Is Free Will Merely an Illusion Shaped by Genetics and Environment?

[Hurkyl]

Furthermore, a solid theory that randomness is existant, using a formula, would also be nice.

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.

If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.

 

[Mattius_]

Well, i tried... Egocentrism too often gets into the way of debate... I thought i had stumbled onto forums more than that but i was wrong.

 

[Hurkyl]

The views expressed by particular individuals of the forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the forum in general. There are many on the forum who believe they know a lot (and a few of them are quite justified in that belief), but to my knowledge we have only one member who thinks dissenting viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't merit any discussion.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Well, i tried... Egocentrism too often gets into the way of debate... I thought i had stumbled onto forums more than that but i was wrong.

Egocentrism? You claim not to center around yourself and your POV?

Facts are facts. No matter what one "believes" or wishes to be true, the truth does not change because of this.

Apparently you're just saddened you did not get what you wanted. This is often the case in reality, I would teach oneself to like the truth, no matter what it is. Because then you will never be disappointed!

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The views expressed by particular individuals of the forum do not necessarily reflect the views of the forum in general. There are many on the forum who believe they know a lot (and a few of them are quite justified in that belief), but to my knowledge we have only one member who thinks dissenting viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't merit any discussion,

Surely dissenting views are fine to discuss. But if one wants to start a debate that will end with some real result one must

1. Make a claim
2. Make it as simple and specific as possible
3. Define ALL terms
4. Scrutinize the hell out of the claim BEFORE bringing it to others. It's like proofreading, you do it BEFORE you turn your paper in, otherwise others are going to do it for you.

Those are general helpers. Most people here I imagine them posting a post as it pops into their head.

The more scientific 50% of the crowd here doesn't do it. And it doesn't go unnoticed.

 

[Hurkyl]

Those four points are good guidelines, but more important than all of them combined is the willingness to listen to dissenting opinions.

And don't forget there is a similar burden on the others who join a debate once started.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Drag - I wouldn't share information if I could.

What do you mean by that ?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the
distinguished scientific community that
everything in reality adheres to reality.

Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres
to a proof. That proof is reality.

How do you know that you can know absolute
reality and thus make the above relevant ?
Here's an additional task for you then, please,
prove that you can know absolute reality.

Mentat, sometimes you talk too much...

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Drag said to me:

Prove that you can know absolute reality.

Define "prove"

Define "know"

Define "absolute"

Define "reality"

Define those, and check my signature, then retype the task, or put it as a claim and i'll take a STAB at it. Perhaps starting a new topic called "LA - Prove Reality" since it's way off topic. Although the topic is dead.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Surely dissenting views are fine to discuss. But if one wants to start a debate that will end with some real result one must

1. Make a claim
2. Make it as simple and specific as possible
3. Define ALL terms
4. Scrutinize the hell out of the claim BEFORE bringing it to others. It's like proofreading, you do it BEFORE you turn your paper in, otherwise others are going to do it for you.

Not bad for setting up an empirical experiment, but this is the philosophy section. Here people only need to make sense and not contradict facts; further, one even gets to start out with a "fuzzy" idea and see how it goes. Do you not like this? Well, don't forget you can always move on to somewhere that better meets your needs.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Those are general helpers. Most people here I imagine them posting a post as it pops into their head. The more scientific 50% of the crowd here doesn't do it. And it doesn't go unnoticed.

Just too condescending! I don't understand why you think you can come to a site that was around long before you found it, populated by some pretty smart and educated people, and then start criticizing the format and members. You haven't proven you can think at all except like a mindless computer. Hey, we already have plenty of computer think, why not show us what you've got to offer we humans?

And what about the fine art of listening? Do you know why most people don't listen? It's because they want to be the center of the universe, and also usually want to indulge their infatuation with themselves. If this were a nursery for adult children, then maybe that style would be more welcome. Right now, the last thing we need is another raging narcissist.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by Hurkyl
There are many on the forum who believe they
know a lot (and a few of them are quite
justified in that belief), but to my knowledge
we have only one member who thinks dissenting
viewpoints are so obviously wrong they don't
merit any discussion.

I think we got two - there's another one
in the politics forums (a mentor, btw).

