Is free will real?

[IATIA]

The ability to make a choice exists and can be demonstrated in ALL forms of life.

At what point is it considered 'free will'?

[bennyboy]

-and that experience can be very real, while simultaneously very much in error, as can a great many other experiences.

When I look at my desk, I see a flat and (mostly) uniform surface-- a singular surface, which cannot possibly be "real" in the context of a universe composed only of particles. Am I "in error," or can the ability to symbolize patterns reveal a level of reality not to be found in any of those particles, OR even non-arbitrarily in any collection of them?

---

Observe free will? No, you can't observe it. It's a hypothesis. You can observe people claiming to have free will though. That's not the same thing.

The knife you're using is too dull to separate free will from any other aspect of existence. In your sense, even the sense of self is a "hypothesis." Prove that you "really" exist.

You could only observe it if you could somehow replay the conditions of a "choice" again exactly, and to see if a different decision was made. And even if it was, you then have to determine how the choice is being made, be it random or whatever.

Why would you make a different choice? Randomness implies a LACK of control, not the existence of it. Free will implies the capacity to make decisions which are an expression of one's entire humanity: world view, memories, perceptions, etc. You would necessarily make the same choice every time, because only one choice could be the perfect expression of who/what you are.

[robvalue]

I'm not sure how you can conclude a choice has been made when you only have one series of events to look at. How can you tell what happened isn't the only thing that could have happened?

Im probably a bit thick when it comes to this stuff so I should stop embarressing myself. I'll let the proper people talk now.

[bennyboy]

The ability to make a choice exists and can be demonstrated in ALL forms of life.

At what point is it considered 'free will'?

That depends on how you view human existence. If you see decision making as a struggle between one's world view (imagination, memories, etc.) and one's animal instincts (sex drive, hunger, etc.), then I'd say one is exercising free will whose higher functioning is not subject to the demands of instinct.

But that's just one way of looking at it.

---

I'm not sure how you can conclude a choice has been made when you only have one series of events to look at. How can you tell what happened isn't the only thing that could have happened?

Im probably a bit thick when it comes to this stuff so I should stop embarressing myself. I'll let the proper people talk now.

I know a choice has been made because I was thinking about a Mars bar, and then a Snickers, and then the Mars bar again-- but I only bought one candy bar.

[robvalue]

I can't prove I really exist. No one can.

I'm not even convinced I do exist, in the way I appear to, I just have to act as if I do.

Without the basic assumptions to deal with solipsism, you can't get anywhere.

I really think this free will thing comes down to definitions. Dealing with self, conciousness, choices etc is such a hard subject because it's one you can't ever truly view objectively. I think just describing to the best of our ability what happens, scientifically, is better than trying to decide what free will is and if we have it or not.

Let's do some sums! I like sums.

[Mudhammam]

The same goes for free will. It doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, or if there is any mechanism for agency beyond the material. In the context of human existence, there are choices, and I make these choices as an expression of my personality, my memories, and my senses. The choice is imbued in every possible way with my existence. How I got my personality, my memories or my sense impressions, and exactly what they are in scientific terms, is irrelevant-- I have free will because my choices are an expression of my humanity.

"I make these choices as an expression of my personality" is correct, but in reductionist terms it simply means, "the strongest sensation, whether it's a thought or an instinct, brings about subsequent change."

[IATIA]

I'd say one is exercising free will whose higher functioning is not subject to the demands of instinct.

And what lifeform would that be?

[bennyboy]

The same goes for free will. It doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or indeterministic, or if there is any mechanism for agency beyond the material. In the context of human existence, there are choices, and I make these choices as an expression of my personality, my memories, and my senses. The choice is imbued in every possible way with my existence. How I got my personality, my memories or my sense impressions, and exactly what they are in scientific terms, is irrelevant-- I have free will because my choices are an expression of my humanity.

"I make these choices as an expression of my personality" is correct, but in reductionist terms it simply means, "the strongest sensation, whether it's a thought or an instinct, brings about subsequent change."

In reductionist terms, nothing about the human experience has any meaning: not honesty, not loyalty, not love, not beauty, not inspiration. Not sensation, nor instinct, nor even change, probably. Remember, I'm not so much arguing that free will is real-- I'm arguing that it is not demonstrably less real than anything else about human existence. I'd also argue that the idea of free will is the key stone-- remove this idea, and everything we hold true about human existence is likely to fall.

Let me ask you a related question. Does anything flat exist in the universe?

---

I'd say one is exercising free will whose higher functioning is not subject to the demands of instinct.

And what lifeform would that be?

Anything capable of holding a world view and acting on it-- i.e. some people, sometimes.

[Mudhammam]

In reductionist terms, nothing about the human experience has any meaning: not honesty, not loyalty, not love, not beauty, not inspiration. Not sensation, nor instinct, nor even change, probably. Remember, I'm not so much arguing that free will is real-- I'm arguing that it is not demonstrably less real than anything else about human existence. I'd also argue that the idea of free will is the key stone-- remove this idea, and everything we hold true about human existence is likely to fall.

Let me ask you a related question. Does anything flat exist in the universe?

There is nothing in the human experience that is objectively meaningful on reductionism, because meaning for each person is a stance taken towards objects or ideas and a plurality of different positions can be equally justified on their own terms. So, subjective meaning is all that can be expressed, and as that has always been the case, those concepts are no worse off for it. They only mean something in the context of subjects abstracting value from objects and projecting it onto others. I think free will is demonstrably less real if only because it is incoherent. A flat object is a sensible notion that reflects a definite attribute of objects in the real world. So, yes, flat objects do exist. Free will in any deeper metaphysical sense does not. That we experience what we understand to be freedom is an illusion perpetuated by our ignorance of true causes.

[IATIA]

I'd say one is exercising free will whose higher functioning is not subject to the demands of instinct.

And what lifeform would that be?

Anything capable of holding a world view and acting on it-- i.e. some people, sometimes.

Just for starters, people are "subject to the demands of instinct", hunger, survival, sexual drive. Do whales, dolphins and apes have a world view? How about cats, dogs, parrots and ravens?