Free Will

However, if we do have free will, then there must be some source that's external to the material world that's controlled by the forces I mentioned above.

Why? I fail to see the logic, there.

Well, kinda by definition. Anything that isn't controlled by physics and quantum mechanics is pretty much outside the physical, material world, isn't it?

Whether my actions are determined purely by quantum processes, or determined by some supernatural "source," seems to me to be irrelevant, because is is, by definition, impossible to tell the difference.

The real question is, what does "free will" mean in this context? The best I've been able to come up with is that it means that our actions 1) seem like they're our own choices, and 2) are unpredictable in advance. Both quantum determinism and a supernatural "source" satisfy these requirements. Apply Occam's Razor as an exercise.

I agree that from our internal perspective it's possible that there's no way for us to tell the difference. However, even if both positions are functionally similar, they are philisophically quite different.

The only philosophical difference I see is that the mechanistic argument says nothing about the supernatural, whereas the supernatural argument claims that such supernatural things exist. And you already know what I think about the supernatural. :)

Most people try to do things for reasons. So, if someone were to actually believe that their actions were purposeless, their actions would become entirely irrational. In fact, I'd be willing to argue that it's impossible for someone to actually believe that they don't have free will. They can say they believe it, but their actions will never reflect it.

Unless they're insane, in which case all bets are off anyway.

That depends on how you define free will. I personally think that our actions are mechanistically determined (via inherently unpredictable quantum processes). In the context I operate in, my actions still have reasons. So according to you (since you consider free will to only be possible as a product of a "supernatural source", i.e. a soul), I don't believe in free will, yet I do things for a reason.

The reason you do things, then, is purely because your actions are deterministic. That's the opposite of "free will". Just because you don't understand the processes behind your actions -- thus allowing you the illusion that you're free -- doesn't make it so. In fact, it's inevitable that you don't understand, just as everything else that happens is inevitable.

The whole universe is giant finite-state automata.

That's a reasonable belief, but rather depressing. Of course, just because it's depressing doesn't mean it's wrong.

I agree. If my actions are purely deterministic, then at least I get the entertainment value out of discovering what they are. :) Deterministic doesn't automatically mean predictable, not when quantum mechanics comes into it.

Now, you say that pure determinism is the opposite of free will. Which implies that free will is nondeterministic. So what is the nature of the choices created by your free will? Stochastic? Purely random? Or is the soul inherently inscrutable? How does the soul make a decision to choose one thing over another, to choose (e.g.) walking to work over driving? Why does the soul to decide, "I'll have blueberry--no, chocolate ice cream."?

That's a good question, I don't know... I suppose that's what psychologists and philosophers argue about.

And of course you're not really being entertained. We don't have vocabulary to describe whatever you are, and it's meaningless to talk about anything that you "experience".

Despite what I've said before, for all intents and purposes, I think we have free will, for the same reason I said before: free will via a soul is indistinguishable (to us) from free will via unpredictable determinism.

The remaining question is, is there a soul? And of course my answer to that is, we have no way of knowing, and absent any evidence, no reason to act as if there is. From that POV, it's pure intellectual masturbation. :)

Free will itself doesn't indicate to you that it's possible that we have a "soul"?

Not if you define "free will" to mean "the existence of the soul," which is what you said to begin with. We still haven't defined exactly what "free will" is supposed to mean, unless we mean your definition, which is (apparently) "the actions resulting from the deliberations of an inscrutable, supernatural motivating force." I would not define "free will" that way.

We can't agree on whether free will exists -- which, as you said, is critical to being able to debate meaningfully at all -- until we have a definition we can agree on. And I don't think it's a simple issue. Let's ask the dictionary, at least, and see what the common usage is. Maybe we can go somewhere from there:

The first definition implies that you are not coerced by any other material agency, i.e. nobody's holding a gun to your head. (If they are, you don't have "free will" as defined by choice 1.)

The second definition could be construed as implying the existence of the soul... sort of... in some circumstances. "Divine will" implies that, yes, you have free will, but God can overrule you. "Fate" implies that no matter what choices you make, a certain outcome is predetermined (which can also be looked at as saying that your choices themselves are predetermined).

