• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What is free will? Is it meaningful to say there is such a thing?

csbrown28

DP Veteran
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
3,102
Reaction score
1,604
Location
NW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will. If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did? How would you empirically measure freewill, that is, what measurement or test could you do to determine if a person didn't have free will? How would they differ from everyone else?

If your answer is that it is immaterial, that's cool, but then you have to concede that the idea is essentially meaningless.
 
It is not meaningless, this has rooted concept.

Despite how you characterize free will it still comes down to the implication of an action without any external impediments. Those impediments can be defined as anything from moral or ethical reasoning, or purely emotional or physical limitations, or even sociological standard impediments some may define as responsibility to (or adhering to) those conditions. No matter the motive or reason for consideration of those impediments to true free will, the result in philosophical terms is some level of constraint. So there is defined method to both free will and everything else that is not.
 
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will. If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did? How would you empirically measure freewill, that is, what measurement or test could you do to determine if a person didn't have free will? How would they differ from everyone else?

If your answer is that it is immaterial, that's cool, but then you have to concede that the idea is essentially meaningless.

I believe people are conditioned and the choices they make are due to how they've been conditioned.
 
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will. If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did? How would you empirically measure freewill, that is, what measurement or test could you do to determine if a person didn't have free will? How would they differ from everyone else?

If your answer is that it is immaterial, that's cool, but then you have to concede that the idea is essentially meaningless.

I think it's pretty much impossible to wholeheartedly champion either an entirely deterministic view of the world, or a wholly indeterministic view. We are all constrained and influenced by forces beyond us in everything we do, hence indeterminism cannot be wholly correct. Similarly, there is no evidence to lead us to believe that our every move and action is entirely pre-determined, especially in the light of discoveries in the fields of quantum physics and chaos theory.

The question is very much material to discussions of ethics, morality, freedom etc, it's just not an easy tick-box question requiring a Yes/No answer.
 
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will. If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did? How would you empirically measure freewill, that is, what measurement or test could you do to determine if a person didn't have free will? How would they differ from everyone else?

If your answer is that it is immaterial, that's cool, but then you have to concede that the idea is essentially meaningless.

If you look at the hypothesis that an individual has freewill, the question leaps at you, what freewill is to mean. If it is to mean autonomous decisions are possible and not predetermined, physics would imply that it does not exist, as in science we do not accept non-causal events to take place.
 
All interesting answers, but no-one of the answers has yet to tell me how to determine the difference between free will and lack there of.

In the not to distant future we will have AI indistinguishable from ourselves. Is AI capable of free will? I suspect I'll be told no so I'll ask now.... Why is it free will when the brain is made of cells and neurons, and not when the brain is made of silicon and transistors?

Unless someone can tell me how we could test an AI for free will, I am tempted to determine it a meaningless concept. If I said that a jar of peanut butter has free will, how would you prove me wrong?
 
csbrown28 said:
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will.

Why is this? Sub in "identity conditions" or "essential properties" for "free will" in the above. To say that there is some X doesn't necessarily imply that possibly there might not be some X. Free will might be an essential property of persons, in which case, a person could never lack free will, and the very concept of a person lacking free will would be absurd. This is not to say that free will is an essential property of persons; only that I don't see why you think saying there exists some X is to suggest that X might not exist.

I think most people are confused on the topic of free will. When most people use the term "free will," what they really mean to invoke are at least one, and sometimes both, of two concepts:

1. Freedom of action

2. Will as a causal force which is neither determined by natural laws nor a result of indeterminate or random processes.

So, say I have a will whose object is X. To say I have free will is then to say that either: 1. I am free to act so as to proceed to X, and, 2. my will to X cannot be calculated by something like LaPlace's demon. That is, at least possibly, my will to X could never be predicted no matter how much physical information is known prior to the existence of my will to X. Or, it could be to say both 1. and 2.

csbrown28 said:
If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did?

There would be at least one of two differences.

First, there are people who suffer a kind of brain damage that leads to locked-in syndrome (I have no idea if that's the real name for it, but it's an intuitively evocative name). To all appearance, the person is a vegetable. But in fact, their mental life goes on as before; they're simply in a body which has no capabilities for willed action of any kind. Such a person has no freedom of action.

