Free will?

[SoulMonster]

I don't believe in it. Some force in my mind that allows me to actually choose what to do? How does that work? Bear with me. If I jump that is caused by my muscles flexing. The muscles are directed by electrochemical impulses that goes through my nerves. The nerves typically come from my brain (unless we talk about reflexes), so the electrochemical impulses start there. The electrochemical impulses are actual differences in ions across cell membranes, so-called "electrochemical potential". It is a real thing. It is actual chemistry. It is actual matter. It is the differential localization of atom parts. But somehow my free will can manipulate these localizations, and decide that the electrochemical potential in some nerves should be so and so while the electrochemical potential in other nerves should suddenly change leading to impulses that make certain muscles move. How is that possible. How can mind affect matter? This is the definition of telekinesis. Through the action of immaterial free will actual matter is manipulated.

I believe that our actions are completely directed by cause-and-effect. Whatever nerve impulses are sent out is directly a result of whatever electrical impulses happens in our brains, which is a direct result of external and internal stimuli. E.g., if you jump from reading this it is because you read about it from this post (light from your screen caused electrochemical impulses in your eye nerves to travel to your brain causing a mental process that resulted in signals going to your leg muscles). What I am talking about is determinism. Everything is caused by an actual, physical reason. It is all energy and matter. 

The alternative, that there is some force in our brain that allows us to manipulate these impulses, belongs to the realm of the supernatural. I would say that the idea of free will contradicts our scientific understanding of the world. It demands a supernatural component that allows our minds to break the deterministic chain-of-events that would otherwise make us do other things. It releases us from deterministic world that encompasses everything else. It gives humans a supernatural dimension, akin to the soul. I would argue that it is just as unreasonable to believe in a "soul" as it is to believe in "free will". There is simply no scientific evidence for either.

Does this determinism mean that we can actually predict everything? Well, we are not very good at that, are we? Maybe we could if we knew everything about a system then we could possibly predict the outcome of it further down the line. Like perfect weather forecasting. But luckily, I suppose, quantum mechanics adds a certain amount of randomness to this. Like scrambling a signal. Preventing perfect prediction to be impossible. So while we might not have free will, we can still not predict human behavior perfectly, due to this inherent randomness caused by quantum mechanics.

So no free will and no real determinism. What does this mean? Well, any thought processes that make us think we actually choose our behavior -- rather than just act like robots upon external and internal stimuli -- is just post-rationalization. It is an illusion. We do what we do because we have no choice. If this is true it would probably have pretty large consequences to society. I can't even begin to think of what it would mean. It makes my head swim. But I can't escape the conclusion that free will seems to be a physical impossibility. It demands a supernatural force in our minds.

Any thoughts?

[SoulMonster]

Just googled the topic and first hit treats the post-rationalizing I wrote about: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-all-be-an-illusion-scientists-suggest-after-study-that-shows-choice-could-just-be-a7008181.html

[dontdamnmeuyi2015]

I think we have free will up to a point. We do make our own decisions, but sometimes there might be something or someone blocking our way.

Free will is what your brain tells you, but it might not always be right. We make mistakes constantly, but we do try to do what's best.

I think people in the US have more free will than people in china or North Korea have, so if you live in a pretty good country, you can use your free will and hope for the best. At least you won't be killed for thinking out of the box.

[soon]

TL;DR but I feel like the take away point is that this is a honey pot to draw Diesel into another debate 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Oldest Goat said:

I disagree. It's like you're looking at the waves on the ocean and saying water is waves.

What do you mean?

[username]

25 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I don't believe in it. Some force in my mind that allows me to actually choose what to do? How does that work? Bear with me. If I jump that is caused by my muscles flexing. The muscles are directed by electrochemical impulses that goes through my nerves. The nerves typically come from my brain (unless we talk about reflexes), so the electrochemical impulses start there. The electrochemical impulses are actual differences in ions across cell membranes, so-called "electrochemical potential". It is a real thing. It is actual chemistry. It is actual matter. It is the differential localization of atom parts. But somehow my free will can manipulate these localizations, and decide that the electrochemical potential in some nerves should be so and so while the electrochemical potential in other nerves should suddenly change leading to impulses that make certain muscles move. How is that possible. How can mind affect matter? This is the definition of telekinesis. Through the action of immaterial free will actual matter is manipulated.

I believe that our actions are completely directed by cause-and-effect. Whatever nerve impulses are sent out is directly a result of whatever electrical impulses happens in our brains, which is a direct result of external and internal stimuli. E.g., if you jump from reading this it is because you read about it from this post (light from your screen caused electrochemical impulses in your eye nerves to travel to your brain causing a mental process that resulted in signals going to your leg muscles). What I am talking about is determinism. Everything is caused by an actual, physical reason. It is all energy and matter. 

