Free Will

[arebelspy]

To lighten the mood, SMBC "Free Will" comics!  Yay!

[GuitarStv]

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Here's a question to start it off:

Do animals have free will?

If yes, I'll have some questions, but I'm assuming the answer will be no, so if no, what makes humans different?  Where does our free will come from?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, no, most animals don't have free will (or if they have it, they hide it really well). They lack the human ability for abstract long-range planning by simulating how different scenarios will play out in their head, recording their plans or changing them later. They lack the ability to elaborate why they have made a particular decision and under which circumstances they would have decided otherwise. In short they lack ability for deliberate action. Deliberating, ability to intent, acting with premeditation = having free will. Predictably and immediately reacting to external stimuli with little apparent internal processing, repeating a set of instinctive or trained behaviors = not having free will.

I can prove that jumping spiders do considerable and extensive long range planning when hunting prey (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00293678#page-1), comparing and selecting various scenarios based on their position, the vegetation around them, and the position of their prey.

That's just a spider.  With a cluster of neurons smaller than a pinhead.

Granted, it is not able to elaborate upon circumstances of decision making as it can't speak . . . but how can you say that a human acts with intent heading out to buy a cheeseburger, but a spider (problem solving by planning out a complicated set of multiple paths that eventually lead towards an advantageous position to attack prey and then following this path) is not?

[PKFFW]

Sooo... no responses to this.

I find it weird that a supermajority hold an opinion but no one is willing to defend or discuss it.

I have to ask then: is that opinion well thought out then, or is it just a gut feeling?  What conclusion would someone holding that opinion reach if they did spend some time deliberating on the topic?

I think the issue is two fold here.

Firstly, no one needs feel they must defend their opinion to you.  Maybe they use their free will to choose to not bother. ;-)

Secondly, and this is likely where the first stems from, you have made it clear that you have made up your mind and nothing will convince you otherwise.  That is fine but it also means that a discussion with you on the matter is not about a free exchange of ideas with the idea of mutual understanding of the other persons point of view but is in fact an argument which one must win and one must lose.  Where's the fun in that?

[arebelspy]

Certainly no one has to defend their opinion. It's just that here we have such smart, opinionated people that are usually more than willing to explain their position, it's weird that on this one issue they aren't, so it seems like - though I could be wrong - they may just not have good reasons to give.

I don't have my mind made up about anything, nor do I care about winning any argument. I'm curious to hear someone articulate reasons for thinking free will exists.

[PKFFW]

Certainly no one has to defend their opinion. It's just that here we have such smart, opinionated people that are usually more than willing to explain their position, it's weird that on this one issue they aren't, so it seems like - though I could be wrong - they may just not have good reasons to give.

I don't have my mind made up about anything, nor do I care about winning any argument. I'm curious to hear someone articulate reasons for thinking free will exists.

That's interesting because previously in this thread you have used phrases such as "concede the argument" and "willing to defend".

These phrases tend to indicate the opposite of what you claim here.

[Knapptyme]

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Here's a question to start it off:

Do animals have free will?

If yes, I'll have some questions, but I'm assuming the answer will be no, so if no, what makes humans different?  Where does our free will come from?

If the original question asks "does free will exist," wouldn't that question in and of itself bring it into some sort of existence as we know it by virtue of it being questionable? If you'd like to go down a rabbit hole of semantics like that, I suggest that may be the reason for a large "yes" contingency whether or not free will exists any more than determinism.

Could I ask if concept "fill in the blank" exists and it actually exist? I think that is precisely where math comes to play. Imaginary numbers exist? Really? But not really unless some functions are applied to them to make the real numbers. But we can have thoughts about what it is for them to exist. This, I believe, is your reason for a population to quickly answer "yes" yet have no more proof.

So do animals have free will? Maybe. Sometimes my dog listens to me, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he pees on weird smelling things, sometimes he doesn't. If he doesn't have free will, he sure acts like it. I've read some of your questions if animals have free will dealing with slavery or immorally keeping them hostage. Any others? I might entertain them for the sake of discussion as it pertains to humans or animals in general.

[arebelspy]

So do animals have free will? Maybe. Sometimes my dog listens to me, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he pees on weird smelling things, sometimes he doesn't. If he doesn't have free will, he sure acts like it. I've read some of your questions if animals have free will dealing with slavery or immorally keeping them hostage. Any others? I might entertain them for the sake of discussion as it pertains to humans or animals in general.

Thanks for being willing to share your views.

If you just want to stick to humans/animals, okay.

