Free Will
Offline Hey guys,
I wanted to share my opinion of free will and possible issues with it. So heres what I've been thinking lately. I'm doing a PhD in Mathematics and Physics, and being involved in the scientific community you realise how fickle some ideas can be. I have a slight problem with the big bang theory as it is presented today. I suppose it boils down to the question of whether the Universe is a closed or open system. Assuming it is a closed system, implying that the universe is not interfered with by outside influences, then the big bang can be viewed as the only input to the system. This implies that if a closed universe was started elsewhere with the exact same big bang, then it makes sense to assume that it would propagate in exactly the same way as this universe. This means that free will is merely an illusion, and the fate of ourselves and our universe is determined. I suppose it boils down to determinism, but I feel a lot of determinism theories do not appreciate the scale of what I'm talking about.
There is also an issue with quantum mechanics and uncertainties which give rise to probabilistic approaches. I feel that these are nothing more than human limitations. Anyway, I'd like to get your thoughts and ideas.
S.
- Login to post comments
But isn't it committing a logical fallacy by trying to prove a negative? Like prove that we have a soul or whatever that isn't effected by casual determinism? Occam's razor would dictate we remove these things, which leaves us with determinism, which is where all the evidence points to right now.
There is no such fallacy. I don't know who came up with this "can't prove a negative" assertion, but it's complete garbage. Logically, proving -P isn't any different from proving P.
We can't demonstrate that there are no souls beyond a reasonable doubt because they are supernatural, not because we are trying to "prove a negative." We can neither test for their existence nor non-existence in any way, by definition.
Occam's razor does slice away the soul, but that doesn't give you determinism. The soul attempts to explain consciousness, so what you're left with is a naturalistic explanation for consciousness, not determinism.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Then the universe is not deterministic because there are acausal quantum effects.
And good luck on the PhD I'm doing one in physics myself.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Sorry but I think I worded this wrong, what I meant to say was: It is a logical fallacy to say there is a soul if there is no evidence for one. You can't disprove a negative, but you can't prove it either, so you are left with withholding judgement or disbelief. Naturally, you disbelieve things for which there are no evidence. Just like FSM, IPU, YHWH etc.
Read what I said above, there is absolutely no evidence for a soul whatsoever, and when this is challenged the typical response is 'it's immaterial". So just because there is no evidence for it doesn't mean you can claim it exists, because you are trying to make an assertion for which there is no proof.
You are mistaken. Determinism (of the causal variety) would advocate that the consciousness is the aggregate of your past experiences, provided by your sense organs and perceived and collated by your brain. No transparent or immaterial soul required whatsoever. That is the naturalistic explanation for consciousness, it's causal determinism.
You come across as a theist, with your adamant and vocal incorrectness; it is... disappointing.
I'm still confused about this.
Ok, I get that we can say quantum effects should be treated as unpredictable for the sake of any modeling we do in science. But when discussing something like determinism in philosophy, how can we say quantum effects nullify determinism...we don't actually understand *why* quantum events happen or don't happen do we?
I guess my question is this: Can you *prove* quantum events have no cause, or are we just saying quantum events need to be treated as chaotic because it isn't possible to determine what the cause might be?
If it is the former then you can say determinism is void, although I have to say I'm shocked that you can prove something is causeless. If the latter then all we can say is that for *practical* purposes determinism is a dead end because we will never be able to predict the inputs of an event to the ultimate source, but the theory of determinism is still valid.
So to put it another way, unless you can model the system causing quantum events and prove that system has a true randomness how can you say the known universe is not deterministic?
*disclaimer* I don't know anything about quantum theory, obviously.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
So what's the difference between a universe where these events are uncaused, and a universe where they're cause but the cause is fundamentally unknowable?
I don't think there's really any meaningful difference there, so I don't care whether it's uncaused or of undeterminable cause. It just doesn't make a difference.
And I should point out that the indeterminism we're talking about here is different from, say, a chaotic system. In a chaotic system, the result is predictable in principle, but practical limitations prevent an exact prediction. But in quantum mechanics, an exact prediction isn't even possible in principle.
