5 ms·

> That's frightening, but freedom is always a little bit frightening On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a p

> That's frightening, but freedom is always a little bit frightening On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself. But we can't escape physics. We are still just complicated sets of reactions. We don't really have choices.

Xcelerate 14y ago
> On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself. Meh... how would one even go about proving the existence of "free will"? It seems unfalsifiable -- outside the realm of science even, which is solely concerned with forming models that make accurate predictions of natural phenomena. I should mention that our current best understanding of nature is that certain aspects of it are perfectly random (deviations in measurements of incompatible observables). Some people believe that since nature is not deterministic, this is where "free will" comes in (I do not). Regardless of what you believe, it's not science.
- mitchty 14y ago
  I'd say its rather simple, and similar to what has been done already. Wire up someone to an (eeg if i recall rightly), have them "choose" between two disparate things. Measure the brain response. If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That is, your conscious mind is only deluding itself into thinking it chose what processes in the brain have already decided. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_d... I think that was the gist of the study, its been a while so I might be off. Corrections welcome! That said, I've always thought it an interesting philosophical question of if we don't have free will and our paths in life are somewhat deterministic, it really puts a damper on our legal and moral systems to a degree. That said its just a thought experiment at this point. Maybe this is a "bad" approach to determining it, but the experiments do cast doubt on at the very least our perception of free will and determinism.
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    Except it isn't that easy to. There is probably going to be some bias, not to mention that subtle unconscious hints from participants could be picked by the participants. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-... Also it's important to remember most of science theories can be overturned easily by new evidence. So I'm not sure science is 100% certain in either way.
    - Ygg2 14y ago
      Late edit: "subtle unconscious hints from researchers could be picked by the participants"
  - gnaritas 14y ago
    > If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That doesn't follow. It's still their brain making the decision. The experiment simply pushes free will into the unconscious mind, it doesn't show you don't have it. You are still your mind, and those are still your decisions.
    - cdcarter 14y ago
      If you aren't conscious of it, how do you have any control of it? We have strong enough science to believe (though further testing is always appreciated) that the brain is a fully causal machine. That is, each brain state is based on causal antecedents of both internal and external factors. One antecedent brain state and feedback from the nervous system leads to the next brain state. The brain is not "making" the decisions, they are made. They just happen. It makes no sens to say that "you are your mind" because there is no evidence for a "mind." Just a hunk of meat in the head of that same person, all wrapped up in itself, not separate at all, that happens to be the part of the body that lends itself to acting.
      - gnaritas 14y ago
- Jach 14y ago
  Regarding nature being random, there is no physics that suggest it is. "The wavefunction evolves deterministically", it's just that we as non-fundamental particles can't observe all amplitudes realized at once. (I suppose if you're a Copenhagen believer, the idea of collapse is non-deterministic...) Also, being uncertain about a system's future because one does not know the system's initial conditions doesn't mean the system is random. For free will: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 (My paraphrased tl;dr for programmers in case you're a Sith: you can't possibly have any sort of will, free or otherwise, in a non-deterministic world; furthermore, we can create narrow AIs whose deterministic function is to search a space of possibilities and if it finds what looks like a good solution, it settles on that, or we can instruct it to search for other solutions, and this is what our will somewhat looks like from the outside--a search algorithm through future possibilities, some of them just as impossible physically speaking as our AI picking a solution that isn't past the stopping threshold--while what it feels like on the inside is that "we could realize any possibility[, if we felt like it]")
sixQuarks 14y ago
That's well put. If you really do think about it, we ARE just a complicated set of reactions.
pekk 14y ago
That thing we do, when we weigh options, is what choice is. Nobody is saying that physics is escaped by this.
Jun8 14y ago
"We have to believe in free will. We have no other choice." Isaac Bashevis Singer
derleth 14y ago
Think about free will in terms of a game-theoretic payoff matrix: There either is or isn't really free will, and you can either behave as if there is or behave as if there isn't. If there is no free will, it doesn't matter. The payouts are the same regardless of what you do. You can't affect anything. The game is rigged, go home, good night. However, if there is free will, the payouts vary drastically based on how you act, and the only way to get a good payout is to act as if there is free will. So, acting as if there is free will is, at worst, one of the ways to get the there-is-no-free-will payout, and, at best, the only way to get the best possible there-is-free-will payout. Note: If you mention Pascal's Wager in your response, you misunderstand the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it does not give a way to determine which deity to believe in. The argument was constructed with reference to the Christian deity, but it applies equally well to Shiva or me, for example. You can't abandon a whole methodology just because it can be misused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
- alecst 14y ago
  I like this post -- and you're right, I immediately thought 'Pascal's Wager.' I'd just add that the other problem with Pascal's wager is that there is (typically) a non-negligible cost to believing in a god, which doesn't apply here.
- Jesse_Ray 14y ago
  That argument is unsound. The color of the sky depends on atmospheric gases and suspended particles as causal factors. This shows that atmospheric gases and suspended particles are causally potent. At the same time, atmospheric gases and suspended particles do not have libertarian free will. This shows that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will. The statement that "If there is no [libertarian] free will ... The payouts are the same regardless of what you do" assumes that being without libertarian free will entails causal impotence, but that contradicts the fact that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will, as established by the argument about atmospheric gases and suspended particles. Therefore, that statement is false. When that statement has been corrected to allow people to be causally potent without libertarian free will, the conclusion of the argument does not follow.
Tichy 14y ago
What would free will even be? It sounds as if it was a meaningful concept, but perhaps it really isn't. What would be the entity making decisions? And how would it not follow any rules? That would mean it would be random?
disgruntledphd2 14y ago
I agree with the response below, but just to clarify, how do you know there is no such thing (or process, more likely) as free will? If its the Gazzaniga experiment's you are referring to, then please note that they merely showed that conscious awareness in a student/university staff population lagged behind the brain activities presumably associated with their experience. One would have to believe that all humans are imbued with free will eternally and for life at birth for such an experiment to convince you. Note that I do not believe this, so for me, these experiments do not necessarily disprove the existence of free will.
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  I do not know there isn't free will, but I know there is nothing that suggests there is, other than this strong feeling we seem to have, which can't be trusted. So far, the universe seems to be deterministic, and our choices seem to be the result of deterministic reactions in our brains.
  - disgruntledphd2 14y ago
    I dunno, I do take your argument about our feelings on the matter not necessarily being a useful guide. Then again, deterministic actions (which is an assumption) in our brains do not necessarily correlate with a completely deterministic human. Perhaps the computation of such quantities as may be involved is impossible, and this would lead to a situation where even a completely deterministic universe could be compatible with the experience of "free will". We probably need a better term for this sensation, as "free will" is a particularly loaded term.

