Is free will an illusion?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

We know now that the existence is governed by fundamental laws. We don't know all the laws, we probably don't know any of them exactly...but we know many of them very well, and we certainly know them well enough to know that the laws of physics are very real.

Thus, all the matter in existence is just like wheels in a clock. Each new action is simply a result of previous actions, and everything is predictable by the laws. At least, nobody has found anything that's NOT predictable yet...so it stands to reason that there is nothing that can't be predicted by a the laws.

If you go down to a small enough scale, nothing can be predicted exactly...the laws are all probabilistic rather than deterministic...at least that is the predominant theory. I'll be honest, I don't believe in probabilistic laws...I believe in all the math, and that they work, but these laws were derived via experimentation and adopted because they worked...which could certainly be the case if there were further, extremely complicated and seemingly "random" deterministic laws that resulted in the appearance of probabilistic nature of things. Anyways, I'm going off on a tangent...whether you believe that the laws on a small scale are probabilistic or not doesn't really matter. There are still laws one way or the other.

Our brains, being a part of this universe and it's laws, are also subject to these laws. Thus, each reaction that occurs is determinable by the laws of physics. It may seem as though my thoughts are my own...but these laws tell us that each thought is simply a direct and predictable result of previous thoughts / sensory input. Thus, I may have the appearance of free will....but each step of the process is inevitable.

Note: inevitable not planned.

Now, there are only two possibilities that could allow for the concept of free will. One of them is that not everything must be governed by the laws of physics...and the other is that there are some laws which are yet to be determined which are neither probabilistic nor deterministic, but that allow for choice in the conscious mind.

What do you think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,568 • Replies: 52

No top replies

It really depends on what you mean by free will.

To most people free will simply mean the ability to choose. Since we are a part of the cause and effect system, and rational, we are essentially choosing.

0 Replies

I mean the ability to choose. Is there actually any choice, or are all of our decisions deterministic? If our brains are governed by the same laws of physics as everything else in the universe, that suggests that there is really never a "choice" to be made, because all of our decisions could be determined by knowing the precise physical state of our brain and simply calculating the result of the physical equations.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I mean the ability to choose. Is there actually any choice, or are all of our decisions deterministic? If our brains are governed by the same laws of physics as everything else in the universe, that suggests that there is really never a "choice" to be made, because all of our decisions could be determined by knowing the precise physical state of our brain and simply calculating the result of the physical equations.

What's this 'we' or 'I', you refer to in the question 'are we determined'?

0 Replies

Ah...I never mentioned "we" and that wasn't my question, so I will assume you are referring to my question of, "are all our decisions deterministic?"

This means, can our decisions that we think we are making actually be predicted before we make them simply by solving equations of laws of science.

For instance, when you roll a dice...that is not really random. You could easily solve for the side that will turn up based on the spacial position of all matter involved, as well as the state of all matter involved...like velocity, etc.

Now, to be consistent with the modern theories of science, as I said earlier we don't know that anything will exactly happen from a law..we can only calculate the random probabilities that things will happen...but in the case of something like rolling a dice, where the scale of things is so large, it is practically deterministic rather than probabilistics.

Usually when people talk about free will, they are talking about the freedom to choose...about having a power to make changes in one's life.

So...the question is...does our mind obey these same laws of physics, meaning that there is only 1 choice that we could ever make in any situation....meaning that we THINK we are making choices, but really, those choices are determinable.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Ah...I never mentioned "we" and that wasn't my question, so I will assume you are referring to my question of, "are all our decisions deterministic?"

This means, can our decisions that we think we are making actually be predicted before we make them simply by solving equations of laws of science.

For instance, when you roll a dice...that is not really random. You could easily solve for the side that will turn up based on the spacial position of all matter involved, as well as the state of all matter involved...like velocity, etc.

Now, to be consistent with the modern theories of science, as I said earlier we don't know that anything will exactly happen from a law..we can only calculate the random probabilities that things will happen...but in the case of something like rolling a dice, where the scale of things is so large, it is practically deterministic rather than probabilistics.

Usually when people talk about free will, they are talking about the freedom to choose...about having a power to make changes in one's life.

So...the question is...does our mind obey these same laws of physics, meaning that there is only 1 choice that we could ever make in any situation....meaning that we THINK we are making choices, but really, those choices are determinable.

Yes, so what is this 'we' or 'I' that you refer to? Why is it distinct from the causal body?

0 Replies

I don't believe you actually read my reply.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I don't believe you actually read my reply.

The decisions that 'we' make..what is this 'we' (or 'I', or 'our') that is distinct from the causal apparatus of the brain?

0 Replies

The basis of my argument does not rely on a distinction between a person and their brain. You may consider a person to be their consciousness, their brain, their body, or any combination of the above according to your beliefs. Either way, people make decisions using their brains.

0 Replies

Stuh, it is most likely that our brains follow physical laws. However, it does not mean that we are not making choices. At the moment in time when we are making choices, all of the factors, whether good or bad, that lead to the action is at that time a part of our choice.

As to your claim about one choice, you're assuming that the future has already happened. When the past has happened and we are looking back at it, we can say that such and such is caused by these factors, but the future has not happened yet, at least for us, and in such a circumstance, we are determining what we would do or not do, and of course we will pick a certain decision. This is choice. It does not have to be free of cause, it merely has to be preceded by analysis. At least that's how I view it. Cheers. :wink:

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

The basis of my argument does not rely on a distinction between a person and their brain. You may consider a person to be their consciousness, their brain, their body, or any combination of the above according to your beliefs. Either way, people make decisions using their brains.

