Determinism and Free Will

[Jimmy]

Does science leave room for "free will"?

Does man have a "soul," separate from Nature, that is "responsible" for his actions? When, in the 14 billion year history of the Universe, did this "soul" arise?

Do animals have "free will"?

To what extent is legal and moral responsibility justified and to what extent is it an outgrowth of our primitive desires for retribution and vengeance?

How does our nature and nurture factor into our decision making? What about mental defects? Are we responsible for the inner mechanics of our brain?

Discuss.

 

[Mandingo]

There are some things that we are responsible for, and there are some things that just come naturally. There has always been a huge debate about nature v. nurture, however I honestly think that we humans have a balance of both, kind of like ying and yang. One can not exist without the other.

 

[malakadang]

Does science leave room for "free will"?

I would say yes. We all have first hand empirical evidence regarding the existence of free will, since in our everyday lives we are faced with a large number of choices to take. Then I'm not sure specifically what 'science' would say, but perhaps cause-effect, etc etc, therefore our choices are an illusion. To me it's just not conclusive enough, but if you framed the question by saying the question by saying 'Science has absolutely destroyed the concept of free will', then I would say no, so clearly some room must be left for it, not matter how slight that room may be.

Does man have a "soul," separate from Nature, that is "responsible" for his actions? When, in the 14 billion year history of the Universe, did this "soul" arise?

If by that you mean a non-physical entity, or something to that extent, I don't believe in a non-physical world due to lack of evidence. It's possible but, even if it were true, we have 0 understanding about this non-physical world so your latter question is impossible to answer.

Do animals have "free will"?

If you think free-will is derived from mans faculty of reason, and you agree that certain animals have at least this faculty to a far lesser extent, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they have free will, but to a lesser extent. This question kind of requires a definition of free will.

To what extent is legal and moral responsibility justified and to what extent is it an outgrowth of our primitive desires for retribution and vengeance?

The real question is, if someones reprehensible actions are entirely out of their control, should they still be held accountable? In any other scenario, the answer would seem no. If Y holds a gun to your head, and tells you to shoot X, to me you really didn't have any other choice, but the responsibility is not on you, but on Y, since they were the ultimate cause of your action. The ultimate cause of your action if you do not have free-will however, can't be attribtued to anyone else this way. You can't say that environmental factors are to blame, as you would be then blaming everyone else, including the victim, but not the person doing the act. So then, what is to blame is your genetics etc. If you accept that you had no control over your actions, but your internal factors are to blame, then you should be held responsible, if for no other reason than the fact you are deterministically immoral, and your existence wouldn't be conducive to the society we want to live in (generally speaking).

How does our nature and nurture factor into our decision making? What about mental defects? Are we responsible for the inner mechanics of our brain?

Cbf discussing.

 

[Visci]

Isn't the biggest factor in determinism the effect of the beta-principle?

That if you are being controlled/influenced by something else, you are not truly in control? It reads almost irrefutably, but when put into practice it gets a bit hazy.

If you are influenced by your previous decisions and things that have happened to you, are you truly, 100% in control? No, you can't really say you are. Makes arguing against determinism really, really hard.

These aren't your essay questions, are they..?

 

[Almighty So]

'these aren't your essay questions' he says haha . this topic is too much for me. interesting read though

 

[Logic]

Just watch this and get shrekt if you think there is no free will.


[YOUTUBE]watch?v=Xgw970bacXg&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Jimmy]

I would say yes. We all have first hand empirical evidence regarding the existence of free will, since in our everyday lives we are faced with a large number of choices to take.

I think it's much more likely to suggest that you are simply unaware of the influence that your unconscious mind has over your conscious decision making. Your behavior and psychology derives from physical law.

If you think free-will is derived from mans faculty of reason, and you agree that certain animals have at least this faculty to a far lesser extent, then it wouldn't be unreasonable to say that they have free will, but to a lesser extent. This question kind of requires a definition of free will.

But isn't any "faculty of reason" contingent upon the physical faculties and natural operation of the body? If all entities are physical, then isn't our brain programming (reason) derived from immutable physical law? How can any will be free if it the consequence of physics/computation?

The ultimate cause of your action if you do not have free-will however, can't be attribtued to anyone else this way. You can't say that environmental factors are to blame, as you would be then blaming everyone else, including the victim, but not the person doing the act. So then, what is to blame is your genetics etc. If you accept that you had no control over your actions, but your internal factors are to blame, then you should be held responsible, if for no other reason than the fact you are deterministically immoral, and your existence wouldn't be conducive to the society we want to live in (generally speaking).

This is based on the dualist philosophy that you are separate from your surroundings. But science says this is false, as did you when you said you don't accept non-physical explanations.

These aren't your essay questions, are they..?

No, I'm just a big fan of the Socratic method.

Just watch this and get shrekt if you think there is no free will.

[YOUTUBE]watch?v=Xgw970bacXg&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w[/YOUTUBE]

Physics doesn't say whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.

Bohmian mechanics is purely deterministic, with particles existing in a single state at every instant, whereas quantum mechanics (in particular, sum over histories and many worlds) says the universe exists in an indeterminate (superposition) state at all times.

