• 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.

Why I don't believe in free will

RAMOSS said:
Can you show a cause? That is all I am concerned about. If you can not not show there is a cause to a number of quantum effects, then you can not show that things are deterministic on that level rather than probabilistic. I personally do not see the concept of Free Will being anything more than word games , since the concept can not be tested.
Click to expand...
I can't claim to be a leading mind in quantum physics, but if the universe superficially has order, predictability, and consistency, should we assume that those are false because we don't currently understand the patterns of what occurs underneath?
 
Nilly said:
Putting something in the 'exact same state' as before is a dangerous philosophical road to go down, as it's not just physically impossible, it is denied by the laws of nature. We cannot measure somethings 'exact state' and we cannot assemble something in an 'exact state', also, plenty of thermodynamic processes are irreversible due to the law of entropy. In fact, it may be the case that free will is only possible because we cannot do that. Have you heard of Laplaces demon? It is a hypothetical being that knows the position and momentum of every single particle, and hence can predict a deterministic future. It is incompatible with quantum mechanics.

Furthermore, even if we were to put things in the 'exact same state', that is no guarantee of the same result happening at a quantum level because of the random nature of quantum mechanics. The second time, wavefunctions could collapse in a different manner, even if mechanically everything was the same (i.e. atom for atom, quark for quark, position & momentum). The collapse of wavefunctions is truly random, this has been verified experimentally beyond a shadow of the doubt, so unless you believe that there is some invisible guiding force determining the collapses (but still doing it randomly) then one initial state doesn't necessarily lead to one end state. If decisions are made at a quantum level, then I don't see a way that they could be deterministic.
Click to expand...

Ok, let's say the wavefunction collapses differently.

Point 1: If the collapse of a wavefunction is truly random, as it certainly seems to be, you had no control over it so no free will. And everything after the collapse of the wave function flows deterministically, thus no free will.

Point 2: Whatever differences may arise in the universe as a result of the random collapse of wavefunctions are not likely to affect the macro world over short periods of time, such as in the act of deciding something. They may affect the quantum world over very short periods of time or maybe affect the macro world over very long periods of time, but I don't see how it can affect the macro world over a relatively short period of time. Those types of quantum effects tend to wash out as you move up in scale. If I set up a gun on a sturdy stand and aim it at a target and use a mechanical switch to fire it, the bullet will hit the same place on the target every time, even though at the quantum level all sorts of crazy things are happening in the stand, in the bullet, in every part of the gun, and in the target.

The reason that computers are deterministic is that the process behind their decisions exists on a classical level. Once you get to large sizes and number of particles, the reaction to a cause is determined by statistics, and not by individual events. Statistical outcomes are predictable. It's why we can predict to a good degree, the proportion of heads and tails of 1,000,000,000 coinflips, but are at a loss when it comes to predicting the outcome of 1.
Click to expand...

I have yet to see any evidence that the process behind the brain's decision don't operate at a classical level as well. Why would quantum mechanics affect the brain more than the computer?
 
Unrepresented said:
I can't claim to be a leading mind in quantum physics, but if the universe superficially has order, predictability, and consistency, should we assume that those are false because we don't currently understand the patterns of what occurs underneath?
Click to expand...

According to some of those models , that pattern is not causality.. it is not deterministic but probabilistic. It not a simple 'not understand yet', but a fundamental mechanism on how things work. It might mean there are just hidden variables we can never find, or it might not.Until such time as that can be answered one way or another, any speculation based on that assumption is sketchy at best. Until that can be determined, I see the entire concept of 'Free will' or lack there of to have no value.
 
Nilly said:
There is no 'current' inability.

Heiesenbergs uncertainty principle is a law of nature, not a technological limitation. It arises out of the nature of matter and will never be circumvented. 'Getting around it' via technology would be like making an object that is simultaneously a sphere and a square.

At a subatomic level, actions and inactions are probabilities, not certainties. Quantum mechanics is indeterministic. I'm obviously guessing here, but it is a possibility that free will involves the collapsing of multiple wave functions, or probabilities, into the appropriate chosen ones.

It may seem far fetched that our brain has such 'quantum power' but clearly, our brain has the ability to make decisions, even if (as in the OP) it is at a subconcious level. There must be some kind of mechanism for our subconscious to do that. It's just a debate as to whether the conscious or subconscious makes it.
Click to expand...
Our brain was designed by every act before it to make decisions that support every act after it.

