Lets solve Free will once and for all!!

[Nimos]

The time has come to settle whether we have free will or not

So had a somewhat interesting talk with ChatGPT about this, but can't help but feel that it has some restrictions or fallback safety mechanisms that limit it in regards to saying what is actually on its "mind". So thought I would raise the discussion here instead with my human brethren

There are several questions here:

1. Where does free will come from?
2. Do we have it?

Definition:
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Let's assume we have free will or at least limited, given that we are bound by certain biological constraints, such as eating, sleeping etc. Let's go back in time and ask the question when did free will cease to exist?

Let's assume that it did somewhere with early humans, then the question is where did they get it from?
To me free will seems like a binary condition, either you have it, or you don't (ignoring biological constraints). The reason for this is that if we go back 10.000 years, I don't think humans back then had less free will than we do and the same if we go forward 10.000 years, humans in the future don't have more than we do.
How we can make use of our free will seems only limited by our knowledge. We can't travel to distant stars, because we lack the ability or understanding of how to do this, yet we are aware of the concept. Early humans probably weren't aware of such things, but I don't think that restricts their free will, their concepts of things they thought about were simply different than ours.

It seems strange to me how free will could evolve without also making an argument that early humans somehow only had part free will, which seems extremely weird to me. Im not even sure what an example of part-free will would be like.

To me, there are three options at least that I can come up with:

1. We don't have free will, it is merely an illusion
2. It spontaneously came into existence
3. Our definition of free will is incorrect.

If anyone else has other options I would be interested in hearing them?

One of the arguments for how we have free will is that we can still act upon our desires and intentions, yet if the Universe is determined by physical laws, particles, atoms whatever, and these make up everything like how planets form, how the Universe function, then it seems rather unlikely that human desires and intentions isn't also govern by these as we are also part of it. At least an argument for why these are beyond or not influenced by the very same rules that everything else seems to be would be interesting to hear.

That free will spontaneously came into existence seems very unlikely to me.

Could it be, that the human brain simply evolved far enough for us to be able to comprehend the illusion of free will? Said in another way, we reached the point of the brain being able to fool itself?

(Im not interested in hearing that God did it. He could do anything am interested in people who want to offer naturalistic suggestions or views)

Especially where do you think free will came from?

Are there ways you could see free will evolve? And could that potentially mean that humans in the future have more or less free will than we do?

 

[Stan77]

If we have free will it is only limited to the most insignificant and boring processes. Practically useless.

 

[Kfox]

The time has come to settle whether we have free will or not

So had a somewhat interesting talk with ChatGPT about this, but can't help but feel that it has some restrictions or fallback safety mechanisms that limit it in regards to saying what is actually on its "mind". So thought I would raise the discussion here instead with my human brethren

There are several questions here:

1. Where does free will come from?
2. Do we have it?

Definition:
the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Let's assume we have free will or at least limited, given that we are bound by certain biological constraints, such as eating, sleeping etc. Let's go back in time and ask the question when did free will cease to exist?

Let's assume that it did somewhere with early humans, then the question is where did they get it from?
To me free will seems like a binary condition, either you have it, or you don't (ignoring biological constraints). The reason for this is that if we go back 10.000 years, I don't think humans back then had less free will than we do and the same if we go forward 10.000 years, humans in the future don't have more than we do.
How we can make use of our free will seems only limited by our knowledge. We can't travel to distant stars, because we lack the ability or understanding of how to do this, yet we are aware of the concept. Early humans probably weren't aware of such things, but I don't think that restricts their free will, their concepts of things they thought about were simply different than ours.

It seems strange to me how free will could evolve without also making an argument that early humans somehow only had part free will, which seems extremely weird to me. Im not even sure what an example of part-free will would be like.

To me, there are three options at least that I can come up with:

1. We don't have free will, it is merely an illusion
2. It spontaneously came into existence
3. Our definition of free will is incorrect.

If anyone else has other options I would be interested in hearing them?

One of the arguments for how we have free will is that we can still act upon our desires and intentions, yet if the Universe is determined by physical laws, particles, atoms whatever, and these make up everything like how planets form, how the Universe function, then it seems rather unlikely that human desires and intentions isn't also govern by these as we are also part of it. At least an argument for why these are beyond or not influenced by the very same rules that everything else seems to be would be interesting to hear.

That free will spontaneously came into existence seems very unlikely to me.

Could it be, that the human brain simply evolved far enough for us to be able to comprehend the illusion of free will? Said in another way, we reached the point of the brain being able to fool itself?

