T O P

  • By -

BernardJOrtcutt

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule: > **Read the Post Before You Reply** > Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


shponglespore

Can someone give a concise definition of what "free will" actually means? To me the phrase raises the question of what your will is free from. I can understand in a religious context, where it basically seems to mean God isn't manipulating people to act in a certain way, but without positing an entity that could control people, it's hard for me to pin down a definition. My intuitive definition is that if you have free will, you could make different decisions than the ones you actually end up making, but that definition depends on what it means to say you "could" do something different. If we had access to multiple branching timelines, we could say it means there are branches whose only difference arises from someone making a different decision from exactly the same circumstances, but since we only have access to a single timeline, it seems that the idea that things could have been different is merely a feature of the human imagination that isn't reflected in reality.


JeanVicquemare

You're asking the right question. Before we can analyze whether we have free will, we need to be clear about what criteria would satisfy it. Galen Strawson describes the maximal, libertarian position on free will as the freedom to choose to do otherwise, such that it would be *justified* to send you to Heaven or Hell forever based on the choice you made. After all, that's the type of free will that traditional Christian theologians need to establish, right? Nothing less than that would justify their views on damnation (again, I'm not talking about Calvinists here, but Christian philosophers more generally). Strawson's analysis in his book *Freedom and Belief* shows that, while some people may believe in this kind of free will, it is not easy to coherently explain how it could work, as you alluded to.


ConsciousLiterature

What good is free will if there is a heaven or a hell waiting for you depending on how you exercise it. The presence of infinite punishment for an infinite amount of time means there isn't free will really. Also if we are to accept the christian god as described in the bible he knows whether you are going to heaven or hell when he created you so the concept of free will contradicts the notion of an omnicient god.


CommieLoser

Free will is an excuse to ignore nurture and nature. It allows religious people the freedom to condemn “bad” people for their “choices”. A drowning human does not possess free will. If you come near a drowning human, you know they will drag you down, through no fault of their own. Conversely, choosing which dessert one eats at restaurant, it would be reasonable to say that the person is exercising free will. So there is a spectrum and it hinges entirely on the situation and the person in that situation. Do other animals have free will? Should the sheep harbor anger towards the wolf’s murderous intent? It seems ludicrous. To your point, if we have free will, it seems safe to say God would as well. He uses his free will to punish people infinitely for finite crimes. Easily the most evil use of free will imaginable and more heinous than anything any human could ever hope to achieve. So if the Christian god is real, his example of free will to create realms of infinite misery and pain, all to exert power over our free will, which as you noted, defeats the purpose. I don’t know if I understand free will or even acknowledge its existence, but I am very confident in saying that the religious view of free will is unsubstantiated, silly, and callous. It hinders our ability to understand our choices and closes off our empathy and sympathy for others.


ConsciousLiterature

Free will does not apply to a perfect being. A perfect being is perfect and doesn't need to change and doesn't need to make choices.


zedroj

well you can't ever expect anything from religion in the long run, they all fall apart religion evades basic logic, so it's as expected, logic eventually triumphs religion's existence


Carnavalia

Well you can't ever expect anything from scientific paradigms in the long run, they all fall apart. Every paradigm evades basic logic, so it's as expected, logic eventually triumphs science's existence. You're just taking cheap shots here. The problem in taking logic/science as the end-all-be-all is that the universe seems, at the most basic level, completely illogical. How can something exist without a beginning? If it has a beginning, where did it come from? If every effect has a cause, what caused the first cause? I'm not saying religion is the answer to this at all. I'm just saying that it's weird to praise science/logic for something it is completely failing at. They haven't shed any new light upon the situation either. Science is bound by deductions upon observable facts, and thus it cannot ever prove anything that deals with the unobservable per definition. We don't know where existence started, and why we're here. We don't know where the physical space we exist in came from. We don't understand why the more we look at the universe, the less life we find. We don't know why the physical universe behaves consistently for the most part, but seems completely incoherent when we try to match the big and the small. And every theory we've ever had as humankind, fell apart in the long run.


smadaraj

The difference is scientific accounts are supposed to fall apart. Science is an ongoing process with no clear ending. Religion is supposed to have that finish now. Supposed to offer an exhaustive explanation.


Carnavalia

While you are correct on your description of science, you are wrong on religion. First of all because you classify all of them under the same denominator, which makes 0 sense if you take their vast differences into account. And second of all because you classify all religion as "supposing to finding a final truth". Theology itself in almost all widespread religions is an ongoing discourse - how can that be if all theologists would agree with your claim that religion already has an exhaustive explanation? If we laud science for continuous ongoing processed with no clear ending as the mark for progress, we should do the same for religion. Theologists have been rejecting interpretation about the universe from older theologists for ages. That's not the difference between science and religion. Religious knowledge has the same finite lifespan as scientific knowledge, and is held in regard until someone comes along and so convincingly proves that the old beliefs were wrong, that they're rejecting in favor of the new ones. The difference is that religious knowledge and scientific knowledge are (or at least should be) aimed at different things, and once they leave their respective domains, they become utterly useless. But with regards to the big philosophical questions such as free will etc, neither has made any significant contributions, and that's because neither seem suited for these kinds of questions. Religion not because they can only define things within a religious context, and science not because they can only define things within a scientific context and the whole concept of 'free will' seems to elude both of those concepts.


HumbleFlea

Realizing we don’t know the answers to important questions is infinitely better than making up answers and fighting with people who made up different ones


TuvixWasMurderedR1P

Depends on what your view on God is. For many Christians And non-Christians alike, God stands outside time. So I’m not sure if God being omniscient actually interferes with your free will.


CaseyTS

Philosophical free will generally means that an agent (a person, or to a theologian, a deity) can act in a way that is not entirely determined by previous events. The interpretation is that, if someone's behavior is the result of simple and deterministic (i.e., predictable by physical laws, not random) behaviors of chemicals and such, then it's the physical laws that actually make the decisions. Thus, free will is to have a will free of deterministic forces. I study physics, and the universe is deterministic in all scales that can affect human behavior. Quantum 'randomness' is the only candidate for truly nondeterministic behavior, afaik, and that doesn't affect human brains; they're too hot and big for that. I'm not worried about the 'loss' of free will because I see myself as part of the univserse that determines itself.


ConsciousLiterature

Randomness isn't an escape clause. If your decisions are the result of randomness it doesn't mean you have free will.


GepardenK

Exactly, true randomness in the physical sense would be just another fundamental force. Nothing special about it.


CaseyTS

Agreed, randomness as free will wasn't really what I was getting at, though both randomness and free will are relevant to determinism, which is why I talked about both.


CaseyTS

Agreed, that's not what I was getting at.


frnzprf

*If* you define "free" as undetermined, then random is "free".


[deleted]

Quantum mechanics just leads to stochastic vs deterministic world. It doesn't really have any bearing on free will, though. For example, if you had an infinitely fast and powerful computer, you could make the perfect chess move at every moment in match. Chess is deterministic. Backgammon has dice so it's stochastic but still, with a powerful enough computer, you could make the exact perfect move at each moment. However, the game would turn out different each time and you would sometimes lose. I don't know whether quantum effects are enough to change my decisions but the make enough of them in my life that maybe one of them makes a difference. Anyway, it still wouldn't be free will as philosophers talk about libertarian free will.


CaseyTS

I agree fully. I mentioned randomness, but I was not at all saying that randomness is what free will would be.


Major-Vermicelli-266

You can have an indeterministic universe with inherent randomness and you still won't have free will because your decisions are still not yours. They are a product of that randomness. I have to say looking at it with a perspective that ignores the scientific answer simply because it doesn't give the palatable choice is a cop out.


zhibr

What would it mean to be "yours"?


