Free will has never been demonstrated to exist

[Sunstone]

It seems to be beneficial to society that a large number of people hold the illusion that free will exists. Studies have shown that people who believe they have free will tend to be more generous, less likely to cheat, etc than people who understand that free will doesn't exist. Perhaps we are lucky that the illusion is a persistent one.

 

[idav]

It seems to be beneficial to society that a large number of people hold the illusion that free will exists. Studies have shown that people who believe they have free will tend to be more generous, less likely to cheat, etc than people who understand that free will doesn't exist. Perhaps we are lucky that the illusion is a persistent one.

Worse than believing in determinism is believing some tyrant predetermined what can't be changed.

 

[look3467]

Coersion!

Definitely, not a level playing field. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. Where it not so, we'd be in heaven.

Blessings, AJ

 

[Mackerni]

Does anyone have any arguments or evidence showing that free will actually exists?

If there were absolutely no restrictions placed on me, I think I would travel everyday to other planets, to other parts of the Universe and even outside the Universe. I think every night I'd go back home here (home would probably be a giant mansion where I can pace around a lot). I might not technically get either right away but I'll get the first in the game No Man's Sky coming out later this year.

This whole topic reminds me of this one song from the BoDeans.

 

[Falvlun]

This is a silly point. The color green doesn't exist period; its an interpretation from your mind based on either the RGB values of the pixels in your computer screen, or an extrapolation of the frequency from the electromagnetic radiation hitting your eye. Basically the color is an illusion. You might think free will might be a viable part of your experience, but just like the color green, that is an illusion.

The color green exists because humans exist. Humans have minds that interpret certain wavelength as green. You might as well say that beauty or love or dreams don't exist. All those things exist because minds create them. Doesn't make them any less existent.

 

[Falvlun]

Well the fact that its unfalsifiable is a testament to its weakness

Your experience of existence is also unfalsifiable.

I fail to see how unfalsibility is evidence of falsity anyway. At best, if something is untestable, you can only say that there's no way to know whether it's true or false.

 

[serp777]

Free will is demonstrated to exist every time someone interprets an action as something that "they did," as "theirs." (As opposed to...)

You can't know if it was free will or just the illusion of free will.

 

[serp777]

The color green exists because humans exist. Humans have minds that interpret certain wavelength as green. You might as well say that beauty or love or dreams don't exist. All those things exist because minds create them. Doesn't make them any less existent.

The color green doesn't exist. Its not a real thing. Its an abstraction by our brain. You can't even demonstrate that all humans see green as the same color.

 

[serp777]

Even fruit flies and rats have free will
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is good evidence that there exists modules in animal brains (even fruit flies) that use the randomness and channel it to generate spontaneous internal variability in response.

http://brembs.net/spontaneous/mayeetal_2007.html





Note that the behavior is not just unchanneled random noise. Neither is it deterministic.





Thus the fly can does choose otherwise under identical conditions!

Next similar things have been observed in rats as well,

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2014/11/12/rats-free-will/#.V0HPhfkrKM8



Poor thirsty rats.





Physical phenomena that are highly sensitive to initial conditions is not new in physics. The field of chaos theory . Now chaos theory (the classical version) assumes that the system being studied is inherently deterministic (i.e. classical) but highly sensitive to initial conditions, so that small inaccuracy in knowing what the initial condition is leads to charge changes in the evolution of the system. It is a very useful model, particularly for simulations of complex chaotic systems like weather, turbulent flows and things like protein folding in cells.

But let us think of the real world.
1)We know that quantum mechanical indeterminacy exists creating "true" indeterminism at a very small scale.

2) We know that these quantum mechanical variations leads both to deterministic behavior on the mid-level scale (all classical physics and chemistry) and indeterministic behavior on mid-level scale (thermal fluctuations, momentum fluctuations and fluctuations in electromagnetic fields ). Here is a detailed article that looks specifically at thermal fluctuations and their immense effect at all scales of physics. http://www.iki.rssi.ru/asp/pub_sha1/Sharch04.pdf

3) What is ultimate source of all this mid-level semi-classical randomness. It is, ultimately, the phenomena (still being investigated) of quantum decoherence that was crudely called the "collapse of wavefunctions" in early stages of quantum theory development. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_decoherence. It caused both the determinism and the chaotic noise fluctuations we see at the classical level. Both are created, and their interaction through chaos theory, becomes the hallmark of complex dynamical systems at higher scales.

