# Why does the idea of no Free Will bother some people?



## Janx (Nov 13, 2012)

Here's a new topic I been meaning to start.

I read Scott Adams' blog (the guy who does Dilbert).  He proposes the idea that we are all just Moist Robots.  I agree with him.

an interesting observation is that some people are really, really opposed to that idea.  It's like saying that humans don't actually have Free Will deeply offends them.

I suspect part of the problem is that my definition of Free Will (or the lack thereof) is not the same as others.  And there's people who just don't agree with what science tells us.

there's even a recent article where lawyers are getting criminals lighter sentences due to the science behind this "lack of Free will".
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/11/09/criminal-minds-use-of-neuroscience-as-a-defense-skyrockets?s_cid=related-links:TOP

So, before I go into the details of my position, how do you feel about Free Will right now?  Does it bother you that *I think* you don't have it?  Do you think the science is wrong?  Do you think you have Free Will?

Here's my position:
when I talk about the lack of Free Will, I am not talking about Religion, or the Norn's big loom of pre-ordained destiny.   There is no master plan that I know of that says what'll happen to you.  Nobody is controlling you.  You are autonomously operating from my perspective.

But science is continuing to progress in ways that show what you decide to do or think is influenced and eventually determinable by the structures in your brain.

Let's start back at the beginning.  With Star Trek's Hisenberg Compensator.  This little doodad was made up to explain away how the Transporter can move all your molecules from point A to point B.  What it really is is an homage to the Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle, which basically says that for all practical purposes, we can't really know the exact positional details of every atom or quantum doohickey that makes up the universe at any point in time.

But here's the thing, if we DID, we would know EXACTLY what would happen next.  Because what happens next is based on the exact current position, velocity and trajectory of every unit of matter and energy in the universe.  Including the insides of your brain.

Take Dr. Malcom from Jurassic Park.  He's got his lovely analogy about Chaos theory with the drops of water taking different paths as he drops them on the lady's hand.  That's no different than what we as gamers have tried to do when practicing the art of the perfect repeatable die roll that will always roll a 20.  the theory being, if we could just repeat it exactly the same as before.  The reason it never works is Chaos Theory and the Hisenberg uncertainty principle.  Basically, there's just too many bloody variables for a human to reproduce exactly as the last, and don't forget, the Earth itself is spinning at 1000 some miles per hour (well, relative to it being 24,600 miles in circumference and completing a rotation in a day), and thus isn't exactly the way it was since the last roll.

So basically, thus far, I'm saying the universe is really really complex and while some stuff is predictable, other stuff apppears to be random.  But if we KNEW the state of everything, we COULD compute the future.

Now let's look at your brain.  Hopefully, you accept that I can put electrodes in your brain, and make you say things.  or chop out chunks of your brain and change your behavior.  It's been done.  Well not by me, I'm not a brain surgeon.  that's a not a good thing for the idea of Free Will, if somebody can fiddle with your brain, and change your behavior.

I'm a software kind of guy, so I get the basics of logic and neural networks.  Computers, operate on a much narrower band of variables as compared to the entire universe.  So when a signal pumps down a neural pathway, it's pretty much going to make a consistent result.  Any bug or bad behavior is a problem with the programming/wiring, rather than the neuron itself (well, don't quote me on that, for all I know there's a disease for random neuron misfunction).

In any event, your brain has billions of these neurons, and if I can send the same pattern into it, I can get the exact same outcome out of you.  I don't think we've mastered the science on feeding signals into brains yet (or anywhere close), but things aren't looking good for you actually deciding things as you picture it happening.

On that note, apparently, there's also science that figured out that people decide things before they think of WHY they decided them.  Case in point, a study about interviewing candidates.  They found that people made the same decision about who they liked within like 10 seconds as within 10 minutes.  People were actually building justifications for the guy they liked, and the the guy they didn't when they both lacked experience.  Other science with MRIs and such tracked this kind of decision making to the emotional part of the brain making the choice, with the rational part of the brain firing afterwards which reflected as the person thinking about the reasons.  It's like backwards cause and effect, as normally I'd like to know you reviewed the evidence and then made a decision.  Instead, what's really going on is your gut decided guilty, and then picked and chose the evidence to support that.

It's always posssible, and probable the details of the science is wrong.  But the nature of our brains does not strike me as one where I am really choosing to write this thread or not. It is certainly probable that readers who disagree with my position will not be able to change their mind.

Personally, for me, it doesn't bother me that I don't think that I have Free Will.  Whatever the mechanism that decides what I do next still keeps on firing.  I am still autonomously functioning.  If I go bad, society should hold me responsible as an entire entity, including my malfunctioning brain.  Arguments of "my brain is broken" only explain why a person behaved badly.  

Society as a whole does not need to be overly concerned over this, as the objective is to remove the poorly programmed moist robot from the factory floor.  It would be nice if we can fix the broken ones, but that's not a priority to all people.

I feel, that at best, we can sort of agree that the amalgamation of stuff that happens that result in you doing stuff could be called Free Will.  But the foundational parts of that simulation are not, and one day, will become predictable and manipulatable.


----------



## Cor Azer (Nov 13, 2012)

I more or less agree with you:
I have free will in the sense that nobody can perfectly predict what I'll do, nor control what I do.
I don't have free will in the sense that I can't act outside of what my biology and anatomy allow.

People who have an issue with "no free will" tend to use the first definition, while those without an issue tend towards the second.


----------



## Janx (Nov 13, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> I more or less agree with you:
> I have free will in the sense that nobody can perfectly predict what I'll do, nor control what I do.
> I don't have free will in the sense that I can't act outside of what my biology and anatomy allow.
> 
> People who have an issue with "no free will" tend to use the first definition, while those without an issue tend towards the second.




Nicely summed up.

Somebody had made a free will joke on the time travel thread, which reminded me of starting this highly controversial topic.  By controversial, I mean, it will be funny if nobody disagrees with its premise....


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 14, 2012)

Quantum physics says everything's random, anyway. So your entire premise of predictability is wrong.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 14, 2012)

Sadly, that seems similar to "why is religion still a dominant cultural aspect, in spite of the advances of science in the last 500 years?"
People are loath to accept the idea that they are not special, or loved by an mystic invisible man who lives in the sky.

*Mod note: making fun of peoples religion? Not acceptable here thanks.*


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 14, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> Sadly, that seems similar to "why is religion still a dominant cultural aspect, in spite of the advances of science in the last 500 years?"
> People are loath to accept the idea that they are not special, or loved by an mystic invisible man who lives in the sky.



Have +1 Troll Point.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 14, 2012)

You are assuming I was trolling. I was being serious, not malicious. (OK, maybe a little obnoxious, but that is part of my actual personality)


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 14, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> You are assuming I was trolling. I was being serious, not malicious. (OK, maybe a little obnoxious, but that is part of my actual personality)



You were also being ignorant. There's literally hundreds of religions, a vast number of viewpoints. To take your own, and assume it is in opposition to one vast, blind, ignorant mass of generic "religionists" is one of the most sweeping generalizations I have ever seen, and one of the reasons I dislike arguing philosophy on the internet.

