoGAF

[Two Words]

Free will and determinism are pretty much mutually exclusive. Do you believe everything is purely the result of a previous cause that is deterministic? Do you believe this extends to human free will? Do you think you chose to post or not post a response or was it already determined? Did you choose to not read the OP and respond right away or was that already going to happen?

Quantum mechanics are often cited as a sort of "see, determinism isn't all-devouring", but what if the randomness seen in quantum mechanics is simply the result of deterministic behavior that is simply outside of our ability to observe?

I am somebody that believes in strong determinism. I just don't see how free will can really exist in any real way. To me, free will is simply us experiencing psuedorandomness among people and interpreting it as free will. But that is just an illusion. In reality, what we do is determined 100% by factors out of our control. What we think we are controlling is simply us playing our deterministic role. A dice roll seems random, but if you could apply the exact same forces on a set of dice at the exact same angles and surface friction and configuration of atoms, you'd get the same results every time. I don't think our brain cells consisting of a cocktail of proteins and electrical signals are all that different.

 

[LookAtMeGo]

I freely chose to post here of my own free will. Or did I?

Edit: I like to believe in the idea of having free will. I feel like people who think deterministic are like those that say "it was gods will" that something happend. Its a really confusing subject for me but it just seems like almost a dangerous way of thinking for you to not truly be the master of your own destiny.

 

[A Fish Aficionado]

Quantum woo.

It's just varying shades of grey, like most things.

 

[Veelk]

It's not a meaningful question. Whichever it is doesn't change that we made decisions based on our experiences. Even if we found out for sure, we'd still live our lives as we have right now.

 

[nomis]

I believe that the flawless impression that we have of our free will is just as good as "true free will", whatever that means. I think our universe is a stream with a very strong current.

 

[Two Words]

It's not a meaningful question. Whichever it is doesn't change that we made decisions based on our experiences. Even if we found out for sure, we'd still live our lives as we have right now.

Not every meaningful question needs to have some sort of accomplishment at the end of it. It certainly is something that is worth thinking about.

 

[Monocle]

Doesn't matter as long as the illusion of free will remains convincing.

 

[liliththepale]

I think we have free will. Sure, the choices I make are affected by the chemicals and physics of the atoms constituting who I am and what environment I live in, but that's who I am. If the self exists as an entity greater than the sum of its parts, then it has motive and means. When I chose to write this sentence, as I inevitably would do, I did so because that's who I am. I as a human was free to do other things, but as a person chose to do this.

So I don't believe free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. I think you have to remove the self in order to come to that conclusion.

 

[Zakalwe]

I believe we're all programmed to an extent. Your past experiences dictate the only choices the person you are right now would ever make.

"Free will" occurs when you're given the opportunity to understand how this is true for you and you use the information to break behavior patterns or make drastic changes or choices, but then you'd only be given those opportunities by experiencing some external thing.

I believe many people live their lives without the opportunity to change themselves simply because they lacked the proper external stimulus to make themselves truly aware. I believe these people are absolutely free of blame for their actions.

 

[Komo]

This thread fills you with determination

 

[Two Words]

I think we have free will. Sure, the choices I make are affected by the chemicals and physics of the atoms constituting who I am and what environment I live in, but that's who I am. If the self exists as an entity greater than the sum of its parts, then it has motive and means. When I chose to write this sentence, as I inevitably would do, I did so because that's who I am. I as a human was free to do other things, but as a person chose to do this.

So I don't believe free will and determinism are mutually exclusive. I think you have to remove the self in order to come to that conclusion.

You injected free will when you talk about deciding to post or not, but that is deterministic as well. Your brain drives all of your decisions. What are the mechanics that your brain uses to make these decisions? Input is received visually, audibly, eat. Memory is considered. Past experience influences bias, etc. there is not anything in the brain that can be pointed to as the part that makes "free will" decisions. Your brain is ultimately a lump of cells that work together to generate a response via the physical phenomena of chemical and electrical exchange. All of this must follow the simple rule of cause and effects. This makes the result deterministic, entirely.

I believe we're all programmed to an extent. Your past experiences dictate the only choices the person you are right now would ever make.

