In the world of physics "determinism" died when Newton's world view was replaced with quantum mechanics. In quantum mechanics particles and even an objects wether it is a muon or a cat can be in multiple states at one time until according to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics - an "observer" tries to measure the system, and that forces the multiple quantum states to collapse into a single state. In other words, in physics the "act of making an observation" forces the universe to "make a choice" about which quantum state it is in. This in popular science books about quantum mechanics is called "The Schroedinger's Cat Experiment". In a physics laboratory these quantum states might be electrons in a "spin-up" state or a "spin-down" state. But nothing prevents these "states" from being larger objects, and recent experiments in university physics laboratories have seem this with large physical objects visible to the human eye. So, what does that have to "free will"? Well I look at it this way. In quantum mechanics (or at least the Copenhagen interpretation of it) an "observer" has a special place in the universe. An "observer" isn't an in animate object dead object, the only "observers" in the world are people that have "consciousness". So we humans by "choosing what to observer" force the universe to chose what quantum state to be in. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOZTPvrhmdc&feature=related"]Schrodinger's Cat - YouTube[/ame] Now maybe our special place in the universe according to quantum mechanics just shows that theory has a flaw, but maybe is also suggests that we really have a "special place" in the universe. We really don't understand that nature of consciousness. For example the electrical activity in the brain at some point runs up against quantum mechanics. It NOT is all "deterministic" chemistry and Newtonian physics. And if some parts of our brains run into quantum mechanics and can be in a "multiple states" at once then something needs to "observer" that multiple state to make it "collapse" into a single state. That requires an "observer" in quantum mechanics. That "quantum mechanical observer" is where we run up against nature of "free will". Until you understand that "quantum mechanical observer" I don't think you can understand free will or consciousness.
You can't get from quantum mechanics to non-deterministic free will. Quantum mechanics is still deterministic and using it as a magical free will conferer is buying what charlatans like Chopra sell.
I'll back up my earlier post with two Scientific American articles. First on the statement that recent experiments show that larger objects can have quantum mechanical simultaneous "multiple state" properties. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=quantum-microphone Second a Scientific American article that talks about 'free will' and quantum mechanics. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ices-today-affect-the-universe-at-its-origin/
What does this have to do with free will? I can't see any leap from quantum mechanics to anti determinism. Quantum mechanics being non-deterministic, in a mathematical sense, doesn't necessarily mean that determinism, in a philosophical sense is wrong. I suppose the point is that if quantum, random effects can happen in your brain, that somehow speaks against determinism and for free will. I don't see how it does. These processes can then just be described statistically, rather than absolutely. And what we perceive to be our mind or will, is still controlled by them.
at the moment not, but all it takes is a scientific breakthrough which explains what we've previously regarded as a random event.
if we are to say that something controls something else, should we be able to demonstrate how that happens, not in a post hoc only sense, but draw a thread thru the beads? it's one thing to say that certain chemical phenomena precede certain other phenomena, but to say that they determine specific outcomes...(!) if it were so obvious, why isn't there universal agreement? can it be only a philosophical bias?
no free will. 'hey only live once' theme was heard somewhere, sometime, by an outside influence and thus had a direct impact on the outcome of the decisions. how can it possible for a human to actually make a 'decision' when we all want the best for ourselves?
