Definitions of Free Will

[Onnes]

Today a nice blog post appeared that describes a fairly typical view of human agency and free will among physicists.

http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2016/01/free-will-is-dead-lets-bury-it.html

(If you're not familiar with Bell's Theorem then I would recommend not spending too much time on the last three paragraphs, as the 'free will' being referenced there refers to a particular condition of a Bell's Theorem experiment and has little to do with anyone's usual concept of free will.)

Now, whenever this topic comes up I usually end up having the same question: How do most people even define free will? Obviously, there's the classic dualist free will where the mind is free from physical constraints and can do whatever the hell it wants. But there's also many notions of free will that are claimed to be compatible with the mind as just another time-evolving physical system while still having some essence of 'free will'.

My question to the forum is: "What, to you, does free will mean?" I'm genuinely curious as to how other people end up thinking about this topic.

[willow]

I don't think you can look at this from a scientific angle and come up with a good conclusion. to me, free will is more of a sociological concept so I guess my definition is more along the lines of having autonomy or independence.

[MalletFace]

I cannot think of a case in which I do not agree with the author of that post.

When I voice my opinions about this, I usually get an angry response that starts with, "But quantum physics states..."

In that case I usually nod and listen until they finish. A question with any random combination of terms and formulas tends to get them to stop mentioning quantum physics around me.

[Guest]

Oh, well, I'm afraid I don't have a very... ''Academic'' response to that. Free will to me is just the ability to do what one desires

I think John Locke said something about it (or was it Hobbes? Shit I can't remember), and that is that in a state of nature man has full power to do what they desire but that they should expect their free will to be threatened by others. So in this case you'd have full freedom but that exposes you to many dangers: you can be robbed, enslaved, raped or even murdered, even though you can do the same to others. In a state of right, one still has full free will but chooses to renounce to it partially in order to get protection in return.

So yeah, if you mention the topic of free will I will immidiately think of this. Locke (or Hobbes, IDK) has an interesting viewpoint regarding it with which I agree

 

If I'd have to look at it from another angle, I'd say that free will is limited. Let's look at it in the context of survival for example. Let's pretend that some guy is stranded on an island and has to live through it. There are only so many ways he can do it. No matter what, this survivor will have to follow a specific set of rules and if he doesn't abide to them, he'll die. Nature is a dictatorship. The survivor can choose that he wants to reach his objective by, I don't know, sitting on his ass all day and doing absolutely nothing but he won't make it that way. He does have free will but that doesn't mean he'll achieve any results with it. So actually, one has the freedom to pick whatever choice but only a few are beneficiary

 

I hope I interpreted this thread right and that you got what you were looking for. I'm confused by that blog by the way, didn't get its point

Edited January 10, 2016 by Guest

[#00Buck]

Do what cha what cha what cha want!

[FlynnCoyote]

The way I see it, we can't see the future anyway. So we are making choices without knowing the outcome for absolute certain.

Even if all events are predetermined or can be predicted through an intricate understanding of chemistry and physics, for the time being that eludes us meaning our decisions are no less important for it.

So if we could devise a means to predict someone's thoughts and actions on this principle, would said person still have the means to alter his course?

[Onnes]

2 hours ago, willow said:

I don't think you can look at this from a scientific angle and come up with a good conclusion. to me, free will is more of a sociological concept so I guess my definition is more along the lines of having autonomy or independence.

48 minutes ago, Amiir said:

Oh, well, I'm afraid I don't have a very... ''Academic'' response to that. Free will to me is just the ability to do what one desires
...

1 minute ago, FlynnCoyote said:

The way I see it, we can't see the future anyway. So we are making choices without knowing the outcome for absolute certain.
...

These responses seem more to address the concept of agency. Whether you have dualism or absolute determinism, it's still possible for people to make decisions and act according to their desires. The question of free will is where those desires come from. Are they predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, by the evolution of random fluctuations and chaos, or governed by something beyond physics? (Or whatever else you can think of.) 

I've probably biased the statement of the problem here based on my own beliefs, but unfortunately since this is out of my field there's a limit to my terminology and phrasing.

 

1 hour ago, MalletFace said:

I cannot think of a case in which I do not agree with the author of that post.

When I voice my opinions about this, I usually get an angry response that starts with, "But quantum physics states..."

In that case I usually nod and listen until they finish. A question with any random combination of terms and formulas tends to get them to stop mentioning quantum physics around me.

Quantum physics is a wonderful trap for people who want to sound knowledgeable. You can usually tell immediately if someone is just working off of the common metaphors found in popular science writing without knowledge of the physics underlying them.

 

[FlynnCoyote]

1 minute ago, Onnes said:

These responses seem more to address the concept of agency. Whether you have dualism or absolute determinism, it's still possible for people to make decisions and act according to their desires. The question of free will is where those desires come from. Are they predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, by the evolution of random fluctuations and chaos, or governed by something beyond physics? (Or whatever else you can think of.) 

I've probably biased the statement of the problem here based on my own beliefs, but unfortunately since this is out of my field there's a limit to my terminology and phrasing.

 

Quantum physics is a wonderful trap for people who want to sound knowledgeable. You can usually tell immediately if someone is just working off of the common metaphors found in popular science writing without knowledge of the physics underlying them.

 

True, but without knowing for sure the point still stands yea?

