Nowhere357

What about the existence of randomness? Assuming randomness exists, doesn't that indicate that identical situations do not of necessity imply the same outcome?

The selection of possible choices exist, as a state of mind. The ability to choose exists, as an ability of the mind. The actual choice is not known until the ability to choose is applied.

Yes, but it's fun to try!.

fishbulb

If you give a term like "free will" to a metaphysicist or theologian, he or she will return it to you devoid of any sense or meaning. Free will as discussed by theologians and metaphysicians is a nonsense concept. Apart from the everyday notion that you act out of free will if you are able to make the choice you want without undue coercion from external forces, I have never seen a definition of free will that is even remotely coherent, much less sensible.

If we take the everyday notion of free will, then we all have some degree of free will, but we also all face times when we feel forced to make the wrong choice.

We also know that people's actions are dependent on circumstances, experience, personality, and so forth. So in a given situation, you may have a number of choices to make, but there is only one choice you will make. If you could somehow move time back, erase your memory, and replay the exact same scenario, presumably you would make the exact same choice every time, because the circumstances that led you to make the choice in the first place are the same. (Unless you want to argue that some random quantum fluctuations might change the result, but if that is the case, you still have no more or less "control" over your decision as you did the first time.)

So the answer is, both. We cannot control the situations we are put in, and the decisions we make are a function of a complex set of variables. Any meaningful idea of free will is irrelevant to this; free will has nothing to do with whether or not the choices you make are the inevitable outcomes of the circumstances you find yourself in.

Nowhere357

The existence of randomness contradicts your statement.

The possibility exists that the mind affects the brain. Does this seem controversial to you?

I understand this view. But I find it insufficient and flawed, because I have direct experience of my abilty to choose. I fail to see the wisdom of denying a fact.

Just curious: if our minds do not affect our brains, then their existence is of no consequence - to the universe, it is precisely as if they don't exist. Thus they cannot affect our ability to survive.

So why have we evolved with minds?

Amaranth

It does directly invalidate any sort of "You would always do X when presented with Y" type statement. However, this still doesn't prove, or even show, the existance of will. This just adds another layer of physics that adds into the complexity of the decision making "code."

Here's the question, Nowhere - Where, exactly, does this "free will" come from? We have in existance a number of things that happen because of various things impacting them, and very minute things that happen randomly. Where, exactly, does the human decision come in - Where is the choice?

I see none.

Perhaps, but you are positing that the mind is no longer just physics in action. You have created what looks to me like a shadow of the theists "soul", a non-defined entity which goes above and beyond natural law.

And this is the illusion.

Our minds are a grand evolutionary boon, one which has allowed us to become the distinctly dominate species of the world. Would you care to explain why choice is an evolutionary boon compared to hard-wired and learned responses?

And please - Neither free will nor determinism is a fact.

Nowhere357

I agree.

If you had said "decision making process" then I would agree. But "code" sounds like "computer code" and no computer has ever generated a sentient mind, afaik.

The living brain generates or produces a mind. The mind has two qualities or properties that I'm aware of. The passive quality of awareness and the active quality of will. We have direct experience of both of these qualities. That's my take on it.

I don't understand the exact interface between mind and brain. I think the individual physical activities in the brain (neurons, chemicals, quantum activity) inter-relate in abstract ways - and there is not a 1-1 corespondance between the mind and brain. That is, if you stimulate a portion of the brain, the outcome is not the same each time, even though the initial conditions are.

Now consider that a mind experienced the stimulation - and isn't that something that really happens? How the mind feels about that experience is the factor that may be different, the factor that changes the physical outcome.

[/theorymode]

No, the mind is natural. And it exists. The former because the natural universe is all that exists, and the latter because I have one. That's where I start from. I try not to poisen the well with the theistic baggage. That crap is not my fault.

But maybe you define the words differently than I do. When you mentally feel something with your subjective awareness, is that illusion? Is pain real, or not?

I agree. Now, how do they allow us to do anything, unless the mind can affect the brain? That was the question, and your reply doesn't seem to address it.

It allows us to override our instincts and reflexes. We can hold our breath, or approach danger, or ignore our hunger, for a few examples. Can you see how these things can help ensure survival? We use will to change our hard-wired and learned responses.