"Free will" occurs when you're given the opportunity to understand how this is true for you and you use the information to break behavior patterns or make drastic changes or choices, but then you'd only be given those opportunities by experiencing some external thing.

I believe many people live their lives without the opportunity to change themselves simply because they lacked the proper external stimulus to make themselves truly aware. I believe these people are absolutely free of blame for their actions.

But being given the opportunity is determined externally and your choice is also determined externally. So where is the free will?

 

[liliththepale]

I believe these people are absolutely free of blame for their actions.

Blame is perhaps a nebulous term, so forgive me for reading into this and assuming you mean people should not bear the repercussions of their actions or see punishment. I disagree. If a branch on my tree grows in the wrong place, I prune it. I'm not blaming the tree for producing a bad branch, or blaming the branch for being bad, but it is bad, and it needs to therefore be pruned.

If those people have to responsibility for their actions, then they're not people. They're automatons.

You injected free will when you talk about deciding to post or not, but that is deterministic as well. Your brain drives all of your decisions. What are the mechanics that your brain uses to make these decisions? Input is received visually, audibly, eat. Memory is considered. Past experience influences bias, etc. there is not anything in the brain that can be pointed to as the part that makes "free will" decisions. Your brain is ultimately a lump of cells that work together to generate a response via the physical phenomena of chemical and electrical exchange. All of this must follow the simple rule of cause and effects. This makes the result deterministic, entirely.

I didn't choose to be the kind of person who would eventually choose to write this, but I did choose to write this. It's a matter of semantics.

 

[Two Words]

Blame is perhaps a nebulous term, so forgive me for reading into this and assuming you mean people should not bear the repercussions of their actions or see punishment. I disagree. If a branch on my tree grows in the wrong place, I prune it. I'm not blaming the tree for producing a bad branch, or blaming the branch for being bad, but it is bad, and it needs to therefore be pruned.

If those people have to responsibility for their actions, then they're not people. They're automatons.




I didn't choose to be the kind of person who would eventually choose to write this, but I did choose to write this. It's a matter of semantics.

I understand that is what you are saying, but you've arbitrarily awarded yourself with free will in that case. Your choice was never yours to post. Neither was it my choice to respond. Me convincing you is determined one way or the other as well.

 

[Zakalwe]

Blame is perhaps a nebulous term, so forgive me for reading into this and assuming you mean people should not bear the repercussions of their actions or see punishment. I disagree. If a branch on my tree grows in the wrong place, I prune it. I'm not blaming the tree for producing a bad branch, or blaming the branch for being bad, but it is bad, and it needs to therefore be pruned.

If those people have to responsibility for their actions, then they're not people. They're automatons.

People should be punished as part of the learning process, but I can't blame them for the actions they made.

The punishment will hopefully be the thing that makes them aware enough to learn to overcome that behavior pattern or trait or whatever it was that lead them to take the action.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

I chose to write this. I could have ignored the thread.

 

[Lafiel]

Determinism is the only perspective that makes sense.

The only reason people believe in Free Will is based more on feeling than rationality or what the evidence currently says in terms of what influences human behavior and action.

 

[Two Words]

I chose to write this. I could have ignored the thread.

If we had a rewind button on reality and went back 20 minutes from now and let those 20 minutes repeat 1000 times, do you think you'd choose to make that post each time?

 

[SkyOdin]

Quantum mechanics are often cited as a sort of "see, determinism isn't all-devouring", but what if the randomness seen in quantum mechanics is simply the result of deterministic behavior that is simply outside of our ability to observe?

I wanted to just to focus on this statement for now. I'm sorry, but a shallow "what if?" statement does nothing to dispel the scientific and mathematical basis that quantum mechanics are truly random. Basically, you are the one with the burden of proof if you want to contradict well-known scientific principles.

Currently, there is no room in our laws of physics for a purely deterministic universe. Adding pure determinism back in would require a pretty big shift in our understanding of quantum phenomena. So your "what if?" has no logical or scientific basis to it. It is not worth considering the highly implausible or improbable without at least some justification.

 

[Veelk]

Not every meaningful question needs to have some sort of accomplishment at the end of it. It certainly is something that is worth thinking about.

I disagree. I mean, how does anyone make decisions now: Based on the result of experience. How does someone make decisions if things are deterministic: Based on the result of experience.