It depends what you are deciding. I mean, if you are deciding which route you should take to drive somewhere, it's not a decision loaded with bias caused by personal benefit. I think everyone accepts that their own personal experiences and character traits will influence any decision they make. I think that harder part for people to get their head round is the idea that every single thought they have, and even every dream they have, is wholly beyond their control, as the wiring of their brain means they were bound to have that thought. If thought is no more than a biological computer program, then does it make any sense to label anything good or bad behaviour? After all, if someone decides to get a machine gun and mow down Christmas shoppers, and we know that's a deterministic reaction to how his brain is wired, then can we condemn him for it? We don't condemn the code of a computer virus for the damage it does, or try to punish it, as we know it had no choice or awareness of its actions. We would condemn and punish the guy who unleashed it though, yet in a pure deterministic world, he's no more responsible for his actions than the virus. On the other hand, part of the brain wiring could well be to give us consciousness and the ability to reason and even moralise
We can. Neroscience isn't my field but I'm pretty certain we've got plenty of evidence that aspects of personality and decision making are controlled by brain chemistry. We know that the brain is a physical object which is affected by chemical and physical processes and works via chemical and physical processes. In my opinion, genuine free will, on a fundamental level, would require the existence of some kind of 'magic' x-factor, akin to a soul. Since there's zero evidence to back that up, it's not a sensible position to take. We're miles away from unlocking every mystery of how the brain works at a fundamental level, that doesn't mean we need to throw out everything we do know and resort to some stone age reaction of 'Magic!'.
Whether my decision is made pre-consciously, or post-consciously, is it not still MY decision? and thence, MY free will? Can we necessarily tease out pre-consious thought from post-conscious thought at our current levels of understanding? May not the latter merely be the culmination of the former? Have any of the referenced "choices" that appeared on brain scans prior to the conscious choices, been different from the final "conscious" choice? Meaning, did the brain ever say "turn left" before the so-called "conscious mind" said "turn right", following which the person actually turned left? Now THAT would be a good indication that the two are separate, and the former controls. But I'm not sure if that's possible to determine. And to disregard the possibility that pre-conscious brain scans are simply showing the beginnings of what transmutes to conscious thought might be a bit misleading. But then, I should probably just accept what Sam Harris says. I mean, he WAS the Grand Champion of Star Search, for crying out loud.
but the beautiful thing about determinism is that EVERYTHING is determined. therefore saying someone is bad or evil for committing a certain act is also determined by your own opinion of morality which was determined by previous factors (determinism). you cant operate OUTSIDE determinism. so its a logical fallacy to say that 'you cant get punished because it was bound to happen.' that is why determinism doesnt make a difference in the human mind. we all operate as if we have free will even if its not true free will. you cant BASE morality/judgments/arguments on the fact that determinism is true because EVERYTHING is within the sphere of determinism. you cant mix morality with determinism. morality only exists when there is free will, or the assumption of it.
Yes, but part of determinism would also be creation of the belief of free will, and the ability to act accordingly. The ability to moralise and create rules and conventions for society is also a product of determinism. It's only when people try to claim their morals are inherently moral that they'd be outside determinism, as that implies it's not decided by consensus.
Five pages and no Rush? [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDqDlRf8wxs"]Freewill-Rush - YouTube[/ame]
thats also within determinism. everything is inside determinism. me typing this to you is determinism.
rep on the way. . Next up a Tom Sawyer thread in the history forums, and a (Red) Barchetta thread in the automotive forums.
Actually, this is false. It's this new age esoteric crap that unfortunately gets repeated again and again. Yes, an "observer" can make a wave function collapse, but this has nothing to do with consciousness. The "observer" is in fact anything that interacts with the wave function. I wrote a pretty excessive rant about this before, so I won't do it again, instead, I'll just link you to my older post: http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showpost.php?p=21782852&postcount=40 As for your larger point, determinism is not dead at all. First of all, as soon as you leave the quantum world, things become deterministic. So a case could be made that at least the macro world (of which we are a part) is deterministic. Secondly, even ignoring that, it's by no means proven that quantum mechanics is non-deterministic. There are good reasons to think so, but we could also simply be ignorant of the underlying determinism. So while I'm personally on the side of non-determinism on the quantum level, I wouldn't go so far and proclaim determinism dead. Finally though, this is a moot point to begin with, because even if quantum uncertainty would be non-deterministic, and even if it leads to a non-deterministic macro world, then this is by no means a magical bullet that ushers in free will. At best you get from your will being determined, to your will being probabilistic, or some combination of those two.