So to answer your question, no. You can't prove that the events are uncaused. However, it has been shown that if there are causes, the causes are fundamentally unknowable (and not just unknowable for practical reasons). At this point we simply apply Occum's razor. Sure, we could posit these causes, but since they are fundamentally unknowable, they offer no explanatory power, so why bother?
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
Fundamentally, you are correct. This is a the reason why string theory has lost a lot of its potential and appeal. Even if there are 11 dimensions, many rolled up into a small space, the fact that we cannot test for it renders the theory rather stagnant. Even so, imagine how great it would be if it were true. This is the same stance I take with determinism.
Funny story, one of my lecturers was explaining aspects of string theory to us, and commented that when it was first introduced, everyone was jumping for joy and applauding it. Now on the other hand, people are shaking their heads thinking why did I think this was so great.
That is what I thought, which is why, as sated above, I think discussing determinism at length is an intellectual dead end...it doesn't *matter* if we don't have 'free will' because for all practical purposes we must proceed as if we do. After a little thinking early on I've never seen the determinism vs free will debate as anything but navel gazing. The only time I even talk about it debate is when a theist brings up free will as some sort of card to get out of the problem of evil.
As a non-technical person though it muddies the waters when people bring up quantum events in the determinism debate...or at least it did to me. Even if you pretended quantum events did not exist it will never be practical to model a large chaotic system like the brain down to even the atomic level that would be needed for creating an actual model of behavior to 'disprove' free will.
So I guess I'm saying that even without getting into quantum anything we're already at the point where every complex system in the universe is too complex to model and predict, much less the entire state of the universe.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
There is a very common exercise of calculating the efficiency of a mathematical model of a system of particles. The basic idea: how many particles does it take to model a single particle. Say for example, a computer contains a vast amount of particles, compared to the very few particles it can model. A 'perfect' modelling system theoretically would require just one particle to model a single particle. This implies that in order to model the universe, you would need at least the same number of particles as there are in the universe.
Which is a fun thing to bring up to theists who think God is omniscient. How can a being without any matter model a universe made of matter? Much less know the future and past of such a system, you would have to have a brain that was infinitely big, and a method of moving data and performing calculations that was infinitely fast.
Granted, they'll just say God is outside of the universe so nothing applies to the concept of him, but I enjoy pointing out the basic absurdity of even attempting a discussion about belief in (as Brian likes to say) an invisible immaterial brain with no brain, and the specifics of what that particular logical contradiction thinks about human interaction with their private parts.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Okay, I'll summarize what I think you're attempting to state with these two articles, and you tell me if I got it right.
- When arguing for the existence of the soul, theists will claim that we have no evidence that the soul doesn't exist. If we cannot prove that the soul does not exist, the theist will claim that they are justified in their belief that it does. This is a fallacy.
- In doing this, the theist is also committing an argument from ignorance. They do not understand what consciousness is and how it came to be. Because they want to believe in a soul, they will use this ignorance to claim that a soul is the correct explanation by default, even though they have provided no positive evidence for the soul.
You mean, it is a logical fallacy to say that there is a soul just because there is no evidence that there isn't a soul?
I'm still not sure what you mean by this. Perhaps you're using the term "negative" in a way that I'm not familiar with?
I interpret it as simply -P, in propositional logic. "Don't have a dog." "Not living in Australia." "Doesn't come with instructions."
If P is souls exist, then -P is souls don't exist. Logically, you can certainly disprove -P by proving P, and you can certainly prove -P. You simply can't prove these things with regard to the soul because the soul is supernatural. It is conceptualized and defined in such a way that it is not possible for it to be proven or disproven.
I agree.
I agree.
Oh? That depends on whether you can show that our natural world is entirely determined. I used to think that the universe was determined, but with all this talk of quantum flibberty-gibbit, I'm not sure anymore.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Pardon my ignorance on this but in order to have an outside influence, wouldn't something need something else to exist outside of it? What exists outside of the universe if the universe is defined as "all existing matter and space" and is infinite?
As far as free will: it clearly exists on an individual level but not on a universal level. I can choose what to eat, who to have relationships with, what to wear, etc but I can't choose anything from a universal standpoint. I can't jump off a 50 story building to the concrete and live unless I comply with the set "laws of the universe" and use a parachute and allow air to slow my fall. If seems like you are relating free will (what you can control) with universal law (which you can not control)
Yea, but theoretically you chose to eat a taco because of the inputs into your life up to the time of that decision rather than a true choice.