The alternative, that there is some force in our brain that allows us to manipulate these impulses, belongs to the realm of the supernatural. I would say that the idea of free will contradicts our scientific understanding of the world. It demands a supernatural component that allows our minds to break the deterministic chain-of-events that would otherwise make us do other things. It releases us from deterministic world that encompasses everything else. It gives humans a supernatural dimension, akin to the soul. I would argue that it is just as unreasonable to believe in a "soul" as it is to believe in "free will". There is simply no scientific evidence for either.

Does this determinism mean that we can actually predict everything? Well, we are not very good at that, are we? Maybe we could if we knew everything about a system then we could possibly predict the outcome of it further down the line. Like perfect weather forecasting. But luckily, I suppose, quantum mechanics adds a certain amount of randomness to this. Like scrambling a signal. Preventing perfect prediction to be impossible. So while we might not have free will, we can still not predict human behavior perfectly, due to this inherent randomness caused by quantum mechanics.

So no free will and no real determinism. What does this mean? Well, any thought processes that make us think we actually choose our behavior -- rather than just act like robots upon external and internal stimuli -- is just post-rationalization. It is an illusion. We do what we do because we have no choice. If this is true it would probably have pretty large consequences to society. I can't even begin to think of what it would mean. It makes my head swim. But I can't escape the conclusion that free will seems to be a physical impossibility. It demands a supernatural force in our minds.

Any thoughts?

Didn't read all that, but who's Will and why is he in prison? 

[action]

i believe our instincts are all pre programmed by the simulation. no way all of that can exist just by evolution.

but, to make sense to any of this, i do believe that we have the choice between good and evil.

the simulation must have a purpose, and it's the only one i can think of: to separate the good guys and the bad ones.

at least, i hope so. justice must be done, sometime.

[Whiskey Rose]

I don't understand a thought process that determines something like a "soul" or the "supernatural" cannot exist simply because there is (as yet) no scientific proof to corroborate it. Do you actually ascribe to the notion that we humans have attained all the answers in the Universe? What hubris!

What about something as simple as having an itch that our brain signals our arm to scratch, yet we don't because we know that may do more harm than good? How is that a physical response, as opposed to a free will response?

I'm sure we could all go on and on.

[SoulMonster]

13 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Basically, I think you're looking at the how and deciding it's the why. I'm not saying everything in your post is wrong.

I believe everything changes.

Yeah, everything changes but not sure how that truism relates to my post.

Whether free will can actually exist in a material world is something we have, apparently, thought about for long times. Here's a question as posed by the Epicurians:

"If all movement is always interconnected, the new arising from the old in a determinate order—if the atoms never swerve so as to originate some new movement that will snap the bonds of fate, the everlasting sequence of cause and effect—what is the source of the free will possessed by living things throughout the earth?”

11 minutes ago, action said:

i believe our instincts are all pre programmed by the simulation. 

What is "the simulation"?

[SoulMonster]

9 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

You are saying that without this improvable theory of determinism...then it must be supernatural souls. Interesting. Interesting.

Yes, if we really have free will -- e.g. the ability to suppress the molecular chain-of-event that would make us to different things, this cause and effect of external stimuli and our neural molecular makeup that directs our actions -- then that free will must be supernatural in nature. 

[SoulMonster]

11 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

I don't understand a thought process that determines something like a "soul" or the "supernatural" cannot exist simply because there is (as yet) no scientific proof to corroborate it. Do you actually ascribe to the notion that we humans have attained all the answers in the Universe? What hubris!

Not at all. But free will must be supernatural in nature (because it would mean some unknown force that we could manipulate and in turn could interfere with and manipulate the chemistry of our brains, and through all our exploration of the world we have never encountered anything supernatural. Hence it is very unlikely that free will exists. At least it is a gross violation of Occam's Razor. 

[Graeme]

We don't really know what the mind is, it's a kind of abstract realm.

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

What about something as simple as having an itch that our brain signals our arm to scratch, yet we don't because we know that may do more harm than good? How is that a physical response, as opposed to a free will response?

I don't see how that cannot be a deterministic response? Our brains have been wired to not do behavior that would be more bad than good, hence we are pre-determined to not itch our hand. I don't see how your example must be a result of free will. 

Have you heard of Liber's experiments? He did brain scans of people doing simple hand gestures. He could monitor when a movement where to happen, because, apparently, an electrochemical buildup would precede the actual movement. He then monitored when people thought they made the decision to move their hands. Funnily enough, the actual build-up started before the decision took place. The brain had already started making the movement before the people was aware of the decision. It wasn't really a decision. It was just post-rationalizing. They became aware of the build-up after it has started and the brain made them think they had made a decision. No decision was made. They acted without free will. The conscious awareness of actually making a decision was purely illusionary. 