As for my personal opinion, I used to be on the side of those who say there is no free will, because that's where all the evidence leads. But now, I'm leaning towards rejecting the question to begin with. The more I think about it, the less sense the question makes. First of all, I think that "free will" is ill defined. What does it even mean? The harder you try to grasp it, the more elusive it seems to become. Secondly, how could we possibly differentiate between a world where free will exists and one where it does not? I don't see how we could, so why would the distinction make any sense to begin with. Free will is a narrative we came up with in order to explain the way we perceive the world. As such, it's a valid way to interpret our decision making process I guess. But at the same time, it's a superfluous concept. As for moral or criminal issues, the better question would be: Does the person in question have control over his actions? When I have full control over my actions, I am accountable, no matter if the decision making process is determined or not. When I don't have full control (for example because I'm being drugged) then I'm also not fully accountable.
Good post, benztown. That's essentially my take on it as well. It's a meaningless question. Just ask the Tralfamadorians.
lets try to keep it simple. free will is the ability to make a choice free from certain constraints. if you believe in determinism, you think 'choices' are 0% free from constraints, that is, everything used to come up with the choice has been directly determined by something prior. lets make a random scenario: youseff rahmat abdul-aziz turns 18 and its time to buy his first car. he find 2 affordable cars: one is toyota and the other is a chevy. they have the same price. free will stance: there might be some constraints that keep youseff rahmat abdul-aziz from making a 100% free choice, such as advertisement, advice from friends, etc... that might have some effect on his choice, but in the end the choice he makes will be free, and it will be the one that he 'chose.' he was able to clearly look at the 2 options, analyze them, and pick based on his choice right there and then. determinism stance: 100% of youseff rahmat abdul-aziz choice consists of constraints. it would make no sense for him to randomly choose one, for if he did, that would not be a choice, that would be randomness. therefore whatever that pops up in his mind is a result of what he learned about cars, what he heard about japanese cars, what he heard about american cars, what he thinks people think looks better, how the advertisements portrayed the car, etc... so no matter how you look at it, 100% of his choice is a result of all the external influences that were imposed on him up till now. even if he was born with the knowledge of toyotas and chevys, that is not a choice because being born is not a choice. you might say, ok but that is just info that he knows.. NOW he can CHOOSE which car to buy BASED on this KNOWLEDGE. this is where we have to look at the motives. a persons motives is to always better their own situation, so again, there is no choice... the person will choose what is in their best interest every time. why it is illogical to include crime and punishment into this discussion: some people say 'if determinism is true then how does it make sense to punish criminals, they are not making the choice to commit crime.' if they are not making the choice to do crime and there is no free will, then its the same for everybody. that means nobody should be rewarded for anything nor should anybody be blamed for anything. you cant USE determinism to CHANGE aspects of life. determinism IS. EVERYTHING is determined. you may now say 'so me saying that nobody should be punished for crime is determined too, so why are you disagreeing/blaming me if it is all determined.' my answer to that proves my point (you cant use determinism to change aspects of life). my answer: 'that would make me blaming you also part of determinism.' believing/disbelieving in determinism would be invalid because there is no free will. so this question is really pointless.
@persianfootball The thing is, it's not that simple. You've defined a mystery with another mystery. What are these "certain constraints" you talk about? Even the most ardent free will proponent will agree that every single decision we make is riddled by cinstraints, so you'll have to draw a line somewhere, only you can't. Let me give you an example. I'm visiting my parents and my mother has prepared a great meal. As desert, she has ice cream. I can choose between chocolate and vanilla. Personally, I prefer vanilla, so unless I'm sick of it because I've had too much of it lately, I'll always choose vanilla. The free will proponent will say that I could have chosen either one, but I went for vanilla because I prefer the taste. The determinist will say that I my biology caused me to choose vanilla, hence my will is not free. I'm asking: Where's the difference? The free will proponent says that I determine which ice cream I want, the determinist says that my biology determines which ice cream I want. I' saying that it's the same thing. My biology, that's me! These are two different ways of looking at the same thing, two narratives that are equally valid at describing my choice.