What constitutes murder? If a cow has free will, is it still moral to kill it?

How far down does he free will go in terms of he animal hierarchy?  Do ants have free will?

[Grid]

Just so it's out there in the discussion, a "define:"free will"" Google search returns this:

free will
noun
1. the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
synonyms:    self-determination, freedom of choice, autonomy, liberty, independence

[dragoncar]

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Here's a question to start it off:

Do animals have free will?

If yes, I'll have some questions, but I'm assuming the answer will be no, so if no, what makes humans different?  Where does our free will come from?

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, no, most animals don't have free will (or if they have it, they hide it really well). They lack the human ability for abstract long-range planning by simulating how different scenarios will play out in their head, recording their plans or changing them later. They lack the ability to elaborate why they have made a particular decision and under which circumstances they would have decided otherwise. In short they lack ability for deliberate action. Deliberating, ability to intent, acting with premeditation = having free will. Predictably and immediately reacting to external stimuli with little apparent internal processing, repeating a set of instinctive or trained behaviors = not having free will.

I can prove that jumping spiders do considerable and extensive long range planning when hunting prey (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00293678#page-1), comparing and selecting various scenarios based on their position, the vegetation around them, and the position of their prey.

That's just a spider.  With a cluster of neurons smaller than a pinhead.

Granted, it is not able to elaborate upon circumstances of decision making as it can't speak . . . but how can you say that a human acts with intent heading out to buy a cheeseburger, but a spider (problem solving by planning out a complicated set of multiple paths that eventually lead towards an advantageous position to attack prey and then following this path) is not?

Oh man, I missed the whole "animals don't have free will" thing.  To say that human's have free will, but not (at least some) animals, is some serious special-snowflake bullshit.  Reminds me of the claim that dogs don't go to heaven because they don't have souls.  Which, of course they don't, because souls don't exist.  But the hubris of saying only humans do really gets my goat.

[scottish]

Free will is something that marketers of consumer goods are trying to remove.   Therefore it must exist.

You deserve that Rolex, iPhone, M3!    Look deep into my eyes.   You will buy a new BMW tomorrow.   You deserve a new BMW.

[Knapptyme]

So do animals have free will? Maybe. Sometimes my dog listens to me, sometimes he doesn't. Sometimes he pees on weird smelling things, sometimes he doesn't. If he doesn't have free will, he sure acts like it. I've read some of your questions if animals have free will dealing with slavery or immorally keeping them hostage. Any others? I might entertain them for the sake of discussion as it pertains to humans or animals in general.

Thanks for being willing to share your views.

If you just want to stick to humans/animals, okay.

What constitutes murder? If a cow has free will, is it still moral to kill it?

How far down does he free will go in terms of he animal hierarchy?  Do ants have free will?

I'm sure you have thought of answers to these questions before posing them, but I'll entertain them nonetheless. This may be only tangentially related to the free will discussion initially intended.

Let me start by saying that I do not think that even conceptually does an animal having free will grant them equality. Is that wrong? I'm not sure, but as I write, I'm trying to answer your questions without sounding like an a-hole. Ethical treatment of animals is still of value to me. In anecdotal animal kingdom reference that comes to mind, animals rarely kill other animals without reason--defending territory or  for food. I hear cats are much different than that, therefore I despise their behavior as such. My dog, however, has killed many moles, lizards, frogs, and bugs by accident while tying to "play" with them. (My wife and I want to rename him Lenny in reference to Of Mice and Men because of those type of actions.)

So, yes, in that sense, ants could have free will, and I am a horrible person for stomping on them or sweeping away their homes. Again, I don't think that my having the free will to do as I please and they having the free will to do as they please subjects me or any human to equality with ants. So your question of hierarchy is interesting. In those terms, I would guess whoever is at the top creates the hierarchy. In certain settings, humans may not be at the top even if we think we are. Heck, the ant may consider itself the top and not know any different in an existential manner. I have not read enough studies or conducted them myself to truly know about animal mentalities.

Could determinism ultimately determine that all humans (eventually, clearly not now) believe they have free will?

[arebelspy]

So all animals have free will?

Do all living things (plants, for example)?

If not, what is a necessary condition for free will besides life?

[arebelspy]

I'm fine with an answer, btw, of "only humans have free will" or "all animals do" or "only hear ones do" - what I'm curious to hear is where you draw the line, and what your reasoning behind drawing it there is.

