Free Will an Illusion?

Post Reply New Topic

It's not a Nature vs Nurture thing - because we control none of them
I don't think we choose our families, but if we do - why do we make these different choices? There's always a reason for something. There's a reason why people act different from one another. If you say that they have a different will - well, why? What makes people have different wills?

What does conscious means? If I'm mad that day, or sad, or happy, I'll respond in a different manner, won't I? I all those cases I'm conscious.

I'm not saying that if you were abused you will beat your kids as well - but statistically, there's a higher chance of it. Is the statistic meaningless? Or perhaps it says that there's some relation between your experiences and your actions? If so, that's a factor which we don't control. Otherwise, it's amazing that people who were abused are randomly more likely to do the same... But I don't think it's random - hence it's not *free* will.

I didn't decide that I like it, I just liked it. It was not a question, I just heard it, and liked its sound, and then played it and enjoyed it. Not too complicated. Is that my free will? Why is that will non-existent in other people?

Nature directing you - makes sense.
Nurture directing you - makes sense.
"Free will" directing you - what the hell does it even mean? Something from inside? Like, a natural thing, which I can't control? Or a nurture issue, which I can't control?
I can think carefully before every decision I make, but in the end, if it's my feeling - it's not a choice. If it's my rationale - well, I didn't choose my rationale. If it's anything else - I can't think of any reason which is neither nature/nurture. I just don't get it. I can't see the logic behind it.

I simply don't understand how it can be that we make different choices, and we control the reasons that they are different. If so, wouldn't we all make the same decisions? No, we're different. Why? Because God created us different? Okay, so we don't control that. Again, I'm repeating myself, I just can't see how free will makes more sense than saying 2+1=5. Not to say that you're irrational, perhaps it's something that I don't get and I'm the wrong person here.

It is logically possible that the feeling that one often has that he can choose what to do next may be generated by the neurological processes of our brains.

ruveyn

there is no such thing as free will, because no one designed the way their brains were built, and they did not design what happened to them in their life to craft their neuronal pathways.

since the matrix of neural connexions is created by non deliberate forces, and since that matrix of neurons seeks the path of least resistance, then one will always "choose" what is inevitably the least resistant course of operation.

if one had the manual of neural operations, then it is completely calculable how those neurons that are connected and meshed will react to any external situation.

you think you "chose" because you are happy with what executive inevitability your neurons performed when in a circumstance, and since they chose the path of least resistance, it is satisfactory to the consciousness because the least amount of dissatisfaction was experienced.

if the choice turns out to be incorrect (ie. an increased problem load) , then it is only then that dissatisfaction results. and that dissatisfaction is simply the result of the fact that the inevitable executive operation of the neurons was not molded for successful selection of the least resistant pathway pertinent to the circumstance due to inappropriate prior conditioning.

whatever i do not have much of an idea.
i am an automaton and i get by.

The problem here is that in reality people do NOT always choose the path of least resistance. Take Ghandi, for example. The idea of passive resistance is itself a bold, uncomfortable (in)action when in fact, the most immediate satisfying path is to not bother the status quo. It takes an incredible power of the will to not only do such a thing, but to get people behind you in support. The choices they made brought the British Empire to its knees. If the biology of the brain is such that it takes the path of least resistance, how can such things happen? Apparently, assuming your idea is correct, there is something else within us that is able to supersede our own biology.

How can you judge what made Gandhi tick? His whole life was devoted to fighting what he felt was unjust. To lay back and watch his ideals be shattered is not the path of least resistance at all. But then again I cannot read Gandhi's mind any more than you.

Gandhi had this funny idea that love was a force that could manifest itself in a way not unlike military force--Satyagraha. Perhaps I oversimplified this by saying passive resistance, but the two do share some elements in common. Yes, he fought injustice, but he tried to fight it in the spirit of love rather than the spirit of raw defiance. Gandhi himself equated the force of truth (satya) with love. How do I know Gandhi's mind? Well, I can't in any absolute way, except that he himself described his ideas! The transmission of those ideas are no longer likely to change since. He said it, he described it.

It's hardly likely, because nearly every human being has this kind of reaction at some point in their lives, that his actions and those of his followers weren't initially carried out with some level of fear. By breaking the norms, they had to assume that some trouble was unavoidable, that perhaps even death itself awaited them. No sane, clear-thinking person I know of has ever claimed to be completely devoid of fear. I myself am not afraid of death, but I'm not exactly in a hurry to get there! See what I mean?

Same thing with Martin Luther King, Jr. in American Civil Rights. They avoided using violent means to achieve their goals, even when they were met with violence. Being threatened with beatings, torture, incarceration, and so on, one must consider whether criminal activity and its consequences are worth the change (which may or may not come) being evoked.

Getting back to the point, if free will does NOT exist, then the only other explanation for their behavior--whether Gandhi or King and all their followers--is that they are all delusional psychotics in serious need of re-education and treatment to bring their brain chemistry back in line with the current mainstream. What say you, Sand?

Oh, and that's not an answer for the greater question of free-will being a delusion. Another argument could be made that Gandhi and King were compelled to do what they did for some other reason besides their own will. I'm just saying that b9's response is problematic in that it reduces the will (whether free or not) to purely biological process. Those people did NOT face the path of least resistance, so that idea doesn't work, IMO.