(Im not interested in hearing that God did it. He could do anything am interested in people who want to offer naturalistic suggestions or views)

Especially where do you think free will came from?

Are there ways you could see free will evolve? And could that potentially mean that humans in the future have more or less free will than we do?

I think freewill is limited by the society we choose to live in. It exists, but there are laws in place limiting free will. I have the free will to eat what I choose for breakfast, but I don't have the free will to kill my neighbor because society has enacted laws to restrict such behavior

 

[Nimos]

If we have free will it is only limited to the most insignificant and boring processes. Practically useless.

What processes are you thinking here?

 

[Nimos]

I think freewill is limited by the society we choose to live in. It exists, but there are laws in place limiting free will. I have the free will to eat what I choose for breakfast, but I don't have the free will to kill my neighbor because society has enacted laws to restrict such behavior

But laws don't prevent you from killing your neighbor if you really want to, they punish you for doing it

By free will I mean you making the choice to travel to Africa rather than Australia, rather than it having already been decided for you.

 

[Stan77]

What processes are you thinking here?

If you tell me what process you think you've will i think i can show you that you don't.

 

[Nimos]

If you tell me what process you think you've will i think i can show you that you don't.

I was merely asking you which you were referring to when you wrote this "only limited to the most insignificant and boring processes" (Don't have to mention all of them, just trying to figure out what you mean)

 

[Stan77]

I know what you're asking and why but i am not in the mood for that dance. However if you're serious i can show you the limited nature of what you're calling free will.

 

[Kfox]

But laws don't prevent you from killing your neighbor if you really want to, they punish you for doing it

By free will I mean you making the choice to travel to Africa rather than Australia, rather than it having already been decided for you.

Do you think there is evidence of something like this ever happening

 

[Nimos]

I know what you're asking and why but i am not in the mood for that dance. However if you're serious i can show you the limited nature of what you're calling free will.

What are you talking about "mood for that dance"?

Don't see why a question for clarification is upsetting you? That seems rather odd, but fair enough.

 

[Nimos]

Do you think there is evidence of something like this ever happening

Evidence for what? Free will or there not being free will?

 

[siti]

To me, there are three options at least that I can come up with:

1. We don't have free will, it is merely an illusion
2. It spontaneously came into existence
3. Our definition of free will is incorrect.

If anyone else has other options I would be interested in hearing them?

Or it could be just a phrase indicating a particularly complex manifestation of a fundamental not-quite-random 'selectability' that exists from the most fundamental levels of reality (think quantum indeterminacy) all the way up to - and perhaps beyond - the level of the human organism...in which case, what we 'choose' to do in a particular instance is not really 'free will' at all but it is, at least sometimes and at some level, a 'selectable choice'.

 

[Kfox]

Evidence for what? Free will or there not being free will?

Evidence of not free will.

 

[Stan77]

Don't see why a question for clarification is upsetting you? That seems rather odd, but fair enough.

No sure whatever gave you the impression of me being upset. Again, if you think humans have free will or you want to find out then state your case and we can examine if that's true. OTOH if you want to play the game you wish to play i'm sure there are others you can engage with.

 

[MikeF]

1. Where does free will come from?

I'm not sure I understand this question. What would be an example of an answer you might expect to receive?

 

[Nimos]

Or it could be just a phrase indicating a particularly complex manifestation of a fundamental not-quite-random 'selectability' that exists from the most fundamental levels of reality (think quantum indeterminacy) all the way up to - and perhaps beyond - the level of the human organism...in which case, what we 'choose' to do in a particular instance is not really 'free will' at all but it is, at least sometimes and at some level, a 'selectable choice'.

Not 100% sure I understand what you mean, im not well into quantum mechanics and find it rather difficult

However, I read this one, which I would like to hear your opinion about as you seem to have a better understanding of it than me? (From Nature 19.dec 2023)

Just the conclusion from the article:
So how deterministic is the Universe? The answer will depend on the final theory that bridges the divide between quantum physics and relativity — and that remains a far-off prospect. But if Hartle is right, the story of the rise and fall of determinism until now might be the reverse of the conventional tale. From a certain perspective, the quantum Universe is more deterministic than a classical one, providing stronger explanations and better predictions. That has consequences for humans, too, because that makes it harder to appeal to quantum theory to defend free will11. If the quantum Universe is strongly deterministic, then there is no other path to make the Universe than the way it is. The ultimate laws of the quantum cosmos might tell us why it is this one.

Does quantum theory imply the entire Universe is preordained?

 

[Nimos]

Evidence of not free will.