So if someone wants to explain why they think all animals have free will and someone else why only humans and clams do, that's fine, I'm just curious as to your reasoning. :)

[HappyRock]

"Free will is the ability of agents to make choices unimpeded by certain prevailing factors. Such prevailing factors that have been studied in the past have included metaphysical constraints (such as logical, nomological, or theological determinism),[1] physical constraints (such as chains or imprisonment), social constraints (such as threat of punishment or censure), and mental constraints (such as compulsions or phobias, neurological disorders, or genetic predispositions). The principle of free will has religious, legal, ethical, and scientific implications.[2] For example, in the religious realm, free will implies that individual will and choices can coexist with an omnipotent, omniscient divinity that raises certain injunctions or moral obligations for man. In the law, it affects considerations of punishment and rehabilitation. In ethics, it may hold implications for whether individuals can be held morally accountable for their actions. In science, neuroscientific findings regarding free will may suggest different ways of predicting human behavior."

Going off this definition, it seems to me that free will absolutely does not exist for SOME people. Can anyone explain what I am missing?

To those that answered yes, can you give us a definition of how you are using the word?

I guess some people have free will, but some of those with neurological disorders definitely don't. I still think people are fated to how/where they were born so it still leans towards determinism over free will

[Knapptyme]

So all animals have free will?

Do all living things (plants, for example)?

If not, what is a necessary condition for free will besides life?

I see a slippery slope coming. If I, or we, draw a line somewhere, could we (as a human race) create something beyond that line as in artificial free will. Life, therefore, would not be a prerequisite for free will.

In terms of plants, again, I say, why not free will for them, too. I have seen trees grow in funky patterns that might be explainable but not necessarily the best route, i.e. poor choices by the tree.

[arebelspy]

So all animals have free will?

Do all living things (plants, for example)?

If not, what is a necessary condition for free will besides life?

I see a slippery slope coming. If I, or we, draw a line somewhere, could we (as a human race) create something beyond that line as in artificial free will. Life, therefore, would not be a prerequisite for free will.

In terms of plants, again, I say, why not free will for them, too. I have seen trees grow in funky patterns that might be explainable but not necessarily the best route, i.e. poor choices by the tree.

Okay so in your view all life has it (all animals and plants at least) and potentially some nonliving (but presumably intelligent?) AI could someday have it. So life is a sufficient condition, but not necessary one.

I'm assuming that's a more radical view of free will, but I don't know, as I don't know anyone else willing to articulate what free will is and who has it, so maybe hats what everyone voting yes believes.

What makes you think a flower opening up to the sun chooses to do so, and could have chosen not to do so?  Any particular evidence, or just a feeling, or what?

[Datastache]

But it's so much beside the point whether our thinking is "deterministic" or "random" or whatever word you wish to call it. I can agree with you fully that we are biological machines and that in your (impossible) experiment the same choices would have been made given the same initial state of reality, and still claim that I have free will, distinct from animals.

So we're both in agreement that humans make choices - often with at least some degree of conscious premeditation - and that those choices are dictated by physical laws (with perhaps some help from quantum randomness). Looks like the only point of contention is a semantic one: we're using different definitions of the term "free will."

There's nothing profound to discover by imagining how impossible experiments would play out, so why obsess about them?

What's "profound" is that we apparently cannot make choices other than the choices we make, which seems to contradict most people's intuition (including my own). I find this interesting. As I understood it, this thread was asking about the topic, so I provided my opinion, along with my reasoning behind it - reasoning that is best explained through thought experiments. I'm not sure why you're implying that this constitutes "obsessing."

[Primm]

An interesting episode of Stephen Hawkings' Grand Design where he discusses the issue of free will and how it relates to the meaning of life (and no, it isn't 42...)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGUCFCy3hTE&spfreload=10

[Primm]

I see a slippery slope coming. If I, or we, draw a line somewhere, could we (as a human race) create something beyond that line as in artificial free will. Life, therefore, would not be a prerequisite for free will.

In terms of plants, again, I say, why not free will for them, too. I have seen trees grow in funky patterns that might be explainable but not necessarily the best route, i.e. poor choices by the tree.

How do you know it's free will (or poor choices) and not predetermined by their genetic makeup and universal physics?

Someone posted earlier (sorry, I just read the whole thread and lost the post...) that if there was no free will then we would eventually not need to imprison people for committing crimes.

I see the reverse. The fact that people continue to commit crimes punishable by the law are more of an indicator of the absence of free will. If people weren't predestined to commit crimes then they would be more likely to learn from the errors of others, and less people would be imprisoned.