To me, the question of determinism vs free will is just asking at it's most basic notion "Could things have been different". Which they could, obviously, but how do you seperate that when both determinism and decision making both are based on how things happened. Either way, for things to be different, things would have had to happen differently.

I'm not saying it's not interesting to think about, I just don't find it particularly meaningful

 

[Subpar Spatula]

If we had a rewind button on reality and went back 20 minutes from now and let those 20 minutes repeat 1000 times, do you think you'd choose to make that post each time?

It depends if you believe you can pass the alpha attractor field. Your choices are influenced by their surroundings. Once something gains enough intelligence to question and make "choices" free will comes into play. An atom will act accordingly because that's how it works, it can't decide to go get take out or stay at home and make pasta, we can, though. What facilitated that choice was hunger and how lazy / tired you are that day.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Free will is an illusion. It's a consequence of our inability to percieve time from a higher perspective. Pretty obvious, pretty straightforward. I really don't see how you wouldn't get it.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

There is "will" (i.e. as a meta-entity "you" make decisions), but it is not "free" in the philosophical sense, it is computed based on the physical structure of your brain, the information it acts on and physical laws. Perhaps you could calculate someone's future decisions perfectly, or perhaps quantum effects make it impossible to calculate in advance because of indeterminacy, however in either case there is no decision making faculty that is divorced from the world and its influences. No fully rational and independent person that is separate from the world, which then passes commands through some mystical channel to the body to give it marching orders.

 

[Zakalwe]

But being given the opportunity is determined externally and your choice is also determined externally. So where is the free will?

Hence the quote marks.

It's as close as we get. Maybe free will exists, being able to exist outside the programming, but only if you find the right conditions to activate it.

Being aware of how deeply determinism runs, maybe that's the first step?

My partner and I made some huge relationship decisions yesterday, looking at them this morning I would never have made the same ones before I met her. Her influence allowed me to be a less selfish person, she made me aware of some fundamental flaws in my day to day behavior which have improved my life greatly.

I can trace back every change in my life or significant choice I made like this.

 

[liliththepale]

I understand that is what you are saying, but you've arbitrarily awarded yourself with free will in that case. Your choice was never yours to post. Neither was it my choice to respond. Me convincing you is determined one way or the other as well.

Who am I? Am I anything? If there is a me, then there are things for me to have and choices for me to make. There is only nothing for me if I do not exist.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Who am I? Am I anything? If there is a me, then there are things for me to have and choices for me to make. There is only nothing for me if I do not exist.

But choice and change are nothing more than a consequence of our perception. They don't have any actual value if the timeline we exist in is a singular entity.

 

[Aureon]

What do you mean, "Free Will"?
Everyone's decisions come from something. Who you are, including environment, determines the decisions you make. That's free will.

Quantum randomness ensures nothing is 100% anyway.

 

[Haly]

Soft/Hard Determinism depending on my mood.

 

[FUME5]

Free Willie.

 

[way more]

Seems like an either/or situation. Unless you subscribe to Roko's basilisk. But nobody should do that.

Personally, I disagree.

 

[liliththepale]

But choice and change are nothing more than a consequence of our perception. They don't have any actual value if the timeline we exist in is a singular entity.

Why not? I think that gives it more value. The choices I'm definitely going to make are what make me who I am. If those choices were made by something that is not me, then I have no value. If my choices have no value, then I have no value. Conversely, if I have value, then my choices have value. Further, if our choices have no value, then there's really no point in arguing with me. Q.E.D.

 

[GrizzNKev]

Why not? I think that gives it more value. The choices I'm definitely going to make are what make me who I am. If those choices were made by something that is not me, then I have no value. If my choices have no value, then I have no value. Conversely, if I have value, then my choices have value. Further, if our choices have no value, then there's really no point in arguing with me. Q.E.D.

The bolded part in particular I find silly, and comes up often in this discussion. Your sense of emotion, humanity, and self-worth are entirely separate from whether free will exists. The things you feel and experience are not invalidated by the knowledge that they were always going to happen exactly that way, because our existence within time forces us to believe that we are the ones thinking, deciding and acting.

 

[Two Words]

I disagree. I mean, how does anyone make decisions now: Based on the result of experience. How does someone make decisions if things are deterministic: Based on the result of experience.