Xcelerate 14y ago

> On the other hand, there is no evidence for the existence of free will. So we are just a part of the universe that has become conscious, aware of itself. Meh... how would one even go about proving the existence of "free will"? It seems unfalsifiable -- outside the realm of science even, which is solely concerned with forming models that make accurate predictions of natural phenomena. I should mention that our current best understanding of nature is that certain aspects of it are perfectly random (deviations in measurements of incompatible observables). Some people believe that since nature is not deterministic, this is where "free will" comes in (I do not). Regardless of what you believe, it's not science.

mitchty 14y ago
I'd say its rather simple, and similar to what has been done already. Wire up someone to an (eeg if i recall rightly), have them "choose" between two disparate things. Measure the brain response. If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That is, your conscious mind is only deluding itself into thinking it chose what processes in the brain have already decided. http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_decision http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/04/mind_d... I think that was the gist of the study, its been a while so I might be off. Corrections welcome! That said, I've always thought it an interesting philosophical question of if we don't have free will and our paths in life are somewhat deterministic, it really puts a damper on our legal and moral systems to a degree. That said its just a thought experiment at this point. Maybe this is a "bad" approach to determining it, but the experiments do cast doubt on at the very least our perception of free will and determinism.
- Ygg2 14y ago
  Except it isn't that easy to. There is probably going to be some bias, not to mention that subtle unconscious hints from participants could be picked by the participants. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-stand-in-the-way-of-free-will.html http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22144-brain-might-not-... Also it's important to remember most of science theories can be overturned easily by new evidence. So I'm not sure science is 100% certain in either way.
  - Ygg2 14y ago
    Late edit: "subtle unconscious hints from researchers could be picked by the participants"
- gnaritas 14y ago
  > If when they "choose" you already have an idea of what they chose before they consciously became aware of it, it is likely that you do not actually have free will. That doesn't follow. It's still their brain making the decision. The experiment simply pushes free will into the unconscious mind, it doesn't show you don't have it. You are still your mind, and those are still your decisions.
  - cdcarter 14y ago
    If you aren't conscious of it, how do you have any control of it? We have strong enough science to believe (though further testing is always appreciated) that the brain is a fully causal machine. That is, each brain state is based on causal antecedents of both internal and external factors. One antecedent brain state and feedback from the nervous system leads to the next brain state. The brain is not "making" the decisions, they are made. They just happen. It makes no sens to say that "you are your mind" because there is no evidence for a "mind." Just a hunk of meat in the head of that same person, all wrapped up in itself, not separate at all, that happens to be the part of the body that lends itself to acting.
    - gnaritas 14y ago
Jach 14y ago
Regarding nature being random, there is no physics that suggest it is. "The wavefunction evolves deterministically", it's just that we as non-fundamental particles can't observe all amplitudes realized at once. (I suppose if you're a Copenhagen believer, the idea of collapse is non-deterministic...) Also, being uncertain about a system's future because one does not know the system's initial conditions doesn't mean the system is random. For free will: http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 http://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Free_will_%28solution%29 (My paraphrased tl;dr for programmers in case you're a Sith: you can't possibly have any sort of will, free or otherwise, in a non-deterministic world; furthermore, we can create narrow AIs whose deterministic function is to search a space of possibilities and if it finds what looks like a good solution, it settles on that, or we can instruct it to search for other solutions, and this is what our will somewhat looks like from the outside--a search algorithm through future possibilities, some of them just as impossible physically speaking as our AI picking a solution that isn't past the stopping threshold--while what it feels like on the inside is that "we could realize any possibility[, if we felt like it]")