[Whiskey Rose]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Not at all. But free will must be supernatural in nature (because it would mean some unknown force that we could manipulate and in turn could interfere with and manipulate the chemistry of our brains, and through all our exploration of the world we have never encountered anything supernatural. Hence it is very unlikely that free will exists. At least it is a gross violation of Occam's Razor. 

Occam's Razor is a theoretical guide, not an indisputable truth that the Universe and all in it must adhere to.

 

[SoulMonster]

4 minutes ago, Graeme said:

We don't really know what the mind is, it's a kind of abstract realm.

Less and less so. Neurobiology is advancing quickly. It is far from the black box of just a few decades ago. I just referred to Liber's experiments, which have been copied by others. We also have a lot of knowledge about how various parts of the brain are responsible for various behavior. Scientists in my city were awarded to Nobel price in medicine and physiology just a few years ago on their research into the brain and mental compasses. 

Anyway. Even if the brain is a complete black box it wouldn't alter the fact that IF we have free will, it means that we somehow are able to manipulate the electrochemical impulses sent from our brain, regardless of whether the electrochemical makeup of the brain would induce that specific event and nothing else. Hence, we could break down the otherwise deterministic molecular cause-and-event that would demand a certain outcome. The proverbial mind over matter. But that requires a supernatural agent. And we have no reason to assume any such thing exists.  

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

Occam's Razor is a theoretical guide, not an indisputable truth that the Universe and all in it must adhere to.

Again, I agree. But without any evidence implying the existence of such a supernatural agent and with mounting evidence from behavioral science implying free will is an illusion (look to Liber et al), any rational, objective person would -- depressingly, in my case -- conclude that free will is likely not existing.

I am not claiming we have proved that free will is a myth. But if we can agree it relies upon a supernatural agent and it has no supportive evidence, then it becomes very implausible that it actually exists.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

Well, I mean everything changes, and you're shrugging everything off hinging it all on this theory.

The answer to that question is we don't know.

"It's supernatural if I can't understand it." - SoulMonster

You're as bad as us!

We don't know. Sure. But it is highly unlikely. Because we know of no force in nature that acts beyond the material world yet can affect it. We know of nothing other than matter and energy that can affect and manipulate other matter and energy. Yet free will requires such an agent to exist, because free will must mean that the otherwise actions taken as a result of our external stimuli and brain chemistry, can something be suppressed in favor of a different action. It is magic.

Heh No, it is supernatural if it relies upon a phenomenon that negates the laws of nature as we know them. Hence "above nature". 

2 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

I hadn't heard of that. Very interesting.

Please read this, they explain all this much better than I can: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-all-be-an-illusion-scientists-suggest-after-study-that-shows-choice-could-just-be-a7008181.html

[Whiskey Rose]

2 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Our brains have been wired to not do behavior that would be more bad than good,

Really? I don't agree.

As to the rest of your post, are you specifically referring to bodily movements? Because again, it's almost like the chicken and the egg argument, you are relying on people's perceptions on when they made the decision to move their hand, (eye witness testimony is notoriously flawed)..the build up of electromagnetic energy could have happened as a result of a decision they made before they were consciously aware of it.

It gets much less simplistic when it comes to behaviours and how we interact within our world and society.

And it almost seems as if everything you say does indeed point to the existence of something supernatural, unexplained, yet you are just unwilling to accept it.

 

[Whiskey Rose]

@Oldest Goat.  Ma eh? lol. My determinism dictates you must receive a swift kick in the arse for that..

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, Whiskey Rose said:

Really? I don't agree.

As to the rest of your post, are you specifically referring to bodily movements? Because again, it's almost like the chicken and the egg argument, you are relying on people's perceptions on when they made the decision to move their hand, (eye witness testimony is notoriously flawed)..the build up of electromagnetic energy could have happened as a result of a decision they made before they were consciously aware of it.

It gets much less simplistic when it comes to behaviours and how we interact within our world and society.

And it almost seems as if everything you say does indeed point to the existence of something supernatural, unexplained, yet you are just unwilling to accept it.

 

I am sure there is plenty of methodology criticism of these experiments, and I am not in a position to do defend them, but if I have understood things correctly he could measure the conscious activity of believing one had made a decision, and this consciousness started after the unconscious build-up that was the start of the movement. 

Still, this is just one out of many modern experiments that implies we have no free will. And I am not aware of many (or any) experiments that suggest otherwise. 