I have no problem with either option. But I don't see how your idea of "free will" (personal causality and responsibility) can be in either universe. The video you posted seemed to be missing the point--dark matter has nothing to do with free will.

Any biologically-conceived notion of "you" as separate from your "environment" is necessarily contrived because biology is an emergent phenomenon of chemistry and physics. If the biological notion of "you" as an "organism" is physically and chemically incoherent, then from where can free will arise?

 

[zorro_]

I prefer to think I have free will. Of course, I'm sure it can be reduced to neurological processes or judgment values that basically form a giant equation for how I act. Despite all this, I like to think there is something that is powering my brain; something that provokes my various faculties into action. In a word, something that is myself.

The questions you posed are far too difficult for me to answer. Still, I wanted to share that.

 

[Logic]

Physics doesn't say whether the universe is deterministic or indeterministic.

Bohmian mechanics is purely deterministic, with particles existing in a single state at every instant, whereas quantum mechanics (in particular, sum over histories and many worlds) says the universe exists in an indeterminate (superposition) state at all times.

I have no problem with either option. But I don't see how your idea of "free will" (personal causality and responsibility) can be in either universe. The video you posted seemed to be missing the point--dark matter has nothing to do with free will.

Any biologically-conceived notion of "you" as separate from your "environment" is necessarily contrived because biology is an emergent phenomenon of chemistry and physics. If the biological notion of "you" as an "organism" is physically and chemically incoherent, then from where can free will arise?

Well then I guess you missed the point. The dark matter point was that since we know ~2% of what the universe is made of, the other 98% is dark matter ( might aswell call it muscle power, since we know nothing about it). People actions might be affected by the rest of the 98% of the universe (dark matter). 1 of the counter argument was that if the universe is deterministic then we are no different from a rock that would always land on the same spot when thrown at the same speed,angle etc. For me twins are enough to proove that point as 2 genetically identical twins can end up as 2 very different people. We have free will and for me it sounds a bit stupid to argue that we don't. Watch the whole vid to understand why, or atleast the 1st 20-30min of it.

 

[malakadang]

I think it's much more likely to suggest that you are simply unaware of the influence that your unconscious mind has over your conscious decision making. Your behavior and psychology derives from physical law.

I don't think so. You have an enormous amount of empirical evidence that suggests you are making choices of your own volition. Then you have strong empirical evidence that argues to the contrary. At every step of the way however, it is impossible to deny the existence of free will without first denying the immediate introspective evidence you are receiving.

It is abundantly clear that we are deliberating about the topic of free-will. We are thinking about it. In order to think about something however, one must have the capacity to think. One cannot hold their breath for 10 minutes of one does not have the capacity to do so. The fact that we are thinking implies that we therefore have the capacity to do so. The concepts of should and should not, and finding out whether something is true or not are the same. Action cannot be completed without capacity. Thus if you ask the question whether one should believe in free-will or not, you are invoking the existence of free-will, since free-will is a precondition to your capacity to do that act. Similarly, if we attempt to find out whether free-will is true or not, you are also invoking the existence of free-will. (An attempt to do something implies that you are deviating from your previous course of action.) You invoke the existence of free-will because you have to make a choice to engage in the act of attempting to discover the existence of free-will. To deny free-will in these instances is to deny the capacity that grants you the ability to do these actions. This is an absurdity, if you think about whether you should go to the supermarket or the gym, and simultaneously reject the existence of free-will your thoughts and 'choices' are entirely meaningless and laughably absurd. It is no different from a rock thinking about whether it wants to travel to Mount Everest, or Mont Kilimanjaro. This is an absolute absurdity to consider, because rocks don't have the capacity to think, therefore they cannot possibly make choices. Yet, if humans do not have free-will then the same must be said about humans. Yet your everyday actions presumably contradict this consequence of your presumed acceptance of the non-existence of free-will. When your friends ask you do you want to go out tonight, you would surely not laugh at them for their stupid question since your capacity to make choice is no more than a rocks, ergo, 0. Everyday life only makes sense under a model that embraces free-will, to deny free-will yet continue to live everyday life as if you didn't deny free-will is no more than a contradiction between your actions and belief. Though, I guess there is always consolation in the fact that you had no choice in the matter.

But isn't any "faculty of reason" contingent upon the physical faculties and natural operation of the body? If all entities are physical, then isn't our brain programming (reason) derived from immutable physical law? How can any will be free if it the consequence of physics/computation?

This presupposes a certain view on free-will, so see above. If free-will doesn't exist then your analysis is absolutely right. If free-will does exist, then my analysis seems plausible.

This is based on the dualist philosophy that you are separate from your surroundings. But science says this is false, as did you when you said you don't accept non-physical explanations.

I'd say its more an issue of personal identity, which is rooted in the philosophy of mind. To expand, if we talk about criminal or moral responsibility, would it make a difference if we somehow extracted the consciousness of the murderer and placed him on another body? Who would we be better off punishing? The extracted consciousness, or the murderers original body?