For that matter, to assume (from any particular side; BTW, Buddhists are also atheists, Edit: (just to throw some trivia in there)) that atheism itself is one generic mass that binary agrees/disagrees with "the other side" (a definition generally used by people wanting to divide into "us versus them") is also ignorant.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

Consider this:

If I don't have free will, whether or not I am bothered by the idea is... not my will!  

(A more considered response later - right now, I have to do dishes.  Have to.  No choice.  It is... my destiny!)


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Consider this:
> 
> If I don't have free will, whether or not I am bothered by the idea is... not my will!
> 
> (A more considered response later - right now, I have to do dishes.  Have to.  No choice.  It is... my destiny!)



Ah, but what if you chose your destiny?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Nov 14, 2012)

Ah, but I'm not an atheist.
And faith... I think Terry Nation summed it up in an episode of Blake's7
Faith: the capacity to believe that which you know cannot be true.

I am aware of a number of other religions, including Buddhism, and their views. Believe it or not, I did look into it. And yes, in addition to the modern monotheisms, there are a number of other models. But, off the top of your head, name the biggest 4. What do you get?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 14, 2012)

In total adherents?  My guess would be Christianity, followed by Islam, Buddhism & Hinduism- all denominations of each combined.

As for the original question: because it does not jibe with people's internal self-perception.  IOW, I don't feel like a Moist Robot, therefore I can't be one.







Note: need to create a popular snack food called "Moist Robots", with tag line "You can't help wanting a Moist Robot, its what you feel like!"


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

Buddhism teaches the middle way between an ordered universe and an absolute free will. For the Hindu opinions vary wildly from absolute free will all the way to no such thing at all. Islam also varies, where one extreme bases everything on accountability which needs free will to exist, while the other says that every act of man is an act of god. And Christians can't agree on anything, it seems to me.


Personally I'm not sure whether there is all that much difference on an individual level between absolute chaos and absolute order. Free will isn't just about the ability to choose, it is also about the ability to have your choice matter and the ability to have your choice effect change.


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 14, 2012)

sabrinathecat said:


> Ah, but I'm not an atheist.
> And faith... I think Terry Nation summed it up in an episode of Blake's7
> Faith: the capacity to believe that which you know cannot be true.
> 
> I am aware of a number of other religions, including Buddhism, and their views. Believe it or not, I did look into it. And yes, in addition to the modern monotheisms, there are a number of other models. But, off the top of your head, name the biggest 4. What do you get?



Ah, but neither am I. I just try to look at things from different viewpoints. You can learn something worthwhile from (almost?) anyone.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 14, 2012)

> And Christians can't agree on anything, it seems to me.




We're of one voice on this Jesus guy.


----------



## Libramarian (Nov 14, 2012)

People aren't just "offended". Damaging others' belief in free will harms them in a variety of ways.

Encouraging a belief in determinism increases cheating.

Disbelief in free will increases aggression and reduces helpfulness.

Belief in free will predicts better job performance.

There are philosophies that claim to be capable of integrating the findings of modern neuroscience with the prosocial benefits of believing in free will (see compatibilism), but this is a very complex topic and it's not a trivial task to keep up with both the philosophical and scientific literature on the subject.

Free will is truly a topic where the virtue of _knowing when you don't know_ is vitally important.

If you don't know what you're talking about, then it's not just useless and annoying to spread around your ignorance. It can be harmful. Please keep that in mind in the future.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 14, 2012)

(First off, finding this thread immediately after explaining on another thread what a P-Zombie is was just bizarrely coincidental!) 

Janx, I think you're confusing "Free Will" with some other concept, perhaps "Personality."  You bring up an interesting topic, though.  I wouldn't personally be bothered by the idea of not having free will... after all, if I can't see the strings controlling me, and can't even perceive their effect on me, why give a damn?  Would it even make a difference for me?  And, as Umbran (who I have observed over the years to be a very bright guy) already pointed out, even if I DID object, wouldn't that objection have been predetermined anyway?  If we _do_ lack Free Will, but _don't_ have any resultant sense of loss of control because of it, who cares?

But conscious understanding of the motivations behind all of our decisions is not a matter of free will (or lack thereof.)  No, most people don't actually consciously understand the reasoning behind most of the decisions they make.  That, however, does not mean that there ARE no motivations behind those decisions, nor that we lack the free will to make them.  It just highlights the fact that we don't always understand our own motivations... or even _usually_ understand them.  We actually usually don't understand a lot of, maybe even most of, our own motivations, unless we take the time to analyze them.  And if we _were_ always aware of all of our own motivations, and if we _did_ take the time to sift through, sort out, and logically think through all of our opinions and decisions, a lot of us would probably have very different thoughts on a lot of subjects.

And we would all live in a world full of much nicer and more reasonable people.

Actually, almost everyone DOES, at one time or another, do exactly that very thing; stop, think about a past decision, try to understand our own motivations for making that decision, and then wish we had made a different choice... it is called _regret_.  And everyone has experienced it.

That is actually pretty much the core of what psychological counseling is; siting down with someone trained in how people think, and, with their help, going back through our own thoughts and feelings in order to try to better understand why we think and feel that way.  It can also help us to better understand ourselves so we will take the time to think about and decisions make better ones in the future.

But about that study you mentioned; I'm fairly certain that I'm familiar with it, and the point of the study wasn't actually all that startling or important.  The study was only about emotional reactions to people, first impressions sort of thing, and how they are formed quickly and tend to take a lot to change.  It wasn't about total thought processes or cognition in general.  The results of that study don't apply to how we think about everything in general (in other words, the study was _not_ saying that every decision we make is a snap decision that isn't subject to change after introspection and consideration.)  We are emotional creatures, that's a fact.  But that fact doesn't imply that we don't have the free will to make decisions, or to change them later.  Our emotions influence our decisions, yes, but, for most people, unless we are put into a highly emotional state, they aren't the sole (or even most important) factor in our decisions.

I've read Mr' Adams' opinions (on several matters) and his views on this subject are... a little simplistic, shall we say? (as are his views on a lot of other things, as well... )  I would advise you not to put too much stock in what he has written.  His little piece on Free Will was trite, but didn't really have a lot of weight to it.  

Yes, we are affected by the environment and yes, that can have an effect on how and what we think.  Does that mean that we have no free will?  No, not really.  Does the fact that we can't talk when the language center of our brain is being disrupted mean that we have no free will?  No, not really.  Does the fact that our desires are limited by the physical nature of the universe mean that we don't have free will?  No, not really.  Does the fact that we can't flap our arms and fly, even though we might REALLY REALLY want to, mean that we don't have free will?  No.  

And all that that really means is just this: we are physical beings composed of matter; our thoughts are affected by the matter of which we are composed; the matter of which we are composed can be affected by the environment in which we exist; our free will does not have boundless effect on our environment; and we are not capable freely of altering the physical nature of the universe by act of free will alone.  And really, hopefully none of that should be much of a shock to most people.