4) For even further details on how this occurs in biology. Consider this book Life's Ratchet. An excellent chapter by chapter overview of the chaotic molecular storm from which all of life's processes get their oomph is here.

5) The last book that is yet to be written is how life's processes extract "designed spontaneity" from this molecular chaotic storm as well. This will take more research of the kind I alluded to and more research like this.



Or this article http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2683



6) The mathematics behind this integration of determinism with indeterminism in complex processing systems is described by what is called Stochastic Dynamics. Here is book, technical, bit the intro is enough to understand what the thing is talking about.
https://books.google.com/books?id=P4HuBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PR2&dq=stochastic dynamics&pg=PR2#v=onepage&q=stochastic dynamics&f=false

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is good evidence that there exists modules in animal brains (even fruit flies) that use the randomness and channel it to generate spontaneous internal variability in response.

That's not free will though. That's like saying that a computer program that has a (true no pseudo) random number generator also has free will. Non determinism does not equal free will. If a random number generator in your head determines your actions, that doesn't mean that you have free will. I'm sure you can agree on that point. You're arguing from a strawman here--i'm not saying that we don't have free will because we're deterministic. Then it seems like the rest of your post is going on to show how the universe does in fact have randomness but you haven't addressed why non determinism implies that free will is real.

 

[serp777]

Your experience of existence is also unfalsifiable.

I fail to see how unfalsibility is evidence of falsity anyway. At best, if something is untestable, you can only say that there's no way to know whether it's true or false.

It isn't. I never said free will doesn't exist because its unfalsifiable. You're making a strawman here. Me saying that free will hasn't been demonstrated to exist doesn't mean I think it absolutely doesn't exist. It just means that I don't think people should use free will as a basis for religious arguments here since free will has never been demonstrated to exist.

 

[serp777]

It seems you are asserting (a) the inarguable proposition that people are able to act willfully but their willful acts are influenced by a variety of factors outside of themselves, rather than (b) that people are unable to act willfully. It seems that many people, in trying to point out facts relating to (a), sweep up the facts relating to (b) in the process and wrongly deny the ability of humans to act willfully. In the following I am articulating the arguments contrary to (b).

The conclusion that human individuals are able to determine the voluntary bodily movements that one will or will not perform (i.e., are able to act willfully) is the only coherent explanation for these trivial bodily movements. Thus the existence of free will (or the ability to act willfully) is deducible by a process of elimination--in exactly the same way that if there three upside-down cups in front of you and you know a bean is under one of them, after turning over two of the cups and finding no bean, you can deduce that the bean is under the remaining cup.......running from a person’s environment or culture to his/her brain.

Here’s the test: A person or other entity that ponders whether or not free will exists is a person or entity that can act willfully.

It seems you are asserting (a) the inarguable proposition that people are able to act willfully but their willful acts are influenced by a variety of factors outside of themselves, rather than (b) that people are unable to act willfully. It seems that many people, in trying to point out facts relating to (a), sweep up the facts relating to (b) in the process and wrongly deny the ability of humans to act willfully. In the following I am articulating the arguments contrary to (b).

i'm denying that free will has been demonstrated to exist. However I gave an opinion by saying "seems", which isn't an assertion because I didn't use it as a premise for anything. In my opinion what I think makes the most sense is that a combination of culturual, genetic, and environmental factors coalesce to result in the actions we take. The combination of these factors is unpredictable and probably non deterministic, but I don't see any requirement that human beings need true free will.

The conclusion that human individuals are able to determine the voluntary bodily movements that one will or will not perform (i.e., are able to act willfully) is the only coherent explanation for these trivial bodily movements. Thus the existence of free will (or the ability to act willfully) is deducible by a process of elimination--in exactly the same way that if there three upside-down cups in front of you and you know a bean is under one of them, after turning over two of the cups and finding no bean, you can deduce that the bean is under the remaining cup.

