Does free will exist?

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Now think of the brain as containing billions of analogues of pendulums and billions of analogues of magnetic fields. Now where's the predictabiloty?

But the brain isn't those things, UM.

But if it was, are you saying that decision is made by a series of electrical influences on the brain and not by the person themselves - whatever a 'person' is. And what does that say about free will?

Fascinating discussion this UM, Interference.

[Ursa major]

It's only an analogy, mosaix.

The point is that no-one knows how and why any particular neuron in a human brain will fire. (And I've seen those scans of brain activity: millions of neurons are often firing all over the shop.) Given this, 100% prediction is an impossibility. This doesn't mean that we can't have a pretty good idea, most of the time, what some individual might say or do.

The same is, I guess, true of most populations. But this doesn't stop society and culture changing over time, sometimes as a result of small changes in narrow sections of the community.

[mosaix]

I think what I am trying to work out in my own mind, UM, because to me this is fundamental to free will, is the answer to two questions:

1) Is there something inside the human skull that doesn't follow the fundamental laws of physics?

2) Given two brains, identical in every respect, would they behave the same way?

I think that quantum physics maybe would say that the answer to question 2 is probably no. But this leads on to a further question:

3) Is free will just an illusion brought about by the random effects of quantum physics (or any other bio / electrical / mechanical law that gives rise to randomness).

In my view the only way that will can be 'free' is if the answer to question 1 is 'yes'.

[Ursa major]

Taking your points in turn:

1) No, but that's why I mentioned chaotic systems in which the combination of predictable systems gives unpredictability.

2) No, if only for the reson you've given.

3) No, because more is going on than that (chaos being one of the things going on).


(To be fair, chaotic systema translate minute changes in input conditions to wide variations in output. You could argue that one driver of the input variability is the result of the "random effects of quantum physics".)

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

Taking your points in turn:

1) No, but that's why I mentioned chaotic systems in which the combination of predictable systems gives unpredictability.

2) No, if only for the reson you've given.

3) No, because more is going on than that (chaos being one of the things going on).

This is interesting.

Let's talk about 'chaos' here. If I understand correctly you are saying that chaos gives rise to unpredictability - I agree. And I also agree that this would mean that two brains would tend to not act identically.

But just extend this a little further, surely this chaos, this unpredictability means it is even more likely that any resultant decision or action is not as a result of the 'will' of the 'owner' of the brain but as the result of some random effect.

[Ursa major]

I think our definitions of free will may differ.


I'm arguing from the simple (simplistic?) position that free will is the antithesis of predetermination. Anything that removes 100% predictability - chaotic systems, quantum effects - reinforces free will under this definition.

[Interference]

Good point. We should ask the OP first to define Free Will

[Ursa major]

But will he answer (freely)?

[Interference]

We could force him - that would put the whole question to the test

[Michael01]

Well, I noticed somewhere in the first 111 posts that he said no one else had provided a definition (while making list of what it isn't).

Okay, I'm really enjoying this thread. But I want to finish reading it before I make a substantial reply. I read half of it in one sitting, as if reading one of the most interesting books I've ever picked up; I just couldn't stop. But now I'm tired, so I'll have to come back to it tomorrow.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

I think our definitions of free will may differ.


I'm arguing from the simple (simplistic?) position that free will is the antithesis of predetermination. Anything that removes 100% predictability - chaotic systems, quantum effects - reinforces free will under this definition.

I never thought of it that way before UM.

My thoughts were along the lines of an entity, making a decision because they want to. My idea with two identical brains was to see if they would make the same decision(s) - if they did then that would tend to indicate that there was no decision involved - just a mechanical process based on the state of the brain at that time.

If I am correct you are saying that even if only mechanical (probably not the right word) processes are involved as long as they are not predictable processes then they tend to indicate free will?

It's not surprising that problems like this have taxed some of the greatest brains on the planet.

[Parson]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

The whole point about chaotic systems is that their output(s) cannot be predicted from their input(s).

The best explanation I saw of this kind of chaos was that of a pendulum swing through a magnetic field. Either system (mechanical or magnetic) is completely predictable. Put them together and prediction is impossible.

Now think of the brain as containing billions of analogues of pendulums and billions of analogues of magnetic fields. Now where's the predictability?

I'm no physicist, but at first blush it would seem that the example is a classic example of lack of information. If (and I think its a big IF) that a mechanical system is completely predictable, and If (a somewhat smaller but still substantial if) a magnetic field were completely predicable, every logic we have at our disposal would conclude that the marriage of the two under controlled circumstances would also be completely predictable. When they are not the obvious assumption is that we have a lack of information, faulty measurement, or faulty controls.

[mosaix]

Originally Posted by Parson

I'm no physicist, but at first blush it would seem that the example is a classic example of lack of information. If (and I think its a big IF) that a mechanical system is completely predictable, and If (a somewhat smaller but still substantial if) a magnetic field were completely predicable, every logic we have at our disposal would conclude that the marriage of the two under controlled circumstances would also be completely predictable. When they are not the obvious assumption is that we have a lack of information, faulty measurement, or faulty controls.

Hi Parson - there's a lack of information all right - on my part! I don't know which of you is correct!

[Interference]

If I may quote one of those "Greatest Brains on the Planet" you mentioned, Mos, Douglas Adams:

To explain - since every piece of matter in the Universe is in some way affected by every other piece of matter in the Universe, it is in theory possible to extrapolate the whole of creation - every sun, every planet, their orbits, their composition and their economic and social history from, say, one small piece of fairy cake.

The man who invented the Total Perspective Vortex did so basically to annoy his wife.

Trin Tragula - for that was his name - was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher or, as his wife would have it, an idiot.

And she would nag him incessantly about the utterly inordinate amount of time he spent staring out into space, or mulling over the mechanics of safety pins, or doing spectrographic amalyses of pieces of fairy cake.

"Have some sense of proportion!" she would say, sometimes as often as thirty-eight times in a single day.

And so he built the Total Perspective Vortex - just to show her.

And into one end he plugged the whole of reality as extrapolated from a single piece of fairy cake, and into the other end he plugged his wife: so that when he turned it on she saw in one instant the whole infinity of creation and herself in relation to it.

To Trin Tragula's horror, the shock completely annihilated her brain ....

I live my life by that series

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Parson

I'm no physicist, but at first blush it would seem that the example is a classic example of lack of information.

You may be right. (I was talking about an explanation given on the TV, not in a college/university.)

But then isn't our universe** a rather poor place to be if one wants perfect information?




** - I suppose that in an infinite number of universes, there may be some (an infinite number of them, probably ) in which information can be perfect.