sixQuarks 14y ago

That's well put. If you really do think about it, we ARE just a complicated set of reactions.

pekk 14y ago

That thing we do, when we weigh options, is what choice is. Nobody is saying that physics is escaped by this.

Jun8 14y ago

"We have to believe in free will. We have no other choice." Isaac Bashevis Singer

derleth 14y ago

Think about free will in terms of a game-theoretic payoff matrix: There either is or isn't really free will, and you can either behave as if there is or behave as if there isn't. If there is no free will, it doesn't matter. The payouts are the same regardless of what you do. You can't affect anything. The game is rigged, go home, good night. However, if there is free will, the payouts vary drastically based on how you act, and the only way to get a good payout is to act as if there is free will. So, acting as if there is free will is, at worst, one of the ways to get the there-is-no-free-will payout, and, at best, the only way to get the best possible there-is-free-will payout. Note: If you mention Pascal's Wager in your response, you misunderstand the problem with Pascal's Wager. The problem with Pascal's Wager is that it does not give a way to determine which deity to believe in. The argument was constructed with reference to the Christian deity, but it applies equally well to Shiva or me, for example. You can't abandon a whole methodology just because it can be misused. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal-form_game http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_wager http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/

alecst 14y ago
I like this post -- and you're right, I immediately thought 'Pascal's Wager.' I'd just add that the other problem with Pascal's wager is that there is (typically) a non-negligible cost to believing in a god, which doesn't apply here.
Jesse_Ray 14y ago
That argument is unsound. The color of the sky depends on atmospheric gases and suspended particles as causal factors. This shows that atmospheric gases and suspended particles are causally potent. At the same time, atmospheric gases and suspended particles do not have libertarian free will. This shows that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will. The statement that "If there is no [libertarian] free will ... The payouts are the same regardless of what you do" assumes that being without libertarian free will entails causal impotence, but that contradicts the fact that things can be causally potent without libertarian free will, as established by the argument about atmospheric gases and suspended particles. Therefore, that statement is false. When that statement has been corrected to allow people to be causally potent without libertarian free will, the conclusion of the argument does not follow.

Tichy 14y ago

What would free will even be? It sounds as if it was a meaningful concept, but perhaps it really isn't. What would be the entity making decisions? And how would it not follow any rules? That would mean it would be random?

disgruntledphd2 14y ago

I agree with the response below, but just to clarify, how do you know there is no such thing (or process, more likely) as free will? If its the Gazzaniga experiment's you are referring to, then please note that they merely showed that conscious awareness in a student/university staff population lagged behind the brain activities presumably associated with their experience. One would have to believe that all humans are imbued with free will eternally and for life at birth for such an experiment to convince you. Note that I do not believe this, so for me, these experiments do not necessarily disprove the existence of free will.

mylittlepony 14y ago
I do not know there isn't free will, but I know there is nothing that suggests there is, other than this strong feeling we seem to have, which can't be trusted. So far, the universe seems to be deterministic, and our choices seem to be the result of deterministic reactions in our brains.
- disgruntledphd2 14y ago
  I dunno, I do take your argument about our feelings on the matter not necessarily being a useful guide. Then again, deterministic actions (which is an assumption) in our brains do not necessarily correlate with a completely deterministic human. Perhaps the computation of such quantities as may be involved is impossible, and this would lead to a situation where even a completely deterministic universe could be compatible with the experience of "free will". We probably need a better term for this sensation, as "free will" is a particularly loaded term.