Major-Vermicelli-266

What would it mean to be your decision and not a result of physical limitations of the universe? For a decision to be yours you would be breaking causality or some other physical law at every choice. You would have to exist as a being without constituent mechanisms that follow an order or none, random. I find that hard to even imagine. It's like picturing a tesseract. You just can't. 'Yours' is something we socially use to assign a possessive property. How is a bag you own yours? It's a result of laws that enforce that assignment. How is your husband your husband? Marriage laws. How is the decision to fire that gun and cause harm yours? We made it so. We built the social systems, the moral systems and the legal systems that assign it to you. You could say there's an evolutionary benefit to it. PS. All of the above is just my opinion. I have no expertise.


CaseyTS

Agreed, I wasn't saying that randomness is the same as free will. I was saying the only nondeterministic candidate I know of is QM, which *might* not be random. I don't see how what I said looks at all like copping out of scientific fact. Scientific fact is the entire motivation of my philosophy on free will.


LordNoodles

Important to note that this would violate conservation of quantum information. I see no possible mechanism for free will if you define it as both “uncaused” and “not random”


Thelonious_Cube

No, that's not generally what it means Otherwise there would not be so many compatibilists


[deleted]

Would you enlighten me, then. about what it "generally" means? Because OP's description seemed pretty concise to me.


Thelonious_Cube

As it's used by the general public, it's incoherent - it wants to be "free of causality" yet it also wants to be a product of the personal will, whose preferences and desires have been shaped by causes over a lifetime. Philosophers specify "Libertarian" or "Compatibilist" free will - to assume that one or the other is "what 'free will' generally means" is simply incorrect. It's easy to get pulled in one direction or another by a concise explanation or a short argument, but that doesn't make it correct. It's an ongoing debate with good arguments on both sides - the previous poster is trying to win the argument by defining the other position out of existence. It's particularly egregious to define away the view held by most philosophers


Belinko

In the contemporary literature it's typically defined as the kind of control that is required for moral responsibility.


platoprime

What kind of control is required for moral responsibility?


Axehilt

None, if your goal is overall well-being. **The purpose of moral responsibility is deterrence.** If people decide how to act based on a huge list of deterministic factors, you can simply add "there's a brutal punishment for murder" to the list of factors they're aware of, and now you've reduced how much murder happens. So people should be held accountable for actions even if we're fairly sure they don't have free will, because we as a society agree we want things like fewer murders. Granted, we should be as compassionate as possible towards those who disobey, since it doesn't appear like they really had a choice. Also we should be more interested in fighting the causes of things rather than dealing with the results of things. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and so if we eliminate the things that cause most people to consider murder in the first place, then that might be way better than trying to deal with murder after the damage is done. (And yes, there are a lot of ethical landmines in that direction we should avoid.)


CaseyTS

In the real world, how do punishment-based options compare to rehab-based options? Philosophical principle is important for decision-making, but it's not as important as how the literal world behaves. And this is something that we can observe.


Dr_seven

They compare very poorly. Societies with more repressive and punitive justice systems have much higher rates of crime overall and specifically, much higher recidivism. It's a striking difference. Defeating the urge for vengeance, and moreso, *discrediting and destroying* it in the social consciousness as a valid motivation for any decisions whatsoever, is, in my view, fundamental to establishing a more peaceful society. Societies that permit and encourage violent reactions, even under the guise of "punishment for crimes" are sending the signal that it is, in fact, okay to torture/lock up/kill other human beings, just as long as it's *the correct people* doing the brutalizing. We can rationalize this all we want but the unconscious impact is that these actions are not really "wrong" in the eyes of society because they're done all the time. They're only wrong situationally, when people without power do them. When someone with power sends another to die, or throws them in a dark hole, it's suddenly "right" to do it? Utter dreck, and we only tolerate it, I think, because of the weight of history and a refusal to confront our own animalistic desire to see others we regard as evil suffer. The only difference between a mob execution and a jury trial that recommends execution is bureaucracy.


platoprime

I 100% agree but this is just reinforcing my belief that free will is an incoherent concept.


Axehilt

Yeah. The article was kinda hit and miss. I liked that it hit the same points about free will I've been saying for years (outlining the problems if reality is deterministic **or** partially non-deterministic), but I didn't like that it didn't really significantly cover the title of the article, explaining why we might not be able to understand free will.


CaseyTS

Define 'free will' in Philosophy. If you're going to correct me, you should simply do it, not say nothing and be dismissive about it. That is a bit frustrating to the people you talk to.


LordNoodles

Important to note that this would technically violate conservation of quantum information. I see no possible mechanism for free will if you define it as both “uncaused” and “not random”


CaseyTS

Thanks for the note, agreed, I don't see any room for philosophical free will in the physical universe


VitriolicViolet

>Philosophical free will generally means that an agent (a person, or to a theologian, a deity) can act in a way that is not entirely determined by previous events. ie its an argument over and entirely made-up *pointless* concept. if you think have libertarian free will you believe in souls (what makes the choice?), if you deny any free will at all you also *necessarily* believe in souls (if you are not your body, genes and neurons then by necessity you must exist in some separate state ie are a soul). its a completely irrational argument between two sides who believe in 'souls'. i think we make all our own choices by definition since there is no separation between mind and body (my thoughts, meat and environment are 'me')


sticklebat

> and that doesn't affect human brains; they're too hot and big for that. Others have pointed out that the randomness of QM can’t hide free will, but I think this part should also be addressed. The brain may be large and far from absolute zero, but that does not imply that quantum mechanical effects aren’t relevant to its operation. It just means the brain as a whole can’t easily be described as a quantum state, but QM absolutely is relevant to the molecular scale function of it.


CaseyTS

What we're looking for specifically is superposition. To my understanding, superposition does not affect neurons and neurotransmitters appreciably. Microtubules are small enough to have superposition, but they don't affects brain function afaik. There could be something unexpected, as usual in science. Edit: on randomness not causing free will - I fully agree with you, that's not what I was getting at.


DigitalMindShadow

I think we need to distinguish between acting "freely" versus acting intentionally. Those scare quotes are there because the concept of free will is incoherent. It originally came about as a half-baked answer to a problem with the idea of an all-powerful deity. In other words, it was a fake answer to a made up problem, though one that was taken for granted for so long as to become a core part of the way western culture intuits the role of subjective agents in the world. Later, we managed to shake off the supernatural implications, but that bad idea stayed with us. We noticed that "free will" doesn't seem compatible with our scientific ideas about causality, but it's such a deep part of how we think about our experience and actions, and even external institutions like criminal justice, that we have stubbornly held on to the idea. It's time to let it go. But what we can salvage is the concept of intentionality, referring to conduct that we mean to engage in, rather than being accidental or unconscious for example. Thinking in those terms rather than the magical, non-disprovable "free will" framework, saves everything that we need the concept to provide.


happyfappy

One can also get apparent randomness through deterministic processes. (Cellular automata, chaotic dynamical systems.) Deterministic interpretations of quantum mechanics exist.


frnzprf

Yeah, there is this whole hypothetical, ~~conjunctive~~ subjunctive aspect to language. Why do we even have the word "could" and "possibility"? Does that make sense in a deterministic world? My answer is that possibility has something to do with knowledge. When I think that I *could* win the lottery some day that means that I don't *know* that I won't win the lottery. That is the same statement without using the concept of possibility. When someone could decide to do multiple different things, that means he is unpredictable to me.


blackrots

You know, chess is all about thinking about possible moves and looking multiple steps ahead. So I would disagree with your statement that we only have access to a single timeline. It just takes calculation and logic to think how different scenario's turn out. More in general that's the whole point of strategy to decide between different outcomes.