(As an aside, I take it that very few people are ever completely locked in. Usually such people have the ability to communicate by blinking, raising a single finger, or some such. We have inferred, based on the commonalities of the brain damage between cases, and information gained via fMRI scan, that being totally locked in is possible, and may have occurred in a few cases).

Second, if we ever are able to reliably calculate what a person's will is based on prior knowledge of relevant physical information, that person lacks free will. It's possible that no persons have free will thanks to this always being a possibility. However, lacking any evidence that this is the case (i.e. that will is determined by physical laws), it's a difficult case to make.
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
In the not to distant future we will have AI indistinguishable from ourselves.

People have been saying since the 1930's (actually long before that, but claims prior to the 30's aren't relevant here due to the peculiar nature of their content) that human-like artificial intelligence is just a decade or so away. The claim doesn't have a good track record.

Again, there needs to be some clarification of terms. Artificial intelligence already exists, and has since at least 300 B.C. What I suspect you're talking about is a machine with a mind. That's a rather different proposition.

csbrown28 said:
Is AI capable of free will?

If there ever is a machine with a mind, I see no reason why it wouldn't be. In fact, it seems that by definition, it would have free will. You can probably see, based on my remarks in my previous post, why I think this is problematic.

csbrown28 said:
I suspect I'll be told no so I'll ask now.... Why is it free will when the brain is made of cells and neurons, and not when the brain is made of silicon and transistors?

I question the assumption that brain processes are necessary and sufficient conditions for mental events. It seems to me there is no evidence they are either necessary or sufficient when ranging over all mental events.
 
Why is this? Sub in "identity conditions" or "essential properties" for "free will" in the above. To say that there is some X doesn't necessarily imply that possibly there might not be some X. Free will might be an essential property of persons, in which case, a person could never lack free will, and the very concept of a person lacking free will would be absurd. This is not to say that free will is an essential property of persons; only that I don't see why you think saying there exists some X is to suggest that X might not exist.

I think most people are confused on the topic of free will. When most people use the term "free will," what they really mean to invoke are at least one, and sometimes both, of two concepts:



So, say I have a will whose object is X. To say I have free will is then to say that either: 1. I am free to act so as to proceed to X, and, 2. my will to X cannot be calculated by something like LaPlace's demon. That is, at least possibly, my will to X could never be predicted no matter how much physical information is known prior to the existence of my will to X. Or, it could be to say both 1. and 2.



There would be at least one of two differences.

First, there are people who suffer a kind of brain damage that leads to locked-in syndrome (I have no idea if that's the real name for it, but it's an intuitively evocative name). To all appearance, the person is a vegetable. But in fact, their mental life goes on as before; they're simply in a body which has no capabilities for willed action of any kind. Such a person has no freedom of action.

(As an aside, I take it that very few people are ever completely locked in. Usually such people have the ability to communicate by blinking, raising a single finger, or some such. We have inferred, based on the commonalities of the brain damage between cases, and information gained via fMRI scan, that being totally locked in is possible, and may have occurred in a few cases).

Second, if we ever are able to reliably calculate what a person's will is based on prior knowledge of relevant physical information, that person lacks free will. It's possible that no persons have free will thanks to this always being a possibility. However, lacking any evidence that this is the case (i.e. that will is determined by physical laws), it's a difficult case to make.

More interesting answers, but can you test empirically for free will? What would that test consist of? Again, if you had an AI that was self learning, that had exceeded its original programming, is it possible for it to obtain free will? How would you test for it?

Your set of conditions:

1. Freedom of action

2. Will as a causal force which is neither determined by natural laws nor a result of indeterminate or random processes.

I cant see anything here that prevents a computer or even a cockroach from having free will.

To address your first point, you may be right to say that free will is part of our essential nature and is as necessary as our DNA, but again, I can test for DNA. It is empirically verifiable. To say someone has free will is as meaningless as saying someone has a soul. They are both interesting concepts, but seem to me to be wholly human concepts born out of our own condition and perception of our reality rather than a real tangible thing.
 
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will. If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did? How would you empirically measure freewill, that is, what measurement or test could you do to determine if a person didn't have free will? How would they differ from everyone else?

If your answer is that it is immaterial, that's cool, but then you have to concede that the idea is essentially meaningless.