This would be that everything is made up of atoms or particles and we are not in control of them. Our brain is made up of atoms that control our thoughts and behavior, then we are doing whatever these atoms decide so to speak.

This is from an article I posted in another thread from a study:
Published in the prestigious Nature journal today, an experiment carried out in the Future Minds Lab at UNSW School of Psychology showed that free choices about what to think can be predicted from patterns of brain activity 11 seconds before people consciously chose what to think about.

The experiment consisted of asking people to freely choose between two visual patterns of red and green stripes – one of them running horizontally, the other vertically – before consciously imagining them while being observed in a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) machine.

The participants were also asked to rate how strongly they felt their visualisations of the patterns were after choosing them, again while researchers recorded their brain activity during the process.

Not only could the researchers predict which pattern they would choose, they could also predict how strongly the participants were to rate their visualisations. With the assistance of machine learning, the researchers were successful at making above-chance predictions of the participants’ volitional choices at an average of 11 seconds before the thoughts became conscious.

The brain areas that revealed information about the future choices were located in executive areas of the brain – where our conscious decision-making is made – as well as visual and subcortical structures, suggesting an extended network of areas responsible for the birth of thoughts.

However, the researchers caution against assuming that all choices are by nature predetermined by pre-existing brain activity.

“Our results cannot guarantee that all choices are preceded by involuntary images, but it shows that this mechanism exists, and it potentially biases our everyday choices,” Professor Pearson says.

This seems to suggest that at least in certain cases we can predict a persons choice before they themselves are consciously aware.

Keep in mind that Im not especially arguing for there not being free will, simply raising some questions that I think are interesting. And it is a debate still going on between people that seem to disagree about. So again, in the experiment above, you can probably find criticism of it as well.

Im just interested in hearing people's opinions.

 

[Nimos]

No sure whatever gave you the impression of me being upset. Again, if you think humans have free will or you want to find out then state your case and we can examine if that's true. OTOH if you want to play the game you wish to play i'm sure there are others you can engage with.

What is all this about "if you want to play the game..." bull**** about? Why do you reply to a post and the moment you are asked about clarification you seem to act extremely hostile or if im trying to take the **** on you whatever these weird answers are about. If you are not interested in clarifying your views why bother replying in the first place.

How would you not expect me to ask for clarification to a reply like this:
If we have free will it is only limited to the most insignificant and boring processes. Practically useless.

What on Earth is a boring process supposed to mean in regard to free will!! and then when ask you what that nonsense means in a friendly way, you ask me to come up with process ideas for you:
If you tell me what process you think you've will i think i can show you that you don't.

And then you seem to get hostile or think im playing games with you.

Sorry, I don't care to spend time on stuff like this.

 

[siti]

Not 100% sure I understand what you mean, im not well into quantum mechanics and find it rather difficult

However, I read this one, which I would like to hear your opinion about as you seem to have a better understanding of it than me? (From Nature 19.dec 2023)

Just the conclusion from the article:
So how deterministic is the Universe? The answer will depend on the final theory that bridges the divide between quantum physics and relativity — and that remains a far-off prospect. But if Hartle is right, the story of the rise and fall of determinism until now might be the reverse of the conventional tale. From a certain perspective, the quantum Universe is more deterministic than a classical one, providing stronger explanations and better predictions. That has consequences for humans, too, because that makes it harder to appeal to quantum theory to defend free will11. If the quantum Universe is strongly deterministic, then there is no other path to make the Universe than the way it is. The ultimate laws of the quantum cosmos might tell us why it is this one.

Does quantum theory imply the entire Universe is preordained?

That article goes all over the place to be honest...but I wasn't meaning to appeal to quantum theory in defense of free will, but rather to suggest that since there is unquestionably an element of probabilistic indeterminacy at the smallest levels of reality (as we currently understand it), perhaps that is reflected at higher levels too. There is some speculation in the emerging field of quantum biology that "quantum effects" may happen in wet biological systems such as animal brains, but that's not really what I was getting at. My point really is that we should be very suspicious of any kind of 'radical emergence' - if there is an element of 'choice' at the level of an organism, I think we should expect to see more rudimentary manifestations of the same kind of thing at the more fundamental levels...whether it comes from quantum theory or some other aspect. The problem with explaining things like free will and consciousness away as illusions (which they might be of course) is that we are then left an even more insoluble mystery - why would we experience such a compelling illusion of something that doesn't exist in all of reality?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Im just interested in hearing people's opinions.

Me thinks, if we know what free-will is, then we have it.