To me, the question of determinism vs free will is just asking at it's most basic notion "Could things have been different". Which they could, obviously, but how do you seperate that when both determinism and decision making both are based on how things happened. Either way, for things to be different, things would have had to happen differently.

I'm not saying it's not interesting to think about, I just don't find it particularly meaningful

I don't think the idea that quantum mechanics are not random but beyond our ability to predict is a bad notion of anything. I'd hope any quantum physicist has that in his or her mind that perhaps there are elements we will never be able to perceive at hand out of our perception of reality. But even if we say quantum mechanics are truly random, they do not grant us free will. We do not have the random abilities of quantum mechanics. It could be argued that quantum mechanics plays a role in our decision making, but that is quantum mechanics influencing us, not us influencing ourselves.

 

[Two Words]

Why not? I think that gives it more value. The choices I'm definitely going to make are what make me who I am. If those choices were made by something that is not me, then I have no value. If my choices have no value, then I have no value. Conversely, if I have value, then my choices have value. Further, if our choices have no value, then there's really no point in arguing with me. Q.E.D.

You're saying because no real ability to make choices means you have no value means that you have the ability to make choices? It sounds like you are determining what you think is the case based on what sounds best to you.

 

[GrizzNKev]

To put it better, just because reality is deterministic doesn't mean we're not actually thinking, feeling, and doing. We are. We still make decisions and witness change. Knowing why doesn't take that away from us.

 

[Two Words]

To put it better, just because reality is deterministic doesn't mean we're not actually thinking, feeling, and doing. We are. We still make decisions and witness change. Knowing why doesn't take that away from us.

A good analogy is that knowing that our taste buds are predetermined to love sweet food and hate feces doesn't mean that we suddenly lose enjoyment from our favorite foods.

 

[Tesseract]

there's still some stuff that don't play nice when we observe or reverse it

 

[Haly]

If you accept that what you believe to be your consciousness is just a happy accident, then there's no reason determinism should take away value or agency from your life, since these, along with all other similarly subjective notions, are all inventions of a deranged collection of neuron cells.

 

[Ethelwulf]

Doesn't matter as long as the illusion of free will remains convincing.

.

 

[Two Words]

.

I bet you two were pro-Cypher.

 

[msv]

Not every meaningful question needs to have some sort of accomplishment at the end of it. It certainly is something that is worth thinking about.

It's not meaningful though, because of this: define free will.

Up to now, the only 'definition' I've heard essentially says that it's not determinism, a.k.a. your decisions are not predetermined. But never a definition of what it actually is.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

A good analogy is that knowing that our taste buds are predetermined to love sweet food and hate feces doesn't mean that we suddenly lose enjoyment from our favorite foods.

That's incorrect, isn't it? Your taste buds cannot make choices or comprehend what a choice is.

 

[Two Words]

It's not meaningful though, because of this: define free will.

Up to now, the only 'definition' I've heard essentially says that it's not determinism, a.k.a. your decisions are not predetermined. But never a definition of what it actually is.

Free will is the ability to act or think without some previous actor causing it to happen. A domino has free will if it can independently decide to fall down or not with nothing causing it to happen.

 

[Two Words]

That's incorrect, isn't it? Your taste buds cannot make choices or comprehend what a choice is.

That is a non-sequitur. It doesn't really follow from anything being stated.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Who am I? Am I anything? If there is a me, then there are things for me to have and choices for me to make. There is only nothing for me if I do not exist.

You and the matter that comprises you are the same thing, ultimately. I could describe the operation of my computer at the present time as being one where Firefox has some tabs open, or I could describe it in a much more deconstructed way by saying that such and such logic gates are open and others are closed, electrons are flowing in particular patterns. Neither is really incorrect, nor mutually exclusive. The abstract version is human-friendly for purposes of communication and thought, while if you look too closely sometimes you can see the flaws in these abstractions.

You do make choices. However that's just the same as saying that the lilith-brain-computer-thing processed inputs and came up with various outputs, or that neurons fired in certain patterns, or that protons, neutrons and electrons shifted into various configurations. Just different ways of looking at the same thing. It also doesn't imply that you could have, at that stage, made different choices assuming all of the inputs were the same.