Free will is simply the ability to choose.
that is it. as long as there is a choice then you have free will.

no free will means that you don't have a choice. if i capture someone prisoner and i tie them down and schedule their lives
they really don't have a choice. while they can choose to fight for a bit at some point they will give up.

as long as there is choice you have free will.
 
People have been saying since the 1930's (actually long before that, but claims prior to the 30's aren't relevant here due to the peculiar nature of their content) that human-like artificial intelligence is just a decade or so away. The claim doesn't have a good track record.

Again, there needs to be some clarification of terms. Artificial intelligence already exists, and has since at least 300 B.C. What I suspect you're talking about is a machine with a mind. That's a rather different proposition.



If there ever is a machine with a mind, I see no reason why it wouldn't be. In fact, it seems that by definition, it would have free will. You can probably see, based on my remarks in my previous post, why I think this is problematic.



I question the assumption that brain processes are necessary and sufficient conditions for mental events. It seems to me there is no evidence they are either necessary or sufficient when ranging over all mental events.

So I can't speak to claims made in the 1930 about AI. I suppose that would be akin to saying today that time travel is only a few years away, and anyone that knows anything about the difficulty of time travel would laugh the person making that claim right out of the room. Having said that, I think there is some pretty good evidence for AI that is indistinguishable from humans in 10 years or less. Computers can calculate orders of magnitude faster than human brains, but the thing that makes brains 1,500 times faster than the fastest computer is the brains massive ability to parallel process. To tackle lots of tasks slowly but at the same time. For a computer to exceed the human brain in processing power we'd need to expand its parallel processing ability or we can make it 1,500 times faster. Given Moore's Law, and the promise of future technologies, I think 10 years isn't out of the question with 20 years being a virtual certainty.

Now I'm not suggesting the capability alone will make it possible, but a lot more probable.

To the rest of your post. I'm still curious if anyone can quantify free will empirically.
 
Last edited:
csbrown28 said:
More interesting answers, but can you test empirically for free will? What would that test consist of?

Before we know the answer to that, we need to know just what we mean when we utter the words "free will." If my analysis is correct, it's fairly easy to test for freedom of action. Testing for will as a causal force which is neither determined nor random is a much more difficult proposition. But if we know all relevant physical facts about a machine, and we have some way of knowing what its will is (perhaps it can simply tell us), we can test whether the will is determined or not. If there is some way to calculate, based on physical conditions, the will of the machine, then it has no free will.

To rule out randomness, we would just have to see if there is some logical connection between wills at different times--detecting any such connection would, presumably, rule out randomness. For example, if the machine could carry out sorities tasks--one specific example of which is getting a college education. I may have a will to become an engineer. In order to get a bachelors at my chosen university, I have to take a class in humanities and pass it, even though this has nothing to do with engineering. I enroll in the class and put in the necessary work to get a passing grade, because it's one necessary building-block to getting a bachelor's degree in engineering (which is in turn necessary to getting an advanced degree).

csbrown28 said:
Again, if you had an AI that was self learning, that had exceeded its original programming, is it possible for it to obtain free will? How would you test for it?

This phrase "exceeded its original programming" is a little vague. Can you explain more clearly before I answer the question? I'm not sure, at this point, what your question is.

csbrown28 said:
I cant see anything here that prevents a computer or even a cockroach from having free will.

A cockroach, sure. A computer? The processes that take place in a computer are as determined as other physical processes (which is actually to say they're only sort-of determined).

csbrown28 said:
To address your first point, you may be right to say that free will is part of our essential nature and is as necessary as our DNA

I didn't say that, and if I had, this would be a misunderstanding of the point. An essential property is one without which the object possessing it wouldn't exist in the world under discussion. It's possible for a person to exist without DNA and still be a person. If free will is an essential property (I'm not saying it is), a person couldn't exist and not have free will.

I was objecting to your initial claim, which was that to say there exists free will is to suggest there might not be. That claim is not necessarily true.

csbrown28 said:
To say someone has free will is as meaningless as saying someone has a soul.

You seem to be confusing meaning with empiric testability. I see no reason these should be equivalent, or that empiric testability be a necessary condition for meaning, or any such. Indeed, there was an attempt to construct a coherent position such that empiric testability was a necessary condition for meaningfulness in the early part of the 20th century. The program failed, and we came as close as we ever do to proving that it's impossible to formulate such a position coherently.

csbrown28 said:
They are both interesting concepts, but seem to me to be wholly human concepts born out of our own condition and perception of our reality rather than a real tangible thing.