But all experiments aside, just from thinking through this we have to inescapable conclude, even if we had no experimental evidence, that free will would require a supernatural agent. And based on that alone, if we go for a rational, naturalistic world-view, we have to conclude that we have no free will. 

I wish it wasn't so, but I don't think we have any choice.

[Whiskey Rose]

17 minutes ago, Oldest Goat said:

So my question is, is there a scientific explanation for a one-off joint hallucination or at least a theory for it?

This is a great question. I'm actually interested to hear what soulmonster or dazey have to say about it.

But, i'm gonna go out on a limb to say that science probably has zero explanation for identical joint visual hallucinations, barring some kind of poisoning, but would that explain the very same thing being seen? Doubtful. Science is still trying to unravel the interconnections between brain pathways of schizophrenics experiencing auditory hallucinations, let alone being able to explain joint visual ones. Therefore, Supernatural.

[DieselDaisy]

I want to know what Professor Ditchfield thinks about Free Will.

[The Glow Inc.]

Our free will only goes as far as our inner child allows us to. We are a societal construct, the product of our childhood traumas, no need to have had a shitty childhood to have them.

The sooner you learn how to integrate those wounds, the most free will you can reclaim for yourself and the more your real personality reveals itself.

[SoulMonster]

9 hours ago, Oldest Goat said:

This might make me appear to be a lunatic but whatever, it's a genuine question.

As a child one night I was sleeping in the lounge on one couch and my sister was on the other one. In the middle of the night I'd say roughly 3am we both suddenly woke up simultaneously(could see my sister sit up as I did.) There was a ghost in the doorway. It was hovering off the ground, pale and glowing in a white dress, a woman with long hair. Before saying anything I had the sense to ask my sister if she was seeing anything there and she described exactly what I was looking at. We both kept staring at it for a while and I could feel it looking back at me. Then it turned to it's left, and floated out the doorway. Neither of us got good or bad vibes from it. We were then like, well, that was weird...goodnight. lol

We both remember this vividly. This is the only time either of us have seen anything like that. It was very peculiar and I think of it now and then but I don't really know what to make of it. I'm prone to severe depression, have ADHD and autism spectrum disorder so I have considered my brain could be defective in some way but if it was wouldn't I see this sort of thing more than once? Plus my sister saw it too.

So my question is, is there a scientific explanation for a one-off joint hallucination or at least a theory for it?

I don't know if there are scientific explanations, but at least such shared hallucinations/illusionary perceptions are known and described. I would think -- but I am hardly an expert -- that what we are dealing with here is memories of vague perceptions between people that are then harmonized. Memory is a plastic thing and highly susceptible to be altered. This is well known -- the more times you recollect a memory, the more likely it is that that memory will be altered in various ways. And group dynamics like memory synchronization (or memory conformity) can result in shared memories, even memories that are flawed in various ways and would appear paranormal.

What I think happened, although I am just guessing and take it for what it is worth, is that you both indeed saw something, or more likely someone, in the doorway. It was dark, you were sleepy, kids have imaginations. And through memory conformity and alterations, it quickly, I suppose, is remembered as a ghost.

I actually have a similar experience. I saw what I thought was a ghost out in a forest when I was 5-6 years old. Looking back, I remember that I years after thought I saw a white lady sort-of gliding through the forest. But right now I don't have any actual memory of that visual, but I remember my memories of how it should have been. So I don't remember the actual sight, but I remember how I remembered it to be, if you understand. Already there I see how distorted these memories can become. It's Chinese whispers of the mind. There and then it was something about the whole context that made me immediately think it was a ghost. And we were many kids seeing the person, and I suppose we found joy in running scared away -- probably giggling while escaping. But I can't for the help of me retrieve any trustworthy memory that this person actually was paranormal, except of being very white and at an unusual place. I suppose we kids immediately talked about this after having got away, and I am sure already then memory conformity set in between us, where we would align our interpretation of what we saw, and where I assume some of us just saw an ordinary person walking in the forest while others saw a ghost, but what stuck to our minds, naturally, was the paranormal interpretation.

So why do we have this memory conformity? I suppose, lots of supposing here!, it comes down to group harmonization. A group functions better when it is an agreement. Constant arguing and fighting over details doesn't make a group work together. So we are wired to, at least some extent, align our memories. It keeps a group content and ready for action. This again overlaps with herd mentality, conformity, empathy. All things that have been evolved to make us more successful. And the flip side of this is that something we synchronize flawed memories. 

But I only suppose.

[SoulMonster]

9 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

I want to know what Professor Ditchfield thinks about Free Will.

He's a historian, who cares?