Our illusion that we're more than players performing someone else's play doesn't change our slavery to deterministic existence.
 
RAMOSS said:
According to some of those models , that pattern is not causality.. it is not deterministic but probabilistic. It not a simple 'not understand yet', but a fundamental mechanism on how things work. It might mean there are just hidden variables we can never find, or it might not.Until such time as that can be answered one way or another, any speculation based on that assumption is sketchy at best. Until that can be determined, I see the entire concept of 'Free will' or lack there of to have no value.
Click to expand...
It's a pointless topic in the sense that we can't possibly know our destiny until it's occurred, but I do find it an attractive philosophical discussion.
 
BrewerBob said:
Ok, let's say the wavefunction collapses differently.

Point 1: If the collapse of a wavefunction is truly random, as it certainly seems to be, you had no control over it so no free will. And everything after the collapse of the wave function flows deterministically, thus no free will.
Click to expand...

The collapse of any individual wavefunction is random. The collapse of many is probabilistic. There is a tipping point that takes us from random events to non-random events. It is possible that the brain can influence the probabilities of many collapses, and possibly affect that tipping point. I have zero idea of the mechanism by which that happens and zero knowledge how or if free will comes into play there.

The other avenue for exploration is looking at complexity and chaos theory, although unlike quantum mechanics I don't know enough about it to speak on it. What I do know, is that a minute change in initial conditions (say a slight change at a quantum level) can cause completely different end states to occur. We don't really yet know if complex systems are deterministic.

BrewerBob said:
Point 2: Whatever differences may arise in the universe as a result of the random collapse of wavefunctions are not likely to affect the macro world over short periods of time, such as in the act of deciding something. They may affect the quantum world over very short periods of time or maybe affect the macro world over very long periods of time, but I don't see how it can affect the macro world over a relatively short period of time. Those types of quantum effects tend to wash out as you move up in scale. If I set up a gun on a sturdy stand and aim it at a target and use a mechanical switch to fire it, the bullet will hit the same place on the target every time, even though at the quantum level all sorts of crazy things are happening in the stand, in the bullet, in every part of the gun, and in the target.

I have yet to see any evidence that the process behind the brain's decision don't operate at a classical level as well. Why would quantum mechanics affect the brain more than the computer?
Click to expand...

Well that's the kicker. We don't know the mechanism by which the brain (conscious or subconscious) can make decisions. What I'm suggesting is that mechanism, and by extension free will, relies on the the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, but as I said I have zero idea how this mechanism occurs. I do believe in free will so I believe that this mechanism (or something similar, maybe taking into account complexity/chaos theory) exists, even if we don't know about it. Similar to how I believe that abiogenesis happened even though we don't have evidence of it yet.

As for your gun stand analogy that is not entirely true. I don't know whether this is relevant to the free will conversation but it is quite interesting all the same. Probabilistically, the scenario exists where the bullet goes through the target, or dosn't fire at all, due to the collapse of multiple wavefunctions in an improbabilistic way. An electron in the bullet can exist in two places at once. It could exist simultaneously inside and outside of the bullet. However, quantum rules don't just apply to subatomic objects. There is nothing to suggest that the bullet itself couldn't appear in two places at once, it would just require the incredibly unlikely event that the probability wavefunctions of all the particles in the bullet collapse in the same, incredibly unlikely way.

Classical mechanics, the world we know, is just an approximation of the world at a quantum level. The classical is an emergent property of quantum phenomena, it's the same set of rules. This guy explains it well: Probability, quantum physics, and why (can't it/does it) apply to macroscale events? - Physics Stack Exchange

This is actually one of the things that needs to be grappled with when it comes to multiverse theory, if there is a multiverse, there should be a large number of multiverses where quantum effects are happening on a macro scale due to chance, but that's a different conversation.
 
Nilly said:
The collapse of any individual wavefunction is random. The collapse of many is probabilistic. There is a tipping point that takes us from random events to non-random events. It is possible that the brain can influence the probabilities of many collapses, and possibly affect that tipping point. I have zero idea of the mechanism by which that happens and zero knowledge how or if free will comes into play there.