As if "tangible things" are not themselves such concepts, "born out of our own condition and perception of [our?] reality."
 
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will. If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did? How would you empirically measure freewill, that is, what measurement or test could you do to determine if a person didn't have free will? How would they differ from everyone else?

If your answer is that it is immaterial, that's cool, but then you have to concede that the idea is essentially meaningless.

I've always like Christopher Hitchens view on free will.

Of course we have free will, we are forced to have free will.
 
Free will is simply the ability to choose.
that is it. as long as there is a choice then you have free will.

no free will means that you don't have a choice. if i capture someone prisoner and i tie them down and schedule their lives
they really don't have a choice. while they can choose to fight for a bit at some point they will give up.

as long as there is choice you have free will.

By your definition, I still have lots of choices, they have been externally limited, but you said choice was the determining factor, therefore external forces can limit my free will, but never eliminate it.

Do you believe that a computer can, or someday may be able to attain free will?
 
Before we know the answer to that, we need to know just what we mean when we utter the words "free will." If my analysis is correct, it's fairly easy to test for freedom of action. Testing for will as a causal force which is neither determined nor random is a much more difficult proposition. But if we know all relevant physical facts about a machine, and we have some way of knowing what its will is (perhaps it can simply tell us), we can test whether the will is determined or not. If there is some way to calculate, based on physical conditions, the will of the machine, then it has no free will.

To me, "free will" entails some capacity to control one's actions in accordance with rational consideration, as opposed to some emotional craving or desire.

Can we agree that in order to have free will, at least two conditions must exist...

1) There is something I desire to actualize

2) I can make the choice to try to obtain my desire

But what happens when 1 and 2 conflict?

If I am a kleptomaniac:

1) I desire to take something that isn't mine.

2) I don't want to be a kleptomaniac.

or

1) I find myself craving a cigarette.

2) I have the rational desire to avoid lung cancer and know I shouldn't smoke it.

The question of an animal, like a mouse, the question is, does it have a choice? If it is hungry and it smells something it's mind identifies as food, can it override the dopamine response to eat the cheese? I don't know, I'm asking. How would you determine if it could actually make the choice?

This phrase "exceeded its original programming" is a little vague. Can you explain more clearly before I answer the question? I'm not sure, at this point, what your question is.

Certainly computers are capable of being programed to learn. It is also possible to program a computer to program. When I say that a computer has exceeded it's programming it could be defined as an action taken, probably though some combination of learning and self programming that cannot be explained by its original program.

A cockroach, sure. A computer? The processes that take place in a computer are as determined as other physical processes (which is actually to say they're only sort-of determined).

See above for answers to both.
 
Try this thought experiment...

If there were ten parallel universes, each identical down to the individual atoms and sub-atomic particles, so that there is absolutely nothing different about any of them on any level, then whatever happened in one of the universe must also be happening in all of the others.
Meaning that if one person in one universe makes a decision, then their parallel selves must necessarily make an identical decision each.
Logically, there can be no other conclusion, and if you follow this logic to its inevitable end, our decisions are consciously made of free will, but subconsciously, and mechanically, we are simply following the fixed laws of the universe, and therefore we are essentially robots without free will.

Thoughts?
 
Meaning that if one person in one universe makes a decision, then their parallel selves must necessarily make an identical decision each.
Logically, there can be no other conclusion, and if you follow this logic to its inevitable end, our decisions are consciously made of free will, but subconsciously, and mechanically, we are simply following the fixed laws of the universe, and therefore we are essentially robots without free will.
So, logically we both have, and do not have, free will simultaneously. Of course, in this scenario 'free will', requires two distinct but equally true definitions, so the answer to your original question turns out to be largely semantic.
 
By your definition, I still have lots of choices, they have been externally limited, but you said choice was the determining factor, therefore external forces can limit my free will, but never eliminate it.

Do you believe that a computer can, or someday may be able to attain free will?

the question wasn't about a computer.

define limited? if you mean by laws that is a barrier to prevent certain behaviors. one can still engage in those behaviors if one is willing to pay the price.
still doesn't eliminate free will though.
 
