Is free will real?
Models that posit that it is not are based in mathematics which is an internally consistent logic. Interpretations that attempt to utilize biology and neural circuits imply the conclusion within the premise: life is deterministic.
Yet why do we depend on these models of logic that are circular? Simple refusal of these premises should be sufficient enough to allow for free will to exist?
Other urls found in this thread:
phys.org
twitter.com
Image:
>Three different models explain the causal mechanism of free will and the flow of information between unconscious neural activity and conscious thought (GES = genes, environment, stochasticism). In A, the intuitive model, there is no causal component for will. Will influences conscious thought, which in turn influences unconscious neural activity to direct behavior. In B, a causal component of will is introduced: unconscious neural activity and GES. But now will loses its “freedom.” In C, the model that Cashmore advocates, will is dispensed with. Conscious thought is simply a reflection of, rather than an influence on, unconscious neural activity, which directs behavior. The dotted arrow 2 in C indicates a subservient role of conscious thought in directing behavior. Credit: Anthony Cashmore
Read more at: phys.org
Why would they reverse the direction of the dotted and solid lines on C?
Conscious thought is like the internet.
>The dotted arrow 2 in C indicates a subservient role of conscious thought in directing behavior.
because conscious thought is secondary to background neural activity.
Secondary? Is calculation secondary to calculators?
Conscious thought is the aggregate effect of human brains. Will is just the direction we want to go in, and the dedication we have to getting there.
For some reason, we experience it. This is an interesting question to me, but honestly I can't think of how to phrase it well, never mind answer it.
very interesting. please do your best.
I'm tiring of old debates about whether or not god exists and am becoming more interested in how humans can even understand the question when I'm not sure about our anthropomorphic assumptions that causality exist in light of other theories that violate it such as quantum entanglement and that our knowledge is predicated on reproducible results with the observer effect in play.
Why we experience it at all is even a better question that I haven't considered.
At this point members of the church of science basically want to kill themselves, but can't because they can't will it.
>Is free will real?
Is it fuck.
Whether reality is strict determinism or a more open determinism is up for debate, but we at the very least react to our environment based on our genetic dispositions and learned behaviour.
The Idea that determinism is real is beyond doubt in my mind, its just to what extent.
I have a very hard time explaining this to my friends even as a basic concept. In my mind it is a question of maths and physics but they keep trying to bring destiny and other bullshit into the question.
>destiny
perhaps just a lay interpretation for what you mean. The concept has been around for a while but now goes by a different name (determinism).
However, free will might be that space in between the circumstances that your environment placed you in. To reiterate what I had above, the conclusion implicit that free will doesn't exist is already in the premise of mathematics and physics that assert there is a a unifying principle.
But if it can be conceived that the universe exists in chaos and humans are ordered subsets of structures in chaos, then we respond to the universe outside of our system which is chaos which I think makes it more nuanced than
"we have will or we don't"
Simply refusing the principles of mathematics and physics I would think grants one more free will.
>Is free will real?
No, but free WON'T is.That is to say, we have no choice in what thoughts enter our minds, or in what compulsions strike us, but we can choose to suppress our instinct to act.
>we have no choice in what thoughts enter our minds
by what mechanism?
And to what end do you carry this thinking?
If you're not responsible to a degree for your actions, how should you be persecuted for crimes? Do we let the transgressions pass if you're not accountable? Is it societies fault if you aren't socialized into knowing when to stop?
>but we can choose to suppress our instinct to act.
debatable.
It all comes down to the electrons n shit brah..
Punishment is a way to dissuade others and protect society from future incidents.
>It all comes down to the electrons n shit brah..
Does it?
This is what I'm trying to get at; simply refuting the concepts we utilize to explain phenomena does not make them objective natural laws. It only proves that our experimentation is reproducible, it doesn't definitively describe the nature of reality. After all, duality in physics is partially due to the observer effect. By making these premises that chemistry and physics illustrated our basis we're already self-limiting the discussion in the area where free will can take place, not accounting for other theories that violate the previous axioms such as quantum entanglement.
So we should probably bring back public executions. Why is it taking place in a more sterile environment? Can we even hope to rehabilitate these offenders then?
>Interpretations that attempt to utilize biology and neural circuits imply the conclusion within the premise: life is deterministic.
This is indeed true, as, just as you are saying here, biology relies on the principles of a deterministic world, or at least a materialistic one.
However arguing that free will doesn't exist is not dependent on the above, as the concept of will demands that there be an origin of its individual nature.
In a deterministic universe, this origin lies in the shaping of the will by GES.