(Now, if someone happens to be a Psionicist and actually is capable of altering the physical nature of the universe solely by act of free will, then these things, of course, do not apply to them.  And I would like to meet them to begin lessons right away!  )  

I know I got a bit wordy and pedantic here, but this is what I focused on in college, psychology and philosophy, and especially the areas where they connect, like this, and I've spent a little bit of time thinking about this stuff.   Plus, I've been awake for about 20 hours straight at this point due to insomnia, and my mind is getting kinda foggy... I hope this wasn't totally incoherent, and REALLY hope that I didn't offend anyone; if I did I profusely and sincerely apologize!


----------



## Morrus (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Consider this:
> 
> If I don't have free will, whether or not I am bothered by the idea is... not my will!




You beat me to it - that's exactly what I was going to say.

If one believes that we have no free will, then the question "Why do some people object to that?" becomes meaningless.


----------



## Stumblewyk (Nov 14, 2012)

I deny my natural tendencies and impulses all the time.  I have Free Will.

...

Or I don't, and I'm "programmed" to deny those impulses!  I have no Free Will!

...

Either way, I don't care.  I function just fine, whether I'm allowed to choose my own behaviors or not.  Doesn't change the fact that I'm going to either do them, or choose not to.


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2012)

First order of business, please back off on the religion fork of this thread.  It ain't kosher, and some people are getting testy.  I had some thoughts on the religion gene's relation to this thread, but once folks start naming religions and applying some subjective adjectives the conversation gets Mod-risky.  thanks for complying.

I like AaronL's considered response, though I think "deterministic" might be a better term than predetermined, regarding peopls's behavior and destiny.  Without a Hisenberg Compensator and Fluxx Capacitor, we probably can't manage all the variables that drive a human.

Aside from that, each human acts in certain ways that they are driven to do by nature of the complex arrangement of their brain's neural networks.  Addicts have reinforced their reward circuitry when they engage in their addiction behavior.  They can't really stop that.  As we learned from that one article, apparently a guy became a creepy pedophile because of a brain tumor, and got fixed when he got it removed.  That's probably the strongest point in the no-free-will case, in that certain misbehaviors are in fact beyond a person's control (free will to stop doing) by nature of their brain's wiring.

I've got to read   [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION]'s links to catch up to where he is.  I'll let you guys in on a secret, I like well stated counter arguments and new information I hadn't considered.  Many times in these kind of threads, I change my position based on what I learn here.  In this case, the concept that "even if you really don't have free will, it can be bad for society if people believe that" is one I hadn't considered.  Note, I paraphrased, and that's not exactly what L meant or said.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 14, 2012)

Random Bystander said:


> Quantum physics says everything's random, anyway. So your entire premise of predictability is wrong.




Quantum Physics does not state this.

It is actually unknown because we are talking about forces so small that we do not understand them.

Just because something seems random, or better phrased "non-deterministic", does not mean that it is. This just means that something is so complex that the results cannot be determined by people.

If the laws of physics are not random at all, then we do not have free will. Everything that happens to us and everything we do and think, is "programmed". It appears random. It appears to be free will. But, it isn't.

If the laws of physics are random, then fate is not determined ahead of time. However, we still do not have free will in the normal sense of it. Everything we think is pre-programmed into us from all of our lifetime experiences. If you had a different set of parents (say that you were adopted), then your likes, your dislikes, your entire being would be different because your experiences would be different. There would be some propensities based on your genetics, but your different experiences would shape you differently.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Consider this:
> 
> If I don't have free will, whether or not I am bothered by the idea is... not my will!




Yes. But, one can study the concept, understand not only the science behind it, but the deeper philosophical aspects, and eventually come to the conclusion that it doesn't really make a difference, and stop being bothered by it.

But, only some people can do that. Others have been conditioned by life in such a way that it will always bother them, regardless of them studying the topic. And, some people will refuse to study it in the first place because to do so is anathema to them.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> But here's the thing, if we DID, we would know EXACTLY what would happen next.  Because what happens next is based on the exact current position, velocity and trajectory of every unit of matter and energy in the universe.  Including the insides of your brain.
> 
> ...
> 
> So basically, thus far, I'm saying the universe is really really complex and while some stuff is predictable, other stuff apppears to be random.  But if we KNEW the state of everything, we COULD compute the future.




Except, we cannot.

Not in the "there are too many things, as a practical matter we cannot know them all" way.  Quantum Mechanics appears to enforce this in a far more fundamental way - the information you would need *cannot* be known.  

This is the root of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle.  It isn't just that we currently lack the ability to know the variables in question, but that if we actually peg down one, the act of doing so scrambles up the other.  Nailing down the position of a particle actively changes its momentum in an unpredictable way.

Yes, there was a recent experiment in which someone got more information than one might have guessed they could have.  On the other hand, every piece of modern electronics (anything using a semiconductor) is based upon the Uncertainty Principle - it is the basis of "tunnelling", which is required for electronics to function. 

So, this point, that *if* we had all the information, we *could* calculate it all, breaks down - the IF cannot be fulfilled.

A couple posts up, KD refers to what in the business we'd call "Hidden Variable" theory - that QM is actually not what's going on, and we don't know the actual rules.  Hidden variable ideas have been around for a long time, but remain unproven.  In general, Hidden Variable theories seem to have their own bothersome problems, so you may be trading randomness in the universe for something just as unpalatable.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> Yes. But, one can study the concept, understand not only the science behind it, but the deeper philosophical aspects, and eventually come to the conclusion that it doesn't really make a difference, and stop being bothered by it.




Maybe you can, and maybe you can't.

If you are a meat computer, it depends on your programming.  Either you are programmed to come to the point where you can stop being bothered by it... or you cannot.  If you don't have the right programming, there is no recourse.  You certainly cannot "choose" to react differently - you cannot step outside your program.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

Duh.  I just found a wonderful gaming analog to the question in the OP...

Why are people bothered by the idea of no free will?

Why are some gamers bothered by a lack of character death in a game, or railroading plots?

The basic answer is probably the same - it is a question of whether you get to make "meaningful choices".


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Maybe you can, and maybe you can't.
> 
> If you are a meat computer, it depends on your programming.  Either you are programmed to come to the point where you can stop being bothered by it... or you cannot.  If you don't have the right programming, there is no recourse.  You certainly cannot "choose" to react differently - you cannot step outside your program.



Ah, but usually these sort of thought experiments assume a meat computer that does what the program tells it to do, and so stays within parameters. What if we are actually glitchy and new strings of code keep appearing in the loop everytime it is run? What if our sentience in this dirt poor analogy is a virus?


----------



## SkidAce (Nov 14, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Ah, but usually these sort of thought experiments assume a meat computer that does what the program tells it to do, and so stays within parameters. What if we are actually glitchy and new strings of code keep appearing in the loop everytime it is run? What if our sentience in this dirt poor analogy is a virus?