All interesting answers, but no-one of the answers has yet to tell me how to determine the difference between free will and lack there of.

It is very difficult to devise a test, at this point in time, that can prove conclusively, one way or the other, whether or not there is free will. However, some small inroads have been made. Neuroscientists have been able to determine, at least with certain types of simple decisions, that the brain comes to a decision before the person is consciously aware of the decision. Kornhuber and Deecke, for example, conducted experiments in which the subject, who was hooked up to an EEG, was told to move his finger whenever he wanted to and to do so as soon as he decided to. Before the person consciously decided to move the finger the scientists can see the readiness potential on the EEG. Libet ran a similar experiment using a clock. That doesn't mean that is the case with more complex decisions but it does show the possibilities.

Now, the ramifications of that for free will really depend on what you consider free will. Some will say that even though you didn't consciously originate the decision to move your finger, it was still your brain processes that made the decision so you have free will. Personally, I don't consider it free will unless you consciously instigate the decision. If your brain makes the decision and THEN your conscious mind becomes aware of the decision that has been made, I do not consider that free will.

I predict that as our knowledge of neuroscience improves and brain scans increase in resolution, that we will be able to show more and more complex decisions are made prior to the person becoming consciously aware of the decision.

And no, I do not believe in free will. I am an epiphenomenalist. Basically I believe the conscious mind is just along for the ride, being made aware of the decisions the unconscious makes AFTER the decision has been made. Any impression we have that we are consciously making the decisions is an illusion.
 
the question wasn't about a computer.

define limited? if you mean by laws that is a barrier to prevent certain behaviors. one can still engage in those behaviors if one is willing to pay the price.
still doesn't eliminate free will though.

Does it matter if it was about a computer, if I can apply your definition, I can apply it right?

Limited. You used the example of a person being tied down.

Thus I cannot choose to go to the bathroom, but I can choose to pee my pants.
 
Does it matter if it was about a computer, if I can apply your definition, I can apply it right?

Limited. You used the example of a person being tied down.

Thus I cannot choose to go to the bathroom, but I can choose to pee my pants.

you won't have a choice i have made that choice for you.
you are getting into a microscope examination.

you have no choice but to pee your pants. i have taken the choice of going to the bathroom away.
just like you can only hold your breathe for so long of your own will. at some point in time you will breathe.

trying to apply bodily functions to free will. as bodily functions don't have a choice but to operate how your brain tells them to.

computers are different and not a good example this isn't a science fiction movie.
also you are applying my definition outside the scope of your main argument which means it is nothing more than a distraction argument.
 
you won't have a choice i have made that choice for you.
you are getting into a microscope examination.

you have no choice but to pee your pants. i have taken the choice of going to the bathroom away.
just like you can only hold your breathe for so long of your own will. at some point in time you will breathe.

trying to apply bodily functions to free will. as bodily functions don't have a choice but to operate how your brain tells them to.

computers are different and not a good example this isn't a science fiction movie.
also you are applying my definition outside the scope of your main argument which means it is nothing more than a distraction argument.

Ok, bad example. I can choose to struggle or not to struggle. If you ask me to tell you something I can choose to tell you or not, but if I want ice cream, you can deny me that, thus my choices are limited, but they still exist. Unless you make me unconscious or you figure out how to control my desires then, by your definition I will always have limited freewill, right?

I'm not talking about "computers" I'm talking about AI, which presently exists, though it isn't sophisticated enough to be able to make "choices" free of the underlying programing (choices made by the programmer), but unless you think there is a compelling reason to believe that AI intelligence is limited, or that the processing power that makes it possible is somehow limited, the speculation of AI and free will isn't a distraction, but a very real possibility, one that we might ought to start thinking about before it becomes a reality.

Approps, (true story) I was called the other day by a voice that sounded almost human (it was a woman's voice). I had a hard time trying to figure out if it was human. I was of course immediately insulted to think a company would try to pass a computer off as a person as if I was an idiot. I asked, is this a real person? The voice replied, "of course I am, my name is Julie". She went on for a minute, I totally ignored her as I thought of a question that would prove she wasn't human. I asked if I could ask a question, and proceeded to ask who was the first man on moon? The answer came back, "I'm sorry Mr. Brown, I'm not sure about that. I asked a math question, three times two....Again, same response. It was uncanny how close this voice was to a real person, both in tone and responses. AI is coming my friend and I suspect, in many cases it has arrived and you just don't know it.
 