Wind time back to the exact moment you picked taco over cheeseburger. Everything is the same. The environment are the same, you're thoughts are the same, your brain chemistry is the same, the quantum state of your matter is the same and the taco just smells *so good*. Would you make the same choice?
Of course you would, you wouldn't have any choice but to choose as you did. And there lays the lie about free will.
And you touched on what it would take to have true free will...an outside influence. Most theists believe that our 'souls', rather than our brains/bodies/conglomerate matter are what actually makes us, 'us'. Essentially, we have supernatural ghosts riding our brains around like a jockey on a racing horse (They wouldn't say it like that of course), and so those beings have free will (since they are not made of matter[don't ask how that works!]). An easy way to disprove this concept is to take some anti-depressants, or some caffeine. Unless ghosts are susceptible to drugs, you've just proven that human thought and choice is driven by materialistic determinism.
I'd explain this better but I just ate lunch and I'm pretty sure I'm about to go into a coma. Someone else will probably come along and to a better job.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I think your point contradicts itself. 1. You said in order for us to have free will we have to have an outside influence 2. You also said that our environment and past experience dictate our actions. How is that not an outside influence? If my life is just animalistic behaviors then explain where logic, reasoning, knowledge, emotion, and a host of other things fit into that mindset, they clearly exist. If I can't logically make a decision, explain why every person doesn't react the same way to the same situations? When given a story, why can one person accept it as true and another person reject it as a lie?
Your environment and past experiences are a part of you (and you of them). Perhaps the outside influence being discussed is to be divorced from you.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I think you might be confusing two concepts, or I was not clear about what I meant. By outside influence I mean outside the naturalistic universe. I think you mean outside of your brain.
Is there any evidence that logic, reason, emotion and the other host of things aren't animalistic behaviors? I think non human animals display all of those to some degree.
When given a story, one person believes and another person accepts because their entire lives have been a series of differing inputs (genetics, chemistry changes during gestation, nutrition, physical environment, etc) and experiences and reactions to those things. Those experiences and inputs resulted in an organization of matter than performed a certain way in a certain situation. They chose differently because they were different...if those where identical people, down to the very last experience and the very last atom and the very last quantum state...then they would make the same decision.
The time travel example is to show that when states of matter are equal results are the same. The reason we can't easily model this in humans is that our own closed systems are incredibly complex. Even if we cloned two babies and raised them in an identical manner, the speed in which a chemical reaction during gestation in one child might mean a large personality difference.
Thought experiment: You enter a machine that makes two exact duplicates (we'll ignore quantum states for this example, assume they are identical). Those duplicates both come to consciousness in identical (down to the atom!) rooms and each room has two identical (down to the atom!) things in them: One taco. One cheeseburger. Your clones become ravenous! Do they both make the same initial food choice? They are identical, with identical experiences, chemistries and material makeup.
If you think they would make opposite choices, then you believe in some form of dualism, where our mental states are not governed by only our brains, but by something outside the physical universe. That is something you would need to defend.
Disclaimer: I'm still in a coma.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I've often pondered this idea, and the only logical way I could see a 'soul' functioning in a real sense is by having the brain function as an interface for it.
What I mean is, all our memories, ideas, everything that makes a person individual is stored purely inside the brain. The 'soul' could then function as the observer, but is limited to the functions of the brain it is interfacing with. This also implies that if two people switched souls, there would be no difference in the persons physical behaviour. Its very much just a nice theoretical idea, but I like it nonetheless.
You're right there was a misinterpretation.
The cloning example you used is a very interesting point. However, I don't believe I was making an argument for dualism. Dualism, as I understand it, is two opposing powers of good and evil. I'm not sure that choosing the taco would be considered good and choosing the hamburger would be considered evil. (or visa versa) It's entirely possible that those two controlled duplicates could choose separately, there's no current way to prove or disprove that theory. However, my argument was in favor of free will on a a personal level. (not on a universal level) I do know that I am a product of my own personal experiences, choices, and a list of other things that make me who I am and they alter the way I live my life and make choices.
free will: the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one's own discretion.