Also we are self programming. (Hence self-reinforcement of negative behaviors).

We can change so "free will",  but how much of it is a natural progression of what came before?   
And if our previous experiences didn't give us the  "tools" needed to grow and change, then we can't get out of our loop...what about outside influence from another person...hmm but they are helping because of their nature and programming.

It's a slippery slope and a hole you cant get out of.

BL:  we are the sum of our experiences (and physical make up)  Nature and Nurture applies.

BBL:  I look at it as I do have free will.  Everything is influenced by my makeup, sometime to the point of pre-determination.  But over the years I have changed and you have to take the why into account, the motivation.  The change is harder or easier depending on your makeup, and for some is impossible.

BBBL:  Example:  My physical makeup is small and fairly weak.  But I changed that.  I could only change it within the limitations of my DNA and human capability, but now I am strong and healthy.

So goes my brain and behavior.  True, within the limits of nature and nurture, but there is room for choosing changes.


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Maybe you can, and maybe you can't.
> 
> If you are a meat computer, it depends on your programming.  Either you are programmed to come to the point where you can stop being bothered by it... or you cannot.  If you don't have the right programming, there is no recourse.  You certainly cannot "choose" to react differently - you cannot step outside your program.




Yes. As per my second paragraph that you did not quote.


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Duh.  I just found a wonderful gaming analog to the question in the OP...
> 
> Why are people bothered by the idea of no free will?
> 
> ...




good point.  the concept of choice vs. Choice (capital C implying meaningful choice).

A GM could supply a player with a dungeon crossroads and imply he has a choice.  But without any information, it doesn't really matter which corridor he takes.  It's not a meaningful choice.

Furthermore, the GM could stick orcs down at the end of whatever hallway he chooses, further un-differentiating the choices.

Conversely, in real life, people will assign blame and responsibility by saying the person had a choice.  For example, saying poor people are poor because they made bad choices and didn't find a job.

But that's a half-accurate assessment.  Obviously, a guy who lost his job and is in the bread line must have made some choice in the past that led him to his current state.  Maybe he should have been more diplomatic in that one staff meeting that rubbed his Director wrong and caused him to get a lower score on his annual review, which put him in the queue for next to be laid off.

However, this poor guy didn't have that knowledge when he made that choice, didn't even know it was a factor in his future fate (much like that choice of generic dungeon corridors).

His personality wiring makes him less diplomatic and more direct, so he's naturally predisposed to saying something career limiting.  it's a predictable outcome.

to further judge him and his failure to get a job, one has to consider that his fate lies in other people's choices as well.  Somebody else makes the decision to pass on him and go with the cheaper unexperienced kid.

What usually bugs me the most on the topic of choice (which does bind back to lack of free will) is that when something bad happens, folks will point and say "you chose to do that" as if the person could have chosen differently.  Yet, when you look at the situation, and the psychological make-up of the person, it's a foregone conclusion on the path that person would take with the information the person had at hand.

To my eye, I can guess or predict how someone will likely behave.  After the fact, I can review a situation and see how somebody comes to be where they are at.  At that point, while I see the choice points they made that they had an opportunity to do something different, the path they actually chose is laid in as a railroad.

The GM could argue, "you guys COULD have chosen to betray the king and side with the demon", but to me, I look at the players, and I know that certain "choices" are not an option for them.  They don't really have free will to burn the village, eat the orphans and partner up with the demon, because that's just not a path they will choose. (note, there are plenty of players who WILL do just that).  It's a case of knowing your players.  In my case, when I know my players, I know how they will respond to stimuli and can predict their response with reasonable reliability.

Thus, I can manipulate them into doing the adeventure, rescuing the princess, etc.  They don't really have a choice, because I already know how they will choose because I frame the choice in a way that sets up the response I can rely on.  If I don't think my players are likely to rescue a princess, I don't set that kind of situation up.

So, because I see people as predictable and manipulatable to some extent (not saying I am actually good at those things), I tend to see that as a lack of free will on their part.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> What usually bugs me the most on the topic of choice (which does bind back to lack of free will) is that when something bad happens, folks will point and say "you chose to do that" as if the person could have chosen differently.  Yet, when you look at the situation, and the psychological make-up of the person, it's a foregone conclusion on the path that person would take with the information the person had at hand.



Hindsight is 20/20. Or maybe it just looks that way.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 14, 2012)

To Buddhism, free will is a sin and places your spirit or state of mind to be stuck in the human realm (one of the six hells of Wheel of Life).


----------



## KarinsDad (Nov 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> What usually bugs me the most on the topic of choice (which does bind back to lack of free will) is that when something bad happens, folks will point and say "you chose to do that" as if the person could have chosen differently.  Yet, when you look at the situation, and the psychological make-up of the person, it's a foregone conclusion on the path that person would take with the information the person had at hand.




Actually, people can choose differently. Take obesity as an example. Some major portion of obesity is genetics, environment, experience, etc., but as a general rule, nearly every person can choose to be less obese than they are and can do actions that achieve that result. Many of us (myself included) do not put in the extra effort to be less obese (at least in my case, on a continuing basis). We cannot use the "lack of free will" excuse to excuse our behavior. The medical and other problems that result from obesity still have to be shouldered by the people that are obese, regardless of the underlying reasons. One does the behavior, one has to shoulder the consequences.

The same applies to criminal behavior. However, there is a problem with using the "lack of free will" as an excuse for any behaviors. The problem is that behaviors are often repeatable. So in the case of crime, many criminals are likely to perform the same or other crimes over and over again. So, the incarceration of criminals for a society where science illustrates that "actual free will" is an illusion still has to be done in order to protect other members of society. Granted, rehabilitation might work in some cases, but the bottom line is that society just cannot roll the dice and give criminal offenders too many opportunities to repeatedly commit crime.

Thought of a different way, if we are all meat computers, then some of the meat computers have programming conflicts with other meat computers which results in some meat computers being restricted in activities.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> To Buddhism, free will is a sin and places your spirit or state of mind to be stuck in the human realm (one of the six hells of Wheel of Life).



The conversation wasn't about what Buddhism thinks about it (which gets the thread into a religious discussion, which we should not do here), but whether it exists.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 14, 2012)

jonesy said:


> The conversation wasn't about what Buddhism thinks about it (which gets the thread into a religious discussion, which we should not do here), but whether it exists.




Various world religions were mentioned in the front page, I was not going into religious discussion, so much reflecting other people's thinking regarding free will. I am not religious - not a Christian, not a Buddhist, but understanding what/how other cultures treat the concept of free should be part of the conversation.

Free will cannot exceed physics and biology, but does it need to to defy the absence of free will?


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Free will cannot exceed physics and biology, but does it need to to defy the absence of free will?



