What do you think?

Define "free will."

If you mean will that is wholly unhindered by antecedent variables, no that doesn't exist. Human agency is affected by precursory causal factors. That's not to say that it is fatalistically determined as singular courses of actions, that's not to say it isn't either, but it's impossible to account for every condition influencing something as complex as a human agent with 100% reliability. One can however make predictions.

But contra-causal free will does not exist on the spectrum of human agency.

(December 15, 2014 at 4:15 am)The_greatest_river Wrote: What do you think?

That all depends on what you mean.

IMO, there is no such thing as free will in the traditional sense, but it is a vital and necessary social conceit. Individual values do not lead to social morality, in order for there to be some common starting point we take the concept of free will as our base assumption, this makes everyone responsible for their own actions and enables social control systems to function (religion, law, etc.).

We continue to be horrified at the actions of our fellow humans, shocking behaviour leads us call the perpetrators 'animals', the reality is we are animals, and it is our belief in free will (unique in the animal kingdom) that keeps us mentally separated from other animals.

MM

(December 15, 2014 at 4:15 am)The_greatest_river Wrote: What do you think?

I think, like the others, please define what you mean by free will, and then we'll talk.

Agreed, depends entirely on the definition. But in general, no. Physics seems to be leading us towards a mixture of determinism and quantum randomness.

(December 15, 2014 at 6:08 am)robvalue Wrote: Agreed, depends entirely on the definition. But in general, no. Physics seems to be leading us towards a mixture of determinism and quantum randomness.

When I was a youngster, before I had heard of quantum randomness, I was a determinist. I thought that there is no free will because of that. Then I found out about quantum randomness, and realized that the determinism thing is possibly out of the window. And then I realized that it doesn't make any difference concerning free will.

(December 15, 2014 at 4:15 am)The_greatest_river Wrote: What do you think?

I think it's a phrase that is used specifically to try and get god off of the hook for the mess he makes in the story of the creation and fall of man. It's not a particularly good excuse, but the other option is to blame god, and Christians aren't about to do that as it screws up the narrative.

Me too, I used to be a determinist. I came to that conclusion before doing any research in detail, before even knowing there was a term for what I thought.

I hadn't heard of quantum randomness. I'm not going to even pretend I understand it either. But I trust that it's a well established theory. Putting all my knowledge and logic together at this point leads me to believe that this randomness is all that determines choices. So if you want to call that a choice, then you can say there is free will. Otherwise, we're just observers to the universe fucking with us.

I do always have my suspicions that the term "random" is a placeholder for "we haven't figured out the pattern yet". But I don't know enough about it to possibly put any weight behind this yet.

But as you say, random or no, we're not making choices the way we think we are. I've seen an experiment where someone had to press one of two buttons, and not to decide until the last second which. But brain scans could determine what he was going to press about 6 seconds before he thought he had made the decision. To me, that shows are are being fooled.

(December 15, 2014 at 6:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Me too, I used to be a determinist. I came to that conclusion before doing any research in detail, before even knowing there was a term for what I thought.

I hadn't heard of quantum randomness. I'm not going to even pretend I understand it either. But I trust that it's a well established theory. Putting all my knowledge and logic together at this point leads me to believe that this randomness is all that determines choices. So if you want to call that a choice, then you can say there is free will. Otherwise, we're just observers to the universe fucking with us.

I do always have my suspicions that the term "random" is a placeholder for "we haven't figured out the pattern yet".

It absolutely could be. Moreover, there could be no pattern from our perspective, but a part of the universe might be hidden from view, such that apparent randomness arises even though the system as a whole may be deterministic.

(December 15, 2014 at 6:33 am)robvalue Wrote: Me too, I used to be a determinist. I came to that conclusion before doing any research in detail, before even knowing there was a term for what I thought.

I hadn't heard of quantum randomness. I'm not going to even pretend I understand it either. But I trust that it's a well established theory. Putting all my knowledge and logic together at this point leads me to believe that this randomness is all that determines choices. So if you want to call that a choice, then you can say there is free will. Otherwise, we're just observers to the universe fucking with us.

I do always have my suspicions that the term "random" is a placeholder for "we haven't figured out the pattern yet". But I don't know enough about it to possibly put any weight behind this yet.

But as you say, random or no, we're not making choices the way we think we are. I've seen an experiment where someone had to press one of two buttons, and not to decide until the last second which. But brain scans could determine what he was going to press about 6 seconds before he thought he had made the decision. To me, that shows are are being fooled.

How do you make a reasonable connection between quantum randomness and human cognitive functions if, by your own admission, you don't understand it?

MM