[Knapptyme]

So all animals have free will?

Do all living things (plants, for example)?

If not, what is a necessary condition for free will besides life?

I see a slippery slope coming. If I, or we, draw a line somewhere, could we (as a human race) create something beyond that line as in artificial free will. Life, therefore, would not be a prerequisite for free will.

In terms of plants, again, I say, why not free will for them, too. I have seen trees grow in funky patterns that might be explainable but not necessarily the best route, i.e. poor choices by the tree.

Okay so in your view all life has it (all animals and plants at least) and potentially some nonliving (but presumably intelligent?) AI could someday have it. So life is a sufficient condition, but not necessary one.

I'm assuming that's a more radical view of free will, but I don't know, as I don't know anyone else willing to articulate what free will is and who has it, so maybe hats what everyone voting yes believes.

My radical view is unlikely why the majority keeps voting yes.

What makes you think a flower opening up to the sun chooses to do so, and could have chosen not to do so?  Any particular evidence, or just a feeling, or what?

How do you know it's free will (or poor choices) and not predetermined by their genetic makeup and universal physics?

Our observations suggest that the flower opens up to the sun or that plants do this or that out of programmed responses to stimuli. That seems fine until anomalies happen. I understand you could dismiss the outliers as random chance and not free will. I accept that challenge. I am willing to suggest, however, that plants, too, could execute a form of free will. When I see a tree grow through and around a chainlink fence, I think there had to be a better way, but I can explain why it grew that way. Just because we can explain why a plant behaves in a certain way to certain stimuli does not take potential free will from them.

When studies are done, they rarely conclude a 100% success rate on whatever response they are trying to generate. It has some wiggle room within some confidence level. It may just be a feeling, but it does not seem illogical to suppose the anomalous data or outlier could have been achieved through free will of that thing being tested or observed. (Again, for those of you who chime in with randomness theories, I understand that is a valid challenge to my claim but not a defeater.)

[GuitarStv]

Free will is something that marketers of consumer goods are trying to remove.   Therefore it must exist.

You deserve that Rolex, iPhone, M3!    Look deep into my eyes.   You will buy a new BMW tomorrow.   You deserve a new BMW.

See, I'd just argue that they're really good at triggering responses in biological machines by providing the right stimulus.  Why would you need free will to be susceptible to advertising?

[frugalnacho]

I see a slippery slope coming. If I, or we, draw a line somewhere, could we (as a human race) create something beyond that line as in artificial free will. Life, therefore, would not be a prerequisite for free will.

In terms of plants, again, I say, why not free will for them, too. I have seen trees grow in funky patterns that might be explainable but not necessarily the best route, i.e. poor choices by the tree.

How do you know it's free will (or poor choices) and not predetermined by their genetic makeup and universal physics?

Someone posted earlier (sorry, I just read the whole thread and lost the post...) that if there was no free will then we would eventually not need to imprison people for committing crimes.

I see the reverse. The fact that people continue to commit crimes punishable by the law are more of an indicator of the absence of free will. If people weren't predestined to commit crimes then they would be more likely to learn from the errors of others, and less people would be imprisoned.

It's still just a risk/reward calculation going on.  I'm not predestined to commit a crime, but I still may choose to of my own free will if I feel the reward outweighs the risk.  I think the fact that we still have so much crime just points to the fact that humans aren't as smart and rational as they think they are, and are miscalculating their odds of being caught and the reward/risk ratio.  Or maybe they don't have free will.   

On a similar note, a point has been made that the justice system is unfair if we have no free will, as you are predestined to commit that crime.  But all your decision making synapses don't exist in a vacuum, they exist in the real world along side of these laws.  If free will doesn't exist, then your brain is just a complicated (and automated) organic decision making machine.   It chose to commit a crime knowing that if caught it could result in punishment.   It's still an effective way to filter out undesirable behavior, whether it was predetermined behavior or not.

Another point: When given the choice between a burger or a taco, my mind might subconsciously make the decision for me, and even trick me into thinking that I used my free will to make that choice.  But what about long term goals and decisions?  What if I decide that I am going to get myself into great physical shape, and I am going to achieve financial independence.  Then I spend the next 10 years diligently working towards those goals.  Was that my own free will choosing to do that?  My own free will choosing and shaping my behavior for the next 10 years? Or was I predetermined to get into great shape over the next few years, and once it was set off it was just an illusion that my mind "decided" upon?  If that was predetermined for me, then why haven't I done it thus far?