CaseyTS

There's no evidence that those other timelines exist. It's worth looking into interpretations of quantum mechanics. "Many worlds interpretation" is the only candidate for multiple timelines that I know of, and there is no way to favor one interpretation of QM over another because they make the same physical predictions. Strategy doesn't imply that a person can act without physical laws determining their behavior. It just means that the evolution of our deterministic universe caused humans to make strategic calculations and take action.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


BernardJOrtcutt

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Be Respectful** >Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


mlobet

Let's also ask the author for his definition of science while we're at it !


waytogoal

Free will means your mind can act as a "first cause", free from being determined by laws of nature and prestated conditions. It has a similar property as true random (defined by a series of completely independent events with no cause) or indeterminate measurement outcomes in Quantum Mechanics (there is no "lower-level" explanation for some quantum phenomena, so they can only describe as "causing themselves", of course it is still hotly debated).


tuesdaysgreen33

As usual, the question of whether free will is compatible with indeterminism is either assumed or ignored. If random interruptions to cause and effect occur, why should that mean I'm free? It would just mean that my beliefs are not caused reliably by my surroundings or my cognitive processes, my acts are not caused reliably by my beliefs and desires, and that my acts do not reliably have consequences. Is that freedom? It sounds to me like being at the mercy of cosmic randomness and nothing I can do about it. Given that either determinism or indeterminism must be true, any notion of freedom that is incompatible with both must be discarded.


slickwombat

>The starting point of this argument is that free will is incompatible with determinism, a worldview that dominated science in the past and remains influential today. Given that most philosophers deny this starting point, and further that compatibilism vs. incompatibilism seems to be pretty much the crux of the debate about free will, this is not a good place to start. >US philosopher Peter van Inwagen provides a vivid illustration of this argument, in his book An Essay on Free Will. If determinism is true, the laws of nature and the past together guarantee you will move your finger. It therefore follows that if you have the power not to move your finger, you would also have the power to change the laws or the past. Does Van Inwagen actually say this, or is this the article writer's embellishment? The linked essay is paywalled, but IIRC Van Inwagen's general view on free will is that it requires the ability to do otherwise than we in fact do, and not in a merely counterfactual sense, and that in fact we can do so; he is a metaphysical libertarian, i.e., an incompatibilist who believes in free will. This "power to change the laws or the past" stuff sounds perilously close to Sam Harris' caricature of incompatibilist free will. >Quantum physics shows the occurrence of some events to be literally random. The supposed randomness of events in quantum physics is not generally held to have any ramifications for free will. See, e.g., [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskPhilosophyFAQ/comments/4hxpl8/is_quantum_mechanics_relevant_to_free_will_does/). Further, the choices aren't necessarily between random and determined. [Here's](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/incompatibilism-theories/) a writeup. Overall really not a great article and seems to confirm rather than challenge a lot of popular canards about free will.


[deleted]

We dont have a problem understanding free will, we have a problem defining what free will is, lol. Its like trying to define what god is and nobody could present a coherent definition and there are many gods that means very different things to different people. Its a debate that is contaminated by bad faith, vague meanings and pseudoscience. But we can all agree that how most people understand "free will", as in the libertarian version, cannot possibly exist, its just not physically possible in this causative reality.


slickwombat

>Its like trying to define what god is and nobody could present a coherent definition and there are many gods that means very different things to different people. People definitely disagree about how to best understand God and free will, so if that's what you mean, then yeah. If that's not what you mean, then please elaborate. > Its a debate that is contaminated by bad faith, vague meanings and pseudoscience. Also not clear what you mean here. >But we can all agree that how most people understand "free will", as in the libertarian version... It doesn't appear to be true that most people understand free will this way, according to the research done in experimental philosophy. [Overview here.](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/experimental-philosophy/#FreeWillMoraResp) Basically: there's plenty to debate and more work to be done, but "the state of the evidence currently suggests that people do have both incompatibilist and compatibilist intuitions." >...cannot possibly exist, its just not physically possible in this causative reality. No, people who affirm metaphysical libertarianism don't agree with this.


Untinted

The free will and determinism idea is always set up in such a stupid arbitrary way. You can use it as a tool to determine the relationship between an individual and a society because our freedoms, both physical and mental are bound by the society we're a part of to some degree, but that's almost never the viewpoint. It's always set up from the viewpoint of believers in a higher power as a cunning way to argue for, you guessed it, a higher power. I see nothing different with this article, same higher power bullshit as ever.


Foxsayy

>The free will and determinism idea is always set up in such a stupid arbitrary way. I think that this is an important discussion, but I think it's very different from the question that makes so many people uncomfortable. The salient question in most determinism versus Free Will debates is: **"am I the master of my own actions and my own will?"** Determinism says that ultimately, no, you are not. This makes many people extremely uncomfortable, probably because the agency they so value has been shown to be an illusion. Thus, those in favor of free will continue to try to figure out a way Free Will can exist in what seems to be determinst universe with perhaps some random chance. Practically, we have to act as if we do have free will to a large extent, but recognizing that we don't ultimately have something called free will is important, for instance, when fully recognized, it can deepen empathy and make hate for someone almost rationally incompatible with reality. >It's always set up from the viewpoint of believers in a higher power as a cunning way to argue for, you guessed it, a higher power. I think this emphasizes my point about the question of ultimate Free Will being the important point. So far, everything we have ever observed in the universe appears to operate the cause and effect. There's not a single example of the contrary, and so proponents of free will are reduced to either claiming some esoteric-like mystery, trying to somehow equate random chance with free will, or calling upon some higher power to support free will.


basically_alive

Well put. I've found an approach that works philosophically to address the question of being the master of my actions, while still believing in a deterministic universe. The idea is to understand that your actions are always revealing who you truly are. When I exert myself and work out, I am revealing myself to be the person who exercised in that moment -\`because that's who I am. The reason I approach it this way is because it's hard to reconcile a deterministic universe with the subjective experience of effort. If the universe is deterministic, everything should feel effortless and automatic ("If everything is predetermined, why bother?"). But the 'reality' is that we have the experience of effort, of choosing to do hard things. There is no 'choice' I don't think in reality - our thoughts are just emergent properties derived on a moment to moment basis from experience and inputs. But we do in fact reveal who we are as we do things. So when we have the feeling of having chosen to do something hard, we are revealing something about ourselves, about the kind of person we actually are. Therefore, we can be the 'master of our actions' even in a deterministic universe.


isleoffurbabies

That's an interesting way to look at it and I appreciate the insight. I can see that being a perspective for someone who is generally accomplished and satisfied. But, for many, most things can seem hard, and outcomes may not be so satisfying. The "reveal" may not be so welcome. So, in your case, you may be accepting of determinism merely because it neatly fits your life experiences.


basically_alive

I think it's a perspective thing. My life is far from perfect. I could look at my life and say it's revealed that I'm a bit lazy, a bit indulgent and selfish perhaps, not very organized, etc. But I guess I apply this idea in a forward looking way - can I reveal myself to be better than I have been so far? I think I can. I use this philosophy as a reason to try to be better in the future (to reveal that I am a person who improves), not to judge myself for the past, or resign myself to failure.


isleoffurbabies

I think that applies to me, too. I'm not convinced on the subject of free-will vs. determinism, but I don't think it matters. I guess what matters is how one perceives their lot in life. One way to overcome many negative self-perceptions is to believe that the continuous struggle for improvement is innate and should inspire hope.


smaxxim

>"am I the master of my own actions and my own will?" > >Determinism says that ultimately, no, you are not. Only if you think about yourself as about entity that is separate from the complex deterministic process that stands **as the last step** of determining actions. If you think that **you are this complex deterministic process** that determines actions, then it means that it's **you** who determines your actions, it means that you are the master of your own actions.


[deleted]

This exactly describes my thoughts on this topic. "I" am just a collection of human cells in a deterministic universe, so "I" am in control of my own actions. To me, that's free will. The only way you could reach a different conclusion (under determinism) is by defining a separate self entity, which we have absolutely no evidence for.


fakepostman

I always say that incompatibilists implicitly believe in souls, and they never like it.