Right. Then, if I am my brain, how can it control 'me'?

0 Replies

This comes down to the definition of choice. If my choice in a certain matter can be predicted with certainty, is it still a choice?

According to my understanding of the word, a choice is the result of the mental process of choosing. Since no process is random (it wouldn't be a process if it were) it follows that choices are predictable. To me this does not contradict the meaning of the word choice, to you it apparantly does.

Imagine if choices were not the result of processes, but were instead completely random. Would you still consider them to be choices then, or would that make for a contradiction?

0 Replies

I just reread what I wrote, and I feel the need to clarify.

A choice, as I understand it, can never be completely random. When one set of particles appear out of several possible combinations, after two other particles impact, in a supercolider, I do not consider this event a choice precisely because it is random, because there is no mental process involved. A mental process, to the extent that it is a process, is deterministic, or it would not be a process in the first place.

Something being a choice is not only compatible with it being predictable or predetermined, it hinges upon it.

0 Replies

Einherjar, your explanation is quite clear...and the point you bring up is one that I have been considering.

I believe that the intuitive, and perhaps naive, definition of a choice would be a situation where there are multiple actions possible, and that your conscious mind is capable of choosing any one of those actions.

You and Ray seem perfectly happy to go along with a different definition of choice, saying that a choice is simply an action chosen by the brain -- the critical difference between these definitions being that in your definition, there is only one physically possible action that will be chosen by the brain from any particular state.

Your definition is perfectly acceptable, and perfectly logical. However, it makes our brains fundamentally equivalent to calculators!

This implication is difficult to accept for one simple reason: unlike calculators, we are self aware. Perhaps something about this mysterious self awareness actually allows the inner workings of our mind/consciousness to transcend the limitations of the laws of physics?

It sounds kind of ridiculous...but I think the thought also has a somewhat compelling ring of truth to it. Remember that the laws of physics which we are so adherent to are merely the results of our measurements in experiments, and there are enough unanswered questions on the small scale that we don't know WHY these laws exist or HOW they really work, we simply know that they appear to work.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

Einherjar, your explanation is quite clear...and the point you bring up is one that I have been considering.

.

The explanation does not work, but places the problem at a further remove.
Again, if I am my brain and the processes in my brain, how does it make sense to say 'I am affected by 'my' brain'. You have not answered this but seem to content to drag out your puzzlement.

0 Replies

Quote:

"We know now that the existence is governed by fundamental laws. We don't know all the laws, we probably don't know any of them exactly...but we know many of them very well, and we certainly know them well enough to know that the laws of physics are very real."

Wrong ! We don't know what "existence" or "reality" are ! See for example Einstein's quote on "reality" or a recent thread here on the possible equivalence of "information" and "reality".

But even if the reductionist argument about the illusion of free will is built on philosophical "naive realism" there may still be grounds for delimiting the concept to the status of "sociological functionality" rather than assigning it some theistic origin. In other words the concept fills the general need for "culpability" within a legal system subject of course to the counter arguments of "mitigating circumstances" within specific social microcosms.

0 Replies

stuh505 wrote:

I believe that the intuitive, and perhaps naive, definition of a choice would be a situation where there are multiple actions possible, and that your conscious mind is capable of choosing any one of those actions.

You and Ray seem perfectly happy to go along with a different definition of choice, saying that a choice is simply an action chosen by the brain -- the critical difference between these definitions being that in your definition, there is only one physically possible action that will be chosen by the brain from any particular state.

Will is rarely free, since in many situations a mind is simply not capable of choosing some of the actions seemingly available to it. While I could theoretically choose to beat my kids, shoot my husband, rob a bank, ram my car into a crowd of people, or run naked down main street, my mind has acquired enough restraints over the years that it would be virtually impossible for me to actually choose to do any of these things (yes, I can dream up extreme scenarios in which my conditioning could be overridden, but coercion negates free will). Some people find it impossible to speak before a group, resist an offered dessert or cigarettes or drugs, control anger, or say no, even when some part of their mind chooses to do so.

We all start with infant brains that are wired with instincts and the ability to learn. Our brains are then modified by experiences, education, conditioning, the values we learn by osmosis, the food we eat, drugs, trauma, and even our own thoughts when we obsess about something. Many of the choices we make are predictable by someone who knows our personality and past history. But are we robots who are predestined to make certain choices, or can a mind/soul with character and self-discipline override the brain?

Maybe. It is possible that the mind (I mean the non-material sense of self that is generated when the brain is activated) can take all of the information that it has available, consider its options and their effects, and make the optimal choice in spite of its own penchant for making a different one. The mind uses neural networks that are probably more like chaotic systems than deterministic computer circuits, and are therefore responsive to tiny input changes (new data) and feedback from the mind itself. The decision making process does not simply add up the pros and cons, but adds emotional weighting, perceived risk/benefit analysis, intangibles such as social standing and self-satisfaction.

0 Replies

You cannot distinguish between 'I' and brain to be able to say 'I am controlled by my brain'.

How many times must I point this mistake out to you all? It shatters your arguments.

0 Replies

Okay, JJ, go out and run over some children at your local school.

0 Replies

You cannot distinguish between 'I' and brain to be able to say 'I am controlled by my brain'.

Sniff it. Kick it. Or set fire to it. It's here. In front of you. That's it. End of argument.

0 Replies

Is free will an illusion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know