I feel as though I have free will.  I have that feeling because I think I could choose multiple paths for my life right now.  I could choose to get into great shape if I wanted to.   I could also choose to become a fat slob.  Of course I can only choose one, or I could flip flop and change my choice later.  Eventually though time will pass and I will ultimately find myself on one side or the other.  Either I will be in great shape, or I will not, or maybe i'll have landed somewhere in between.

[arebelspy]

Another point: When given the choice between a burger or a taco, my mind might subconsciously make the decision for me, and even trick me into thinking that I used my free will to make that choice.  But what about long term goals and decisions?

Long term goals and decisions are just small decisions aggregated over time.

If your short term decisions are outside of your control and made before you consciously "choose" them, it stands to reason long term ones are just the compilation of all of those.

[dragoncar]

I'm not sure why we need a definition of free will beyond that posted earlier "your actions are not entirely predetermined or random"

Agree that, regardless of whether cows have free will, whether it is wrong to kill them is a completely different can of worms.  I've never heard a definition of murder that includes free will.  Are we starting to confuse free will with sentience?  Anyways, I eat meat but think in a moral utopia we wouldn't kill any cows.

[frugalnacho]

Another point: When given the choice between a burger or a taco, my mind might subconsciously make the decision for me, and even trick me into thinking that I used my free will to make that choice.  But what about long term goals and decisions?

Long term goals and decisions are just small decisions aggregated over time.

If your short term decisions are outside of your control and made before you consciously "choose" them, it stands to reason long term ones are just the compilation of all of those.

I see it differently.  That snap choice to "get in shape" will require lots of hard work and dedication, and long term planning.  Or are all those nights of pushups and pullups and long runs already predetermined to happen?

[arebelspy]

I'm not sure why we need a definition of free will beyond that posted earlier "your actions are not entirely predetermined or random"

Agree that, regardless of whether cows have free will, whether it is wrong to kill them is a completely different can of worms.  I've never heard a definition of murder that includes free will.  Are we starting to confuse free will with sentience?  Anyways, I eat meat but think in a moral utopia we wouldn't kill any cows.

Yes, I think most people's non-issues with killing animals stems from a lack of sentience/consciousness which is tied in, typically, with free will.

If someone is okay killing a cow with free will (ethically), why wouldn't they be okay with killing a human?

[arebelspy]

Another point: When given the choice between a burger or a taco, my mind might subconsciously make the decision for me, and even trick me into thinking that I used my free will to make that choice.  But what about long term goals and decisions?

Long term goals and decisions are just small decisions aggregated over time.

If your short term decisions are outside of your control and made before you consciously "choose" them, it stands to reason long term ones are just the compilation of all of those.

I see it differently.  That snap choice to "get in shape" will require lots of hard work and dedication, and long term planning.  Or are all those nights of pushups and pullups and long runs already predetermined to happen?

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

But yes, at each decision point (each night of pushups) all the previous causes determine what choice will be made - to do the pushups that night or not. That's why habits are so powerful, they're a determinant that is a quite powerful cause.  When you've done something many times, you're more likely to do it again.  Without all those prior determinants, you're unlikely to.  Those influencers determine your decision, and those decisions in time, build up to you being "in shape."

You don't magically get to "in shape" - its the individual actions over time that build to habits.  Those individual (small) decisions are made because of the prior causes.

[skunkfunk]

Imaginary numbers exist? Really? But not really unless some functions are applied to them to make the real numbers.

Not at all true. KVar, for instance. No "function" necessary, you can even size capacitors with the unit.

With 75% of poll respondents replying yes, free will exists, I'd love for one of them to engage in a friendly dialogue explaining why.

Good lord, what have I been doing for 3 pages then?

I typically keep my religious beliefs and my science separate, but I will disclose that the one necessarily influences the other in this case. I find it fundamentally incompatible with my life views to see the ability for me to choose my own path as anything but quite real.

However, that said, I find no sufficient evidence either way to make me come to a logical conclusion on this argument so my personal belief, free will, is what it is. I've read the studies and such and find them lacking either way, and there is plenty to whine about with these individual studies. Hardly any more conclusive than the various individual studies that make waves and then quietly get retracted later on other issues. If the scientific community comes to a consensus on this, I'll begrudgingly accept it, most likely.

[frugalnacho]

Another point: When given the choice between a burger or a taco, my mind might subconsciously make the decision for me, and even trick me into thinking that I used my free will to make that choice.  But what about long term goals and decisions?

Long term goals and decisions are just small decisions aggregated over time.