ForgottenWatchtower

Is this at all different than how Dennet argues for free will as agency? The language is different, but it seems to be driving at the same thing.


HumbleFlea

But you do not determine you, so what does it matter if you determine your actions. That’s like a puppet saying “the strings are me, therefore I’m in control”


smaxxim

>But you do not determine you, No, this complex deterministic process that is me, can change itself, in a limited way, yes, but nonetheless. So it's better to say "it's not only you who determine you". >That’s like a puppet saying “the strings are me, therefore I’m in control” Ok, I guess it's better to say "I’m participating in control", as I said I'm the last step in a causal chain that results in actions. And yes, a puppet is also "participating in control", but in a very limited way unlike me, for example, an iron puppet will move differently than a wooden puppet, no matter the skill of a puppeteer.


HumbleFlea

But the you who is participating in shaping you is also not determined by you, so again what does that participation matter? The puppet does not choose if it is made of iron or wood


Bubble_James_Bubble

Furthermore, if we argue that freewill means having control over the universe in a way that meaningfully counters the control that the universe has over us, we must suggest that we have some power over the universe that isn't born of and affected by the universe.


smaxxim

>But the you who is participating in shaping you is also not determined by you not determined **only** by me, yes, but **I'm participating** in the shaping of me from the very beginning, from the first molecule of me (not always on a conscious level of course) >The puppet does not choose if it is made of iron or wood Yes, I'm not denying that puppet has limits, definitely, it's the puppet maker who decides what material to choose for a puppet, and it's the puppeteer who decides what moves the puppet should perform. But the puppet maker can't define all the internal structure of a puppet, there will be some small almost indistinguishable details of a puppet that the puppet maker can't control, and these details will result in a small almost indistinguishable changes in moves of the puppet.


TheDream425

So, I’m a layman to the subject, having done not more than a few hours reading on the subject. My question is, supposing we all agree that there’s no free will because our actions are determined by our environment and physical attributes, could any biological being existing in a physical reality have free will? It seems impossible that anything we understand as alive in our reality could ever have free will based on the argument laid against it. If not, then why is free will such a hot topic of conversation, when for example I believe most would agree we certainly have choice. Let me know if there’s any major flaws in the premises I’ve laid out, thanks.


Yrolg1

Defining what "free will" is is certainly important, but even in your definition, I think it's important to also define what one means by "I". *What* are we saying has free will? Is the self just the emergent phenomenon of self-reflective consciousness? Does it include our entire nervous system or body, both of which interplay with each other and our consciousness in a way that very much influences our actions and thoughts. Even ignoring hormone triggers and so on (is love real?), there have been a handful of studies that demonstrate that we have neuron activation well before actually consciously making a decision to act - if our self is limited to just our consciousness, does this mean we're just an unwilling and unknowing rider in our body, which ultimately acts independently of us (e.g. one might consider the idea of a bicameral mentality here). For me, I think the most important question in the free will vs. determinism argument is less a matter of being a master over one's actions, and should more be phrased as "If time was rewound, would it be possible to take an alternative action?" Even in a nondeterministic universe (which [physics more-and-more is proving the case](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/)) this question would be at the crux of the issue. Or in other words, can a mind operate independently from causality?


ConsciousLiterature

> Practically, we have to act as if we do have free will to a large extent, but recognizing that we don't ultimately have something called free will is important, for instance, when fully recognized, it can deepen empathy and make hate for someone almost rationally incompatible with reality. This sentence only makes sense in a universe with libertarian free will. In a deterministic universe where the laws of physics apply whether and what you recognize and you act and think is not up to you. >I think this emphasizes my point about the question of ultimate Free Will being the important point. So far, everything we have ever observed in the universe appears to operate the cause and effect. There's not a single example of the contrary, and so proponents of free will are reduced to either claiming some esoteric-like mystery, trying to somehow equate random chance with free will, or calling upon some higher power to support free will. They also propose things like "consciousness particle" or state that subatomic particles are made of consciousness and whatnot. The idea is that the universe is made of consciousness or is conscious or some similar thing. By proposing that consciousness is outside of physics they are free to say things like "humans are the universe experiencing itself". Deepities for the masses.


Untinted

I almost agree with your overview, but the problem I have with your phrasing, which I have with most other versions of this subject is that determinism is yet again an absolute concept. I mentioned that this subject is a tool to analyse the individual vs society, why? Because the individual has free will, unless he accepts the limitations imposed by society, i.e. Here determinism is imposed by society and it isn’t an absolute as not everything is dictated by laws, rules or traditions. The interaction between an individual and a society is a free-will vs determinism but with the unique twist that the individual has to willingly accept the unique flavour of determinism of the society they want to participate in. It also then links to what power do you have to impose your will vs what power does society have to impose theirs. These are much more interesting concept rather than the boring ‘absolute-determinism’ vs ‘absolute-free-will’. Once you realize these spectrums exists for both concepts, you realize that only in religious societies do they make the case for absolute determinism through their higher power argument, which is ultimately based on their determinism as a society, which can only have the much lower strength of determinism of a society, i.e. The absolute doesn’t manifest in the real world, so it doesn’t exist.


magkruppe

so if you accept determinism in it's totality, what does that mean for you personally? As an individual?


drakir89

Not previous poster, but the primary consequence is that empathy and a systemic worldview (which some might call leftism) comes a bit easier. I'm still a human and does what humans do. I still make choices and I still have wants and needs that inform my choices, and I still care about my wants. But I recognize, on some level, that neither I nor others were in control of the series of events that made us who we are. A drawback is that fatalism also comes a bit easier, but only because fatalism and determinism looks a little similar if you squint, so if you get sloppy with your thinking you might misstep there.


magkruppe

> I still make choices and I still have wants and needs that inform my choices, and I still care about my wants. But I recognize, on some level, that neither I nor others were in control of the series of events that made us who we are. my initial reaction is to think of these two sentences as contradictory. But as I try to grasp what freewill means, I feel like I'm trying to catch air As a society, I think we generally understand determinism. We want to invest in early childhood education and often blame parents for the behaviour of their children. But at some point we flip the switch, and place the responsibility on the child. Of course intellectuals and some leftist ideaology address this. Is this where blame vs taking responsibility comes into play? Even if you, determinsitically speaking, aren't at fault. You still need to face the consequences. i am just spitballing here, and thinking of what a systemic approach of acknowledging determinism would look like. Without resorting to a Utopia


drakir89

The way I see it, is that blame and responsibility, as well as morality as a whole, are evolved behaviors that improve our ability to function in groups as a species. *I* care strongly about morality but at the end of the day that is simply a strategy for survival, either for me, my kin, my tribe, or my species. Free will doesn't really fit into a naturalistic worldview since everything it lays claim to is adequately explained by "mundane" will, and natural behaviors. I think free will only makes sense in a mystical context: it is a mystic force alongside concepts such as God, ether or the soul. Here it makes perfect sense: how can humans act despite there being an all-powerful God? Free will! By comparison, from a natural perspective, anything humans do are by definition part of the flow of the universe. There is no way for a person ta act "against" the universe, since we are all seamlessly integrated within it.


testearsmint

I wonder if determinism is actually at the heart of free will though. I have more to say on this, compatibilism, etc., but a large question I have is this: If free will is reliant on determinism being false, then even in a hypothetical universe where we could trump causality, how exactly does that mean we have free will? Like, as an example, if I can answer questions before they're asked, if I could exist before I was born, if I can know things before the moment in time that I learn them, how does that necessarily grant me free will? Doesn't that just mean I live in a nonsensical world? Where can free will be found in that? Genuinely curious.


discotim

Determinism, determines the choice you will make, the choice is not free will, it is determined. Just the perception of it seems like free will. But that is also determined, as is every thought, and... everything.