The other avenue for exploration is looking at complexity and chaos theory, although unlike quantum mechanics I don't know enough about it to speak on it. What I do know, is that a minute change in initial conditions (say a slight change at a quantum level) can cause completely different end states to occur. We don't really yet know if complex systems are deterministic.



Well that's the kicker. We don't know the mechanism by which the brain (conscious or subconscious) can make decisions. What I'm suggesting is that mechanism, and by extension free will, relies on the the probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics, but as I said I have zero idea how this mechanism occurs. I do believe in free will so I believe that this mechanism (or something similar, maybe taking into account complexity/chaos theory) exists, even if we don't know about it. Similar to how I believe that abiogenesis happened even though we don't have evidence of it yet.

As for your gun stand analogy that is not entirely true. I don't know whether this is relevant to the free will conversation but it is quite interesting all the same. Probabilistically, the scenario exists where the bullet goes through the target, or dosn't fire at all, due to the collapse of multiple wavefunctions in an improbabilistic way. An electron in the bullet can exist in two places at once. It could exist simultaneously inside and outside of the bullet. However, quantum rules don't just apply to subatomic objects. There is nothing to suggest that the bullet itself couldn't appear in two places at once, it would just require the incredibly unlikely event that the probability wavefunctions of all the particles in the bullet collapse in the same, incredibly unlikely way.

Classical mechanics, the world we know, is just an approximation of the world at a quantum level. The classical is an emergent property of quantum phenomena, it's the same set of rules. This guy explains it well: Probability, quantum physics, and why (can't it/does it) apply to macroscale events? - Physics Stack Exchange

This is actually one of the things that needs to be grappled with when it comes to multiverse theory, if there is a multiverse, there should be a large number of multiverses where quantum effects are happening on a macro scale due to chance, but that's a different conversation.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you on freewill but I enjoy your take on things and agree with most of the quantum aspects.
 
BrewerBob said:
When someone is punished their conscious self shares in the misery even though the conscious self played no part in the crime, because the conscious self has no causal control. Is that fair?
Click to expand...

I think you are mistaken there. If determinism is true, that does NOT mean that your conscious self played no part in the crime. Your conscious self still committed the act. What determinism claims is that given those conditions, there is no other choice you would have made. The fact still remains you did make the choice and you did consciously commit the act; the difference between a determinist view and a non-determinist one is that the determinist will accept that, while their choice felt free there is no other choice they could have made given who they are, how they think, and the situation they were in. The fact there isn't free will does not mean you don't make choices that you must live with. It means that given identical conditions, you would have made the same choice 100 out of a 100 times.

I agree that the punitive nature of the justice system is ineffective and counterproductive but there are far stronger arguments against it than very abstract arguments built upon determinism.
 
Last edited:
Unrepresented said:
It's a pointless topic in the sense that we can't possibly know our destiny until it's occurred, but I do find it an attractive philosophical discussion.
Click to expand...

If you have fun with it, fine. But since I don't see how it can be proven/disprove either way, and there are so many mutually exclusive variations of it's definition that I don't know what people mean when they say 'free will'.
 
RAMOSS said:
If you have fun with it, fine. But since I don't see how it can be proven/disprove either way, and there are so many mutually exclusive variations of it's definition that I don't know what people mean when they say 'free will'.
Click to expand...
I can't intellectually see how free will by any definition is supported by any argument beyond "I feel free."
 
CrabCake said:
I think you are mistaken there. If determinism is true, then that does NOT mean that your conscious self played no part in the crime. Your conscious self still committed the act. What determinism claims is that given those conditions, there is no other choice you would have made. The fact still remains you did make the choice and you did consciously commit the act. The fact there isn't free will does not mean you don't make choices that you must live with. It means that given identical conditions, you would have made the same choice 100 out of a 100 times.
Click to expand...

I am ok with most of that except the "consciously" part. What neurological evidence we currently have seems to indicate that unconscious parts of your brain make the decisions and then your conscious self becomes aware of those decisions. Sometime the currently measurable difference between the two is as much as 6 seconds. That feeling you have that you consciously formed the decision in the moment seems to be a trick of the brain.

Touch the tip of your nose with the tip of your finger. Your nose will feel the touch at the exact same time as your nose. But that, too, is an illusion. The signal from the nerve cells in your nose have a much shorter trip to the parietal lobe than the signal from the cells in your finger have. Your brain simply processes the information so that you become consciously aware of the sensations at the same time. It would appear a similar trick happens with decisions.
 