If your short term decisions are outside of your control and made before you consciously "choose" them, it stands to reason long term ones are just the compilation of all of those.

I see it differently.  That snap choice to "get in shape" will require lots of hard work and dedication, and long term planning.  Or are all those nights of pushups and pullups and long runs already predetermined to happen?

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

But yes, at each decision point (each night of pushups) all the previous causes determine what choice will be made - to do the pushups that night or not. That's why habits are so powerful, they're a determinant that is a quite powerful cause.  When you've done something many times, you're more likely to do it again.  Without all those prior determinants, you're unlikely to.  Those influencers determine your decision, and those decisions in time, build up to you being "in shape."

You don't magically get to "in shape" - its the individual actions over time that build to habits.  Those individual (small) decisions are made because of the prior causes.

I think this is where we disagree.  I understand that habits influence your decisions and nudge them in the direction to continue to comply with that habit, but I still think I retain control over my life and where it will go.  I can choose to continue working out and following those habits, or I could choose not to and create different habits.  I have started and stopped all kinds of habits over the years, some of them unconsciously, but some of them very consciously.  Of course you could made a cyborg and program it to reach some complex goal, like achieving good physical health, and have it constantly working towards optimizing itself physically - and no one could argue that that cyborg has free will even if it feels like it has free will, and of course we would be privy to the information about it's brain being programmed and know that it indeed does not have free will, it's just following a predetermined program.

[skunkfunk]

and of course we would be privy to the information about it's brain being programmed and know that it indeed does not have free will, it's just following a predetermined program.

Might not be so simple depending on the AI. Quantum box shit from sci-fi and whatnot would be indeterminate (randomness at its worst), no way to keep track of or predict what's going on in there. Whether you call that free will or not, whatever, but you would not necessarily be privy to an useful information after some amount of time depending on the system in question.

[GuitarStv]

Introduction of randomness != free will.


Just because something is provably not predictable and might affect a decision doesn't mean that free will exists.  It's just evidence of random input.  The biological machine still functions as per design based on the random input.

[skunkfunk]

Introduction of randomness != free will.

Yeah we know.

Just because something is provably not predictable and might affect a decision doesn't mean that free will exists.  It's just evidence of random input.  The biological machine still functions as per design based on the random input.

We're saying it can provide random output by design. Unpredictable output. Output that YOU cannot determine, even as the designer/programmer/builder. Might be following a pre-determined program, but you can set it up (easily done pseudo-randomly, more tricky sci-fi type stuff can make it truly as random and self-programmed as say, a human brain) to be unpredictable. And again, at that point you're down to our base argument rather than anything scientific. Would the "dice" fall the same if you did it again? You can't say that either way definitively. If you do say so, 100% definitively, then you know less than you think you know.

[GuitarStv]

If the unpredictable output is by design (as you just claimed), then it's not free will.  It's by design.  Random output != free will.  You're still proposing some as yet unexplained implementation of free will that breaks the functioning of the machine.

[skunkfunk]

If the unpredictable output is by design (as you just claimed), then it's not free will.  It's by design.  Random output != free will.  You're still proposing some as yet unexplained implementation of free will that breaks the functioning of the machine.

I'm not saying the machine will have free will. I'm saying your argument does nothing to "disprove" free will. Even if you assume free will, I'll not deign to argue whether a machine could be made to somehow capture that.

[GuitarStv]

People are machines.  Biological ones.

[skunkfunk]

People are machines.  Biological ones.

You're not going to win this argument making simple statements. Or are you saying that if in fact people do have free will one could construct a machine that did as well? You can posit either way, but a flimsy argument isn't going to change any minds I don't think. There's no evidence in such a statement.

[GuitarStv]

My whole argument since the first page of this thread has been that people are biological machines and are thus incapable of free will.  There's a fair amount of evidence to support this theory that I've already brought up.  Please check these previous posts for a more in-depth fleshing out of this concept.

To have free will there needs to be something that functions distinctly and differently than the programming of millions of years of evolution that makes the human machine work.  There's no mechanism that anyone has suggested or observed that accounts for this.  Randomness is not a substitute for this mechanism, as randomness is random . . . not an example of free will.  Without some sort of extraordinary mechanism, we should default to the baseline assumption - the one that most closely correlates with our current knowledge. . . which lends credibility to determinism.

[skunkfunk]

My whole argument since the first page of this thread has been that people are biological machines and are thus incapable of free will.  There's a fair amount of evidence to support this theory that I've already brought up.  Please check these previous posts for a more in-depth fleshing out of this concept.

