does free will exist?

[Jefferies]

I would say that's pessimistic Jeffries.

At one time, physicists swore there couldn't be any warm superconductors, but they found them.

Even cells are made of atoms.. and.. particles... there might be some "cool dry" substructures to the brain, created by some wonderful biological process.

It isn't really a question of maybes. IF free will exists, then these said brain structures must exist.

I wasn't specifically taking about traditional quantum models. For discerning free will, we're not immediately interested in what the quantum level is doing, but that whatever events happen there are being amplified to macroscopic levels which we colloquially identify as "willful action".

There may be other ways that quantum level things can affect the higher reality. Consider a molecule that is at some critical energy level where it can switch states as a consequence of quantum level activity. Perhaps the oscillation mode of one of its bonds? I'm not a quantum chemist, so I don't know specifically what stuff can happen. But it must be happening.

Personally, I'm no expert on this either, being a biologist and medical student, but I'm sure that for quantum effects to effect physiology they would need to be stable at physiologically relevant time scales and effect a large amount of molecules. The way it looks at the moment this is impossible in a biological environment.

However, I am open for any hypotheses that can get around this problem in an experimental way and I would welcome them, because I like the idea of free will.

 

[Jadzia]

Build this cause and effect chain up one level at a time.

Start out at molecular levels. Can quantum stuff make changes to those? (It must do.)

Can those molecules retain that state long enough to affect biological structures? (They must do.)

The intermediate state here is electronic. Something that interferes with chemical bonding or the electron densities / dipole strengths.

Maybe those dipole changes cause different molecular tautomers to form.

And these are stable for long enough to have an intermolecular effect.

for example, in something like neurotransmitter molecules, it might reduce the synaptic breakdown voltage enough that it fires sooner than it would normally do?

The overall effect is then will-power --> changes the firing time of a brain cell.

And as you will know from your medical knowledge, timing in biological structures is everything

 

[Jefferies]

The fastest form of neurotransmission ever recorded is on the scale of about 2 ms. Now for a quantum superposition to effect such a process it would need to exist and effect this process for 1000 times longer than what has been theorised possible.

Even if, on a much smaller scale, it were to effect a few chemical bonds in a couple of molecules at random in this process as you are suggesting it might. It seems highly unlikely that little changes like that could have a physiological effect. Neurotransmission involves hundreds of thousands of molecules and millions of chemical bonds at every synapse. Add to this that each cohesive neurological response like memory retrieval or muscle movement involves millions of neurons you get to the point where quantum effects, as we understand them today, simply cannot have a relevant impact.

 

[Michael Chris]

Yes. That's all.

 

[Jadzia]

The fastest form of neurotransmission ever recorded is on the scale of about 2 ms. Now for a quantum superposition to effect such a process it would need to exist and effect this process for 1000 times longer than what has been theorised possible.

No, this isn't thinking one step at a time Jeffries. The superposition need only be long enough for the molecule to begin to form its tautomer. Once started it's a runaway process to completion. We're talking around in fractions of a nanosecond here aren't we?

The second step is the half life of the tautomer before it realises "Hey I was more stable before. I'm going back."

The stability of tautomers is varied. That can be measured in milliseconds or even seconds or longer. Plenty long enough for synaptic breakdown voltage to be affected by the molecule.

But this neurotransmitter suggestion is only my five minute guess at how it might work. I'm open to alternatives. I imagine you know more about the brain's micro-physiology than I

 

[Jefferies]

I think you are viewing this debate too chemically , i.e. too much on the micro-scale. In biology, the cohesive interactions of millions of proteins and ligands drive physiological mechanisms. Only if a significant percentage of these interactions can be influenced in the same way will you see a change in how the organism responds. From what you have said I do not see how such a coordinated change can be brought about through a quantum superposition across macro-scale tissue.

 

[Jadzia]

Ok I understand that. But a mechanism must be there somewhere. Do you have any ideas?

 

[Jefferies]

I am afraid I do not have the expertise to suggest a plausible hypothesis for this. I know this might not be very constructive but at the moment I only see how I can make arguments against quantum superpositions effecting physiology based on what I have learnt. If you have any further suggestions I would like to read them.

 

[Goliath]

And what does free will mean? It means that at some level we are manipulating the behaviour of matter directly, purely by choice.

This is not a very good definition. In fact, it's no definition at all.

This is, at best, an attempt to define what it means "to will freely." According to you, to will freely means "to manipulate the behaviour of matter directly, purely by choice."

Or, as you put it:

So rather like telekinesis, somewhere in our brains, we are pushing particles around beyond the physical laws. So mind can manipulate one or more of the fundamental forces.