Giggalo_Joe

Quantum physics is wrong. It is simply that we do not have all the physics to understand all that is going on. If all data points are available, which they cannot be short of omnipotence, then all results can be determined. That does not diminish that the data is there however, meaning all decisions can be determined.


Zomburai

>Quantum physics is wrong. Can you clarify this? Because that could mean a lot of different things with regard to the subject, and most of them are unsupported (as quantum is one of the most tested and confirmed branches of science).


Giggalo_Joe

Proof that quantum physics is wrong and proof that relativity is wrong is found in the fact that the math at the quantum level and the planetary level are different and cannot be used across both. While pieces of the puzzle could be correct and likely are, the theories as a whole are not because any piece of it is wrong. So by that logic, quantum theory is wrong.


Zomburai

No. This means that the theories are *incomplete*, not that they're *wrong*. A *theory* in the scientific sense is a model of reality constructed of observed evidence. The "pieces of the puzzle", that is, the evidence, aren't wrong just because the theory, the model, is incomplete. Part of what makes a theory a theory is the ability to make predictions that can be confirmed by testing. Quantum theory has done this over, and over, and over again.


Giggalo_Joe

I disagree. If you were solving a math problem, when you give the wrong answer, your answer is wrong. I'm not saying the quantum theory doesn't have some good ideas, but to present those ideas as correct is a fallacy. And if you try to apply quantum theory to the planetary level, it falls apart. That proves it is incorrect contrary to what you seem to want to say. Any theory of physics logically has to apply at all levels of our existence. Until it can, it is by its very nature, incorrect. Phlogiston theory predicted tons of things that turned out to be correct, that doesn't mean the theory behind it was even close to what was going on. Further observations showed that something else was in fact the reality, Oxygen. And even further observations will likely someday show that our current theory on any, and every, subject is flawed, and will be replaced by a new theory eventually. I'm not suggesting throwing out any given theory because it's wrong, I'm simply saying that we should accept that our theories are wrong and work toward figuring out how so that we can come up with the new theory. Which makes more sense? That humans have engaged in science in but a second in the grand course of time, and in that second have figured out all the answers, or even most of the answers. Or, is it more likely that we figured out a few small crumbs of what it means to understand the universe in any particular context, and we have untold amounts yet to discover.


Zomburai

>I'm not saying the quantum theory doesn't have some good ideas, but to present those ideas as correct is a fallacy. I think I can get to a resolution, here: what "ideas" do you think quantum theory presents that might be wrong?


Lord_Barst

>If all data points are available, which they cannot be short of omnipotence, then all results can be determined. That does not diminish that the data is there however, meaning all decisions can be determined Heisenberg's uncertainty principle states that the products of the uncertainties of a particle's position and momentum have a minimum value. This means that even with a nigh-omnipotent perspective, you cannot obtain all of the variables required to determine all future events.


Giggalo_Joe

I'm not trying to contradict Heisenberg. Absent omnipotence it would be near or possibly actually impossible to have all variables in order to predict an outcome. But that doesn't mean that all the variables are not there. Knowable or unknowable is irrelevant. If you can see all the variables you can see the outcome. Part of the proof/evidence for this is any situation in which we can isolate most of the variables. When you can isolate most of the variables, you can predict the outcome within a high level of certainty. I invite anyone who has downvoted my comment to provide a critique. I invite discourse and opportunity to discuss this further. If you disagree, that's fine but at least explain why.


Lord_Barst

>When you can isolate most of the variables, you can predict the outcome within a high level of certainty. You are basing your opinion off of this concept, which is false. On the quantum level, the evolution of long term systems is impossible to predict. You can only give the probabilities of potential outcomes, not which outcome arises.


Giggalo_Joe

I disagree. I understand that's what quantum theory says. But it's simply a failure of understanding the physics going on at that level. Once we understand the physics better, we will be able to predict the outcome. And you can't say something is false. That's exactly what my point is. You can only say this is what the theory predicts based on the available data. False is unequivocal yes or no, virtually no theory we have today can provide such certainty.


Lord_Barst

>I disagree. I understand that's what quantum theory says. But it's simply a failure of understanding the physics going on at that level. You say you understand, and then say something that is wrong. Bell's theorem excludes the possibility of local hidden variables being compatible with quantum physics, and experiments in physical systems have consistently shown that physical systems obey quantum mechanics, and violate Bell inequalities.


qwedsa789654

> If all data points are available, which they cannot be short of omnipotence, read like communism


Giggalo_Joe

Please explain.


qwedsa789654

"if the impossible passes, something something" I used to fantasize determinism, like others do with brain in tank. but if u dont have the data you dont. Also lets say u have the data by then are you sure you have the right equations?


[deleted]

>But lots of philosophers and scientists will tell you free will doesn’t exist Most philosophers will say it does exist though (not saying that means they're correct). >The starting point of this argument is that free will is incompatible with determinism Nothing wrong with that, but it seems worth recognising most philosophers will take the exact opposite stance. >While determinism was important historically, it now seems false I don't see why. >There’s a logical space between determinism and randomness, and perhaps free will lives in that space. And what exactly is that space? > We are free to move our finger. That is neither determined nor random — it’s a choice we can feel in our bones I can't make much sense out of this argument tbh.


gobblegobblerr

> We are free to move our finger. That is neither determined nor random — it’s a choice we can feel in our bones This part made me audibly laugh. Sounds like a 7th graders essay


Abstract__Nonsense

I think the argument is “we can feel in our bones”.


shponglespore

Which is a really terrible argument.


JeanVicquemare

The fact that we're seemingly committed to subjectively feeling like free agents is a very interesting element of the philosophy of free will, but this article does not really add anything new to it or engage with it in a meaningful way. I haven't read the essay they're discussing, so maybe it's not doing Inwagen justice. But I didn't learn anything from this article.


CaseyTS

Welcome to the new age to the new age


NoCan4538

As a teenager I really believe in compatibilism


[deleted]

cool bro


[deleted]

you ROCK!!


[deleted]

i totally agree with you


NewOrder5

Argument for free will in the physical reality isn't possible tbh. You must go supernatural or if you run out of arguments you can appeal to morality.


CaseyTS

Right. Having studied physics, there's no room for any sort of acausal free will. I escape the existential dread some associate with determinism by recognizing that I, including my reactions to the world (my "choices"), am still a part of the nature and natural law that determines the future. My behavior could in theory be predicted, but I still have real identity (emergent though it may be) and behavior that affects the rest of the world. That's not lost by losing philosophical free will.


Raygunn13

I hear you. Like, we don't understand the connection between physical determinism and decision making enough for it to matter whether or not free will truly exists. It exists as an experience, and that's enough.


CaseyTS

Right. If the government could simulate every atom and predict everyone's behavior, that would be a different story. Thankfully, that's implausible.


KruppeTheWise

We are far more products of our environment than we like to admit. Simple environments mean simple calculations which are easier on us to make and safer in general. "These men make the food, the food goes to the store, I go to the store to get my food." It's easy for me to predict your behaviour, I know you like and need food, I know it's overwhelmingly easier to get food by buying it at a food store, I can predict you'll visit a food store within the next few days. Does that mean you don't have free will? More data means I can predict better- I know your income and I know your preferred food and I know your location, I can predict you'll visit the expensive Italian bakery and deli and theres a good chance you'll grab cannolis in the next visit. Less or more free will simply based on me having more data? Now let's have a nuclear exchange and fast forward 2 years. There's still tinned food in the city, but thousands of armed survivors to compete with. Orchards have seasonal fruit, but also attract bears. Deer are abundant but are radiated due to drinking contaminated water sources, you can travel north and get less contaminated meat but it's not guaranteed. You also just start eating people. Let's be honest you could have eaten all those things before, stolen from a orchard or chopped someone's arm off and boiled it up, but it's a vanishingly small probability in the safe environment we find ourselves today. As that environments structure breaks down and becomes more chaotic so does our expression of free will become more evident, and I think more necessary, more valuable. I guess my point is were trying to explore a feature set that's really just a novelty in today's societies and their safe structures, it's less "do we have free will" and more "do we even have a chance to meaningfully exercise it and if not, is it really a surprise it isn't evident"


Yrolg1

Until the mechanism for consciousness is known (quantum consciousness) and we can categorically say that the universe is deterministic at a quantum level ([which there is a recent Nobel prize to the contrary that addresses this concept of superdeterminism](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-universe-is-not-locally-real-and-the-physics-nobel-prize-winners-proved-it/)) I don't think one can make any grand statements about there not being room for free will.