Last edited:
To say that there is something called "free will" is to suggest that there is a state in which a person can lack free will. If someone did not have free will, can you tell me how exactly would that person differ from a person who did? How would you empirically measure freewill, that is, what measurement or test could you do to determine if a person didn't have free will? How would they differ from everyone else?

If your answer is that it is immaterial, that's cool, but then you have to concede that the idea is essentially meaningless.

Free will is very easy to understand. It is the brain modeling a quantum collapse, from a universe of possibilities.

Certainly a person can lack free will. If all behavior is "reflex", there is no free will, yes? Free will is "goal-oriented" behavior, and even some of that can be reflexive.
 
Ok, bad example. I can choose to struggle or not to struggle. If you ask me to tell you something I can choose to tell you or not, but if I want ice cream, you can deny me that, thus my choices are limited, but they still exist. Unless you make me unconscious or you figure out how to control my desires then, by your definition I will always have limited freewill, right?

if i don't allow you to have something then well you really don't have free will do you? yes you can choose to struggle that is a choice that you can make.
you can't choose to have ice cream. you can request then it is my choice whether to let you have it or not.


I'm not talking about "computers" I'm talking about AI, which presently exists, though it isn't sophisticated enough to be able to make "choices" free of the underlying programing (choices made by the programmer), but unless you think there is a compelling reason to believe that AI intelligence is limited, or that the processing power that makes it possible is somehow limited, the speculation of AI and free will isn't a distraction, but a very real possibility, one that we might ought to start thinking about before it becomes a reality.

no you said computers you mentioned nothing about AI.
even now AI only take what is programmed into it to do. It has a limited amount of choices and those choices are based on what it calculates to be the best one.
not so much free will as it has to be programmed and told what to do.

Approps, (true story) I was called the other day by a voice that sounded almost human (it was a woman's voice). I had a hard time trying to figure out if it was human. I was of course immediately insulted to think a company would try to pass a computer off as a person as if I was an idiot. I asked, is this a real person? The voice replied, "of course I am, my name is Julie". She went on for a minute, I totally ignored her as I thought of a question that would prove she wasn't human. I asked if I could ask a question, and proceeded to ask who was the first man on moon? The answer came back, "I'm sorry Mr. Brown, I'm not sure about that. I asked a math question, three times two....Again, same response. It was uncanny how close this voice was to a real person, both in tone and responses. AI is coming my friend and I suspect, in many cases it has arrived and you just don't know it.

that isn't free will.
 
It is very difficult to devise a test, at this point in time, that can prove conclusively, one way or the other, whether or not there is free will. However, some small inroads have been made. Neuroscientists have been able to determine, at least with certain types of simple decisions, that the brain comes to a decision before the person is consciously aware of the decision. Kornhuber and Deecke, for example, conducted experiments in which the subject, who was hooked up to an EEG, was told to move his finger whenever he wanted to and to do so as soon as he decided to. Before the person consciously decided to move the finger the scientists can see the readiness potential on the EEG. Libet ran a similar experiment using a clock. That doesn't mean that is the case with more complex decisions but it does show the possibilities.

Now, the ramifications of that for free will really depend on what you consider free will. Some will say that even though you didn't consciously originate the decision to move your finger, it was still your brain processes that made the decision so you have free will. Personally, I don't consider it free will unless you consciously instigate the decision. If your brain makes the decision and THEN your conscious mind becomes aware of the decision that has been made, I do not consider that free will.

I predict that as our knowledge of neuroscience improves and brain scans increase in resolution, that we will be able to show more and more complex decisions are made prior to the person becoming consciously aware of the decision.

And no, I do not believe in free will. I am an epiphenomenalist. Basically I believe the conscious mind is just along for the ride, being made aware of the decisions the unconscious makes AFTER the decision has been made. Any impression we have that we are consciously making the decisions is an illusion.

In the limit of resolution, "free will" is the ability to influence a quantum collapse. There are two parts to a "choice", the selection, and the restriction.
 
Back
Top Bottom