Far from defining free will, all you've done is assume the existence of what I described as "libertarian free will," and try to describe the mechanism by which this assumed libertarian free will operates.

But metaphysical libertarians are wrong. Libertarian free will does not exist--indeed, cannot exist, for the reasons I've described above.

And all this metaphysical speculation about minds "pushing particles around beyond the physical laws" and "manipulating one or more of the fundamental forces" becomes unnecesssary once we realize that metaphyical libertarianism is false.

There's no need to appeal to mysterious supernatural faculties to explain free will--once free will is properly defined. Free will is simply the freedom to choose what we would ordinarily choose, and to do what we would ordinarily do. As Hobbes put it: "no liberty can be inferred to the will, desire, or inclination, but the liberty of the man; which consisteth in this, that he finds no stop, in doing what he has the will, desire, or inclination to do."

Anything else is just metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

 

[Jadzia]

(load of stuff)

... which doesn't help (or attempt to help) our understanding of how mind and biology are interrelated.

 

[Jefferies]

(load of stuff)

... which doesn't help (or attempt to help) our understanding of how mind and biology are interrelated.

But in order to examine the biology of the mind we do not need any assumptions about free will. All you need are testable predictions on how an organism as a whole or how elements like the central nervous system, brain tissues and associated cells will behave in a certain context, given a specific independent variable or variables. Thus step by step the biology of the mind is being revealed (good examples are long term potentiation, neural plasticity and the neurobiology of motor functions). In my opinion the issue of free will is a separate matter.

 

[casey]

Mainstream psychology does not claim that determinism is 100% correct. Some extremist psychologists might but as a whole this is not what is being said. As you have pointed out psychology uses the scientific method to reach conclusions. Therefore, as determinism cannot be proven by this method, psychology will not claim that it has been. What psychology does claim is that most behaviour is lawful and this is based on 1000s of empirical experiments. The philosophy of free will thus is something each individual can then relate to these findings in what ever way they want to. There is no given dogma as you seem to be suggesting.

You are right, mainstream psychology does not necessarily claim determinism. In fact, we often like to talk as if free will exists. But I would argue that determinism is an assumption that comes along with adopting the scientific method. The scientific method is based upon assumptions that we can understand through observations, and that the world works in a predictable, controllable way. And if from the outset you say that you can use this tool to understand human behavior, you are making an assumption of determinism.

Here is a link to a really good book on the subject:
http://books.google.com/books?id=k9...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA29,M1


But I agree with you that determinism cannot be demonstrated with the method. In fact, I think the whole idea of determinism vs. free will is something that may never be fully answered. So we have to assume either free will or determinism or a mix of both (which is probably the most realistic) and build our theory of human nature from there.

And let me stress that I am in no way criticizing or rejecting psychology as a whole--just making an observation that determinism is present in some form or another in most of it--including things like humanism, which is often associated with agency.

 

[Jadzia]

(load of stuff)

... which doesn't help (or attempt to help) our understanding of how mind and biology are interrelated.

But in order to examine the biology of the mind we do not need any assumptions about free will.

But in order to understand the nature of willful-action, we do need to first understand the nature of mind, and how it is related/connected to (biological) matter.


Example: If it turns out that the mind is purely a function of macroscopic matter, then because that matter is governed by deterministic laws, then there is no free will.

(but I don't believe the mind is that way)

 

[Trekker4747]

You build your own character and that sets up how you chose to resolve future conflicts, the goal is learn and understand why you made that choice.

My character is a result of a lot of bad rolls.

Trekker, 9 in Strength.


On free will? I think it "exsits" but at the same time I think we all have specific destinies. If you believe in a seamless continum, alternate universe, and the idea that for every decision all decisions are made, splitting off into multiple universe. So you've you've infinite set-in-stone destinies ahead of you it's just what path you elect to take.

 

[Lowdarzz]

Does free will exist? Probably.

But the group mentality/sing-along is dominant.

 

[Jefferies]

But in order to understand the nature of willful-action, we do need to first understand the nature of mind, and how it is related/connected to (biological) matter.

Example: If it turns out that the mind is purely a function of macroscopic matter, then because that matter is governed by deterministic laws, then there is no free will.

(but I don't believe the mind is that way)

I highly doubt that there will be any serious scientific endeavours to find neurological correlates of free will in the near future. Its simply not something that science is concerning itself with. As casey has pointed out, the natural sciences are sort of based on the assumptions of determinism. Thus they will not seek to disprove these assumptions. Also, even if you tried, it kind of forces you into a circular argument. After all, what would your independent variable in a free will experiment be?

 

[Jefferies]

You are right, mainstream psychology does not necessarily claim determinism. In fact, we often like to talk as if free will exists. But I would argue that determinism is an assumption that comes along with adopting the scientific method. The scientific method is based upon assumptions that we can understand through observations, and that the world works in a predictable, controllable way. And if from the outset you say that you can use this tool to understand human behavior, you are making an assumption of determinism.