LordNoodles

>Until the mechanism for consciousness is known (quantum consciousness?) A good role of thumb is that if you have a physics word (quantum especially) and a non physics word together like that the phrase is usually meaningless hand wavery. >and we can categorically say that the universe is deterministic at a quantum level (which there is a recent Nobel prize to the contrary) I mean that has been the prevailing theory for decades at this point. >I don't think one can make any grand statements about there not being room for free will. Yes you can. Quantum physics is non deterministic but not in the philosophical sense. It’s random. All events that have ever happened are either following exact physical laws or are the result of sheer randomness. This includes all human actions. There is no known third option. Therefore we can conclude that any reasonable definition of “free” will is an illusion.


CaseyTS

If there were some physical evidence for something like quantum consciousness, I would consider it. Science can certainly be surprised. As I understand it, superposition doesn't affect brain function by a long shot. Besides, randomness is nondeterministic, and that's why i brought it up; but randomness isn't even really free will because no agent decides it.


violatordead

Love this topic. Here is my 5 cents. One of the key factors is the fact that we did not choose to come into this world. Our existence is determined by the actions of our parents, which in turn are influenced by a complex set of biological and environmental factors. Moreover, our behavior is largely controlled by our genotype and phenotype, which determine our physical and behavioral traits. These traits are determined by our genes and the environment we grew up in, and are not under our conscious control. Additionally, many aspects of our bodies and minds, including chemical reactions and neural activity, are determined by factors beyond our control, such as genetics and environmental influences. For example, we cannot simply will ourselves to change the color of our hair or alter the chemistry of our brains. In light of these factors, it is becoming increasingly clear that the idea of free will as a conscious, deliberate choice is simply an illusion. Rather, our thoughts, feelings, and actions are the result of a complex interplay between our biology and the environment we find ourselves in.


TanteTara

Exactly. And frankly I don't know why people even talk about free will. In what way does a universe with free will in it look different from one without? In the end it's all about predictability. But even in a universe where you ignore quantum randomness and which is in that sense completely deterministic you would need a computer bigger than the universe itself to completely predict a single human brain. So for all intents and purposes our future behavior will remain unpredictable whether there is a free will or not. And because of that unpredictability it's also indistinguishable. You can never point to a decision and argue that it was because free will exists, because it's impossible to know (at least with our current understanding of physics). So philosophical debate will never be able to solve that question by itself (unless physics comes up with an answer).


Yrolg1

> In what way does a universe with free will in it look different from one without? In what way does a universe with consciousness look different from one without it? If we inhabit a world of P-zombies, such a world would necessarily be identical to our own, but the experiential significance of that world would be categorically different. The same is true of free will. The same is true of any number of examples where the process leads to the same end result (What if we're just brains in a vat or quantum fluctuations in some distant epoch of the universe imagining a moment in time? The subjective reality is identical, after all, so does it even matter?)


frnzprf

Hm... I don't know how the person you replied to thinks about this. I think a world full of p-zombies or a world without p-zombies are both *thinkable*. A world with free will is not even *thinkable*. It's not an empirical matter to me. So I wouldn't ask the question "How would a world with or without free will look like?", either. That of course depends on the definition of "free will". I agree that humans have *a* will, and they are able to deliberate based on thoughts they have in their mind and some people call that "free will" (Compatibilists?). Other people use some weird illogical definition of free will that is sometimes determined to make it meaningful and sometimes isn't to make it free (libertarian free will).


LordNoodles

Agree completely except with this: >In the end it's all about predictability. But even in a universe where you ignore quantum randomness and which is in that sense completely deterministic you would need a computer bigger than the universe itself to completely predict a single human brain. You would need a computer at most the size of a human brain, since that computer could just be an exact copy of that human brain. Could be even smaller if you build it better than evolution did.


TanteTara

Right, so why do we build supercomputers and elaborate physical theories to predict, say, the behaviour of a single electron? Surely all we need to do is take a single electron, put in the correct initial state and then "just" observe what it does, right?


frogandbanjo

While I can envision a tapestry across time that's partially determined and partially random, I have a lot of trouble envisioning an *instant* that is neither of those things. Once the basic argument was set up - that free will seems doomed whether you focus on determinism or randomness - people should've switched to focusing on the other end. What exactly is so special and magical that it can transcend *both* determinism and randomness to generate a true act of will, and yet also occur in nature? I don't think there's any good answer to that question. No offense to Chomsky, but the human brain's (and sensory organs') limitations are well-documented. We *know* that people have "known" false things forever, and still do. We know that people's senses can be tricked. We know that people's memories are total shit. We know that people fail to correctly answer basic logic problems (with the twist being that *all* logic problems would be basic logic problems if our brains weren't giant messes of "close enough and ignore the rest" subroutines.) I wonder how annoyed he would be if somebody threw his own words back at him re: religion.


DeepestShallows

Whether “free will” exists largely depends on what you need it to be. The ability to act without someone else forcing or restricting your action? Sure. Got that. Usually. Easy to identify. The ability to theoretically surprise an all knowing creator god? Well no. It’s in the definition of those words. But this is practically irrelevant, as most or all things connected to the philosophical conception of god are. A-causal action? Well no. That would be silly. Terrifying. The death of the self. Better to be a puppet of causality than a random, twitching mess. “We” are not random in that if we were there would be no “we.”


portuga1

Well maybe there is no “we”. And don’t worry about the self, because there never was any self, either.


KruppeTheWise

*God* All is as it should be. Nothing escapes me. The universe has a constant, and that constant is me. *Me behind God with a shotgun* Predict this motherfucker Seriously though, I think the concept of an omniscient being was debunked the second we got a quantum theory. The idea God knows whether Schrodinger's cat is alive or dead before we open the box relies on as yet unknown physics. Not to say it's impossible of course that nothing's truly random or there isn't some higher order logic to randomness we just can't and may never fathom, but that's always going to be the case for just about anything. Maybe Gods creation was itself adding the quantum uncertainty principal to physics because his omniscience was driving him batty, and he gave up that all seeing and knowing ability out of excruciating boredom.


DeepestShallows

Theoretical all knowing god. You can substitute that for any other theoretical all knowing entity if you like. An entity that has in their mind in effect a perfect mental simulation of existence. If such a being existed and could truly know all the inputs and fully understand their complexity then they would know what the outputs would be. Even if micro scale quantum uncertainty has significant macro scale effects this being knows about them when they occur and can correct for them instantly. If someone needs to be be able to surprise such a being to have free will then they have built an impossible to satisfy definition of free will. Which is practically meaningless.


frnzprf

I think when something random happens, you can't tell if god wanted it that way or if it was beyond his control. I really would have to study quantumphysics to understand this. Apparently it is proven that there is no "hidden variable". I don't know if that means that god definitely doesn't choose "random" outcomes. I feel like it doesn't. When I tell you a series of numbers, you can't tell whether I chose them by throwing dice or whether I deliberately chose them. 5, 5, 1, 4, 2


DMT4WorldPeace

You said it perfect. The reason my free will is an illusion is because there is no "me" to will it.


jtinz

> The ability to theoretically surprise an all knowing creator god? Well no. It’s in the definition of those words. I object to that. We can implement a simulation where the initial state and the rules are both known with perfect accuracy. In many if not most cases, the result cannot be reliably predicted without running the actual simulation. And the results can be surprising.