Huh? That went over my head by a couple of parsecs.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 14, 2012)

Cor Azer said:


> I more or less agree with you:
> I have free will in the sense that nobody can perfectly predict what I'll do, nor control what I do.
> I don't have free will in the sense that I can't act outside of what my biology and anatomy allow.
> 
> People who have an issue with "no free will" tend to use the first definition, while those without an issue tend towards the second.






jonesy said:


> Huh? That went over my head by a couple of parsecs.




Reread the first and second post of this thread, then read my post - it can't be over half a parsec.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> Reread the first and second post of this thread, then read my post..



Those do not talk about what confused me, which is specifically this:



gamerprinter said:


> Free will cannot exceed physics and biology, *but does it need to to defy the absence of free will*?



What does that refer to?


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 14, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Those do not talk about what confused me, which is specifically this:
> 
> 
> What does that refer to?




The premise that one's physical limitations prevents us from having truly free will is somehow proof that free will cannot exist. 

I believe free will can concern us within the capability of reality. I have the free will to respond to this thread/your post. I could chose not to respond, as I have the free will to do so. I have freely chosen to respond, does this not mean I do have free will.

Sorry for the confusion, the first part of that post referred to your point on religion, however, the rest of the post had to do with the thread and the first posts of this thread - and not to anything you were saying (I could see it seemed confusing.) I was returning to my points on the previous post, with regards to posts on page 1 of this thread.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

If I flip a coin to determine whether to reply to a post or not, is the coin constrained by reality? Was the action-reaction chain that preceded and created the conditions surrounding the coin toss inevitable, or is there such a thing as a truly random event? If the result of the coin toss was the result of everything preceding it and surrounding it, does that mean that everything else is as well? And if it does, are you really acting as a result of free will, or as a result of the action-reaction chains of your thought processess? Can that be called free will and does it really matter if it can't? You would still perceive an action you decided to do as an action that you had a choice of regardless of whether every action-reaction led to there being a you who ended up doing that action and perceiving that action to have been free will, even if it technically wasn't.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> Yes. As per my second paragraph that you did not quote.




Well, your second paragraph refers to "refusal" and that (at least to me) implies choice.  I didn't want to approach what looked like a muddled message there.

I think we are actually in agreement: If you have no free will, whether you study or not, whether that study will change your reaction or not - they happen, or they do not, depending on the programming.   The result was determined the time the event occurred.  Really, if you're going full determinism, it was determined day the Universe was created.  

If you don't have free will, the reason you don't like the idea of not having it is that *you are made that way*.  




jonesy said:


> Ah, but usually these sort of thought experiments assume a meat computer that does what the program tells it to do, and so stays within parameters. What if we are actually glitchy and new strings of code keep appearing in the loop everytime it is run? What if our sentience in this dirt poor analogy is a virus?




That just means that I, in my ignorance, cannot predict the outcome with the information I have.  

That virus is still itself code.  The code isn't actually "glitchy", in that it is still doing *exactly* what it is told to do.  You perceive it as a glitch because it isn't what you intended or expected it to do - but computers are not bound by your intent, but by your exact statement.  Digital computers are still entirely deterministic in their action.


----------



## jonesy (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Digital computers are still entirely deterministic in their action.



I meant to ask earlier, but forgot. What's your opinion on the idea that mental processes might work as a quantum computer? Would that alter the scenario significantly?


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

gamerprinter said:


> The premise that one's physical limitations prevents us from having truly free will is somehow proof that free will cannot exist.




Yeah, sometimes people confuse free will with freedom of action.  If I go down to the soda machine with a dollar, being able to choose between Coke and Diet Coke is free will.  Being driven inexorably to Coke by a hard-coded need for sugar is lack of free will.

Not being able to choose Diet Dr. Pepper, because it is sold out, isn't lack of free will - it is just being SOL.


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2012)

jonesy said:


> Hindsight is 20/20. Or maybe it just looks that way.




thats always true, but I meet too many people that can't accept why somebody did something a certain way.  Once I get enough info, I tend to accept that person's decision, despite not agreeing with it.  So it's not about having hindsight on "here's what you should have done" and more about "I see what led you to make the choice you made"


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2012)

KarinsDad said:


> Actually, people can choose differently. Take obesity as an example. Some major portion of obesity is genetics, environment, experience, etc., but as a general rule, nearly every person can choose to be less obese than they are and can do actions that achieve that result. Many of us (myself included) do not put in the extra effort to be less obese (at least in my case, on a continuing basis). We cannot use the "lack of free will" excuse to excuse our behavior. The medical and other problems that result from obesity still have to be shouldered by the people that are obese, regardless of the underlying reasons. One does the behavior, one has to shoulder the consequences.




This is the concept of will power.  An overweight person can become skinny by exercising will power.  Scott Adams doesn't think will power exists.

Somebody will put in the work, lose weight, but the wiring in their brain still rewards eating more than any other activitity, and after a while, they will backslide and gain the weight back.



KarinsDad said:


> The same applies to criminal behavior. However, there is a problem with using the "lack of free will" as an excuse for any behaviors. The problem is that behaviors are often repeatable. So in the case of crime, many criminals are likely to perform the same or other crimes over and over again. So, the incarceration of criminals for a society where science illustrates that "actual free will" is an illusion still has to be done in order to protect other members of society. Granted, rehabilitation might work in some cases, but the bottom line is that society just cannot roll the dice and give criminal offenders too many opportunities to repeatedly commit crime.
> 
> Thought of a different way, if we are all meat computers, then some of the meat computers have programming conflicts with other meat computers which results in some meat computers being restricted in activities.




I covered the criminal aspect when I said that society would still be interested in taking the bad robots off the factory floor.  Bad code is bad code, and you want to get that off the streets as quick as you can.  Prison reform ideas get to the heart of the matter on whether you can get them to stop doing the bad behavior.

In this, I have no clue.  Some people think that you can somehow convince a criminal to stop criming, or a fat person to stop eating.  I don't think these people are stupid.  I think they KNOW they need to stop.  But something in their brain rewards them for doing it anyway.  I don't think science is at a point where we can reliably psychologize or surgically alter this with time on the operating table or analysts' couch.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

jonesy said:


> I meant to ask earlier, but forgot. What's your opinion on the idea that mental processes might work as a quantum computer? Would that alter the scenario significantly?




Maybe.  It is my personal guess (not a science fact, just a personal guess) that having mental processes have *some* QM dependency is required for free will, but may not be sufficient.

The action of quantum computers is not necessarily any less deterministic than that of a digital computer.  It is just that they process information differently, allowing them to perform certain calculations more quickly than a digital computer can.  But the two will still come up with the same answer - the difference is just a matter of when.

Now, here's where interpretation of QM comes in.  Remember Schrödinger's cat?  The cat is in the box, and it is *both* alive and dead, until someone goes to look at it, and then its choice of state is made?

The typical interpretation is that the observer has a special quality - the ability to cause the quantum wave function to collapse from a wide range of possibilities to one single reality.  Reality as a single thing only crops up when you have some entity capable of perception entering the picture.

