- #71
JD
- 72
- 0
Is it possible that free will can exist and not exist simultaneously?
JD said:Is it possible that free will can exist and not exist simultaneously?
AlanPartr said:Does free will exist?
according to Newton the universe is deterministic, and therefore free will does not fit into this. But since the advent of quantum physics, the universe is not said to be entirely deterministic, is there now room for free will? some physicists believe that the wave function of matter/light collapses when a living thing is conscious of it, could this be a sign of free will?
If we did not have free will, it would be impossible to predict ANY future events*. This is absurd. Therefore, we have free will.
In classical physics everything is determined.
"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." --A. Einstein.
The human brain (note, brain, not mind) is comparable to a computer. A computer has no free will. Therefore, we don't have free will. Is that your argument?kernelpenguin said:Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.
I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.
I'm not sure I understand this: Free will emerges from a set of logical processes or thought emerges from a set of logical processes? If this is the case, can you write down what those logical processes are?Whether the world is fully deterministic or not is VERY irrelevant when it comes to "free will". The truth is that your brain is simply an organic machine. The notion of "free will" is absurd, since it only emerges from a set of logical processes that are tied to each other and that are trying to predict the future by reflecting on past events and experiences.
That the brain operates like neural networks seems plausible but has not been proven. The brain is not fully understood so when you step on the metalevel and look down, you see a dense fog.The key to understanding it all is to "dissect" your brain -- a simple neural network wired in complicated ways -- and to step back and to look at all the input that might have caused some decision to be made. Step on the metalevel and look down.
I don't think random behavior at the quantum level suggests that we have free will; so I agree with that. I don't think science can decide either way whether we have free will. By the way, no computer on Earth thus far has ever used a random algorithm; they are just using chaotic but 100% deterministic functions that upon iteration simulate randomness. That's neither here nor there though as as you said, it has nothing to do with free will.Coming back to "non-deterministic free will"... So what if it was proven that the universe is not deterministic and that there are "random" quantum effects? What then? How the hell do you suppose that proves you have free will? The ONLY thing it does is offer a random element to the decision making process. It does not wire your mind to some "cosmic pool of free will for sentient beings". Hell, "randomized algorithms" are used in computing, even. Mostly for NP-* problems like the traveling salesman one. They can be very effective.
AlanPartr said:some physicists believe that the wave function of matter/light collapses when a living thing is conscious of it, could this be a sign of free will?
phoenixthoth said:The human brain (note, brain, not mind) is comparable to a computer. A computer has no free will. Therefore, we don't have free will. Is that your argument?
I'm not sure I understand this: Free will emerges from a set of logical processes or thought emerges from a set of logical processes? If this is the case, can you write down what those logical processes are?
That the brain operates like neural networks seems plausible but has not been proven. The brain is not fully understood so when you step on the metalevel and look down, you see a dense fog.
I don't think random behavior at the quantum level suggests that we have free will; so I agree with that. I don't think science can decide either way whether we have free will. By the way, no computer on Earth thus far has ever used a random algorithm; they are just using chaotic but 100% deterministic functions that upon iteration simulate randomness. That's neither here nor there though as as you said, it has nothing to do with free will.
Alright, you people are physicists and you are approaching the subject from what I feel is the wrong direction.I'm a computer scientists, so my intuition tells me to compare the human mind to a computer.
now, what if both ideas are correct??kcballer21 said:"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."--A. Einstein
"For we convinced physicists, the distinction between past, present, and future is only an illusion, however persistent."--A. Einstein
Fortunately the greatest genius ever still has his faults as with this statement, "I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice." and the refutation of the EPR paradox by John Bell.
I did not know that was you stance (limited freewill) but I still believe the limited aspect of freewill is a left over of some human yearning for control. Do you believe this because it pains you to think we have no control. Intuition won't allow many of us to even consider this idea. My distrust of intuition is one of the reasons my opinion is what it is.
I understand that reasoning but I just disagree. We have on one hand observables and on the other a mathematical model. In this case, the brain and neural networks. I just don't buy into the idea that every single property that mathematical model has must also be possessed by the observable.kernelpenguin said:That's pretty much my argument.
I suspect that you might be right but I think that's an unproven hypothesis. Just my opinion.Thought emerges from these logical processes. "Free will" is a notion which arises because a logical process cannot be aware of the inputs of any other logical process.
Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.Consider the following model of the brain. There is one central logic process, which takes input from the senses and from instincts, then processes these and looks for the most beneficial solution and then reaches a "decision", which manifests itself as output. Meanwhile there are other similar logic processes, that have access to some of the input (not all) and can see some of the output (decisions). These also look at feedback to previous decisions in the input and then try to optimize the decision making process accordingly. (Learning from your past.)