To have free will there needs to be something that functions distinctly and differently than the programming of millions of years of evolution that makes the human machine work.  There's no mechanism that anyone has suggested or observed that accounts for this.  Randomness is not a substitute for this mechanism, as randomness is random . . . not an example of free will.  Without some sort of extraordinary mechanism, we should default to the baseline assumption - the one that most closely correlates with our current knowledge. . . which lends credibility to determinism.

I did read those previous posts the first time around. There's a fair amount of evidence sure, and you're ignoring rebuttals and evidence the other way that I found in relation to that article with a quick google search. There are problems pointed out that I haven't gotten around to and don't really feel inclined to flesh out at this time (I'm at work.) If your evidence was conclusive there would be more of the scientific community rallying around it (like say with evolution or climate change.)

Just because nobody has found  this mechanism does not mean it doesn't exist, or that you're even asking the right question. Our current knowledge does no more than hint in any given direction, and barely for that matter. I for one don't think your "baseline assumption" makes any more sense than a "baseline assumption" of the universe being earth-centric thousands of years ago had. No easy evidence either way at that time either, hard to blame them. Hard to blame you. Doesn't mean you're right, at all. Doesn't mean you aren't right. Just means that you can't make a convincing argument, and I've read it and failed to be convinced.

I think I'll default to my baseline assumption after all.

[GuitarStv]

Hey, you gotta do what you're fated to do.  :P

[dragoncar]

If the unpredictable output is by design (as you just claimed), then it's not free will.  It's by design.  Random output != free will.  You're still proposing some as yet unexplained implementation of free will that breaks the functioning of the machine.

I'm not saying the machine will have free will. I'm saying your argument does nothing to "disprove" free will. Even if you assume free will, I'll not deign to argue whether a machine could be made to somehow capture that.

I think you guys agree that:

The proposition "you can predict everything that happens, therefore no free will" is false because you can't predict everything that happens.  This line of reasoning does not in itself prove or disprove free will, but hopefully we can at least dispense with the above proposition and move on.

I'm not sure why we need a definition of free will beyond that posted earlier "your actions are not entirely predetermined or random"

Agree that, regardless of whether cows have free will, whether it is wrong to kill them is a completely different can of worms.  I've never heard a definition of murder that includes free will.  Are we starting to confuse free will with sentience?  Anyways, I eat meat but think in a moral utopia we wouldn't kill any cows.

Yes, I think most people's non-issues with killing animals stems from a lack of sentience/consciousness which is tied in, typically, with free will.

If someone is okay killing a cow with free will (ethically), why wouldn't they be okay with killing a human?

Good question -- I think most intellectually rigorous and honest people see an ethical problem with killing cows, although to a different degree as humans. 

I don't think sentience and free will should be conflated.  For example, you believe free will doesn't exist because determinism.  Does it therefore follow that self-awareness does not exist either?  Free will might imply sentience, but sentience doesn't imply free will. 

[skunkfunk]

Hey, you gotta do what you're fated to do.  :P

Reported as offensive. just kidding

[arebelspy]

Another point: When given the choice between a burger or a taco, my mind might subconsciously make the decision for me, and even trick me into thinking that I used my free will to make that choice.  But what about long term goals and decisions?

Long term goals and decisions are just small decisions aggregated over time.

If your short term decisions are outside of your control and made before you consciously "choose" them, it stands to reason long term ones are just the compilation of all of those.

I see it differently.  That snap choice to "get in shape" will require lots of hard work and dedication, and long term planning.  Or are all those nights of pushups and pullups and long runs already predetermined to happen?

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

But yes, at each decision point (each night of pushups) all the previous causes determine what choice will be made - to do the pushups that night or not. That's why habits are so powerful, they're a determinant that is a quite powerful cause.  When you've done something many times, you're more likely to do it again.  Without all those prior determinants, you're unlikely to.  Those influencers determine your decision, and those decisions in time, build up to you being "in shape."

You don't magically get to "in shape" - its the individual actions over time that build to habits.  Those individual (small) decisions are made because of the prior causes.

I think this is where we disagree.  I understand that habits influence your decisions and nudge them in the direction to continue to comply with that habit, but I still think I retain control over my life and where it will go.  I can choose to continue working out and following those habits, or I could choose not to and create different habits.

But what makes you continue to choose to, or not choose to do it?  You say "free will" but what does that mean?  Why isn't that "choice" determined by all the previous inputs?