For hundreds (I think thousands) of years, humans have posited that free will, as such, depends upon being "self aware" - you cannot have a will if you don't have some concept of a self separate from the rest of the universe.  To be aware of the self, you must of course, be able to perceive the self.  

And now you can probably see where I am going - free will then comes in as being able to collapse the QM waveform of your own mind!

I hope that is sufficiently scientifically mumbo-jumbo for everyone concerned


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 14, 2012)

> Not being able to choose Diet Dr. Pepper, because it is sold out, isn't lack of free will - it is just being SOL.




S.O.L. Invictus, even.


----------



## gamerprinter (Nov 14, 2012)

jonesy said:


> If I flip a coin to determine whether to reply to a post or not, is the coin constrained by reality?




Playing D&D I roll dice to determine results, however, regarding any free will over a decision I make is done in my head, and not to include physical decision making devices like coins or dice.

That said, there are too many variables in flipping a coin to determine if it were constrained or not. Beyond my level of caring, actuallly.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 14, 2012)

Janx said:


> Scott Adams doesn't think will power exists.




I have not read Mr. Adams' piece.  But I would not be surprised if he would be well-served by reading up some on the trials of those with great illness (I'm thinking "spoon theory" here), or those with issues with anxiety or PTSD.  He might find them enlightening.


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> The typical interpretation is that the observer has a special quality - the ability to cause the quantum wave function to collapse from a wide range of possibilities to one single reality.  Reality as a single thing only crops up when you have some entity capable of perception entering the picture.
> 
> For hundreds (I think thousands) of years, humans have posited that free will, as such, depends upon being "self aware" - you cannot have a will if you don't have some concept of a self separate from the rest of the universe.  To be aware of the self, you must of course, be able to perceive the self.
> 
> ...




that was pretty good.

So if I've got a Shroedinger's Box sitting in the kitchen, and I'm watching TV, and my dog goes into the kitchen and sniffs at the box.  Does my dog have Free Will if she comes back to me with a dead cat in her mouth?  (I mean that the dog opened the box and extracted the dead cat, not that the dog killed the cat).

After all, my dog has resolved a quantum situation and finalized it to being a live or dead cat?

In slightly more serious note, I could buy an argument that "I think therefore I am"  meaning you have Free Will if there's a science experiment that can "collapse the QM waveform" by virture of human percpetion, versus that of my dog or some non-qualifying perciever.

I'm not framing it well, but I think your point is that a human percieving the Shroedinger experiment causes a quantum decision point to resolve itself.  If there's a way to show that happens for humans, and not for things that we don't think have free will (it's possible that my dog has a much free will as I do based on the definition).


----------



## Janx (Nov 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, sometimes people confuse free will with freedom of action.  If I go down to the soda machine with a dollar, being able to choose between Coke and Diet Coke is free will.  Being driven inexorably to Coke by a hard-coded need for sugar is lack of free will.
> 
> Not being able to choose Diet Dr. Pepper, because it is sold out, isn't lack of free will - it is just being SOL.




Diet always tastes bad, so I would never drink Diet unless there was no non-diet, and even then, I'd have to be really thirsty.

Therefore, I have no free will because my decision tree eliminates the choice.  I will almost always choose Dr. Pepper. then root Beer, then orange, then Coke.

Today, I did deviate and choose root beer at lunch.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 15, 2012)

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] - you thought that was jumbo?  I'm not done yet!



Janx said:


> So if I've got a Shroedinger's Box sitting in the kitchen, and I'm watching TV, and my dog goes into the kitchen and sniffs at the box.  Does my dog have Free Will if she comes back to me with a dead cat in her mouth?  (I mean that the dog opened the box and extracted the dead cat, not that the dog killed the cat).
> 
> After all, my dog has resolved a quantum situation and finalized it to being a live or dead cat?




Maybe it did.  Maybe dogs have enough sentience for that.  I'm good with that idea.  Frankly, I'm good with the idea that the cat is sentient enough too, such that there actually isn't any issue - that's something Schrodinger didn't worry about at the time, to be honest.  He wasn't talking about sentience and free will, just about the absurdity of a cat being both dead and alive at the same time.

Or, maybe the dog isn't sentient/free-willed enough.  It left the area of your perception - now the dog is in as much an unresolved quantum state as the cat.  Maybe the dog+cat doesn't resolve until you *look* into the doorway, and the system falls into a known state.

This way lies an uneasy idea - none of the Universe actually exists as "reality" outside the range of perception of qualified observers.

There's a basic way out of this, which amounts to, "actually, the observer isn't important, the form of interaction is important".  We still end up in the same place, though, so bear with me...

Here's the thing: The uncertainty principle doesn't actually seem to mean much for large objects.  We notice the effect for very small things, like electrons and atoms, but as the mass of an object gets big, the effect shrinks.  

I can go into why that is, but it requires math to fully express.  So, for the moment, I'll assume you all trust me on that - for micro-scale objects, the uncertainty principle means large effects.  For macro-scale objects, it means very little.  So, for things like atoms and electrons, we have large ranges of uncertainty.  For things like cats and bowling balls, not so much.  

We could consider that in Schrodinger's cat, we aren't considering the interaction between a quantum effect and an observer, but between a quantum effect and a macro-scale object (which just happened to be an observer).  Normally, single quantum-scale events mean very little to macro-scale objects.  Schrodinger just set up a particular case where a quantum effect was very potent - his original had a radioactive atom in the box, and if it decayed, a mechanism broke a poison vial, killing the cat.  So, we needed interaction with a large object to resolve it - Schrodinger's large object just happened to be a human being.  But maybe anything macro-scale outside the box would do - say a ball that bounces off the lid, and opens the box.

Thus, maybe any time we have a quantum effect interacting notably with a macro-scale object, we have the macro-scale object able to collapse the quantum probabilities into one reality.  This doesn't affect our free will idea one bit.  We still get that if the activity of the mind/brain/thought-process has quantum properties, and still have the person (who is macro-scale) collapsing the wave of probability of his or her own mind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 15, 2012)

Schrödinger's Cat does not require a sentient being to open the box, just that the box be opened sufficiently enough for the cat to be perceivable.

IOW, if a tree in the forest falls on a box containing Schrödinger's Cat, it will be dead.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 15, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, if a tree in the forest falls on a box containing Schrödinger's Cat, it will be dead.




HA!  Rad.

As an aside, even cats and dogs and cows and sheeps and fishies are sentient; sentience is the quality of having senses.  That's why I personally prefer the term sapience for human level self-reflective intelligence.  I just think it's more precise.  But I won't nitpick.  

I am absolutely loving this discussion.  Philosophy, psychology, and quantum physics.  The perfect mix.  Where the three meet, is where Weird Science begins!  Free will as an effect of our self-reflective mind observing itself and collapsing its own wave function. I love it.

Umbran, with regard to what you said, does that just mean that quantum waveforms automatically collapse once things move from the quantum scale to the macro scale?  