LA, about what Mentat was telling you.
Science calls its laws theories for the simple
reason that they are not absolute. Since
they are not absolute you can not use them
to absolutely prove/disprove things.
Free will also seems to defy all reasoning
systems we have so far, but who said we won't
have new ones ? Reasoning systems often have
their source in science - observation which
is in turn, like I said above, not absolute.

Doubt or shout !

Peace and long life.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Not bad for setting up an empirical experiment, but this is the philosophy section. Here people only need to make sense and not contradict facts; further, one even gets to start out with a "fuzzy" idea and see how it goes. Do you not like this? Well, don't forget you can always move on to somewhere that better meets your needs.



Just too condescending! I don't understand why you think you can come to a site that was around long before you found it, populated by some pretty smart and educated people, and then start criticizing the format and members. You haven't proven you can think at all except like a mindless computer. Hey, we already have plenty of computer think, why not show us what you've got to offer we humans?

And what about the fine art of listening? Do you know why most people don't listen? It's because they want to be the center of the universe, and also usually want to indulge their infatuation with themselves. If this were a nursery for adult children, then maybe that style would be more welcome. Right now, the last thing we need is another raging narcissist.

How nice. If you take it as condescending then you're unable to properly comprehend what I am trying to display. I am making a critique based upon the foundation of writing in a logical manner.

If you find something like this an insult, I just have nothing to say.

 

[Adam]

Prove that you can know absolute reality.

As opposed to partial reality?

Define "prove"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=prove

Define "know"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=know

Define "absolute"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=absolute

Define "reality"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=reality

Easy.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "prove"

Show absolute truth of...

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "know"

Be aware of, I guess.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "absolute"

Totally unquestinable - true. The only examples
I can give for this are not from reality, but
from abstract systems - the rules of chess for
example. These abstract systems are absolute
because we defined them.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Define "reality"

The Universe.

You originally said:

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Furthermore, it's widely accepted in the
distinguished scientific community that
everything in reality adheres to reality.

Thus, since reality is reality, it adheres
to a proof. That proof is reality.

And I responded with:

Originally posted by drag
How do you know that you can know absolute
reality and thus make the above relevant ?
Here's an additional task for you then, please,
prove that you can know absolute reality.

Now, if you have no problem with my definitions
above, please, carry on.

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

I have no problems with your definitions. It doesn't matter to me if they agree with mine or not. I merely wanted to see this claim as definied by you. depending on the definitions the answer could change. But I wanted to indeed address your claim.

Adjusted claim:

Provide proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that empirical evidence of reality exists.

Honestly, I still do not understand the claim. I understand you want me to prove something, and to what degree you want it, and obviously you want empirical evidence, but of what?

I wish I could answer this, but alas I am confused. Please help!

Unless my adjusted claim is perfect for what you're asking. If it is then, I think perhaps it's a bit to "fundamentally philosophical".

PS: Adam. Firstly my comments weren't for you. Secondly your attempt at humour or something else isn't taken. Your post was utterly useless to no one. Thirdly, dictionary.com is the lazy mans place to get incorrect and irrelevant definitions when the definition of terms is so important as this.

 

[drag]

Greetings LA !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Adjusted claim:

Provide proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt", that
empirical evidence of reality exists.

Honestly, I still do not understand the claim.
I understand you want me to prove something,
and to what degree you want it, and obviously
you want empirical evidence, but of what?

Of an empirical proof that empirical evidence/proof
of anything in reality exists. After all, you said
it yourself - the proper and advisable way of
discussing subjects here is by presenting claims
and their proofs - justifications. After all, you said:

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
"free will" can be proven or disproven as well
as anything in reality. Absolutely anything in
reality adheres to a method of proof.

------------------------------------

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I wish I could answer this, but alas I am
confused. Please help!

It's quite alright, you're supposed to be...

Live long and prosper.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

My claim still stands. Anything in reality can be proven. I think the burden of proof lies on you. Not me. It's not too much of a scientifically controversial claim. Perhaps philosophers will argue, but surely they won't use an ounce of logic in it.

 

[Adam]

Someone I know says he believes that we are entirely nature and nurture, no free will, and that he is therefore nothing more than a biological automaton. I doubt very much he believes it, but he says it. Why does he say this? Because nature and nurture have been proven, and free will has not. The obvious logical hole in this reasoning is: does this mean we were not influenced by nature at all before the discovery of DNA? Or were we not influenced at all by our environment before the formalised field of psychology? In other words, discovery of the mechanism for something is not the condition required for that thing to exist. This does not prove the existence of free will, however; it merely rules out that sort of half-formed "logic".