Now answer this - if our minds do not affect our brains, then their existence is of no consequence - to the universe, it is precisely as if they don't exist. Thus they cannot affect our ability to survive. So why have we evolved with minds?

When we say "fact", I think we mean something that is available for independant confirmation. It's available to everyone. We consider facts to be objective. Does this sound right?

But a mind is available for direct examination only to that particular mind! It is subjective in nature, and so can't be objectively confirmed.

There is a strong corelation between the mind and the brain, of course. Pain and neuron activity are related. The neuron activity is a fact, correct? But what about the pain? It is a fact that people report pain, but is it a fact that pain was felt?

When I said "I have direct experience of my abilty to choose. I fail to see the wisdom of denying a fact", the fact IS my direct experience, and thus available only to me. (It was MY wisdom I was talking about there, not yours). It's not an objective fact that can ever be proven to anyone else.

Does that mean I don't really exist as far as the universe is concerned?

fishbulb

Please don't take things out of context. The final sentence of that paragraph addressed this very issue.

What is a mind?

Of course you do. But there are lots of choices that are available to you that you never would make. What makes you pick one option from a range of apparently available options if not your knowledge, experience, psychology, biology, and external events and influences? How else could people predict what someone else will do with any degree of accuracy?

What is the alternative? If the choices we make are not a function of our experience, psychology, biology, and circumstance, how do we decide what to do?


You seem to imply that a mind is some sort of independent entity and not merel a prosaic description of the electrochemical processes that take place within the brain and nervous system. What, exactly, do you think a mind is and why do you think we have them?

Nowhere357

A subjective mental awareness. They arise from life forms with sufficiently advanced central nervous systems.

If I'm paying attention - ie applying will - then it depends on how I feel.

Even the most predictable person can surprise us, don't you agree?

Introspection. Only you know how you feel about something.

I see no evidence that the mind is an independant entity. And "prosaic" is not a good word here - it means "unimaginative" and that's not a good description for a mind, which includes the imagination! Substitute "abstract" and I agree with the rest of the statement.

A mind is a subjective mental awareness, and I don't know why they exist. I do think that they are good for natural selection - they help with survival.

The possibility exists that the mind affects the brain. Does this seem controversial to you?

If our minds do not affect our brains, then their existence is of no consequence - to the universe, it is precisely as if they don't exist. Thus they cannot affect our ability to survive. So why have we evolved with minds?

SimplyAtheistic

I suppose we should agree on a set of definitions so we aren't arguing pointless topics here Anyways, I define free will as the ability of someone to make a choice that cannot be determined beforehand. Such as that a computer could in no way simulate it and figure out their choices before being made. Since we understand the laws of physics, if we had a computer powerful enough we could do this. I know you would bring about the quantam argument, but it is pointless. We know how molecules interact on a larger scale, and the randomness of the quantam particles would not affect the human mind.

We are very comparable to digital computers. Our choices are determined, and according to my definition, this does deny free will. You might have a different definition though.

Actually, the body is just like a computer program, but the code has been randomly assembeled. If the code was bad, the organism died, i.e. natural selection. I'm glad we got this out of the way.

Yes.

I gave my definition above in this post, and I think your definition differs a bit.

The computer wouldn't have sentinence, it would require its own brain for that. This is simply a simulator. It reports back, nothing else.

Yes, pain is an illusion. It has no bearing in the physical world. It is a metaphysical feeling. The neuron firing by itself means nothing. But to your metaphysical state (i.e. your consciousness), it creates pain.

The quantam physics issue has no bearing on this discussion.

Duplicate in a digital sense.

I think our current physics can do an adequate job of describing reality. Our choices are STILL pre-determined.

Decision - A path a conscious being elects over other possible paths. Predetermine - The future events are the only possible events to occur. Will - The ability of a being to make choices. Free Will - The ability of someone to make a choice that cannot be determined beforehand. Laws of physics - Well, the laws of physics.
No bearing on this issue.
Jake

Amaranth

A self-aware mind? No. One that can learn and go beyond, and even re-write, its initial programming? Yes.

