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

[axe]

Originally posted by Mattius_
Let me start here... There are two known variables which fabricate a persons behavior. One being genetics, the other being enviroment...

it does not matter the proportion of each. the only thing that matters is that they are unchangebable by the person under the influence of these two variables...

I agree with Adam. The fallacy begins...at the beginning.

We've gone from
1) there are two known variables that influence a person's behaviour
to
2) these two variables are unchangeable by the person under the influence of these two variables

The suppressed premise inherent in 2) is that there are ONLY two variables that influence a person's behaviour. This is a huge (perhaps infinite - but don't like throwing that word around) leap from premise 1.

And LogicalAtheists attempt at rescuing this argument is equally fallacious:

"Adam - He's not making any assumption. He displayed the two known factors in behavior. Free-Will is not a known factor, mainly because it doesn't exist at all."

To say that something is not a known factor is completely different from saying that "it doesn't exist at all". The fact of the matter is that what we know ABOUT the two variables we began with, that is, the extent to which we can operationalise and measure them, grossly underdetermines actual human behaviour. So to conclude that free will is "deductively ruled out" by this knowledge is a gross overstatement.

 

[drag]

Greetings !

The Opiner, are you familiar with the
theory of Quantum Mechanics ?
If you familiarize yourself with this theory
it will help you understand why classical
determinism is no longer considered a valid
concept.

Axe, welcome to PF !
btw, I fully agree with you.

Live long and prosper.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by axe

. . . To say that something is not a known factor is completely different from saying that "it doesn't exist at all". The fact of the matter is that what we know ABOUT the two variables we began with, that is, the extent to which we can operationalise and measure them, grossly underdetermines actual human behaviour. So to conclude that free will is "deductively ruled out" by this knowledge is a gross overstatement.

Good points.

In terms of a deduction, the evidence doesn't support ruling out other possible factors yet. We know genetics influences some things, and we know environment influences, but we cannot conclusively connect genetics and environment to every human trait.

For example, how will we account for creativity or courage or will? Mozart is writing music at age four . . . locate the gene, or prove sufficient environmental influence. A jetliner crashes in an icey river; a middle-aged man, out of shape, nearly frozen insists a young woman go ahead of him into the rescue helicopter and then drowns himself . . . locate the gene, or prove sufficient environmental influence. Someone is a drug addict, petty thief, and lazy and aimless bum. One day he decides to change and so gets into college and finishes, and goes on to become a decent human being. What genetic and environmental factors can be proven to account for his will power to change?

So the problem is that all human traits cannot be proven to be caused by genetics and environment, and therefore a deductive proof is impossible. Plus, as Zero pointed out, it does at least appear (to many anyway) that humans have free will. Since genetics and environment cannot account for everything at this time, free will deserves consideration for a place in any model of human consciousness.

 

[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.

Originally posted by Mentat
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).

I'd appreciate a response, please.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Mentat
I'd appreciate a response, please.

Just a SWAG... I don't think he really knows
what "conscious choice" means, niether do I.

 

[Hurkyl]

I'd appreciate a response, please.

Sorry!

No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...

However, the type of nondeterminism, I believe, guarantees nondeterminism in the macroscopic world (though it may be very rare to see it occur)

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by The Opiner
So is there any way to answer my specific questions, as stated, in words?

Simply speaking, a wave train (= bunch of oscillations) does not have exact position.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sorry!

No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...

True in statistical sense. Basicly, math says that uncertainty or spread of parameters in the system of N "wavicles" is proportional to sqrt(N) (notice here - not to N, because some uncertanties may by chance have opposite sign, and some positive sign).

And because the system have N particles, then RELATIVE uncertainty (= per particle) is sqrt(N)/N=1/sqrt(N) and becomes smaller and smaller as N increases.

Say, one molecule of nitrogen (=air) has spread of kinetic energy of order of 50-80% from average, but 100 molecules - sqrt(100) = 10 times less - only 5-8%, and the energy of million molecules is only 0.05-0.08% spread.

Thus temperature of a million molecules (=average kinetic energy per molecule) can be mathematically defined down to about 0.1 % (and not much better).

 

[Mentat]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Sorry!

No, nondeterminism of the microscopic world does not necessarily mean the macroscopic world is nondeterministic...

However, the type of nondeterminism, I believe, guarantees nondeterminism in the macroscopic world (though it may be very rare to see it occur)

Yes, it does guarantee that ones condition is non-determined, but what if it's undetermined nature was pre-determined? Also, what about conscious choices?