Because, like you said, always requiring an outside observer would essentially require sentient minds to exist in order for the universe to exist as anything other than a lot of uncollapsed waveforms and vague probabilities... but if the unobserved universe only existed as uncollapsed waveforms and probabilities instead of a definite reality, how could sentient minds have come about?   

Unless one wanted to posit the idea of a God existing as a universal observer to collapse the wavefunction of the universe, which I find problematic.

(Waveform?  Wave Function?  Am I getting terms mixed up?)

I hope that made sense.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 15, 2012)

Aaron L said:


> As an aside, even cats and dogs and cows and sheeps and fishies are sentient; sentience is the quality of having senses.




Eh, I don't think that flies.  Plants have ways of sensing the universe around them, too, but they aren't generally considered sentient.

Fact is, there's more than one definition of "sentient".  Some say it is "having senses".  Others would say it is "having subjective sensory impressions".  Yet others would say it is "being conscious of having sensory impressions".  Seems the jury's still out on a precise meaning.  So, I think we'll have to settle on having our own meaning in this context.



> That's why I personally prefer the term sapience for human level self-reflective intelligence.  I just think it's more precise.  But I won't nitpick.




Too late   That's okay, though.  Science discussion generally requires a bit of nitpicking.

But note how "human-level" has not really been part of the discussion yet.  You may be being more precise, but we're still being vague, mostly intentionally, I suspect.  I, personally, am not sure mentation is like D&D character advancement, with levels one clearly "above" another.  That's akin to the old "ladder" view of evolution, which these days seems pretty outmoded.



> Umbran, with regard to what you said, does that just mean that quantum waveforms automatically collapse once things move from the quantum scale to the macro scale?




I'm not sure what you mean by "things move from".  Individual things rarely start in one scale to the other - an electron is an electron, and it never goes from being quantum scale to macro scale.  If you mean, "as our observations move from looking at quantum-scale to macro-scale," then... almost, yes.  Surely, macro-scale objects don't usually have discernible quantum nature.

However, there are some macro-scale things that have quantum properties - Superconducting QUantum Interference Devices (SQUIDs - really sensitive magnetic field sensors), Schrodinger's cat, and a few others.  In the scenario I just described, the questionable aspects of such item is best described in quantum terms.  It is only after it interacts in a relevant way with a macro-scale object, such that it has to resolve for the universe of the macro-scale object to make sense, then it resolves.

The box of Shrodinger's cat is "interacting" with the table it is sitting on, but that's not enough to resolve the state, because the table's universe makes sense so long as the box is closed.  It is only when the box opens that the rest of the universe would have issues with this alive/dead cat, so the system resolves.  



> Because, like you said, always requiring an outside observer would essentially require sentient minds to exist in order for the universe to exist as anything other than a lot of uncollapsed waveforms and vague probabilities... but if the unobserved universe only existed as uncollapsed waveforms and probabilities instead of a definite reality, how could sentient minds have come about?




Yes.  In the "observer required" model, there's two basic possibilities:

1) There is some Prime Mover who does the initial observation.  Like you, many find this problematic.

2) As the waveform(s) of the Universe evolves, the probability of sentient minds existing in the Universe increases.  If the probability of there being sufficient sentience to act as an observer ever reaches 100%, then the Universe as a whole resolves, history and all.  Rather like human free will arising by self-observation, the universe kind of observes itself, and there we are!  This is a very "anthropic principle" kind of universe.

Many folks *really* don't like the mumbo-jumbo there, which is why the "quantum/macro" interpretation arose.

I do have to make this clear - we are in the realm of interpretations of quantum mechanics, not in the realm of proven science.


----------



## Aaron L (Nov 15, 2012)

You're right about the whole sentient vs sapient thing. I just personally like sapient because of the fuzzy definition of sentient.  But it's just personal taste, I'm not going to argue with anyone about it here.


When I said "human level intelligence" I probably really should have said "human-type intelligence."  I wasn't trying to imply there were levels or "grades" of intelligence, and definitely know that evolution isn't an ever progressing process reaching toward an ultimate "goal."  Evolution just adapts creatures to their environment, it doesn't have a set goal of making them "better."  I actually have a big problem with that particular trope in a lot of science-fiction... especially when stories have all life "evolving up" toward the goal of becoming "energy beings."  (Sorry, Babylon 5.  I still love you, but that part was dumb.)


And yes, when I said "things move from" what I meant to say was "as our observations move from looking at quantum-scale to macro-scale."  You figured out my poorly worded question.   


And I understand that this is all the area of philosophy of quantum physics and not hard established science. That's why I like discussing it so much.   It's Mad Science. 



I only started thinking about all this now because of the idea that was brought up about brains operating on the quantum level and such.  It just got me wondering.  Sorry about the tangent.


----------



## Random Bystander (Nov 15, 2012)

Shrodinger's cat is probably dead. It's been sitting in a box with a lump of radioactive material for 77 years.

If nothing else, it joined the choir invisible out of old age probably no more than 63 years ago.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Nov 16, 2012)

If free will doesn't exist, the illusion of free will may have been an evolutionary advantage - maybe brains work better if they have the capacity to believe in free will build in?


----------



## Janx (Nov 16, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If free will doesn't exist, the illusion of free will may have been an evolutionary advantage - maybe brains work better if they have the capacity to believe in free will build in?




It's also possible that the "feeling" of having free will is sufficient in defining its presence.

Like Descarte's "I think, therefore I am", that which is unable to express such, does not have free will.

A gram of sodium, in a spoon, held over a swimming pool is unable to resist or express its will on the matter of being dropped into the pool.  Once dropped, it has no choice in forming a violent reaction with the water.

Wheras, a puppy, held over a swimming pool, may be calm, may squirm and try to avoid its fate.  Once dropped, the puppy may happily swim about, or may struggle to get out of the water.

As such, the amalgamation of neurans and chemical reactions creates a complex matrix that resembles free will that differentiates the entity from a rock, or a snail.

I would then posit, that one day, we may have a manufactured entity that exhibits this 'free will' and that entity may be eligible for the same rights and considerations as other recognized biological entities.

I would suspect that ability to pass a Free Will test would be more complex and imply greater cognitive ability (able to set and achieve its own goals, solve problems), compared to the basic Turing Test ala chat-room personability.

What would such a test look like?

Perhaps: present the testee with 2 vastly different problems and tell them they can choose one of them to solve.

The entity may be exercising free will in deciding which to solve, either by suitability (math is hard, so skip the math problem), or ego (I'll do the hard problem and show off how smart I am).  I think there'd need to be more to it than that, almost something subjective, forcing the entity to indicate a non-objective preference that purely algorthmic decision would make.  What's your favorite color, for instance.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2012)

Janx said:


> It's also possible that the "feeling" of having free will is sufficient in defining its presence.




Except that human beings are capable of feelings and perceptions over which they do not have control.  So, it is in theory possible for us to "feel" like we have will, but have that feeling be merely one more automatic response, an illusion.



> What would such a test look like?




Given current technology, I expect it is not testable.  