There is strong determinism, in which everything is predetermined, weak predeterminsim, in which some things are predetermined, and no determinsim, in which no things are predetermined. I would define free will as either of the cases besides strong predeterminsim. I think that we can't be in strong predetermination (ie no free will) because of the following. If everything is predetermined, then I can't predict any act that I'm about to do for if I could, then I could change what I'm about to do, going against predetermination. I phrase it better under my thread "destiny," which has a similar theme. (Sorry if that didn't make any sense--I'm drunk right now :surprise: )Well, I have a challenge for you. Can you define free will and come up with an example of free will, that could not be explained as several logic processes working in your brain?
The idea is that if I have no free will, then I CANNOT know what door I'm going to choose which is absurd. Boring or not, lame or not, you cannot refute it by calling it lame and boring.Something original besides the lame old "I am faced with two doors, I choose to open the left one, but then go and open the right one, thus I have free will" crap would be nice. Things like that are just mind-numbingly boring.
I totally agree.In the same sense that we could observe "random" quantum effects and consider them to be completely random, while in reality they could be created by some deterministic mechanism that follows laws we cannot comprehend.
phoenixthoth said:I understand that reasoning but I just disagree. We have on one hand observables and on the other a mathematical model. In this case, the brain and neural networks. I just don't buy into the idea that every single property that mathematical model has must also be possessed by the observable.
I suspect that you might be right but I think that's an unproven hypothesis. Just my opinion.
Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.
There is strong determinism, in which everything is predetermined, weak predeterminsim, in which some things are predetermined, and no determinsim, in which no things are predetermined. I would define free will as either of the cases besides strong predeterminsim. I think that we can't be in strong predetermination (ie no free will) because of the following. If everything is predetermined, then I can't predict any act that I'm about to do for if I could, then I could change what I'm about to do, going against predetermination. I phrase it better under my thread "destiny," which has a similar theme. (Sorry if that didn't make any sense--I'm drunk right now :surprise: )
The idea is that if I have no free will, then I CANNOT know what door I'm going to choose which is absurd. Boring or not, lame or not, you cannot refute it by calling it lame and boring.
Again, I'm not disagreeing that this is a model for the brain but I'm just not buying into the notion that all properties of the model must be possessed by the brain.
That's not what I'm saying although it may be true anyway. I can see that you're armed with Occam's Razor, ready to cut away at any 'consciousness is located outside the brain' statements. And of course Occam's Razor is a perfect tool that is always correct. Irrelevant because I'm not asserting at this time that consciousness is outside the brain. Just saying that the brain need not possesses every property of a model for the brain, whether the model be a neural network or a complicated machine. The principle property that I doubt transfers from the model back to the observable [brain] is lack of free will.I don't quite follow you here. What do you mean? That consciousness is located outside the brain?
No that's not the argument; this is a straw man characterization of my proof. The kernel of the proof lies in one's flat out inability to know which door one is about to choose for if one did know what was going to happen in 3 seconds, one would have no reason not to change the supposed future. The argument is based on the absurdity of not being able to know which door one is about to choose.I think I have, in this very same thread, debunked a version of the above 'proof' at least three times. Let this be the fourth, then :P
You have two doors.
You have three choices: open left, open right, don't open either.
You choose to open the left one.
You consciously choose to ignore the left one and go for the right one.
You open the right one.
Hence, free will.
phoenixthoth said:So are you then saying that the brain is like a complicated machine, machines don't have free will, and therefore the brain does not have free will?
No that's not the argument; this is a straw man characterization of my proof. The kernel of the proof lies in one's flat out inability to know which door one is about to choose for if one did know what was going to happen in 3 seconds, one would have no reason not to change the supposed future. The argument is based on the absurdity of not being able to know which door one is about to choose.
How do you know that one essential property of the model, a complicated deterministic machine, namely that it is deterministic, transfers over to the brain? IOW, since the model is deterministic therefore the brain is deterministic?kernelpenguin said:Yes, I'm saying that the brain is a complicated, self-modifying, but deterministic machine.
How do you know it was "meant to be?" That's right, it's because what we use to model the brain is deterministic; still doesn't convince me that the brain itself is necessarily deterministic.Do you consciously know everything that goes on inside your head? No.
Do you consciously know everything that affects your decision making? No.
If you do "change your decision", then how do you know it wasn't "meant to be"? In the sense that, how do you know that your brain was not working up to this moment, this new choice on an unconscious level? Once you become consciously aware of your decision, you can also do the opposite, but choosing that very same opposite is STILL something that is decided in your brain.
But since we don't know exactly what is going on in our brains and everything might just be predetermined with no randomness in the universe, we might just as well go around telling ourselves that there is free will even though the notion of 'free will' itself is pretty absurd.