If I'm tired, I have the choice to go to bed, deal with it, or open a can of Mt. Dew. Neither is good, neither is evil, but I can weigh the options and make a logical conclusion as to what will happen in either of these three situations and make a choice as to which to do. That is free will.
Where I get stumped is what the purpose of putting the idea into the debate is, at least at this point.
I'm not sure the concept of soul is needed to explain anything at this point. We don't know details about how our minds work, but our educated guesses are better than saying, 'ghost'.
Hmm, that is an interesting idea. Like we are just reality TV for angels?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Dualism is the idea that there are two 'real' things, one physical, like a brain or a fork, and the other supernatural, like a soul, or God, or an angel. The philisophical idea of dualism doesn't have anything to do with morality.
If you think the two identical beings would choose differently though, that means you think there is something non-physical about our thought process, since all the physical parts *are* equal. Memories, emotions, etc are all controlled physically, and those are identical in the clones and their environment is identical. So what force, outside the physical, is influencing their behavior?
Well...I guess it depends on who you are talking to. If you are talking to someone who believes in dualism, that is free will, because you can make real choices that are somehow above or beyond your physical being. If you are talking to a non-dualist, like a naturalist or materialist (most atheists) then that is not free will, that is simply the illusion of free will. To a materialist you are the sum of your experiences, you act the way you do because of what has influenced you before, and at no point do you *really* have any choice about anything.
Now you might ask, and rightly so, what the difference is between these viewpoints, since even a materialist still lives on day after day making choices just like the dualist. The difference is perspective...and a good chunk of it comes down to how we interpret morality and make our decisions.
If you want to dig into the concept deeper I'd love to talk about it. Or you can just go and read some yourself! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
hehe, its something like that. Personally, I believe the most logical solution is that consciousness is nothing more than an illusion, due to the complexity of so many neurons firing in a moment. I like to use the example of a painting using pointillism. Up close, it looks like individual dots, but if you look at the entire picture it seems to be something more.
Yes, you have summarized my view.
Yes, this is what I meant.
Yes I think I may be using the term wrong. What I mean to say is they have constructed their negatives in such a way as acquiring evidence of absence is impossible.
Yeh the quantum stuff is definitely throwing a spanner in the works. But I'm not really sure if that stuff works on our brains.
You are not as theist-minded as I thought. I apologise.
I like the idea and the implications of the ghostly drug trial, but does it necessarily prove materialistic determinism? Couldn't one say for example that the drug experiment might simply show that it makes the brain harder or easier to 'jockey'?
Well, proven is a pretty strong word, I guess.
But we're at the point where every piece of evidence we have points to materialistic determinism.
I try to think of it this way sometimes: If you started with zero bias and tried to figure out how the brain works, is there *any* way you would ever come up with our actions being driven by a poltergeist? I'm pretty sure the only reason this idea even exists is because it is ancient religious superstition that people seem to like.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I'm not convinced that every piece of evidence points to materialistic determinism. Isn't general relativity a deterministic theory while quantum mechanics is probabilistic?
About ever coming up with the whole poltergeist idea within a completely bias free frame of reference, I agree, no, probably not. Doing that seems to me predominantly a product of anthropomorphism.
I ask the quantum nerds about that a lot. From everything I've heard, quantum stuff only makes practical determinism false, that is, we would never be able to create 100% accurate predictive models because of the chaos caused by quantum events at the lowest level. However, since no-one is ever going it be able to model things that small for something as large as the human brain, even to the atomic level, it is a moot point anyway.
From a theoretical/philosophical standpoint, which is what determinism is all about, quantum stuff doesn't change anything, at least not at this point. No-one has claimed that quantum events are without cause, they've simply said that the cause of quantum events is unknown to us, and might not be knowable from out frame of reference. If someone could *prove* that quantum events are literally uncaused then...well, it still doesn't matter actually. See below.
So if everything is deterministic down to the atomic level, and then quantum events are truly random, I still don't see how it would change the fact that we are 'controlled' deterministically. If our reactions to something end up changing because a quantum bit went one way instead of another way, we're still governed by that change. There still isn't any dualism. All you would prove is that determinism has a random component, right? Being unpredictable isn't the same as having free will.