We are at the point that we can tell that sometimes (scarily often) our decision process goes through what amounts to emotional processing before it ever hits logical processing.  That emotional processing is not conscious - it generally produces results that we then attach logical reasons to after the fact.  But, that doesn't mean it isn't "free will" - there may still be a personal choice buried in there, rather than what amounts to emotional algorithmic processing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Nov 16, 2012)

> Except that human beings are capable of feelings and perceptions over which they do not have control.




...but which they _may_, under certain circumstances, learn to control.

Not eliminate, mind you- we know from years of studies that the irrational, emotional limbic system is what engages first, not the rational mind- but control, allowing for considered reaction to iterations, even intensely charged ones.


----------



## Janx (Nov 16, 2012)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> If free will doesn't exist, the illusion of free will may have been an evolutionary advantage - maybe brains work better if they have the capacity to believe in free will build in?




Librarmarian pointed out that we tend to act more aggressively if we think we don't have free will.

The inverse of that implying, we tend to work cooperatively/peacefully with others when we believe we have free will.

This would be part of how we survive and succeed as a society.  We wouldn't get as far, if we each acted only in our immediate self interests.


----------



## Umbran (Nov 16, 2012)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> ...but which they _may_, under certain circumstances, learn to control.




Yes, certainly.  You can be trained to think more critically, for example.  The issue I was referring to was more that having a feeling is not necessarily indicative of reality.  Our feelings are useful, but not 100% accurate.


----------



## Janx (Nov 16, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Except that human beings are capable of feelings and perceptions over which they do not have control.  So, it is in theory possible for us to "feel" like we have will, but have that feeling be merely one more automatic response, an illusion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




It sounds like you're agreeing with my opening argument that we are moist robots and do not have free will....

To me, that we are/aren't moist robots isn't really up for discussion.  Once we invent dry robots based on identical modelling of the human brain, we are, by definition, moist robots (as in, the opposite of dry, and applying the same noun as the dry version is a replica of the wet version).

So that mostly leaves Free Will, whether we have it, and extending the argument to, whether we will recognize it in other alien/manufactured entities when we meet them.

The Turing test is really elegant and simple.  If a human talks to an AI in a chat room, and can't tell it's an AI, then the AI is indeed an AI, rather than a conglomeration of algorithms.

Given how dumb some chat rooms can be, I think mastering the art of conversation, doesn't fully prove the program is Intelligent, or Willful (as in having Free Will like a Human thinks he has).

But I like the setup of the Turing Test.  It would seem that philosophically (rather than technologically), a test can be defined that determines if the test candidate has this Free Wiill stuff or not.

to me, I suspect that Intelligence, and Willfulness would be tied to problem solving, in the sense of solving the problem without actually knowing how to solve the problem first.

Given stimuli, like the house is on fire, humans, dogs and robots all execute pretty much the same code.  there's not exactly thinking going on that illustrates Free Will, as in my dog and non Free Will robot can do the same thing you can do.

But setting up the participant to make some choices and come up with a new solution that isn't "pre-programmed" seems like that might be the key.

I believe, that if you have this mysterious Free Will, it means that you are able to consider a situation, identify the obvious optimum choice, and come up with new non-obvious choices.

Computers and Neural networks are always making choices, and assessing priority, and usually choosing the pre-programmed path (get food, get to safety).

Somebody with Free Will can transcend that programming and do something new.

Like the veteran who shoved his wife off the parade float in Midland yesterday and saved her life when the train hit.  He died.

A dumb robot programmed for self presevation (or my dog*) would have moved itself out of the way.  it took higher level thinking (free will?) to choose an alternate plan to save another person instead.

I'd hate to get mushy, but self sacrifice might be a demonstration of Free Will in that the entity is bypassing a default behavior (self preservation) in lieu of another choice.

*I like dogs.  Dogs being able to save other people at risk to themselves may be qualifying for this Free Will status as well.  It's a grey area as animal software does cover animals protecting their young/pack/territory and may not count as "going beyond their programming"


----------



## Umbran (Nov 17, 2012)

Janx said:


> It sounds like you're agreeing with my opening argument that we are moist robots and do not have free will....




No, I am not agreeing with your opening argument.  I'm saying:

1) I don't think it is testable with current technology or understanding. 

2) Some of our decision making process is emotional and sub-conscious, but I specifically say that *doesn't* automatically make it "meat robot" thinking. 



> To me, that we are/aren't moist robots isn't really up for discussion.  Once we invent dry robots based on identical modelling of the human brain, we are, by definition, moist robots (as in, the opposite of dry, and applying the same noun as the dry version is a replica of the wet version).




My understanding is that the top robotic and AI work being done is *not* modelling on the human brain.  The human brain doesn't work at all like a computer's CPU.  Trying to reach machine AI using our meat model is kind of a square peg/round hole thing. 



> I'd hate to get mushy, but self sacrifice might be a demonstration of Free Will in that the entity is bypassing a default behavior (self preservation) in lieu of another choice.




Sorry, but then ants and worker bees have free will - the icons of living without free will are all about self-sacrifice for the good of the hive/nest.  For animals that tend to live in groups, altruistic behavior has value, in an evolutionary sense.


----------



## tomBitonti (Nov 19, 2012)

Janx said:


> Here's a new topic I been meaning to start.
> But here's the thing, if we DID, we would know EXACTLY what would happen next.  Because what happens next is based on the exact current position, velocity and trajectory of every unit of matter and energy in the universe.  Including the insides of your brain.




Except, this is not true.  Uncertainty is not the only barrier to knowing what will happen.  The difficulty of running a simulation is there too.  See:

http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~naor/COURSE/feynman-simulating.pdf

Thx!


----------



## JustinAlexander (Nov 22, 2012)

Janx said:


> So, before I go into the details of my position, how do you feel about Free Will right now?




There is absolutely no rational reason not to act as if we had free will.

If we have free will, then I'm right.

If we don't, then my decision to act as if we do have free will was predetermined anyway. 



> What it really is is an homage to the Hisenberg Uncertainty Principle,  which basically says that for all practical purposes, we can't really  know the exact positional details of every atom or quantum doohickey  that makes up the universe at any point in time. But here's the thing, if we DID...




Right. But we don't. We can't. And, more importantly, _the universe can't either_.

It's important to understand that quantum mechanics is not due to some failure of our instruments: The universe itself really is uncertain. (Do some research on the two-slit experiment for a relatively simple example of this.)

What you're doing is confusing the Heisenberg uncertainty principle (which is a statement about the actual physical properties of the universe) for an observer effect (in which the observer alters the state of what is being observed). This is a common error, but an error nonetheless.

If we do have actual free will (and not some biological predeterminism) then it will almost certainly be an emergent property out of quantum mechanics.



> that's a not a good thing for the idea of Free Will, if somebody can fiddle with your brain, and change your behavior.




That doesn't follow logically at all. The ability to remove free will would not logically result in the conclusion that it never existed at all.


----------