 

[liliththepale]

The bolded part in particular I find silly, and comes up often in this discussion. Your sense of emotion, humanity, and self-worth are entirely separate from whether free will exists. The things you feel and experience are not invalidated by the knowledge that they were always going to happen exactly that way, because our existence within time forces us to believe that we are the ones thinking, deciding and acting.

To put it better, just because reality is deterministic doesn't mean we're not actually thinking, feeling, and doing. We are. We still make decisions and witness change. Knowing why doesn't take that away from us.

I think you have a flawed perception of free will. I'm very curious to know how you would describe it. I do what I do because I am who I am. That's what free will means to me. I make my own decisions based off of who I am. The fact that I had no influence over who I would be to begin with is irrelevant and obvious–how could I have any choice without being anything?

Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. To me, not having free will would be hypnotism and other mind-control agents, where I am not the one controlling myself.

You're saying because no real ability to make choices means you have no value means that you have the ability to make choices? It sounds like you are determining what you think is the case based on what sounds best to you.

If I am not the one making my choices, then there is no me. There is only a biological robot. A machine. Then there are no people.

You and the matter that comprises you are the same thing, ultimately. I could describe the operation of my computer at the present time as being one where Firefox has some tabs open, or I could describe it in a much more deconstructed way by saying that such and such logic gates are open and others are closed, electrons are flowing in particular patterns. Neither is really incorrect, nor mutually exclusive. The abstract version is human-friendly for purposes of communication and thought, while if you look too closely sometimes you can see the flaws in these abstractions.

You do make choices. However that's just the same as saying that the lilith-brain-computer-thing processed inputs and came up with various outputs, or that neurons fired in certain patterns, or that protons, neutrons and electrons shifted into various configurations. Just different ways of looking at the same thing. It also doesn't imply that you could have, at that stage, made different choices assuming all of the inputs were the same.

I agree entirely. I've said from the beginning that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive at Two Words and some other posters are insinuating.

 

[Subpar Spatula]

That is a non-sequitur. It doesn't really follow from anything being stated.

It does follow, saying why it doesn't follow must be determined already. You are a strong believer in determinism and believe I would post (my first post in this thread) 20 times over if I could rewind time. Of course absolute free will doesn't exist same with how your version of determinism doesn't exist.

What answer are you looking for? What discussion are you hoping to get?

 

[JNT]

Human behavior is not deterministic as a result of quantum mechanics which introduces an element of randomness. It is, however, ludicrus to interpret the existence of random factors as evidence of a truly free will. We are subject to randomness, not in control of it. As such, human behavior, or any behavior really, is merely following the path that external factors have laid out in front of it, even though the road ahead is being built as we go along.

Of course, there are practical reasons why such a view can not be allowed to gain traction outside of purely philosophical discussions.

 

[Two Words]

I think you have a flawed perception of free will. I'm very curious to know how you would describe it. I do what I do because I am who I am. That's what free will means to me. I make my own decisions based off of who I am. The fact that I had no influence over who I would be to begin with is irrelevant and obvious–how could I have any choice without being anything?

Free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive. To me, not having free will would be hypnotism and other mind-control agents, where I am not the one controlling myself.



If I am not the one making my choices, then there is no me. There is only a biological robot. A machine. Then there are no people.

You're making an implication. You're assuming we don't have free will and then drawing the conclusion that we would be essentially "robots". You're then saying that we aren't robots so therefore the assumption that we don't have free will is false. The problem is that you are saying that the conclusion that we are robots is a contradiction when that isn't really a contradiction. Maybe we are just robots. Not the kind of robots we manufacture today, but still automatons all the same.

 

[deltatheta]

I like the new agey quantum bullshit.where the mind takes advantage of quantum effects (by observing parallel universes) to function. It's a fun idea but I ultimately don't really believe in that stuff. I really lean towards materialism. The human brain is just a computer powered by chemical reactions and completely deterministic.

 

[Marlenus]

Ultimately determinism. I don't think there is an external 'self' and as such everything in the universe boils down to particle physics and quantum effects.

I think the lack of an external 'self' can be fairly well proven by looking at people who have had brain damage to varying degrees. The effects range from mild to severe based on the amount of damage and the location of the damage.