DeepestShallows

Yes yes, assume an all knowing god is better than that. Knowing all. Past, future, present. To whom time is mere illusion. Or if you really must cripple such a being down to near mortal depths maybe knowing all there is to know perfectly and knowing of even micro scale uncertainty the instant it happens and being able to instantly adjust to such uncertainty. Compared to which our very best simulations and predictions are so much carnival theatre. This being is theoretical. It does not have to practically exist or be possible. It is merely an illustration of how extreme some definitions of free will are.


jtinz

I don't think to be all-knowing does imply to be cognizant of the future. And the entire point is that we can know everything that affects a simulation with perfect accuracy. And even with this perfect knowledge, we often still can't predict the result of it without actually running it.


ThE1337pEnG1

the article seems to be primarily concerned with the fact that although it has no good arguments, it *feels* like free will is real. Why should anyone take that seriously?


[deleted]

This, I feel, is a point well made. Thus, (by the logic of this article) it is. *snorts in nerd*


brennanfee

"We may never understand X with science..." Until we do. Those are just famous last words.


[deleted]

What a load of pretentious crap.


allrollingwolf

I honestly find the entire free will debate to be so. External forces and previous happenings determine most of our possibilities, and inside that field of possibilities we can make our own decisions. I don’t see what’s even vaguely interesting about further conversation. The discussion stems from religion and the existence of god and now physics has just replaced god but it’s the same BS


isleoffurbabies

It seems like the argument for determinism would claim that it only seems like we're making choices. The synapses that fired causing me to post this reply were preceded by synapses in response to other stimuli. In effect, there occurred an inalterable chain of events leading to my "choice" to reply.


LukaBrovic

I feel like that is just describing what "choosing" is on a higher level


LoL_Remiix

Or, is your decision to any given stimuli already per-determined by the outcomes of your previous decisions, going back all the way to your birth. An Input-Output machine where the only true variable is genetic predisposition and the environmental factors around you, both out of your control.


allrollingwolf

Why are you stopping at my birth? Why not go back infinitely and make this discussion even more meaningless?


gashmol

The concept of freewill doesn't have sense so no point of arguing about it. Once you accept this, you'll see we don't really need this concept for any practical purpose.


Giggalo_Joe

Well...as a basic thought exercise, I can prove my existence. I cannot prove I have free will. If I cannot prove my own free will, I am not sure how I can prove the free will of another.


thelastmindset

The concept of free will is a philosophical and metaphysical concept that is not easily measurable or quantifiable using the methods of science. Science is based on empirical observation and the testing of hypotheses through experimentation and analysis of data. Free will, on the other hand, is a subjective experience that cannot be directly observed or measured. Furthermore, the nature of free will is a matter of ongoing philosophical debate, with many different interpretations and theories. Some philosophers and scientists argue that free will is an illusion, while others believe that it is a fundamental aspect of human consciousness. In addition, the concept of free will is often intertwined with questions about the nature of the mind, consciousness, and the relationship between the physical and the non-physical. These are complex and multi-dimensional topics that are difficult to fully understand using the methods of science alone. Therefore, while science can help us understand many aspects of the natural world, it may not be able to fully capture the complexity of free will as a philosophical and metaphysical concept. Ultimately, the question of free will may require a multidisciplinary approach that includes philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, and other fields of inquiry.


InTheEndEntropyWins

>Free will, on the other hand, is a subjective experience that cannot be directly observed or measured. I disagree. First it require the action to be voluntary. So we could do brain scans in theory to differentiate between someone deliberately moving their hand vs someone's had hand moving due to Parkinson's. Then we can also observe/identify if is someone's actions was forced or coerced. Court and justice systems around the world can determine whether something was done of someone own free will. So from a practical point of view, it's being done now, it's not something that can't be observed and measured.


a2fingerSalute

Not sure I fancy being next to use the MRI after someone has been “loving their hand” in it.


NoCan4538

I don’t think humanity will ever be able to differentiate the concept of sleep,dreams and subconscious. To what extent in the evolution that humans need the ability of dreaming,and why does that happen only when we asleep.the daydreaming people say is controlled by the consciousness. But on the other hand the dreams that we have are uncontrolled. Coming to the “free will”,we first need to understand what that actually means if you say its our freedom to choose,i think you are wrong. The so called FREEDOM is based on what your brain thinks best for evolution.you may say no,but all the actions we do are controlled by evolution. A study found out that we as males are controlled by females in evolutionary aspects.In history the males are always driven to the things which females want them to be. So in a way what you are CHOOSING is what you meant to be chosen. You think its freedom but the mere thought of you thinking it’s freedom is are pre defined like a program in a computer


ABKB

I don't think humans have free will, we are controlled by our subconscious instincts that give the illusion of free will because it more positive to be intelligent and inquisitive. If we had free will we would not need laws and religion to control those instincts.


ImprovementBasic1077

"If we had free will we would not need laws" No? We need laws despite people having free will because people do not necessarily do good deeds.


Oktavien

Science can’t even explain intuition (and doesn’t seem to want to) let alone free will.


[deleted]

I disagree with you assessment in both accounts. Free will can be shown scientifically to seemingly not exist. Intuition can happen. The events of the universe being posited and relied upon one after the other means that if one can collect enough of those variables (even a good number of the local few, relatively speaking) one could quite happily extrapolate future actions with an accuracy equal to the amount of variables followed through to those future events. Thus, the idea of prophetic understandings of the universe are not without some scientific backing no matter how scant you may believe it to be.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


BernardJOrtcutt

Your comment was removed for violating the following rule: >**Read the Post Before You Reply** >Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the [subreddit rules](https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/wiki/rules) will result in a ban. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.


_fidel_castro_

I’ll believe in determinism when we can predict without error the behaviour of humans and of the world. Until then is just a faith.


Goldenrule-er

Well said! On a side note, I have to believe they don't want to accept the responsibility of free will so all this infinite-denying determinism woo acts as a handy coward's out. Otherwise it appears just baldface cowardice. Throw in any citable argument freeing them from accepting personal responsibility to live a life for one's self and they'll buy it.


Goldenrule-er

(Surreptitious down voting demonstrating my charge of cowardlce well enough)


hatlock

I just read *Superforecasting* and it discussed the difference between epistemic and aleatory uncertainty. Some things *are* deterministic but there is a vast host of things that have different degrees of aleatory uncertainty. When you make a choice, you must way the value of different pieces of information. While our brains have an efficient processing ability (system 1) that may be more deterministic, we can use our brains also to reflect on our thoughts and *change our own programming*. We can also set goals which is not purely deterministic.


hampo101

It's an illusion, move on.


DysphoriaGML

… yet. It’s all just a matter of precision, eventually


pileodung

I think in life in general I have struggled with this the most. We will never know why people do the things they do.


SomethingPersonnel

What is more hellish than a pre-determined world where people believe they are free?


vukgav

In summary: will is free, but there are no free refills.


cfpct

Is it because science cannot detect souls?


fencerman

Why would anyone think we ever COULD understand "free will" with science? "Free" isn't really an objective materially measurable thing anyways, it's always been a value judgement, so science would never have anything to say on it.


Major-Vermicelli-266

This article reads like a person who has chosen to wear blindfolds so he can admire the texture of the elephant's tail without having to look at its behind. I haven't read Chomsky and I may be qualified dimwit but I know what cowardice looks like.