Here is a link to a really good book on the subject:
http://books.google.com/books?id=k9...=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result#PPA29,M1


But I agree with you that determinism cannot be demonstrated with the method. In fact, I think the whole idea of determinism vs. free will is something that may never be fully answered. So we have to assume either free will or determinism or a mix of both (which is probably the most realistic) and build our theory of human nature from there.

And let me stress that I am in no way criticizing or rejecting psychology as a whole--just making an observation that determinism is present in some form or another in most of it--including things like humanism, which is often associated with agency.

I fully agree with what you are saying here. We have loads of evidence showing how behaviour is lawful and thus predictable. However, this does not exclude the possibility of free will, it merely gives it limitations. Therefore, as you seem to do as well, I endorse the idea of a synthesis of these two concepts on a philosophical level.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

I choose not to answer.

if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice

 

[stj]

I think the Russian word "volya" can properly be translated either as "freedom" or "power." When we talk about freedom of the will, whether or not we are Russian, we are talking about both.

So far as the power to achieve our wishes is concerned, the notion of free will is very much confused by theological notions about double predetestination and/or original sin. The soul does not even have the power to choose salvation because original sin has compromised the will, absent God's grace, much less to actually perform any salvific work. Nonetheless, predestinationists hold God has predestined the elect to freely choose salvation and the damned to freely choose hell.

Non-Calvinists, thinking that a soul without the power to freely choose is not in fact free, as will implicitly means the power to choose, reject double predestination. The scriptural proofs for Calvinism depend upon an elaborate exegesis. But, since Calvinism requires tacit supplementary theological assumptions to fulfill the presumption that the Bible in fact truly has real doctrines to impart, anyone who fails to accept the tacit presumptions is unconvinced. The Bible is a collection of documents by different authors with different ideas which in the end are not fully compatible or are in fact outright contradictory. By the same token, there are necessarily proof texts for a wide range of position. So the Calvinists cannot refute the Calvinists on Scriptural grounds. However, although Calvinism has never been refuted, it is out of fashion.

Thus, most modern Christians just flatly declare that free will exists. This merely reflects the fact (invariably, in my experience) that most Christians detest actually reading the Bible, on the sensible ground it is too difficult for them to understand. Concluding that God decreed what the Christian personally believes is not sensible, but---judging from all appearances---immensely gratifying.

In an SF forum, the notion that the immutability of time refutes free will is a very common one. Apparently, the overall plot of the Dune series lies in the notion that mankind will be set free if prescience of the future is abolished. Apparently, men must be able to think they have the power to change the future if they wish. Generally, time travel plots that hinge upon the impossibility of changing time are regarded as downbeat or even tragic. Free will is held to be the power to choose, regardless.

Personally, I think free will is more like the franchise. If you choose your candidate, even though you cannot determine the outcome of the election, then you have a free franchise. If you cannot get your candidate on the ballot? Well, then, you are effectively disfranchised.

Similarly, with free will---if you can make a meaningful choice, you are exercising free will, even if you don't have the power to achieve the choice. (This has similarities to Camelopard's ideas above, by the way.) But I think putting it this way emphasized the importance of thought. It is not free will to imagine flying, and then actually flying. It is free will to think---plan, build airplanes or at least buy a ticket---then to fly. With greater knowledge comes more freedom, both in the power to achieve goals and in determining which choices are in fact meaningful.

Now, as to free will as the ability to choose unconstrained by the brain---truthfully, this seems completely mad, a totally ideological misconception of reality. It seems to be some weird acceptance of the soul as some nonmaterial, eternal entity. Instead, mind is produced by neurotransmitters and electrical activity of the brain as flame is produced by the chemical changes in combustion. The effects of drugs or damage to the brain may be to deprive me of free will.

Even more to the point, psychological studies of the timing of events and neural activity pretty reliably show that the brain makes decisions (showed for example by beginning a muscular movement as in reaching for an object) before subjects report deciding! This shows two things I think. First, that our minds are not just pure consciousness (something we knew from dreaming I should have thought.) Second, that the will, in the sense of freedom to choose, is a determinate event. (No, I can't remember the names of the experiments and experimenters. Sorry.)

People committed to the pure soul, unconsciously or not, will be distressed. But, to be determinate is one aspect of being real. Something indeterminate, like the quantum mechanics proposed for consciousness, is in a sense to be something unreal. Better to be real. In any event, there is plenty of role for free will, in the sense of the conscious, reasoned decisions that we make.

 

[Captain X]

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QNgWwV_-wVs