[link=http://www.uqac.ca/~pdelisle/Fichiers/EWOMP2001-Final.pdfThis[/link] was written by a friend of mine who does work in AI. Specifically, this deals with parrallel implemtation of an "Ant Colony."

You've just begged the question, bud. "Free will exists because part of the mind is free will."

Considering the minute differences in neurons, chemicals, and the random quantom activity, this does not seem at all unlikely. First, I sincerely doubt any study which claims to have had identical conditions of the brain throughout multiple tests - This simply does not seem possible, considering the factors involved, and the changes in the brain that must take place after an experience (think memory, here). Secondly, even given such circumstaces, this merely further shows the impact of quantum physics on the mind - not this still ethereal "will."

Are you stipulating that emotion is the basis, or major contributing factor, of free will? If so - It has been definately shown that chemicals can induce emotional changes. Some may call that chemistry, but...."There is only physics. Everything else is just stamp collecting."

As you have postulated it to exist, it does not necessarily exist. You are begging the question again.

That is not an illusion. The thought that follows, that feels ever-so-much like a decision, is no decision at all. We take the path that is necessitated by physics - We have no control. We have no "will."

It seems to me that our "mind" is nothing more than our perceptions of that which happens in the brain, our interpretation, our "monitor", if you will (and you won't). Now, let's turn this around - How, exactly and definitely, does the mind affect the brain? We have defined the brain thus far as the physical things in our heads - Where is this ethereal mind going to exert its influence, and how?

As can a dog, monkey, cat, dolphin, cow, horse...Do all animals, and mammals in particular, have this free will? Or is it more likely that code, the type of code that men can and do write into computers today, allows itself to be re-written for effectiveness?

Who knows? I would remind you that if it does serve no purpose that it would not be the first case of an evolutionary "side effect."

I'm going to have to go sifting through E/C for this one, aren't I? Le sigh....

Perhaps. I wouldn't consider myself worth notice in something as large as this Galaxy, let alone the universe, though, so I wouldn't let it get to yeah

Anyways, on a personal note: It is my sincerest wish that the vast majority of the population never drops the illusion of free will. The reprecussions sound...icky.

Nowhere357

That's a lot in one paragraph. You've defined free will as not determined beforehand, and I assume to you that means predetermined. And you imply that the laws of physics show reality is predetermined. So you seem to be defining the words in a way that presupposes your conclusion that the laws of physics contradict free will.

I would agree to the definition if it's understood that determined beforehand and predetermined are not the same thing.

We do not fully understand all the laws of physics. Our understanding of macro physics involves things like statistics and the Bell curve, and these involve randomness. Things as complex as weather and minds may require quantum physics for a full understanding.

We agree randomness exists, correct? Imagine that the result of a die roll is truly random (which it may since things like air currents are involved, and quantum indetermancy may play a role). Is the result of the roll determined beforehand? Is the result of the roll predetermined?

I would say that the result of the roll was not predetermined, because it was random. I would say the result of the roll was determined beforehand, and the result was a random selection within a range (1..6).

So our choices may be predetermined, but the results are not. If you don't like this distinction between predetermined and determined beforehand then I would object to your definition of free will.

The body is similar but not just like. Computer programs do not have minds.

No, we do not fully comprehend the physics involved with the emergence of mind. Our scientific knowledge is not omniscient. Unless you have proof?

But minds are sentient, so if a computer has a mind, the computer is sentient. So I don't understand what you mean.

How would we recoginize sentience?

Then I have no understanding of your use of the word "illusion". You actually have no subjective awareness?

And of course pain has bearing in the physical world. Creatures react to pain, it affects their behavior - and behavior affects the world.

I agree with this. You agree the feeling exists. Then how can it be illusion?

Yes it does. This point stands: There is plenty of room in physics for the existence of mind, awareness and will. They are part of natural reality.

A simulation is not the thing simulated. The map is not the terrain.

To even approach full understanding, we must include quantum physics. Quantum randomness is not predetermined. If the behavior of matter can be seen as not predetermined, then certainly so can complex things like minds.

I can accept these, if choices means decisions.

Why the difference between this and will? Also, remember determined beforehand and predetermined mean different things here, by my definitions.

Is everything predetermined due to the laws of physics?

I think there is. Quantum physics is involved in the existence of mind.