On Quantum physics, I agree completely. However it's a gold mine for science fiction writing.

[Saxon]

We clearly will things one way or another. I do not understand why it is generally assumed that will must be distinct from causality in order to be meaningful; rather that would make it irrelevant. 

I think that insisting will is without meaning because the irreducible constituents that make up a brain have no will is comparable to insisting that no biological creature is alive, because they can all be reduced to components that are not alive, and it is not clear how exactly an arrangement of components suddenly becomes entitled to the label 'alive'. 

 

[FlynnCoyote]

6 minutes ago, Saxon said:

We clearly will things one way or another. I do not understand why it is generally assumed that will must be distinct from causality in order to be meaningful; rather that would make it irrelevant. 

I think that insisting will is without meaning because the irreducible constituents that make up a brain have no will is comparable to insisting that no biological creature is alive, because they can all be reduced to components that are not alive, and it is not clear how exactly an arrangement of components suddenly becomes entitled to the label 'alive'. 

 

 

[willow]

3 minutes ago, Onnes said:

These responses seem more to address the concept of agency. Whether you have dualism or absolute determinism, it's still possible for people to make decisions and act according to their desires. The question of free will is where those desires come from. Are they predetermined by the initial conditions of the universe, by the evolution of random fluctuations and chaos, or governed by something beyond physics? (Or whatever else you can think of.)

 

I'd have to say that some parts of it are governed beyond physics. some part of free will is surely ground in some kind of physics or whatever given that emotions are chemical reactions but thoughts really aren't, and that's part of what governs free will. well that and society like I mentioned earlier.

[Saxon]

2 minutes ago, willow said:

I'd have to say that some parts of it are governed beyond physics. some part of free will is surely ground in some kind of physics or whatever given that emotions are chemical reactions but thoughts really aren't, and that's part of what governs free will. well that and society like I mentioned earlier.

I'd contest that thoughts do have a physical mechanism. How else are they generated inside your brain? 

 

[willow]

Just now, Saxon said:

I'd contest that thoughts do have a physical mechanism. How else are they generated inside your brain? 

 

well then the question becomes what physical mechanism is responsible for generating thoughts?

[Saxon]

16 minutes ago, willow said:

well then the question becomes what physical mechanism is responsible for generating thoughts?

Your brain is made out of specialised cells called 'neurons' which have finger like projections called 'dendrites' that link them to other neurons. 

When stimulated neurons may trigger their neighbours, so they act like switches. Different cascades of switches perform different actions, including computations. 

You experience those computations as thoughts. 

 

Upsetting this system can disturb thought; if a chain reaction occurs, setting off neurons in an uncontrolled fashion, you will experience an epileptic seizure. By contrast, if your body fails to produce the right mix of chemicals, called neurotransmitters, the neurons will not be able to switch each other on in the usual fashion, and certain mental illnesses and cognitive deficiencies result. 

[Onnes]

1 hour ago, FlynnCoyote said:

True, but without knowing for sure the point still stands yea?

1 hour ago, Saxon said:

We clearly will things one way or another. I do not understand why it is generally assumed that will must be distinct from causality in order to be meaningful; rather that would make it irrelevant. 

I think that insisting will is without meaning because the irreducible constituents that make up a brain have no will is comparable to insisting that no biological creature is alive, because they can all be reduced to components that are not alive, and it is not clear how exactly an arrangement of components suddenly becomes entitled to the label 'alive'. 

I guess I would interpret this line of thought as saying that the classic conceptual problem of free will is irrelevant. Or to say that whatever the source of one's decisions, those decisions are, in absence of direct coercion or mental inability, considered to be one's responsibility -- and that that is all that actually matters.

 

[MalletFace]

Just now, willow said:

well then the question becomes what physical mechanism is responsible for generating thoughts?

Interactions of electromagnetism cause all of the desired changes (Polarization, depolarization, excitation, inhibition, phosphorylation, etc.). The nuclear interactions keep things from going haywire (Can't have our quarks flying apart, can we?). Gravity also happens to be here. Gravity is weird and can be ignored for the most part.

If you want to understand how, the best I can recommend is to browse children's resources on how neurons, the neuroglia, and the whole system work together. This is not an insult on your intelligence; children's sites assume you know nothing and explain everything. Other things pick up where they leave off.

This site seems to explain things well. I would look specifically at the page on action potentials, the page on synapses, the page on neurotransmitters, and any other page that interests you. Just click the explore link and look around. I do not like biology, but genuinely like looking around sites like this.

[Bloodshot_Eyes]

The freedom to work on and reach your goals; large and small scale. 

Your goals could be aligned to god knows what, but if you're free to work on those goals then I guess you'd be exercising free will. 

The only restriction to free will would be the perceived inability to manifest into your life what you want to experience; the goal of doing anything, really; to get the thing/experience. 

 

[Guest]

This is too confusin'. Never been a fan of philosophy

[Jtrekkie]

The question boils down to, "are humans deterministic, or not? "

In my view it is irrelevant. Free agency would be the ability to have a will independent from external sources, or in other words an original idea. That would mean that it would be impossible to calculate what a person will do in all cases. 

 

However, the brain is irreducibly complex, so any attempt to model it requires you to simulate the entire brain and it's environment, which is equivalent to simply watching to see what the original does, only with more steps.