Its the only coherent explanation according to whom? These movements are a result of the motor cotex, which takes many inputs and outputs from your brain to then make an actual movement. Some of these include balance, emotion, pain, fear, whatever, and of course chemical factors like the amount of seratonin and dopamine in your brain not to mention the way the environment and genetics have formed your neural network. None of these factors appear to be your decision, so it isn't evidence for free will whatsoever. TO make matters worse you don't think your own thoughts; if you feel thirsty and get up, you didn't necessarily decide to get thirsty and stand up, your body just reacted. So basically you're asserting this conclusion to be true, but how on earth are you going to show its the only coherent explanation? You have many explanations to address before you can make that statement. You've made a massive quantum leap between the premise and the conclusion.

In the second place, human individuals are able to predict or foresee far in advance and with perfect accuracy the voluntary bodily movements that one will make--though no one can accurately predict or foresee the voluntary bodily movements that someone else will perform, and no one can with similar accuracy predict or foresee anomalous events of one’s own autonomic nervous system (such as a heart attack). There is no other coherent explanation for this ability than the fact that these voluntary bodily movements are willful acts, determined by the individual who performs them. Everyone engages in such predictions of their voluntary bodily movements. For instance, modern people commonly contract to pay a particular amount by a particular day each month to the utility, phone and/or internet company that provides them electricity, water, phone and/or internet service, or to make monthly payments to the bank in repaying (plus interest) a loan on a house or car purchase. The vast majority of people fulfill their obligations on these contracts, and when they don’t it is almost invariably due to loss of income or otherwise simply not having the money to make good on their contracts. There is no other coherent explanation for individuals’ commonplace ability to accurately predict or foresee their voluntary bodily movements by which they fulfill their contractual obligations than the fact that these are the willful acts of the individuals.

The same logic above applies here. Furthermore, being able to predict bodily movements means nothing. computer programs in robots always predict the moves they will make--nevertheless its not free will whatsoever. You're creating a non sequitor here.

All this researching, planning and making of reservations was certainly a huge waste of time and energy if it were true that we had no control over our goings and doings of this trip. If it were true that we did not and could not determine our own acts, then all of the time and energy expended on researching, planning and making of reservations would have been a massive, inefficient delusion. Yet there is nothing more commonplace among humans than the belief that we can and do determine such voluntary bodily acts (our laws assume that individuals have this ability to act intentionally, purposely and knowingly in our voluntary bodily movements).

This is irrelevant. Whether or not it was a waste of time and an inefficient delusion has nothing to do with whether free will exists or not. The same can be said for beliefs regarding free will as well as the law. They assume that individuals have free will, but that's all it is, an assumption.

Maintaining such delusion would be trait that would have been quickly selected out due to its inefficiency and wastefulness, and would have never been selected for.

No it wouldnt. Do you have evolutonary logic or evidence which shows that delusions aren't selected for? There are many diseases and neurological configurations like schizophrenia that have survived. Delusions could be a powerful evolutionary advantage otherwise, for exmaple, there might be higher rates of suicide. Delusions might be important to maintaining a constant state of mind. You're simplifying this too much.

Obviously genes do not determine which voluntary bodily movements a person will make during his/her lifetime. There is no evidence that genes determine which voluntary bodily movements a person will make. Identical twins have identical genes, but identical twins do not perform identical bodily movements during their lifetimes.

And nobody ever said they did. Genes, the environment, and culture combine to affect the way your brain is structured--this then affects how you move and when. Also none of these things are deterministic. And clearly genes do have a direct, and important impact on body movements--like at the various genetic diseases which inhibit movement like cerebral palsy. So there is evidence that genes will seriously influence bodily movements. Furthermore your twin example isn't valid because they don't have identical environments.

To claim that a person’s environment or culture is what causes a person which bodily movements the person makes is just nonsense--besides it being obviously untrue (many millions of people live in the same culture but do not perform the same bodily movements), it’s to claim something magical. Machine-structure programming is detectable. There is no detectable programming running from a person’s environment or culture to his/her brain.

That's because we don't have a good enough understanding of how the brain works--the brain does have neurological subroutines, as you can call them, that store and retrieve memories from the hippocampus for example. And no one was saying environment or culture determines bodily movements. Genetics, the environment, and culture combined to create a non deterministic model that makes you move in certain ways and at certain times based on inputs and outputs. This isn't absolutely true or anything, and im not saying it is, but it is a reasonable hypothesis that is an alternative to free will. Thus free will hasn't been demonstrated.