To actually kill determinism and go with a system a theist would approve of you would have to show that quantum events have no physical cause (proving this is likely impossible), then you would have to show that the poltergeist is actually influencing the outcome of the quantum events towards a purpose. I find that highly unlikely. I'm not sure if anyone credible has even put that forward as a theory. I guess some people have though, like Deepak Chopra, but I would not consider him credible, he is just appealing to magic.
I'm happy, I had not really thought that through before!
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Quantum is probabilistic due to the limitations of experimental observation, and this allows us to push forward with more pressing questions within the field.
Hmmm, well, it "works" on everything, right? Quantum physics applies to everything at the.......quantum level.
No problem.
Lol.
I came to the exact same conclusion when I was discussing free will with someone a couple weeks ago. Even if our universe really does have an element of chance to it, I don't interpret that as making our "will" any more "free." Generally, "free will" implies that there is some "immaterial" "me" who ultimately decides my actions and thoughts independent of the external world. The very phrase seems to assumes that my consciousness can only be "persuaded" to take certain actions by the natural world, but can never be forced, because it doesn't count the consciousness itself as part of the natural world. If this is how we define free will, then quantum physics is irrelevant. Our will would still be completely constrained by the physical world; the only possible difference might be that we are constrained by some probability of different events rather than some specific event.
For example, let's say that we replay ten years of my life over and over. At the end of that time period, I go into a store to buy ice cream. If the universe is "determined," then maybe I'll get chocolate ice cream no matter how many times I replay those ten years. If there's an element of chance to the universe, maybe I'll get chocolate ice cream 90% of the time and strawberry ice cream for the remaining 10%. Is that free will? I don't think it is.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Is it really an observational limitation? It seems that Heisenberg thinks differently if I'm reading this right, from wikipedia:
Published by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, the principle means that it is impossible to determine simultaneously both the position and velocity of an electron or any other particle with any great degree of accuracy or certainty. Moreover, his principle is not a statement about the limitations of a researcher's ability to measure particular quantities of a system, but it is a statement about the nature of the system itself as described by the equations of quantum mechanics.
It is definitely not just a human limitation. The limits on quantum mechanical systems are not like the limits on chaotic systems. With the latter, we are limited for practical reasons. With the former, we are limited in principle. No matter how advanced our measurement device gets we won't break the uncertainty limit. That's what makes quantum uncertainty different from classical uncertainty.
And the majority of physicists agree with Heisenberg here. It's really a matter of Occam's Razor when you get down to it. Why say that there are definite "hidden" attributes or causes or whatnot if they are fundamentally beyond our reach and offer no additional explanatory power? When you get rid of the extra "hidden" stuff you're left with Heisenberg's interpretation.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
I think it is because the concept of something truly causeless is irksome
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Yet here we are with string theory....and all of it's 11 fantastical dimensions.
How hypothetical is string theory?
First of all i didnt read every post, so sorry if i repeat things allready said.
We dont have to call for string theory here. It boils down to the question if there are hidden variables that determine the behaviour of a particle. There are so called local variables and global ones. Lets take for example the beta decay. We cannot predict exactly when it will happen, all we can do is determine a probability of the decay after a certain time. Now the question is is QM incoplete, and there are hidden parameters that "decide" when the decay occurs. Einstein was absolutely convinced there where. In this case it would be local hidden variables. But bell´s theorem showed that there couldnt be any :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_hidden_variable_theory
A bit later physicists discovered that all hidden variabel theorems would cause logic inconsistences :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hidden_variable_theory
So we see that not everything in the universe is deterministic, at least on the level of quantum mechanics. So much for laplace´s demon ^^ Some scientists even speculate that what we perceive as free will is in reality just QM at work in our brain.
Be patient: English is not my first language.
Great post! I would tend to agree with your last sentence, as I believe that it is probably the most likely scenario.
I'm of the idea that Free Will requires pre-existing conditions to exist. If you'll excuse the redundancies and spelling errors in what I'm about to post (I wrote it two years ago, when my spelling wasn't stellar), this is my view on the matter of free will:
How the mind perceives any experience is subjective and particular to the brain in question. For example, two twins might have the same early experiences but different perceptions. Because the mind is free to percieve something to it's liking it seems to support Free Will, as the brain chooses how to percieve an event. Unless one wants to make the claim that for Free Will to exist, it must also be free of the brain. But the brain is what defines who someone is, as it is the one who analyzes and controls what the body does. Without the brain, the body can make no choice, and thus has no will (and thus, no free will). This would create a paradox.