Another person I know claims that we can't rationally say free will exists until we know the cause and the mechanism by which it functions. We can observe the effects of gravity and make calculations describing how its effects operate, but as far as I know there is not yet any definitive explanation of a cause or mechanism for it. Thus, by this chap's reasoning, free will and gravity are equally valid or invalid, so tie yourselves down because we're all about to drift away. Obviously this half-logic does not hold water either.

When it comes down to it, the evidence we believe is electrical signals interpreted by the brain. Common consensus conveyed to us through more such signals shows us that the evidence seems correct. And it all relies on us trusting in those electrical signals. Yes, unfortunately, there is trust, or faith, involved even in empirical science. It is the first stage from which all acceptance of any "reality" is formed; that we trust our perceptions, that we are really receiving data from outside our own minds. In short, we make a decision, to be solopsistic or to trust that the world beyond our mind really exists and that the signals coming in are real. If the latter, then we accept that those signals from other people, from our own senses, from experiments and such are valid, at least within the limits of our abilities and knowledge so far.

But free will? Well, people occasionally ascrifice themselves for other people, or for political causes or religions or such. It's quite a stretch to explain away such acts in terms of preserving one's genes for the future. Life generally wants to live. It's also quite a stretch to explain it in terms of environmental factors alone, especially in cultures which actively discourage suicide and such. Why would you pick up an apple to eat for a snack instead of a carrot? Why the chair you're on and not the one next to it? Is there any signal from outside, or any DNA sequence, which makes you do one or the other?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Originally posted by Adam
The obvious logical hole in this reasoning is: does this mean we were not influenced by nature at all before the discovery of DNA? Or were we not influenced at all by our environment before the formalised field of psychology?

Not only is this not obvious, or a hole, it has nothing to do with the argument in your friends logic. I was reading what you said, about your friend. And then when you said this, i thought I had switched windows to another topic. The two had nothing to do with each other. It's a weird psychological event when ones words instantly become something else.

 

[Adam]

One was an analogy for the other. Follow:

No evidence yet for free will -> free will does not exist.

No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not exist and we have never been influenced by it.

DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet before their discovery, we were made of such, influenced by such.

Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell evidence for free will. But that does not rule out the existence of free will.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
My claim still stands. Anything in reality can be proven.

So, you refuse to justify and provide
proof to your own claims ?

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
I think the burden of proof lies on you. Not me.

How so ? You're the one who made a certain claim.
I made no assumptions, I think.

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
It's not too much of a scientifically
controversial claim.

First of all, you're in the philosophy forum
and those were philosophical issues you
discussed. Second, I couldn't care less about
what type of claim it is - you made it, but
you provided no proof. Could've claimed anything
else like God or flying pink ellephants. All
I'm asking for is an explanation for this claim.

Originally posted by Adam
Someone I know says he believes that we are
entirely nature and nurture, no free will,
and that he is therefore nothing more than
a biological automaton. I doubt very much he
believes it, but he says it. Why does he say this?

Because that's what observation = science says.
Everything else is baseless assumptions.
The assumptions supported by observation are
probabalisticly likely. The rest is incomprehensible
(probably - because I can't prove it, though who
know maybe I can, but that does not seem possible
at the moment, although it may be ... ),
just like flying pink ellephants.

Doubt or shout !

Live long and prosper.

 

[Adam]

Because that's what observation = science says.
Everything else is baseless assumptions.

It is unknown exactly how much control over us nature and nurture have. Is it 50%/50%? Or 45/55? Or 40/40/ and 20% free will? This is unknown. Assuming that there is no percentage governed by free will is akin to assuming, upon the establishment of formal schools of psychology, that we are not governed or influenced in any way by genetics.

 

[drag]

Greetings Adam !

Originally posted by Adam
It is unknown exactly how much control over us
nature and nurture have. Is it 50%/50%? Or 45/55?
Or 40/40/ and 20% free will? This is unknown.

Indeed, very complex.

Originally posted by Adam
Assuming that there is no percentage governed by
free will is akin to assuming, upon the establishment
of formal schools of psychology, that we are not
governed or influenced in any way by genetics.