I have started and stopped all kinds of habits over the years, some of them unconsciously, but some of them very consciously. 

So when you stop subconsciously, was that done of your own free will? Or was that "determined" (i.e. unchosen) by previous antecedent causes?

And when you "choose" consciously, and you deliberate and weigh different factors, isn't your scale weighing them determined by the previous inputs?

[PKFFW]

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

I'm confused.  How can something be pre-determined yet not decided upon ahead of time?

It seems what you are saying is whether or not you actually do the pushups is not predetermined until you actually do the pushups or not and yet the proof it is predetermined that you will or will not do the pushups is simply the fact that you did or did not do the pushups and it couldn't have happened any other way.

[arebelspy]

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

I'm confused.  How can something be pre-determined yet not decided upon ahead of time?

It seems what you are saying is whether or not you actually do the pushups is not predetermined until you actually do the pushups or not and yet the proof it is predetermined that you will or will not do the pushups is simply the fact that you did or did not do the pushups and it couldn't have happened any other way.

It's determined.  Not predetermined.

[PKFFW]

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

I'm confused.  How can something be pre-determined yet not decided upon ahead of time?

It seems what you are saying is whether or not you actually do the pushups is not predetermined until you actually do the pushups or not and yet the proof it is predetermined that you will or will not do the pushups is simply the fact that you did or did not do the pushups and it couldn't have happened any other way.

It's determined.  Not predetermined.

Ok, I get it.  Sort of got caught on the wording which seemed to make no sense.

[frugalnacho]

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

I'm confused.  How can something be pre-determined yet not decided upon ahead of time?

It seems what you are saying is whether or not you actually do the pushups is not predetermined until you actually do the pushups or not and yet the proof it is predetermined that you will or will not do the pushups is simply the fact that you did or did not do the pushups and it couldn't have happened any other way.

It's determined.  Not predetermined.

But it's determined before it happens.  Isn't that what predetermined means?

[arebelspy]

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

I'm confused.  How can something be pre-determined yet not decided upon ahead of time?

It seems what you are saying is whether or not you actually do the pushups is not predetermined until you actually do the pushups or not and yet the proof it is predetermined that you will or will not do the pushups is simply the fact that you did or did not do the pushups and it couldn't have happened any other way.

It's determined.  Not predetermined.

But it's determined before it happens.  Isn't that what predetermined means?

That is what predetermined means, yes.  And no, it's not predetermined.  It's not determined before it happens.

It's determined when it happens.

That is, when the moment comes, you will make a choice.  You feel like you are choosing freely, however your choice is determined (not predetermined - not before that moment).  What you do is decided by everything that has happened before, everything that makes up who you are, etc.  And you can't choose otherwise than what you do.  Your choice is determined, and there is no "free will" involved. 

That doesn't mean it was determined ahead of time.

[frugalnacho]

It's not "predetermined" as in it has already been decided ahead of time.

I'm confused.  How can something be pre-determined yet not decided upon ahead of time?

It seems what you are saying is whether or not you actually do the pushups is not predetermined until you actually do the pushups or not and yet the proof it is predetermined that you will or will not do the pushups is simply the fact that you did or did not do the pushups and it couldn't have happened any other way.

It's determined.  Not predetermined.

But it's determined before it happens.  Isn't that what predetermined means?

That is what predetermined means, yes.  And no, it's not predetermined.  It's not determined before it happens.

It's determined when it happens.

That is, when the moment comes, you will make a choice.  You feel like you are choosing freely, however your choice is determined (not predetermined - not before that moment).  What you do is decided by everything that has happened before, everything that makes up who you are, etc.  And you can't choose otherwise than what you do.  Your choice is determined, and there is no "free will" involved. 

That doesn't mean it was determined ahead of time.

umm...that's exactly what it sounds like.  It was determined by prior events with no possibility to deviate from that singular choice.  Just because you aren't aware of the outcome until it happens doesn't mean it wasn't predetermined.

How exactly do you define predetermined and differentiate it from determined?

[arebelspy]

It sounds like a semantic thing.  I think we understand each other.

To me, predetermined means it was determined before the choice was made.
Determined is that it was determined at the time the choice was made.

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

[skunkfunk]

It sounds like a semantic thing.  I think we understand each other.

To me, predetermined means it was determined before the choice was made.
Determined is that it was determined at the time the choice was made.

There can be things that influence that decision immediately before, perhaps even simultaneously (though I'd have to think through the implications of that, and if it's possible).

What is simultaneous?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity