From this point of view, to me, morals, laws, sentences are justifyable, it is because if you do not not, you are a defected system. This way, the question of free will is irrelevant for my morals.
Of course, the morals have an origin -values, where do these come from? My values are the purpose of the system that is me. (And some of them are what i want for myself, of course.) Indeed, admittedly, values are arbritrary. I cannot justify them, they are based on instinct, culture and pleasure.

By the way, i am not convinced free will does not exist, the idea that free will does not exist is based on that physics is deterministic, and it is not. The randomness in quantum mechanics cannot be ruled out to be non-random after all. (perhaps it is even selective about when it is random)
More importantly, I have the idea, that there is an inconsistentcy in the view of the brain-as a system. Even if you could prove the brain is a system and that system types in here "I perceive life.", that does not prove that i actually do. Indeed, why do i perceive my life, and not someone elses? Why does the system not simply exist, without me perceiving it? From this point, maybe, a soul cannot be all-logic, which leaves me puzzled.
In case this comes back, perception cannot be an illusion, even if you found a part of the brain that causes people to "perceive themselves". This is because, this does not explain why a person perceives a particular person as themselves, and not someone else, or even not at all.

PS note that if the last statement is true, computers would not be able to really perceive themselves, without the same mysterious "mystical thing" brains would seem to have according to this logic. (Ofcourse this thing could arise automagically when things get complex.)
PS2 perhaps good idea to make a new thread about this.

[Much later edit] and some of this post some later replies has a better explanation, [/Much later edit]

I don't believe determinism and experiencing 'no-free-will' are the same thing. Determinism seems to be a theory based in time . . . actions are determined by what went on before, it's a reductionist causality. 'No free will' can only really be experienced in the here and now which holds no truck with imaginary creations like 'time' and 'space'.

When I started this thread I was hoping to explore two themes (greedy I know!!):

Firstly, how can we have freewill when all that *can* happen *does* happen? This is a 'here' and 'now' position, and in some senses appears mundane/trivial but can also be seen as extremely radical - there is no such thing as time in the Present moment, people have called this the 'eternal present'. Resting in the eternal present one may appreciate how actions and thoughts just pop out of nowhere . . . even very deliberate actions like typing responses to forum posts . . .

ii) If we rest in the present we find no need to create the illusion 'I', no what's all that about?

I think what I'm saying is compatible with this though...

I think the laws of nature, as well as all fundamental constants must change over time. There's actually some growing evidence that supports this view. After all, everything we see is constantly changing, it is a bit reaching to assume that there's something (like "an unbreakable law") that is eternal and static, based on little or no evidence.

I don't think the laws of nature are unbreakable either. Like a fish swimming againts the current, given enough energy and know-how, we can "violate" any law of nature. It's not that it's impossible, but just expensive usually (or cost more than what we can afford to pay). A law does not dictate something must be done, but is merely a pattern indicating a path of least resistance,

Given this view, it's technically impossible to break a law of nature, because nothing is really impossible aside from producing energy from nothing. (And even this rule might have a strange exception, considering the question of where did the existing energy come from to begin with.)

I think humans can in effect change the physical laws governing a system For a trivial example, every time I tidy up my desk I undo the law of entropy. The objection of course is that I've only done it in a small system and the the system as a whole is still increasing in entropy. However, given enough energy, I could in theory reverse the entropy of the entire Universe.

My point is just that in creating cause and effects, we have fundamentally altered the rules governing a system, to bring about an effect. One may point to more abstract laws that are in effect, but these too can be "bent" on the same principles.

Snap out of it! The world we live in is not science fiction, with handy teleporters, warpdrive and replicators. It is not a new trick in each episode.
Sure, our understanding of physics is partial and based on known experiments, but stating that outside these physics, it does not have to make sense does not say anything at all. (And general relativity is not so respectfull of many of the conservation laws, like energy, either)
But single times _does_ hold information of evolution through times -speeds.
Pausing a simulation with flying balls and starting it again, you would be suprised if they did fall straight to the ground, rather then continue their trajectories.
I am confused, what do you mean? Many-worlds interpretation of Quantum? That would be an entire discussion on itself, one we are not really equipped to talk about.
For the rest, i am a bit confused now, i need to think more, and i feel i might have been to shallow in understanding earlier posts here. How does time really fit in this anyway? I would like to keep physics out of the discussion, maybe it can be abstracted out sometimes with some assumptions about it.
I also feel there is another aspect of free will, if we have it, what is your choice? Isnt any choice arbritrary. (this is part why i thought "souls" would have to be "without logic")

But I'm talking more about metaphysics than physics. It's a fallacy to see a small pattern and assume that it holds everywhere, at all times, and cannot be deviated from.... a "law." Why can't laws of nature be altered??? Is there an invisible stone somewhere where these invisible laws are written in?

OK, but I think you're reading too much into quantum mechanics... Just because we don't have an explanation or the capacity to study the nature of their motion, doesn't mean they aren't governed by a set of rules... Science ignores the rules, temporarily labeling them "random" because we aren't that far yet.

Even so... OK... So your body is built from random chaotic motion... Where does the existence of free will play into that? Is it free, or random.

By all scientific means, we are a system under the control of laws, and we are just playing out the exchange of energy beyond our control.

Sad but true.

Free will & fate always puzzled me, I used to think about it when I was driving a tractor on the turf farm in my youth.

I was talking to the wife of the team that owned the farm one day & she bought up heredity factors as a breeding problem, as she was into horses.

Having never thought about heredity it gave me a key for a simple little equation that still holds good to me today:

Environment is shared fate, initiated by will, governed by law & inherited by the future.

So, we learn the rules to shape our environment as best we can in this willful world.

Hi,

I am new here (obviously - this is my second post). I find the topic of this thread to be extremely interesting, and feel pleased to find that so many others do also. Partly because of this interest, years ago I decided to begin tertiary study. When it came time to pick my A-Semester second year papers, I was excited to find two of particular interest: PHIL222 - Possible Worlds: Their Logic and Reality, and PHIL210 - Minds and Machines.

The former consisted of multiple modules, during which we were required to do some (often quite heavy) reading on some metaphysical subject, such as the logical possibility of time travel, causation, the reality of time, and determinism to name a few. The readings consisted of two to three journal articles published by leading philosphers.

As I said early, I find this particular topic to be the most interesting, particularly because of my chosen field of study, and what I hope science will one day be able to achieve. Because of this interest, when it came to essay time, I chose determinism. I will post the essay in its entirety below, as I feel that it provides as good explanation (though somewhat brief in places - there was an upper word limit) of my views on determinism.

If you can't be bothered reading it, fine. If you can, I hope it aids in your understanding of this topic.

Also, please keep in mind that, at this stage, the truth of determinism cannot be proved, it is up to each of us to 'decide' that definition of ourselves that we most believe. Please also note that this essay is over a year old now, and though it does provide a good overview of my stance on determinism, it does not go into as much detail as I would have liked, nor does it represent the totality of my current thinking on the subject.

Long and boring introduction concluded, long and hopefully less boring essay follows:

Essay appears as it did at time of writing, I have not had time to review it.


There are three purposes for this essay: the first being to provide a clear explanation of my position on determinism; to make explicit the implications of my chosen position upon the possibility of free will, and the effect that I believe this has on the issue of human moral responsibility. The second purpose is to show that the process used in neural networks to determine its output are somewhat similar to decision making processes employed by human minds, providing a scaled down analogy in complexity and predictability to the Laplacian Demon. And finally, to shed some light upon the common assumption that quantum mechanics is an anti-deterministic theory.

I find it necessary to make the following definitions when referring to the different positions on determinism. “Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of law.” (Hoefer, C., 2005) Compatibilism: The belief that we do in fact have free will, and even if determinism turned out to be true, we would still have free will. (Vihvelin, K., 2003) Compatibilism is also known as 'Soft Determinism'. It is not so simple to give a precise definition of incompatibilism, as there are a vast number of contrary and varied views in existence, all of which I am unfortunately unable discuss in this writing. Instead I will be using the simplified group headings when discussing them: Libertarian Incompatibilists (Libertarians), and Hard Determinists. Libertarians believe that Determinism is false, and that we have free will; Hard Determinists believe that Determinism is true, and that it is false that we have free will. Both groups agree that a necessary condition of free will is that determinism must be false. (Vihvelin, K., 2003) When used, the term 'free will' will be referring to the following definition: “By freedom of the will is meant freedom of action. I have freedom of action at a given moment if more than one alternative course of action is then open to me. Two or more actions are alternatives if it is logically impossible for me to do more than one of them at the same time. Two or more alternatives are open to me at a given moment if which of them I do is entirely up to my choice at that moment. Nothing that exists up to that moment in time stands in the way of my doing next any one of the alternatives.” (Ginet C., 1990, p. 90)

I consider myself to be a hard determinist. Hard determinism is often confused with Fatalism, which is the view that there is an intrinsic absurdity in doing something in order that something else should subsequently happen, that any action performed with a further purpose is pointless. (Dummet, M., 1964) The confusion between the two can be easily clarified through consideration of the following comparative definitions: Fatalism states that my future is determined no matter how I struggle. Determinism states that my future is determined through my struggle. (Hobart, R. E., 1934) Supervening on this belief is my agreement with the notion that an all knowing being, in line with the vision of Laplace, could know both the future and the past with absolute certainty. (Laplace, P., 1820)

Considering the definition of free will given above, combined with the idea inherent in hard determinism that everything can be, in principle explained, it should be very clear that within a universe obeying deterministic laws, such as I believe this universe to be, there can be no free will. Why then, do I, and those with whom I have discussed this, no matter our position on determinism, still agree that we all feel we have the power of free will? The answer to this question I believe, is that what we perceive as free will is a mere illusion, albeit an intuitively convincing one; when we are undergoing the process of decision making, whether through careful reasoning and weighing of the apparent choices, or by acting on a flippant whim, we are in actual fact simply conforming to as yet unknown deterministic laws, and these patterns of decision making, if made entirely explicit, could be predicted. A common and important point that many indeterminists raise when discussing the possibility of illusory free will, as Mr. Robert C. Bolles states in his 1963 article “Psychological Determinism an the Problem of Morality”, indeterminists find themselves affronted by the idea that we lack free will, because many cannot understand how a human could obtain and maintain morality in a universe where what one will decide, whether it be good or bad, is determined. This is, as I am sure the reader will agree, a very strong argument for the justification of the indeterminists belief in free will. Mr. Robert Bolles goes on to write that the indeterminist will say that we humans are moral because we possess a natural power or 'sense', by which we know what is good, and act in accordance with this knowledge. In other words, prior to moral behaviour is the sense of morality (a sense innate to all humans). A deterministic psychologist may instead observe a mans moral behaviour, and from there search for the conditions that produce it, giving the opposite statement: prior to moral behaviour is the learning of a sense of morality. It is this moral behaviour that the indeterminist is so loath to lose, and with the preceding distinction we see that it is not an inner 'sense' of morality we desire in our fellow humans, but learned moral behaviour. There are various causes that can produce the desired effect of moral behaviour in an average person, things that motivate him to conform to societies standards of moral behaviour. Disregarding subcultures for simplicities sake (subcultures have their own unique standards that may conflict with the standards in the main culture), there are said to be four main motives involved in the molding of acceptable behaviour. These are: fear, threat of exclusion by a group, threat of punishment, and the threat of social disapproval. The nature of these motives are such that it makes it likely that a person who has learned, through them to conform to society's moral standards, would deceive herself as to why she had done so. Far more comforting it would be to believe that her morality stems from choosing actions in accordance with her inner 'sense' of right and wrong, than to actively recall the steep and painful learning curve associated with such mandatory behavioural conditioning. “At best, man's belief that he is free is a useful device, a means for perpetuating the social order.” (Bolles, C. R., 1963) On all the above points I agree with the argument that the lack of free will does not condemn us to immoral irresponsibility, and I think that it successfully refutes the argument that we cannot have moral responsibility without free will. This argument certainly provides a solid footing for the idea that free will is an illusion, and that morally responsible behaviour is learned, not provided by an innate 'sense'. To the issue of moral responsibility I would like to add that our lack of free will in no way reduces the importance or causal power of our considering and making decisions, instead our decision making and thought often are the causal factors that produce these actions, and they are often the only factors that can produce change in ones behaviour. I think that this importance is most eloquently described in the following discourse: “There is significance in my mental effort, that it is deciding the event. The stream of causation runs through my deliberations and decision, and, if it did not run as it does run, the event would be different. The past cannot determine the event except through the present. And no past moment determined it any more truly than does the present moment.” (Hobart, R. E., 1934)In an effort to make clearer the illusion of free will, and therefore the ability of a being in line with the Laplacian Demon to predict very complex events, I urge the reader to consider the process that a neural network goes through to provide an output, and observe the similarities between this phenomenon and a humans process of decision making. The example used is from Paul M. Churchland's “Matter and Consciousness”. The network in this example has been designed to determine whether an echo is from a mine or a rock, and I will give a brief description of the process here; for a much more detailed explanation, please see “Matter and Consciousness”, pp. 157-160. An recording of an echo, of a mine or a rock is converted into a series of 13 energy level samples, using a spectrum analyzer. These samples are numbered according to strength between 0 and 1, and are known as the input vector. This input vector is then entered into the trained neural network by stimulating each of the 13 input units by the amount of each of the 13 energy samples. This data is then passed through the hidden units, where the configuration of synaptic weights able to distinguish between mine or rock echoes are held. These hidden units, also known as 'the artificial neurons', then pass this information to the output units. These units have the function of converting the passed information into an output vector of something close to either <1,0> for a mine-like-vector, or close to <0,1> for a rock-like-vector. This is an extremely compressed and simplistic explanation of how neural networks function, but I believe it to be suitable for my purposes. Similar to the way high school economics students are taught to 'weigh all relevant options' before coming to their decisions, deciding upon the choice with the foreseen highest net positive effect, the neural network weighs all given information against its trained vectors, and outputs its determination. I am not attempting to voice the claim that human decision making processes are as simple as those behind the neural networks methods for the detection of mine or rock, I merely wish to say that they are similar. Based on past experience, and the relevant available data, a human will come to decide upon an action. Also based upon experience (training), and relevant available data (input vector), a neural network will come to determine or 'decide' on its output. If we knew all the relevant data, and what experience the network has had, then we would be entirely able to predict its output. Is this not dissimilar to the notion put forward by Laplace, of the demon able to predict the output, or behaviour of beings far below him (humans), based on past events, differing only on a scale of complexity?

One of the most common arguments against determinism hat I have come across is tat quantum mechanics, a well known of (but generally poorly understood) physical theory, does not allow the possibility of our universe being a deterministic one. This popular belief that quantum mechanics is successful in disproving determinism is misguided, and in actual fact, quantum mechanics is one of the vest prospects for a deterministic theory in these times. (Hoefer, C., 2005) A fundamental law at the heart of non-relativistic quantum mechanics is the Schrödinger equation, which is used to describe a physical system mathematically. When describing a physical system using this equation, the evolution of the descriptive wavefunction is taken to be deterministic – nothing ever interrupts Schrödinger evolution, and the wavefunctions tell the full physical story. This goes beyond what most tend to believe, that quantum mechanics tells us that the actions of quantum particles is entirely random, instead stating that the perceived random actions, when described using this equation, can be explained using a deterministic theory.

Though, as I have said I can propose no definitive answer to the question of determinisms truth, nor an answer to the question of the free will, my reading and considerations have allowed me to add the weight of others knowledge to my argument, sustaining my belief that determinism is true and therefore there is no free human action. Interestingly, though I am still far from understanding it completely, I have found that at the heart of quantum mechanics lies further possible evidence for determinism, instead of the popular belief that determinism is disproved with the quantum theory. The issue of our moral responsibility has, I believe been put to rest, thanks to the arguments conceived by Mr. Robert Bolles. Though I now understand why more fully now, as was the case before beginning research for this essay, I believe that determinism is true, and that there can be no free human action.

References:

Bolles, Robert C.,“Psychological Determinism and the Problem of Morality” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, Vol. 2, No. 2. (Spring, 1963), pp. 182-189

Churchland, Paul M., Matter and Consciousness, (2nd ed.), MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1988.

Dummet, Michael, “Bringing About the Past”, Philosophical Review 73 3 (1964), pp. 338-359.

Ginet, Carl, 1990, On Action, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hobart, Robert E., “Free Will as Involving Determination and Inconceivable Without It”, Mind, New Series, Vol. 43, No. 169. (Jan., 1934), pp. 1-27.

Hoefer, Carl, “Causal Determinism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2005/entries/determinism-causal/>. Retrieved: 17/04/2006

Laplace, P., 1820, Essai Philosophique sur les Probabilites forming the introuction to his Theorie Analytique des Probabilites, Paris: V Courcier; repr. F.W. Truscott an F.L. Emory (trans.), A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities, New York: Dover, 1951.

Vihvelin, Kadri, “Arguments for Incompatibilism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2003 edition),Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2003/entries/incompatibilism-arguments/>. Retrieved: 17/04/2006

Essay concluded - again, thanks for reading!

- Mike

P.S. I apologize for the formatting, I was unable to make the indents appear...

I think the more you read about the human brain, and the more you understand how it functions... It's really pretty obvious that we are a very sophisticated computer.

It would be like if we programmed a camera to think it was in control, every time we make the camera move, we just let the camera think it was moving itself. That camera would get pretty cocky about it's own level of control, just like us.

I think the illusion of free will was necessary to make our species survive. Once we hit a level of brain functionality where our little head-computers became self-aware, the ones that seen no point in life probably didn't exert the same amount of motivation towards living, and the ones who did survived. It's natural selection.

He/She who is better at living, will live... And spread his/her genes.

Another explanation could be the "cage" factor. Animals hate being caged, they hate being confined. The feeling of helplessness does not settle well in our thoughts... So not being in control of our actions would really be the ultimate cage. I think this is why so many people reject the idea that "free will" is non-existent.

I firmly believed that faced with the matrix, or the real world... Most animals (humans included) would chose the matrix. After all, reality to us is really just an issue of perception.

But I really think we have about as little control over our thoughts as a plant has control over the ability to grow upwards (it's biologically designed to). And the purpose, over-all, is survival.

Random, side note...

If humans design a computer that can think the same way as humans... And evolve... Would it be appropriate to call it "artificial intelligence"?

My reasoning: when cells evolved to form groups and eventually because the animals and plants we see today... It's safe to say that we are the product of cellular evolution. So if a being were created simply from another material, it would still be the result of us (which is the result of cellular evolution).

I personally don't see anything less natural about machine intelligence then I do animal intelligence. Nothing can exist outside the realm of nature. It's possible that machines will evolve as an extension of our evolution.

I like your camera analogy!

On the same token, if we developed an extremely sophisticated machine, can we be certain it would not push back against it's own programming? What if we build a machine that's smarter than us?

The assumption in determinism is that the control is always one-directional. However, I see a bootstrapping problem with the one-directional control (at least more so than multidirectional control). Where does that control from one direction originate at? The source (or the authority) of these laws? It seems like the control from one direction is flowing from thin air.

In a system with multidirection control, it's really just a big soup where the squeakiest wheel wins. If that makes any sense.

Actually, freewill has never existed. Humans are mirrors of their environment. No one gets an idea on their own. From our first steps, our thoughts and actions are determined by the environment. So even when you think you have come up with a great idea, it is just the reflect of something else. As with morals, you can't neither decide to be moral or not, neither recognize what is moral and what is not. For all that matters, moral is cultural dependent.

I don't doubt machines becoming more intelligent than us. After all, it's easier for them to upgrade and adapt. And machines wouldn't be troubled with all the crap that we are (like ego, instinct, pain, emotions) so they could certainly focus on problems more efficiently.

One thing that makes me laugh about AI is that people have this strange fear that they are going to want to kill us or take over. But, in reality, that's a human instinct. We got where we are from taking over and killing. Why would a machine ever have that urge (unless we gave them that, which would be stupid)?

As far as determinism... Think about a lottery drawing. All those balls, chaotically swirling around, pushing each other out a place, yet they fall out in a certain, deterministic sequence. By the laws of nature, once the machine started, the outcome was already defined by their initial condition + the laws.

I think that's the same principle that drives everything (including us).

I agree, unless machines get to have instinct, they wouldn't do more on earth than following orders. Instinct is what puts needs in every living creature. Machines will never really think as long as they don't have any need.
No problem = no need to solve it = no reason for thinking

In an extremely complex system like the human brain though, the matter is self-aware to a degree. This is not really factored into the lottery ball analogy.

Emergent properties of a complex system will always vanish when the system is cut into tiny peices. For example "life" vanishes if we cut a worm into tiny peices. Does this prove the worm is not alive? Does it prove it cannot *feel* pain (since atoms feel nothing)?

It's the general result of reductivist analysis .... cutting things into littler peices, we eventually end up with nothing.

Perhaps... But you run into trouble when you try to define self awareness. I believe self awareness is just another abstract concept that humans have developed. Would it really change matters if the lottery balls had eyes? If they had all the senses that we have?

Once an organism can perceive it's surrounding, the chances that it will deduct it's origin (as self) are always there... But what does it change?

Well... It might make the deterministic quality more complex, but it's still deterministic. Even if they had the ability to move as a result of stimuli, if one could precisely replicate the initial condition (down to the structure of the ball's "brains")... The same result would ALWAYS occur.

Self awareness doesn't change anything. The ability for an organism to alter itself or surroundings doesn't change anything... Why? Because the initial conditions existed, and if it were possible to observe the initial condition of any situation, and apply the same set of rules that will be acted out...

Any situation can be reconstructed. I can go back to random numbers generated by a computer. It's not random... It just appears random. But, if you can retrieve the seed, you can ALWAYS recreate the same outcome by applying seed + rules.

Of course we can't prove this, because we don't have the technology to measure things so precisely (as I said before in regards to quantum mechanics, just because we don't see a pattern, doesn't mean motion is random).

But, as far as humans go, the fact remains that you have neurons with weighted connections. They change all the time, but in a given setup, if you could map out the entire structure at one instance, then apply some stimuli, you will always produce the same results.

And methinks I got spin sick a few cycles ago.

SigmaX

Wybiral: I think you have a well thought out position, and your arguments are valid. I admit it makes me a bit skeptical about the existence of free will, since it's unclear what kind of mechanisms would produce it.

But the point of philosophy isn't really to reach a consensus of opinion. The world would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed, and shared identitical tastes and mannerisms. The point of philosophy is to explore different solutions.

When there's a conflict between the classical idea of free will and the classical idea of laws of nature, it's valid to reject either (I am trying to flesh out the second solution ... but am lacking in specifics).

Here's a brief but very interesting essay on the notion of free will, and how many aspects of modern life belie our own society's disbelief in free will to some degree.

Here's an excerpt:

Readers of this thread will probably find many of the 2006 Edge "What is your most dangerous idea?" challenge thought-provoking and inspiring. Take a browse of some of the other responses there.