The second claim that might be made is that experiences interfere with Free Will. But, supposing that is true, a brain without any experience, any sense (sight, touch, etc.) cannot come up with it's own experiences.
Suppose we make a babie's brain unable to see, touch, etc. and lose all of it's memories. What would that baby think of? Quite simply, nothing. It would not be able to imagine colors, as the mind must first experience them to know about them. It would not be able to imagine anything sentient, as it's brain would not have the knowledge to do so (if one has never felt something soft, one cannot imagine what softness would feel like). In fact, the brain would be unable to imagine anything at all, not even shapes, sounds, etc.
This too creates a paradox, as the mind, having no choices, would be unable to make any choices, something fundamental to Free Will, and the babie's subjected to this, would be unable to ask to experience anything as it has not experienced anything. In other words, the brain would be more or less "dead".
The only thing not subject to Free Will is the attributes of the brain. This is not an arguement against Free Will, as the brain would have to be free of itself to actually be able to chose it's attributes. But if that were so, the brain that is choosing characteristics and attributes for itself would have to be free from any characteristics and attributes itself, so, how then, would it chose? It would be unable to, and be a paradox.
Quite simply, for Free Will to exist, there have to be pre-existing characteristics that define the individual for the individual to base it's actions on it's own characteristics. That these characteristics are not chosen is natural, as if an undefined individual tried to characterize itself, it would be unable to (see paragraph above). In other words, after having attributes and characteristics "assigned" via heredity, etc. (as, without these, the individual would not be able to make a choice, or it would be random), the individual has Free Will, and has the free will to subject an experience to it's own liking.
---
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
Ok, I read through your post very carefully. Firstly I want to make this remark:
Your second claim regarding 'experiences' is essentially an argument which cuts off any brain inputs. You use the example of sight and touch but what you fail to realize is that you have neurotransmitter receptors in your brain which are affected by chemicals running through your brain. These affect our moods as well as many other things, but essentially these can be considered inputs. This is why different drugs can affect our perception of reality.
My point is that your argument falls down at this point, as the brain cannot function without these inputs and would cease to be a brain in this case. However, lets follow your argument all the way through. You claim that this complete sensory deprivation would create a paradox, as you need to perceive a choice in order to be able to respond to it. I suppose you are alluding to the point that we define what free will is, and therefore it could be considered a man made idea and not objectively valid. The important thing to remember is that outside of life, there is no possibility of free will. So trying to debunk it by creating a 'dead' baby isn't the right way to go about it.
Anyway, I'm of the opinion that free will is an illusion, but I believe I'm of that opinion for different reasons. My reason is that our brains are nothing more than learning machines, and we learn based on our inputs. This indicates to me that given the same inputs and brain state, our brain would always react in the same way (disregarding any random QM effects going on within our brain that would interfere with this).
S.
Yes, I meant that the Brain had no inputs that would be registered by the Consciousness and generate what we term "experience".
I had a brain in a coma in mind, which, to the best of my knowledge, does not have the input of emotions, but is still a brain. I suppose where we got lost is that when I said brain, what I truly refer to is no consciousness. I haven't thought this all the way out, but I don't see how proving that free will requiring a consciousness acts as an argument against it.
I agree that the brain should react in the same way ever time. This, I think, is not an argument against free will, as if the brain would act differently under the same conditions, the decision would be random, and not a reflection of a will, but rather of chance.
PS: I should make it known that I have only passing knowledge on the issue of free will, compatibilism, libertarianism, and incompatibilism and no schooling on Philosophy, so if anything I say has obvious philosophical implications that I seemed to ignore, they are not a result of cherry-picking but ignorance.
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
Lol its ok, I have zero schooling in philosophy. My point is basically that our behaviour is governed by our environment (the inputs we receive) and therefore I view living beings as nothing more than complicated machines. This is a hard deterministic approach and is an argument against free will.
I'm an idiot.