 

[serp777]

It seems to be beneficial to society that a large number of people hold the illusion that free will exists. Studies have shown that people who believe they have free will tend to be more generous, less likely to cheat, etc than people who understand that free will doesn't exist. Perhaps we are lucky that the illusion is a persistent one.

That's true but i personally wouldn't want to live in an illusion. I'd rather know if in fact we did or didn't have free will. If we didn't have free will then I wouldn't feel guilty for any mistakes.

 

[serp777]

Think about it a minute. What possible evidence or argumentation could exist to show free will exists. If you try to come up with even a theoretical example, you may find that none is possible.

I gave an example in the OP. Furthermore the fact that its unfalsifiable reflects the weakness of using free will in a religious debate. That puts it in the land of fairies and the celestial teapot. Therefore people shouldn't assume they have free will or use it to justify an argument.

 

[serp777]

Who is the 'we' in the above statement. The question for me is do you believe we are just a physical body or do you believe we have real astral, mental and spiritual aspects also beyond the reach of mainstream western science. I think that issue is what it comes down to; I believe we are more than physical matter and I suspect you view us as just matter. I think that difference gets at the real question.

No, even if there is an explainable, magical voodoo plane, that doesn't mean you have free will. That makes it even more impossible to prove or know that you have free will. The truth of materialism vs magic has nothing to do with whether we have free will or not.

 

[serp777]

There is no free will. The forum gods are in charge of the destiny of all internet posts and future data maintenance. Ask any of the gods how much free will you have and they will laugh.

You can't disprove free will just like you can't disprove fairies or the celestial teapot. Oh that was a joke =)

 

[Falvlun]

The color green doesn't exist. Its not a real thing. Its an abstraction by our brain. You can't even demonstrate that all humans see green as the same color.

So?

Our brains create the color green. Ergo, it exists.

Are you going to say that thoughts don't exist either? After all, they are just the result of neurons firing in our brain too.

 

[Falvlun]

You can't disprove free will just like you can't disprove fairies or the celestial teapot. Oh that was a joke =)

If everyone experienced seeing fairies and celestial teapots, then those might be apt examples.

Besides, it's not the fact that celestial teapots are unfalsifiable that makes the concept unlikely to be true. The only thing that unfalsifiability tells us is that we can't know for sure whether it's true or not.

 

[Willamena]

You can't know if it was free will or just the illusion of free will.

You can know it's free will, because that's what free will is.

 

[Falvlun]

It isn't. I never said free will doesn't exist because its unfalsifiable. You're making a strawman here. Me saying that free will hasn't been demonstrated to exist doesn't mean I think it absolutely doesn't exist. It just means that I don't think people should use free will as a basis for religious arguments here since free will has never been demonstrated to exist.

You said that it was a "testament to its weakness". You presented unfalsifiability as evidence of falsity.

 

[निताइ dasa]

I gave an example in the OP. Furthermore the fact that its unfalsifiable reflects the weakness of using free will in a religious debate. That puts it in the land of fairies and the celestial teapot. Therefore people shouldn't assume they have free will or use it to justify an argument.

Dude your senses themselves and all the data from them is also unfalsifiable (we have to assume that they perceive reality as it is and since we know no other source of information other than senses, we cannot prove them false). By your logic, should we reject all empirical information (and verily all scientific information which is empirical) in debates?

In philosophy, there are certain axioms which are by nature unfalsifiable, yet still are used in debate. For example the statement "all squares have 4 sides" ( which is an axiom by definition) is unfalsifiable because it is impossible to prove wrong (we could never find a square without 4 sides). Similarly, we assume the will (free?) of conscious beings as a fundamental axiom and work from there. These are fundamental assumptions made in accordance with one's worldview. Furthermore, I don't think free will is unfalsifiable. It depends on what evidence is used to establish it in the first place. If scripture is used to assert free-will, then a statement of scripture could also refute it (hence falsifiable). If reason has been used to establish it, then another line of reason can be used to refute it (hence falsifiable). Science itself has very little in that area yet, so we must wait for that.