It depends on how time is constructed. If time has already been decided and we're just going through it, then we have no free will. If time has yet to be written, then we probably do.

Free will I am pretty certain does exist... And i don't mean compatabolist free will, that's an illusion. (that illusion does exist too, though, along side of real free will, giving the impression that EVERY choice is free will, when it is not)

That does not mean I am saying that every action we take is an act of free will.
In fact quite to the contrary, i would say that there are very very very few situations where we do an act of free will.

It has to be EXERTED, not just happen... we must make a conscious act to cause something to deviate from the either deterministic or statistical nature of the universe within which we reside.

How common is it?
I would say it is so uncommon that many humans do NOT ever exert free will.
I'm tempted to say "almost all" instead of "many" in that comment too.

I'll apply it to asperger's too, here.
Many of the things that NT's do without having the thoughts touch upon their conscious mind (ie, done totally at the subconscious level) are immediately directed to the conscious portions of the brain in aspies.
I'm apt to believe, though not be 100% convinced by any means, that Aspies have an easier time exerting free will. And that is part of the problems we face daily. We HAVE to make real decisions, instead of passing those decisions off to some computerized "decision making process"

You just had to say that, didn't you?

ruveyn

Nope, if i had to, then it wouldn't be an act of free will, but in this case, it was an act of free will... Ergo, I didn't have to say it, I chose to.

I don't think there is an absolute yes or no answer to this question. I think we have semi free will. Free will within very narrow parameters imposed by our biology.

I think these biological parameters are what b9 was referring to. But I do think that free will choices can be made within those parameters.

Now and then there are people who fight these parameters to the literal death. The biological imperative to eat is intensly strong and most people use semi free will only within the narrow confines of deciding what to eat. But there are a few people who fight those parameters and make the decision not to eat ever again and die of starvation on purpose: Bobby Sands. With most people, biology overrides the "choice" not to eat and they "decide" to eat anyway. This is why extreme calorie restriction is such a doomed way to lose weight. Our bodies simply won't let us "choose" not to eat, regardless of our free will. It works much better not to fight that and instead switch to healthier types of food. That way biology doesn't have to fight with willpower (biology generally wins).

Very important distinction there Janissy

You cannot interpret free will as the ability to do anything. You have limited choices, not complete choices. (there may be an infinite number.. but there is an infinite number of values between 1 and 2, and that is not the same infinity as the number of real numbers) And perhaps most choices will lead to essentially the same outcome, meaning that the real choices we have, sometimes are extremely trivial. Most cases I would say our choices in exerting free will, at least at the direct and calculable level are trivial. I can eat eggs, or I can eat liver. I can go to bed at 10 or I can go to bed at 11. I can twitch my finger or I can not twitch my finger. However I don't have the options to eat something i don't have, I don't have the option to NEVER go to bed, I don't have the option to twitch my finger while standing on Jupiter tonight.
And... I also don't really have the option to let a baseball hit me in the face at 100 mph without twitching.... The body will overrule. Yet, i do have the option to TRY to twitch as little as possible.

Thing is with chaos theory, a trivial event may lead to massive consequences.
Everything in the universe is dependent upon too many parameters.

When i decide whether or not to flex my finger, it makes a lot of difference if a) there is nothing else near my finger, b) my finger is on a trigger of a gun, pointed at someone, or c) resting on the button to deploy every nuclear warhead in Russia/USA or wherever.

The beating of a butterfly's wings can change the global weather patterns in the future. one small thing affects thousands of small things, which in turn affect thousands of small things each... until those small things all come together and form a substantial thing.

Free will is a chain that breaks down determinism each time it is exerted. The world then returns to being deterministic/statistical until again free will is exerted.

Chill and Woice topic

Good stuff.

I think the feeling of free will is simply the awareness of options open to you; the more in-depth your knowledge of the consequences of given courses of action is, as well as your understanding of your own desires, will change your perception of free will. Two people could be given the same choice, but one person would see one of the options as obviously superior (a 'no-brainer') while the other will have a hard time making up his mind - simply because of a difference in knowledge about the given options. They are both equally free to choose, but the guy who saw one option as obviously better than the other could be said to have less free will in the matter. The choice was given beforehand.

It might be a good idea to discuss the existence of human will without the customary adjective for though I do maintain that we do have a mind and will of our own, it is not exactly free; everybody and his brother is trying to influence our choices.

Most people do not question the fact that a machine, such as a computer, does not have a will of its own, though a few do taking the figures of speech about a computer “thinking” or “deciding” to seriously; yet all of its actions have been predetermined by its engineers, programmers and operators.

How can we be the same, particularly if one holds the opinion that we do not have a designer? A machine does not have any awareness of what it is or why it exists let alone discuss it with other machines. Why are we discussing this question, could it change anything? What would be the point of planning, or even thinking, if we do not have any choice?

You are substituting your concept of least resistance for theirs. Perhaps you would not choose to endure misery for your goals but they evidently would. The misery of surrendering to what they considered evil was obviously larger than what the evil could impose.