In a non deterministic universe, this origin doesn't have to be coming from the outside world, but can just be there without particular reason.
But if the origin of our will therefore lies out of our control even in a non deterministic universe, can there be free will?
>So we should probably bring back public executions.
This is a question about the morality of the society in which the culprit is being judged. The death penalty can make a society feel guilty, they abolish it so they can sleep better.
>Why is it taking place in a more sterile environment?
I'm sorry what?
>Can we even hope to rehabilitate these offenders then?
Depends on the person. But its almost impossible to know who you can fix and who you cant.
Depends on your definition of free will. Modern deterministic philosophy developed out of a loss of very fine scholastic disctinctions as thinkers moved away from Aristotelianism.
Very interesting breakdown, thank you very much.
Maybe you could conceive of it as a 'gift,' but now we're getting more ethereal, which I feel a repulsion towards. But if anything goes, maybe its not far off. What do you tend to think?
>I'm sorry what?
Punishment and imprisonment. At least in America anyways.
>Depends on the person. But its almost impossible to know who you can fix and who you cant.
So the equation for rigging ones actions exists in light that free will does not exist, but we are too far away from knowing how to guarantee an outcome of rehabilitation.
in other words, logical positivism was what silenced a diversity of philosophies?
I wonder why; it simply produced more results in western society and agreed with events like the industrial revolution?
>This is a question about the morality of the society in which the culprit is being judged
I see that, but to what end do you use the knowledge or assumption that life is deterministic. Would we not all agree that its not their fault if it is known that they did not act on their own free will? Your example just seems aside from the discussion period. Unless you mean to say "get them out of the picture, its not their fault, but we don't want the offender killed."
No one is ever really responsible for their actions in a vacuum. We just persecute people for crimes because without at least a semi-absolute moral code, society would practically break down.
>Would we not all agree that its not their fault if it is known that they did not act on their own free will?
It is not their fault, they did not act on their own free will however we must punish them because if we leave a crime unpunished others will see an opportunity.
>does it
Yes. Literally everything thus far has been associated with physicality. Not just from a biological standpoint either but quite literally everything.
To think of the origin of our will as a gift (from God?) is indeed comforting, as He might be capable of being above what we perceive as logical, therefore perhaps even having free will. By being free from the obligations of the world and truly knowing what's right, He can give us a good will and thus the ability to live a good life.
How can one determine the difference between illusory free will and actual free will?
I have thought and have found no significant difference or way of determining.
My contention is :If illusory free will exists then actual free will exists.
How would we know that we aren't just mistaking real free will for illusory free will?
If it's an illusion, then it is there, at least in the metaphysical realm concerning free will.
>illusion
I would argue that "illusion" is contingent upon faulty perception which is only possible in the material world.
However something beyond the material therefore can not be illusory because illusion is only possible in the material world.
Thoughts?
>Thoughts?
Fucking stupid.
>Just refuse logic and free will exists
Sounds like every nondeterminist I've ever heard
I like it, will dwell on it a little more.
So far I see it falling into the God between the gaps argument though, and our conflation of real or illusory metes out with more understanding of the world around us.
But can true understanding exist?
so which logic would you like to use? Quantum or Causality?
The problem is that illusory free will doesn't exist desu
We cannot even imagine a freedom that goes beyond the freedom of doing as we wish, or following our will
Why?
Alright.
I don't mean absolute freedom, free will needs only a shred of Freedom to exist.
For instance no man is not free from death or material existence.
There are constraints, I just don't think there are constraints on the will.
Is not doing as we wish the highest freedom?
Or at least is that not a freedom itself?
The difference is free will is an unfalsifiable concept in the exact same way god is.
Think your question like this:
>How can one determine the difference between believing there is a god and god actually existing?
Following your antimaterialistic logic, god exists because people believe in him. The problem with this is that it makes science impossible.
>Gravity does not exist because I do not believe it exists.
>How can mirrors be real if our eyes are not real.
If you reject materialism, you reject objectivity and science, which makes any discussion entirely pointless because everything becomes subjective.
>If you reject materialism, you reject objectivity and science, which makes any discussion entirely pointless because everything becomes subjective.
Not that guy, I'm the OP. This is kind of what I was getting at, thank you.
It then becomes where does objectivity really exist, what is its nature, and how confident are you in our most modern understanding of the material world to indicate all of that?