I don't know about psychology, but assuming there
is no percentage governed by free will is
a simple result of the likely fact that we
seemingly do not obseve free will. If we had
some evidence from observation which indicated
that free-will is likely - we may then consider
the percentage.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Adam
One was an analogy for the other. Follow:

No evidence yet for free will -> free will does not exist.

No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not exist and we have never been influenced by it.

DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet before their discovery, we were made of such, influenced by such.

Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell evidence for free will. But that does not rule out the existence of free will.

Excellent reasoning Adam, but I got your point the first time you made it. Maybe a certain person here didn't get it because HE ISN'T LISTENING.

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Well, your statements are clear, however they are inapplicable, and therefore false in their conclusions. You're using some kind of philosophical paradoxical idea. But this has no basis in reality.

Thanks .

To say free will is present is to say that all of the agents of causation (we know of at any particular time) that indeed could be used to "predict" a given event (however hard it is doesn't matter, merely that it is possible) are not the complete list of agents of causation.

And it is the same to postulate that our futures are predestined, as it requires that there be a "predestinator".

If we use the scientific method to study such agents known at a given time, using of course a vary simple subject of atoms or perhaps something smaller.

And we do indeed continuously predict the outcome, would you agree that it's looking favorable at least, that our agents are all that is at causation?

Now I ask you. in our world of atoms, and things lesser than that ONLY...

Does not a chemical reaction always produce the predicted results, when done correctly?

When done correctly, does Newton's laws (or equal laws more paplicable to all in the universe) always predict outcomes?

Do all the other laws and accepted theories indeed produce predictable laws so much to the extent at which we have the knowledge to do so currently, and please without nitpicking details.

Sure, this is all true, but I'm not talking about the subatomic world. In turn, I ask you this: In the subatomic world, is there such a thing as consciousness? If not, then you have two choices: 1) abandon the idea that all of reality can be explained by a reductionist approach, or 2) find consciousness in the subatomic world.

My point being ultimately. You're using a pradoxical language statement. But in the world it has no application.

I didn't use a paradoxical (self-contradictory) statement, at any point in any of these posts.

One more point: With all due respect, shouldn't you address my argument directly, instead of side-stepping it with one of your own?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by drag


Mentat, sometimes you talk too much...

I know.

 

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Because given the understanding that QM and GR disagree, it's therefore (at its current state) not a very reliable concept is it?

From that, I choose to say that neither of them could produce such a result as to say "randomness exists". Sure they could produce a number value which could be correct up to some point. But to prove the falsitiy or truth to a claim, I won't accept that from a theory that science agress has some flaw in its compatibility.

...

I do not accept the claim that randomness is existant. Despite the fact that my theory I have yet to post here states that in fact the entire course of the "universe" is indeed predetermined (and no one has yet to show me my error) I don't find that grim.

The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.

1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.

If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?

Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.

Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of quantum mechanics states that the standard deviation of a position probability density function (pdf) times the standard deviation of a momentum pdf for the same particle is no less than one half h-bar.

If we assume the universe is deterministic, then, in principle, the position and momentum of a particle can be determined precisely. IOW, the standard deviation of the pdf's for position and momentum would be zero. However, this violates the HUP because zero times zero is less than one half h-bar, therefore the assumption is incorrect and the universe is nondeterministic.

Actually, this just proves that the subatomic world is nondeterministic, doesn't it? What if larger objects are predestined/determined? I mean, I know that the Uncertainty Principle would apply to them also, but that doesn't mean that it applies to their conscious choices (except as a limiting factor).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by DrChinese
The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.

1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.

If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?

Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.

Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?

Just out of curiosity, how does SR contradict determinism?

 

[LogicalAtheist]

DrChinese - You completely and totally missed the entire concept behind what I said. Everything you said I overlooked is the very things I was pointing out.

In fact, your argument is identical to mine. Somehow you managed to not understand a word I said.

By the way bub, QM and GR are not at all supported by experimentation without exception.

By there very nature they make up for each others incorrect answers. Perhaps you should learn more about them before speaking on them.

You say: "Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. "

Which is exactly what you have done, and opposite of what I have done.

You dare to say that QM and GR always give right answers, when indeed both of them give different answers to the same problem? It's logically impossible

Again I suggest you study them a bit further.

Originally posted by DrChinese
The assumptions you are making are both numerous and experimentally falsifiable.