 

[Jimmy]

I've reversed my position since pilot-wave theory, I now believe, leaves room for free will. Some sources if anyone wants to further debate this point:

Erwin Schrödinger, Lecture: Do electrons think?

There is a very old dilemma in natural philosophy: are our bodies and the bodies of the animals machines that act of necessity, according to their material constitution and under the material influence of the environment, including the impressions of the sense organs? This question—are we automatons?—has about as often been answered emphatically in the positive as in the negative…

What is the present attitude of physiology to the question? We may take for it the word of its past master, Sir Charles Sherrington. According to Sherrington, there is no boundary between the animate and the inanimate. The same laws of physics and physical chemistry hold within the living body as outside. The most careful investigation of the physiological processes, in the nerves and in the brain, reveals no leverage whereby mind could take direct influence on matter: mind per se (that is, by its very nature) cannot play the piano, mind per se cannot move a finger of a hand.

This leaves us with the outlook that our body is as automatic or non-automatic as any inanimate piece of matter—any mechanical, chemical, electrical contrivance—only infinitely more complicated than even the most ingenious man-made machinery. The question is thus referred from the tribunal of physiology to that of physics and chemistry. But in the tribunal—to keep to the similar of a moment—there sits by the side of the judges a non-jurisprudent assessor, namely our own little self, which finds it distasteful to pass for an automaton.

Now what does physics say to it? The situation is peculiar.

[YOUTUBE]hCwR1ztUXtU[/YOUTUBE]

Erwin Schrödinger, What is Life?: Epilogue, On Determinism and Free Will

For the sake of argument, let me regard this as a fact, as I believe every unbiased biologist would, if there were not the well-known, unpleasant feeling about 'declaring oneself to be a pure mechanism'. For it is deemed to contradict Free Will as warranted by direct introspection.

But immediate experiences in themselves, however various and disparate they be, are logically incapable of contradicting each other. So let us see whether we cannot draw the correct, non-contradictory conclusion from the two premises:

(i) My body functions as a pure mechanism according to the Laws of Nature.
(ii) Yet I know, by incontrovertible direct experience, that I am directing its motions, of which I foresee the effects, that may be fateful and all-important, in which case I feel and take responsibility for them.

The only possible inference from these two facts is, I think, that I--I in the widest meaning of the word, that is to say, every conscious mind that has ever said or felt 'I'--am the person, if any, who controls the 'motion of the atoms' according to the Laws of Nature...

In the Christian terminology to say: 'Hence I am God Almighty' sounds both blasphemous and lunatic. But please disregard these connotations for the moment and consider whether the above inference is not the closest a biologist can get to proving God and immortality at one stroke.

Sir James Jeans, Physics and Philosophy

Attempts have been made to find an alternative to determinism in what is described as 'teleological causation', according to which the future determines the present, or at least influences it, like the legendary carrot held in front of the donkey's nose...to some extent, the whole matter is one of juggling with words, but in whatever sense words are used, ideas such as teleological causation can throw no new light on the ultimate problem...

Thus in his book, Where is science going? Planck, the founder of the quantum theory writes: 'No biographer will attempt to solve the question of the motives that govern the acts of his her by attributing these to mere chance...'

Thus free-will is only our name for unconscious determinism. But Kant would presumably have argued that all this does not prove that we are devoid of freedom, so much as that a deterministic way of looking at things is ingrained in our minds; it is our way of interpreting the temporal sequence of events...

At least the new physics [of quantum theory] has shown that the problems of causality and free-will are in need of a new formulation. If those who believe in freedom of the will could explain what they mean by freedom, and could show precisely where it differs from what we have called unconscious determinism, it is at least conceivable that what they want would be found in modern physics...The new physics shows us a universe which looks as though it might conceivably form a suitable dwelling-place for free men, and not a mere shelter for brutes--a home in which it may at least be possible for us to mould events to our desires and live lives of endeavor and achievement...

Just because of this, we cannot state any positive conclusions of any kind, as for instance that materialism is dead, or that a deterministic interpretation of the world is obsolete, but we can say that determinism and freedom, matter and materialism need to be redefined in the light of our new scientific knowledge. When this has been done, the materialist must decide for himself whether the only kind of materialism which science now permits can be suitably labelled materialism, and whether the ghostly remains of matter should be labelled as matter or as something else; it is mainly a question of terminology.

I don't think so. You have an enormous amount of empirical evidence that suggests you are making choices of your own volition. Then you have strong empirical evidence that argues to the contrary. At every step of the way however, it is impossible to deny the existence of free will without first denying the immediate introspective evidence you are receiving.

I therefore defer to this line of superior reasoning.

I'd say its more an issue of personal identity, which is rooted in the philosophy of mind. To expand, if we talk about criminal or moral responsibility, would it make a difference if we somehow extracted the consciousness of the murderer and placed him on another body? Who would we be better off punishing? The extracted consciousness, or the murderers original body?

And I fully agree with this, although I still have qualms about punishment vs. rehabilitation.

[YOUTUBE]Jint5kjoy6I[/YOUTUBE]