Tangentially, free will is one thing that bothers me about the Christian God, who is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. If he is omniscient, then he already knows everything that will ever happen, including every choice my supposedly "free will" will ever make. If God wanted those choices to be different, he would have created the universe in such a way so that the choices would end up being what he wanted. So effectively, God predetermined all our choices. Ultimately, the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent God precludes free will. God apparently wants us to choose to have faith in him, but he knew before he created any of us who would and who wouldn't. If he *really* wanted us to have faith, why didn't he just make it happen? He already knows the outcome, so why run the simulation?

Or do I have my premises wrong? Do Christians not actually define God that way?

Argh, I was about to go home!

First, yes, I do think that the existence of "fate" (or determinism) would preclude the existence of "free will", and so by my definition you do not think you have free will (if I understand all the previous posts correctly).

Secondly, it's an interesting question: if God is omniscient and omnipotent, can we humans still have free will?

Obviously, I think we can, and briefly my reasoning goes as follows. Just because God knows what we're going to choose doesn't mean he made it happen. Just because he can make it happen doesn't mean that he actually does so. For example, if you're reading a book that you've read before, you may know exactly what's going to happen; that doesn't mean you're making it happen, even though you could rewrite the book if you wanted to.

That's not a great analogy, because God would have written the book in the first place. No character in a book that a human writes has "free will" because they aren't "real". So the logical leap is wondering how God could do such an amazing thing? I don't know the answer to that. Of course, I'm studying artificial intelligence because I'd like to find out. It is the most mystifying and spectacular question I can think of.

So yes, I believe in an omnipotent and omniscient God who created humans with free will. However, I'm pessimistic, and I don't think that I (or anyone else) will ever be able to recreate that feat "artificially". But it's fun to try, and maybe I'm wrong.

Ian: "Observation" and "intention" take free will as a given, it seems to me. Yes, I know what "observation" in a quantum sense means (as well as anyone, anyway (ok, not as well as Hawking I guess)). Our observation of quantum states would, itself, be deterministic if everything else is deterministic.

"Observation" and "intention" take free will as a given, it seems to me.

Quite right; however, assuming the existence of a thing does not posit the source of that thing. I'm not saying that there is no free will; I am saying that free will may be explicable without positing a source that's "external to the material world."

Our observation of quantum states would, itself, be deterministic if everything else is deterministic.

But your previous suggestion is that those quantum states are "random" and "outside of our control," which by any definition is certainly not deterministic, as each quantum event--if truly random--would be completely independent of any antecedent event. Either quantum events are random, or they are deterministic--they can't be both...or can they?

Which is, again, my point. If free will (and thus intention and observation) arises from the physical structure of our brains, then it necessarily involves quantum processes at some level. Experiments involving the superposition and decoherance of particles and particle states suggest that in the quantum world, there exists a kind of "tween" state that is neither fully deterministic nor fully random. Yet, from that strange "tween" state our world of order and consequence arises.

I would suggest again that there is nothing about sourcing consciousness (and thus, I think, free will) within quantum processes that necessarily negates free will. As quantum processes are ostensibly physical processes, free will might remain firmly within the realm of the material world.

If quantum processes are random then no, they are not deterministic. However, once their random "value" has been determined, everything that depends on them may be deterministic, in which case there still can be no free will. Just because they aren't deterministic themselves doesn't mean that they're a possible source of free will.

The point is, if there is free will then every decision is, on the lowest level, uncaused. A decision may be influenced by other events, but nothing caused it other than itself. If decisions are caused by quantum events, then there is no free will, regardless of whether or not the quantum events are deterministic themselves or not.

So once the quantum events collapse into a value, everything from that point on is deterministic. However, as quantum events are constantly collapsing and causing new info to be introduced into the system, our consciousness is *effectively* non-deterministic. Any useful definition of "free will" conceives it a black box from which emerge random (or at least stochastic) decisions.

I guess I don't know where the conversation can go from here. We seem to agree that there's no way to prove whether or not there is free will, because it's functionally indistinguishable from determinism. It's my general position if that there's no way to prove whether something is true or not, there's no point in discussing what the consequences of it existing or not might be (aside from as an intellectual exercise, and exercise is always nice). I just don't know what exercise to do next... maybe some cortical crunches. (That sounds like a snack... Cortical Crunchies?)

the only way to say humans have free choice is bysaying there is no god. bc if ther is a god and by definition omnipotent he definatly knows what your going to do and therefor crosses out your free will.However if there is no god then i am just a random creature with free choice, like you see i can eat an apple or an orange.To say i am random creature who can choose what iwant to eat is much easier to say thatmaybe there is a god and maybe that god created free will no?