1. QM supported by experiment without exception.
2. GR supported by experiment without exception.
3. Particle randomness demonstrated without exception.
4. Uncertainty principle demonstrated without exception.
etc. etc.

If you choose to close your eyes to results you do not want to accept, don't expect others to follow you. As to your statement about your "magic" theory - which you choose not to show - has not been shown to have an error (notice the logic error in your thinking there)... why don't you place it in Theory Development?

Meanwhile: Predestination has been ruled out by experiment if SR (c=speed of light) is respected. By the way, SR is also supported by experiment without exception.

Advancing a theory against a mountain of evidence is no easy task. Can you put forth a theory that a) fits existing experimental results; b) is different in its predictions than existing theory; AND c) is falsible?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

LA, are you avoiding from continuing our discussion
about your claim that everything can be
proved/disproved ?

Originally posted by Adam
One was an analogy for the other. Follow:

No evidence yet for free will -> free will does
not exist.

No discovery of DNA yet -> genetics does not
exist and we have never been influenced by it.

DNA and genes and all was unknown before. Yet
before their discovery, we were made of such,
influenced by such.

Thus far, I can find no physical show-and-tell
evidence for free will. But that does not rule
out the existence of free will.

Indeed, nothing rules out anything.
However, since it's existence is apparently not
proved there is no reason to making any use of it.
There is no reason to assigning any "percentage
of consciousness" to it or using it as part
of other theories, the same way that I wouldn't
use a mathematical equation unless I knew it
makes sense - valid within math(which is different
because math is an abstract system but nevertheless
applicable for the example I wanted to provide here).

Live long and prosper.

 

[Alexander]

LogicalAtheist, the determinism in our universe is prohibited by mathematics. Turns out that every object in out universe is a wave. For a wave a position and momentum are mathematically entangled (by their definition) properties - they are Fourier images of each other. For Fourier entangled values their spreads are inversely proportional (product of spread of momentum with spread of position is constant).

Thus the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, thus mathematical undeterminism of objects in universe - just because they happen to be waves.

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
You're concept is on the Biological level, sound.

I do believe that I have created a theory that, on the level of physics, proves not only that their is no free will, but the greater claim is that the entire course of EVERYTHING in a given universe (as a closed system) is absolutely predetermined.

I have never shared this theory with anyone. Partly because I didn't have anyone to talk about it with, and partly (without sounding insane) because I feel it's something someone might steal from me.

If there are any physics gurus here, I wish to talk about it safely. Any offers?

Anyhow - based on the evidence you have provided, and on my professional knowledge of Biology, I would say define free will. And then I'll tell you if we have it! But I mostly agree with you.

Don't be affraid of your idea being "stolen". The very idea is rather old, and was put forward by Laplace, it goes under the name of determinism.
Determinism is exactly like that. It states that when we would theoretically have the knowledge about all things (all material objects, all forces) we could then in principle know the entire future of the material world.

Modern physics have left this idea, because of new physics phenomena, that radically eliminate the possibility of total determinism.

 

[The Opiner]

Alexander,

I can accept that "ultimately" everything is waves. But, don't these waves follow some system of physical laws. Heck, doesn't everything?! I don't care much if we have to describe them in terms of probability functions or whatever. If they follow physical laws then cannot waves be said to be "determined". Why does Determinism fail here? What in the universe could possibly cause something to happen withour a preceeding cause? This stuff is either way above me or way below me. :)

 

[Alexander]

Determinism fails with waves for strictly mathematical reason: a wave has certain mathematical relationship between position and momentum which follows from: a). definition of position of wave b). definition of momentum of wave. Fourier entanglement of wavelength spread dk with position spread dL for a wave (dk x dL = 1) follows from a) and b) mathematically.

Basicly, position and momentum (as well as energy and time) are mathematical inverse mirror images of each other. Thus you can't have "sharper" one without "blurring" the other.

By other words, spread of momentum (call it a) and spread of position (call it b) for a wave is simply one and the same thing, but expressed by inverse quantities: a=1/b.

Thus the uncertainty principle: ab=1

 

[The Opiner]

Thanks Alexander for trying (once again) to explain this to me. Like I said in a previous post, I just don't follow the math and I don't find it convincing in itself (although I accept the criticism that this is because I am ignorant here). I can follow arguments in words, though. So is there any way to answer my specific questions, as stated, in words? Maybe they are inappropriate questions somehow.