It seems probable that free will is a mere illusion, yet we do appear to have the ability to make decisions. The reason free will is an illusion is that the decisions we make are influenced by, or arguable determined by, our environment and our biology, which we have only limited control of. It is useful to understand that fact and take it into consideration when making decisions, but we can and should continue to use our will.
 
Frequently, when people question free will in my presence, I punch them. On the arm. Rather hard.


Except sometimes I don't. ;)


When they ask why, sometimes I say "Determinism, I couldn't help it so you can't blame me." Other times I say "Free will!"

Occasionally I say "Free Willie!" just to be confusing.


I don't know about YOU but I am fairly sure I have free will... :D
 
Hard Truth said:
It seems probable that free will is a mere illusion, yet we do appear to have the ability to make decisions. The reason free will is an illusion is that the decisions we make are influenced by, or arguable determined by, our environment and our biology, which we have only limited control of. It is useful to understand that fact and take it into consideration when making decisions, but we can and should continue to use our will.
Click to expand...

I think that is the opinion of most determinists. I think my opinion might be even more extreme. My research seems to place me under a subset of determinism called "Epiphenomenalism". Yes, your brain makes decisions and those decisions are determined by the brain state at that moment in time, but "you", meaning the conscious you, had absolutely nothing to do with that decision making process, deterministic or not.

In this world of cause and effect many thing affect your brain's decision making process. Your brain takes into account past experience, things you have learned, your current emotional state, your genetic predisposition, societal expectations, and countless, countless other things, that were caused, in turn, by other things.

After all the deliberation, unconscious parts of your brain come to a decision and then your conscious self, the part of you that you feel is "you" becomes aware of that decision and feels that "you" made the decision. Meanwhile, the unconscious parts of your brain continue to chug along and start reconsidering the decision, start to have doubts, start coming up with other options. Then those reconsiderations, and feelings of doubt, and new trains of thought rise up into your consciousness, once again, fooling your conscious self into thinking "you" are deliberating over the decision.

What I, and other epiphenomanalists, are postulating is this communication between the unconscious decision making process and the conscious self is a one way street. A one sided communication. At no point does your conscious self provide any input into the decision making process. A whole host of outside factors feed into this unconscious decision making. But I don't believe the conscious self is one of those factors.

In this world of cause and effect the conscious mind is an effect. It does not seem to cause anything substantial. It is almost like watching TV. You are aware of everything that happens once the light from the tv hits your eyes and is transformed into a signal your brain can interpret, but you can't affect what happens on the TV. But with decision making we feel as though we are a player because the "show" is taking place inside our own heads.

Now, if you want to define the "self" as ANYTHING that your brain does, then I guess that will let you define your way out of the problem. But I think most people define the self as the conscious part of their brain processes.
 
The distinction you are implying between free will and determinism is meaningless. You are saying we choose the actions we choose because of who we are and the situation we are in. If we were someone else or somewhere else we would make a different decision. But I'm me, and I'm here, so there's no difference between your determinism and theoretical free will.

Quantum physics seems to imply that whether I raised my right or left hand depends not on the situation I was in at the time, but also how you observe the results. So it is possible I raised both, in separate realities. I don't know that they are right, but it doesn't really matter. If free will means freedom only to do the things that are in my nature to do, then that's good enough for me.
 
RAMOSS said:
If you have fun with it, fine. But since I don't see how it can be proven/disprove either way, and there are so many mutually exclusive variations of it's definition that I don't know what people mean when they say 'free will'.
Click to expand...

That is of course why before starting a discussion on free will you should define what you mean by the phrase, as I did in the OP. :)
 
Goshin said:
Frequently, when people question free will in my presence, I punch them. On the arm. Rather hard.


Except sometimes I don't. ;)


When they ask why, sometimes I say "Determinism, I couldn't help it so you can't blame me." Other times I say "Free will!"

Occasionally I say "Free Willie!" just to be confusing.


I don't know about YOU but I am fairly sure I have free will... :D
Click to expand...

Yeah, I saw you make that same post in a 2014 thread about free will. It is still funny, though. :)
 
BrewerBob said:
Yeah, I saw you make that same post in a 2014 thread about free will. It is still funny, though. :)
Click to expand...