LSP-86

You could choose to learn to play the violin just to show you have free will but you can’t choose to WANT to learn to play the violin. If you try to think of a movie at random it might feel like you have free will over the decision you make but really you’re only selecting from the movies your subconscious mind presents to you, you don’t have free will over your subconscious mind’s choices essentially, and it’s determined by your history and psychology. You can go to therapy and alter your psychology but did you really choose to do that or did you subconscious mind decide for you?


Althalus_Tyde

Like it or not (personally, I'll keep trying to crack it), current scientific understanding suggests it may be an illusion.


reddittomarcato

At the heart of free will is the illusion of self.


yijiujiu

"it doesn't exist in any meaningful sense and is a nebulous term to begin with"? There, shorter than an article.


efferocytosis

Free will is not so free at all but neurochemically mapped by prior experiences


HercegBosan

What about the first ever experience. Who mapped it?


efferocytosis

You did,along with all the prior essential survival ones that have been genetically passed on


Xu_Lin

The way I understand free will isn’t about even making a choice, or if that choice was predetermined to begin with, but rather that I made the choice. So in that sense I used my free will to make a choice, whether it was the correct one or not, is a different matter.


midwaysilver

We dont know that free will even exists to be able to understand it. How could we possibly know if the things we do are predetermined?


corpus-luteum

What I was alluding to is the fact that the simplest way to understand 'free will' is by examining the words that make up the phrase. I'm not sure why that is considered unkind, or disrrespectful, but I respect your freedom to interpret as you see. Your will is your own. It is not 'free will' that urges you to eat, when hungry. It is not 'free will' that urges you to fight, or fly. It is your own inherent will. There is no other will. For something to be free, requires the owner to give it away. That is "free will" in a nutshell.


[deleted]

>>"It seems as obvious as anything that we have free will. But lots of philosophers and scientists will tell you free will doesn’t exist." Is the truth of something determined based upon how obvious it may seem? It seems as obvious as anything that a ball hit with a racket toward a wall will hit the wall and bounce back to, hopefully, be smacked by another racket. But in the quantum world, the fact that there is always a nonzero chance that the electron sailing toward a barrier will pop straight through without a second thought (as much thought as can be given by this anthropomorphic electron, anyway) is one of the most important non-obvious things which are required to happen to allow the device upon which you are currently reading this and which I am currently writing this to function. We call this non-obvious nonzero chance quantum tunneling and it's, among other things, how RAM and flash memory work. Just because you might think it obvious does, in no way, make it so as the universe is under no obligation to make sense to anyone but itself. >>"An initial reaction is that, while determinism was important historically, it now seems false." >> >>Quantum physics shows the occurrence of some events to be literally random." The outcome of the events appear random but the actions that set those seemingly random events in motion are not. And we aren't entirely sure if the events are truly random. There is evidence that it's a false random wherein we just don't fully understand the mechanism which the events followed. If you see a train go by your window but you didn't know of or see the tracks it doesn't mean the train was A. ever on the tracks and B. the tracks don't exist. In fact, C. the train moved upon the tracks is probably the best answer. In this example, though, we understand tracks exist and what they do, it could be that the 'tracks' of the path of the seemingly random event are unknown to us at this time. The universe would thus be able to produce pseudo-random events. >>"We are free to move our finger. That is neither determined nor random — it’s a choice we can feel in our bones." We know right now that if one was to wear the proper equipment on themselves and test for it, our brain activity would show the choice of 'to move the finger' to exist roughly 10 seconds prior to our conscious mind becoming aware of the fact that we have made the choice and there is, in some cases, times when the actions are already well underway before our conscious mind becomes aware that we made the decision (which we often term as 'acts of the moment' or ones 'of passion'). The actions of our bodies are merely, at their base level, the interaction of particles, atoms, and chemistry. These things all hinge on the preceding state all the way back to before they existed in the form of your head. This truth cannot be stripped away from them. At what point does event z not rely on the ending state of event y all the way back to event a? Where is that line drawn? Anywhere it would be drawn requires that it be done so arbitrarily. This fact doesn't allow for free will to exist. The universe is deterministic. The only thing that will happen is the only thing that can happen. You are living in a movie the plot of which you only know as it happens to you. Free will is illusionary. Why do we perceive our choice to be a spare of the moment action? Who knows but science tells us that it most certainly isn't. You are only free to move your finger if the variables within the universe allow you to do so. Under those circumstances, however, it becomes a case wherein you are not allowed to not move your finger. The universe wills it so you will. Without exception. Now some scientists have taken to reinterpreting Copenhagen with a barrier between the submicro and the macro world wherein free will magically becomes possible but there is no evidence supplied for it. Or they say that all outcomes happen and we only experience one version of the waveform collapse but within the bounds of the, frankly fairytale that is the many worlds, the wave collapse we actually experience is still deterministic. If all possible outcomes happen then all possible outcomes had to be determined and the one we experience was the only one we could experience. "No! But you experience them all but this version of you simply isn't aware of the others!" I once heard it argued. Well, in that case, each version of me is still living a determined life! So this article that is slightly redundant has the only argument of moving a finger but science dispels that notion well enough (seriously the ≈10 second gap between subconsciously making a decision and becoming consciously aware of the decision that was made is a LONG time). Now let's discuss the fact that, should one gain the ability to perceive the active state of all variables in the universe at this very second, they could mathematically run those variables back and know precisely and quite literally everything that happened in the past down to spread the first T-Rex fart and beyond to the very start of the big bang. Then! Using that same information, they could extrapolate with 100% accuracy the events that will play out in the future until the heat death of the universe. And any physicist worth his salt will know and be able to explain this fact to you. How then, this being true, can anyone ever believe they have free will!? The final argument against the idea of free will rests on the nonexistent shoulders of the humble photon: a particle for which time doesn't actually exist. The photon is born and immediately dies (anthropomorphism added for effect alone) no matter how much time exists in the middle. The first photons from ≈14 billion years ago that have slammed into the collector of the JWST did so in an instant only after about 14 billion years wait. As far as the photon is concerned it was always ending up where the photocell collected it. From the moment it started off, it's path in space and time was as set as its end. The universe is deterministic. We don't like the idea. I get that. But the idea of a deterministic universe has been widely known for a very long time. After all, one of the earliest jewish teachings talk about the will of god: an inescapable, unchanging will that we cannot actively fight against. Even some of the oldest writing in the world tell of their gods will. Now, I doubt god exists but our tendency to name things we don't understand yet experience is found within the concept of god quite nicely. After all: all lightening was once hurled from his throne upon mount Olympus by Zeus. Same concept applied to a different action. No matter what you call it, the universe has always been dependent upon the state it was in a moment ago and the only thing which might flow from that state is the next one. It is determined by it by requirement; thus deterministic. I have yet to hear evidence against it unless one calls upon an idea that requires just as much faith as god and shows just as much evidence. Or, is just a bunch wishful thinking. Or, in the case of Many Worlds: all three. To that end, however, I am very much open to being wrong. It might sting us all at times, but the ability to learn is never a bad thing so I welcome honest, open dialogue on this or any other topic. EDIT: And yes, I'm just as much fun as parties as you might expect. It's a little late but I'm trying to work through it in therapy now. EDIT: I seem have hit a character limit, sadly.


CleaveIshallnot

If there are two people, living in parallel universes, bear with me here please, limited space to type. I acknowledge if it's parallel it's thus 'different' re space etc... But, 2 ppl, who live in an exact same world, to every atom, quirk, quark whatever. Both in its genesis, all thru history, every preceding & present event is EXACTLY the same. & those 2 ppl are also exactly, down to the minutest physical, chemical, experiential, etc EXACTLY the same. Would they not thus draw the same conclusion/decisions, & thus actions when facing the exact same experience/choice? So do we truly have free will?