Is science just reproducible results and nothing more? Our natural laws we've elicited are still anthropomorphized and as best as we understand it, may not be the true nature of reality. Obviously these laws we've elicited are helpful in industry and society, but what sort of cues do you really want to take from them and apply them to your own life? Isn't it a jump in logic to suppose that they are universally applicable? Then it becomes the issue: Where do you stop using the deterministic viewpoint, such as; in criminal rehabilitation.
for instance the above idea:
>we must punish them because if we leave a crime unpunished others will see an opportunity.
is relativistic deduction, and not demonstrable through determinism necessarily.
Furthermore, at what point should you, or would you personally want to take responsibility for your own actions or ascribe your position to "fate/determinism."
One may protect your ego but the other can motivate you to cultivate your life, though the choice is entirely up to you more than the superposition of your subatomic particles.
...
>If you're not responsible to a degree for your actions, how should you be persecuted for crimes?
There's a difference between someone being responsible for a crime, and they being deeply and morally responsible.
The former is necessary for the function of a civilized society, the latter just foments hatred of people and incur acts of revenge.
Take capital punishment for example; people wouldn't agree to capital punishment if they didn't think that people had free will, because if they really understood that a psychopath really isn't a psychopath of his own free will, then the reasoning behind capital punishment goes away.
Just listen to why people think someone should be executed, it's always because they "deserve" it.
Literally everything is cause and effect.
Wht are humans so different?
True free will could only be a reality if God exists, or an "originator" of the universe who freely "chose" to start the process existed.
Then again, I am of the belief that humans have yet to truly comprehend all there is to the laws of nature. So for now, I'd say we don't rule out free will completely.
Yeah, kind of.
so people do have free will, or at least there's the belief that they do, in situations where capital punishment is prescribed.
Bro this image hahaha
The whole world operates on the belief in free will, and until we stop operating (if ever) on that belief, we will continue assuming people are unique and make their own choices.
Argument of ignorance is barely an argument.
Unless we want to go full retard and throw away the concept of objective knowledge, we're going to continue thinking that we matter.
Have there been any AI's capable of human intellect? Capable of self-learning? Capable of conscience?
That's what seems to make humans unique. If one day we break that barrier artificially, the whole world will change.
Until then, its impossible to prove (in the popular sense) free will does not exist. Or vice versa.
>Unless we want to go full retard and throw away the concept of objective knowledge, we're going to continue thinking that we matter
philosophize all you want, but we've got a society to run here, pal.
>The whole world operates on the belief in free will, and until we stop operating (if ever) on that belief, we will continue assuming people are unique and make their own choices.
do you think it a bad thing? I think that tendency to empower the individual does more good for society than bad.
>Unless we want to go full retard and throw away the concept of objective knowledge
Why not?
> we're going to continue thinking that we matter.
I'm curious, how old are you? Don't take this as offense, it just strikes me as an underdeveloped idea. The idea you have here is a good starting point in my opinion, but the distaste I get from your words imparts to me that it is a recent and steadfastly held belief.
If there is no such thing as objective knowledge, a meaning to life, or a reason for existing, then there's no reason to even discuss then.
In the meantime I'll continue believing reality is at is seems to me.
>In the meantime I'll continue believing reality is at is seems to me.
Are you satirizing yourself in your own post? You're directly contradicting objectivity by stating your own subjective reasoning. You've directly proven TO YOURSELF that objectivity literally cannot exist.
since when did stirner all the of the sudden blow up, or at least stirner memes?
>do you think it a bad thing? I think that tendency to empower the individual does more good for
If this assumption of free will existing is wrong, we're in a for a world of hurt.
If free will itself does not exist, there is no reason to even worry about which assumption is morally "better" or "worse".
>Why not?
Because to the vast amount of humans, our assumption of free will existing is correct. It is how society functions. Therefore we should continue believing it until proven wrong.
>I'm curious, how old are you?
20 next week.
>directly proven
How exactly have I proven anything you absolute faggot?
I'm literally stating that we cannot prove anything (Hume). But that does not mean my beliefs or way of life is wrong.
Just because humans are ignorant and incapable of understanding everything does not mean humans are also holding the wrong beliefs.
You can't prove I am wrong. You can't prove anything. Therefore I'll do what I want and will believe what I want.
No, you did admit in a subjective reality.
You can believe in an objective reality but given your line of reasoning that we can't prove anything its just as arbitrary to think reality is subjective or objective.
Right and wrong never entered into the discussion, just whether or not you could use principles of physics to determine a free will. Since you invoke Hume that you cannot prove anything, it would seem free will is subjective.
Again, right and wrong are nebulous. I suppose from here we would be interpreting right and wrong through Pragmatism: your value of a thing is measured through its importance to you.
C is actually scarily likely give the way our brain tricks us consistently.
>I can't into basic abstract thought