Actually my 2014 post was somewhat different.


Why?


Free will baby! :D
 
Tsunami said:
The distinction you are implying between free will and determinism is meaningless. You are saying we choose the actions we choose because of who we are and the situation we are in.
Click to expand...

That is what the typical determinist is saying. What I am saying is that "you", the conscious "you" doesn't even get a choice. At the time your brain is coming to decisions your consciousness is as unaware of it as it is unaware that your brain is regulating your blood hormone levels and other biological processes. "You" only become consciously aware of the decision making process moments after your brain has processed it. Hence, "you" have no choice at all.
 
BrewerBob said:
That is what the typical determinist is saying. What I am saying is that "you", the conscious "you" doesn't even get a choice. At the time your brain is coming to decisions your consciousness is as unaware of it as it is unaware that your brain is regulating your blood hormone levels and other biological processes. "You" only become consciously aware of the decision making process moments after your brain has processed it. Hence, "you" have no choice at all.
Click to expand...

Your unconscious mind is part of you. But many of the things you list as unconscious can be altered by the conscious mind, like pulse rate and breathing etc. The rest, such as a burn reflex, are hard-wired in but easy to spot on an fMRI. We can watch decisions being made, we don't truly know how the brain works but we know enough to know that.
 
Tsunami said:
Your unconscious mind is part of you. But many of the things you list as unconscious can be altered by the conscious mind, like pulse rate and breathing etc. The rest, such as a burn reflex, are hard-wired in but easy to spot on an fMRI.
Click to expand...

If you want to believe that your unconscious mind is as much your "self" as your conscious mind then you can explain away some of the problems I have brought up. But many people, including me, don't view their unconscious brain processes in the same light as their conscious self.

We can watch decisions being made, we don't truly know how the brain works but we know enough to know that.
Click to expand...

Yes, we can watch the decisions being made by a subject before that subject is consciously aware the decision is being made. Which means his conscious self had no choice over the decision being made.

Once again, if you subscribe to the belief that the unconscious you is as much "you" as the conscious "you" then you can explain some of the issues away. That way of thinking is called compatibilism. It posits that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive because anything that emerges from within your own head, conscious or not, determined or not, is a function of your free will. To me this dismisses the problem by simply redefining free will and self but it is a common position to hold.

"I", the conscious me, have no more control over what my next thought will be than I have over what the next thing you will say is. I don't get to decide what I think. It just arises into my consciousness after it was processed by unconscious elements beyond my control.

As for controlling your breathing and heart rate? Once again, it isn't the conscious you that does that. The unconscious parts of your brain decide to make your body relax and focus on slowing the breathing and visualizing the heart beating slower. And then you become consciously aware of the decision and experience the effects of the action being carried out.
 
BrewerBob said:
If you want to believe that your unconscious mind is as much your "self" as your conscious mind then you can explain away some of the problems I have brought up. But many people, including me, don't view their unconscious brain processes in the same light as their conscious self.



Yes, we can watch the decisions being made by a subject before that subject is consciously aware the decision is being made. Which means his conscious self had no choice over the decision being made.

Once again, if you subscribe to the belief that the unconscious you is as much "you" as the conscious "you" then you can explain some of the issues away. That way of thinking is called compatibilism. It posits that free will and determinism are not mutually exclusive because anything that emerges from within your own head, conscious or not, determined or not, is a function of your free will. To me this dismisses the problem by simply redefining free will and self but it is a common position to hold.

"I", the conscious me, have no more control over what my next thought will be than I have over what the next thing you will say is. I don't get to decide what I think. It just arises into my consciousness after it was processed by unconscious elements beyond my control.

As for controlling your breathing and heart rate? Once again, it isn't the conscious you that does that. The unconscious parts of your brain decide to make your body relax and focus on slowing the breathing and visualizing the heart beating slower. And then you become consciously aware of the decision and experience the effects of the action being carried out.
Click to expand...

What you are saying isn't impossible. I have heard that during brain surgery you can stimulate parts of the brain making a person laugh, and if you ask them why they are laughing they will rationalize a reason after the fact. But this is not the normal way the process works, outside of direct physical stimulation our thoughts are fully under our control. If you find yourself unable to control your thinking you might want to get tested for schizophrenia or obsessive-compulsive disorder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom