Do we have free will, or are we fated?

[spiffymonkey 10]

Originally posted by Dragon

Only when you and this person walk the same path - the exact same path - can you hope to go the entire journey together and face the apparent choices together.

 

In what way does hope fit in with your described theory? You have already stated that "you already know what is going to happen and because of this you take the steps to ensure that it does", but clearly that cannot be the case if hope exists at all.

 

I'm afraid that, whatever the "driving force" behind the universe, your arguments so far have been self-contradictory by switching between two viewpoints, one inside the system and one out.

 

If there are, as you suggest, thousands of outcomes and you 'choose' the right one, and yet you have no free will and cannot really choose at all, then are there really other outcomes? Would these other outcomes exist if the one that is taken is predetermined?

 

In response to "Solip... wha?", read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism

[the_rudeboy 12]

I believe in fate and destiny. I think things happen, both good and bad, for a reason.

[Cyclone 10]

I was thinking about this again last night (when i should have been asleep).

 

The idea of fate implies that some other being (maybe god) has planned things in advance.

This is a subtly different idea from that of determinism, where the entire future state of every particle in the universe is determined by it's previous state (and thus the entire thing could in theory be predicted had you enough processing power and information).

 

The first I find to be completely contrary to my world view, since I don't believe in any 'higher power'.

The second is just inconsistent with our knowledge of how the universe works according to the physics that I understand (ie quantum uncertainty). Historically we have moved from determinism to non-determinism and back again as we refine our paradigms to describe the world.

Each time we think we've figured it out, we manage to dig a little deeper and find even more fundamental particles.

The limit of our current understanding though is quantum behaviour, quarks, exotic particles and types of radiation etc... All of them demonstrate some predictable things, but they all also demonstrate things which appear to be fundamentally unpredictable.

 

So if that is correct then ultimately everything in the macroscopic world is impossible to predict with 100% accuracy. Of course things like gravity and thus an apple falling when you drop it, and it's exact speed when it hits appear to be predictable, simply because of the scale on which we observe them. But our brains are working on a much finer scale, I think there are postulations about memory store being some sort of quantum effect to do with water and very small tubes (could have dreamt that though, or read it in some sci-fi), in which case it's not unreasable to think that the same randomness governs our very very basic brain electro-chemistry.

 

The mind is obviously not the brain, it's an emergent property that we don't fully understand yet. it certainly comes from the activity of the brain though, stop that and to the best of our knowledge the mind stops with it.

[LordChaverly 10]

I thought it wouldn't be too long before a poster alluded to quantum theory. Perhaps we should take the discussion further by introducing Sokal's famous article entitled 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity'. Prepare for your minds to be well and truly boggled.

 

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/transgress_v2/transgress_v2_singlefile.html

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by spiffymonkey

In what way does hope fit in with your described theory? You have already stated that "you already know what is going to happen and because of this you take the steps to ensure that it does", but clearly that cannot be the case if hope exists at all.

[/url]

 

I thought dragon was airing a number of interesting points about the perception of reality, synchronicity, predestination etc. I don't think he's trying to be authoritative, just to widen the discussion a little.

 

LordChav - what has that spoof cultural studies paper got to do with it? Alan Sokal is a physicist who tired of the appropriation of scientific ideas by idiots. Cyclone is referring to a speculative idea by Roger Penrose - an eminent scientist and mathematician, who eloquently argues for the incomputability of mind. Infamously he put forward that recently discovered 'microtubules' in nerve tissue could (theoretically) sustain internal quantum states for sufficient time periods which could then be amplified into macroevents.

 

His idea of microtubules playing host to quantum events has largely been rubbished. But the incomputability and indeterminancy of the mind points to it being a phenomenon not wholly rooted in deterministic processes, such as a finite number of connected neurons. Penrose naturally alighted upon a branch of physics that is not rooted in deterministic processes - quantum events.

 

There is no extant quantum theory of consciousness, but do not be surprised - Penrose has been right before.

 

Dragon - the fact that your conscious mind lags a full half second behind what is happening in reality, and the experience is then 'back dated' to synchronise with your actions is of tremendous significance, when it comes to the illusion of self and will.

 

You start typing out a reply to my post. Half a second later you actually decide to reply to my post. Your decision to reply was experienced after it was made, elsewhere in your mind.

 

That's really in answer to my own question - what is free will?

 

The answer is that free will, as we experience our decision making processes, is a complete illusion, served to us half a second afterward and backdated to fit chronologically. When this misfires or somehow malfunctions, we get the sensation of deja vu.

 

Do we have free will? No. Is our future determined? No.

 

I do like the idea of consciousnesses navigating an eternal firmament of alternate realities, bifurcating at the collapse of each and every single waveform, which is my version of what Dragon has been getting accross.

[spiffymonkey 10]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

You start typing out a reply to my post. Half a second later you actually decide to reply to my post. Your decision to reply was experienced after it was made, elsewhere in your mind.

 

Before the discussion goes on much further, can we kill this silly idea? The concept being discussed in relating to your reaction to an event being almost instantaneous, and your conscious reconciliation of that event being 500ms behind reality.

 

For instance, if somebody points a gun at you, you duck. Do you have to sit and consciously wait for it to register before you look at the options, then decide that, out of the options availa... BANG! you're dead. No decision process is required to react, but you do reconcile that and decide it was the right thing to do AFTER the fact.

 

What you have just described is completely different. If I read your post, I may decide to reply. Only then do I actually go through the motions and hit reply. It's not a conscious thought process to click 'Quote' because I've done it loads of times, and so I do, but the decision to do that preceded the action. At no point do I suddenly realise that my right arm has, quite by its own volition, clicked 'Quote' and started typing a reply.

[Phanerothyme 12]

Originally posted by spiffymonkey

Before the discussion goes on much further, can we kill this silly idea? The concept being discussed in relating to your reaction to an event being almost instantaneous, and your conscious reconciliation of that event being 500ms behind reality.

 

I'm really sorry but that does not make sense.(to me)

 

is that in meant to be an is?

 

Granted the rather poor example is not a very good illustration of the rather esoteric experiment - but I'm not talking about reactions to an event, I am talking about volition - instigating a conscious decision to act, and having your conscious self post rationalise the decision, then 'backdating' the conscious 'decision' to appear synchronous with the action instigated. The 'decision to act' was taken by you before your conscious mind 'made' the decision.

 

This merely moves the locus of certain volitions away from the conscious self, or 'I'.

 

The matter of skin stimulation, autonomous or 'subconscious' reaction, as explored by Libet seems to run counter to the rest of his conclusions, but it's still a rapidly developing field of research.

[spiffymonkey 10]

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

is that in meant to be an is?

 

Erm, yes ...

 

Originally posted by Phanerothyme

Granted the rather poor example is not a very good illustration of the rather esoteric experiment - but I'm not talking about reactions to an event, I am talking about volition - instigating a conscious decision to act, and having your conscious self post rationalise the decision, then 'backdating' the conscious 'decision' to appear synchronous with the action instigated. The 'decision to act' was taken by you before your conscious mind 'made' the decision.

 

That's exactly what i was saying - a decision to act based on stimulus is a 'reaction'. However, that decision is not conscious. The conscious then reconciles that decision after the fact. This is widely known.

 

However, the examples are nonsensical. If I decide to go to the shops, do I not decide that until after I do it? Or if I decide to make a cup of tea? Or reply to a post?

 

The answer is no. This particular facet of human conscious only relates to those decisions made WITHOUT conscious thought that are subsequently rationalised. A better example might be this:

 

Scenario 1: You are walking through Meadowhall, and decide to leave. You head out the door and let it swing closed. It hits a small old lady square in the face.

 

Scenario 2: You are walking through Meadowhall, and decide to leave. You head out the door and let it swing closed, but hold it just long enough to ensure that the small old lady behind can hold the door for herself.

 

In either of those situations, the concious mind was probably not thinking about holding the door. However, faced with that situation, some people would do the former, and some would do the latter. This behaviour would then be rationalised as 'unkind' or 'kind' based on conscious analysis of the situation.

 

However, this in no ways proves that we are somehow living '500ms behind reality', but rather that some of the behaviour of the 'human animal' is not defined by conscious decision making, but by instinct and training. The little old lady getting smacked in the face was not 'predestined'; it was just a consequence of the carelessness of an individual.

[Cyclone 10]

this must be an interesting topic, I was thinking about it again last night just as I fell asleep.

 

The idea that actions are taken 1/2s before your superego is aware of them. How does that square with having an internal dialogue, and making a decision based on that. Is the internal dialogue happening 1/2s before you 'hear' it.

I don't think that even if this is correct and the superego is just putting together events afterwards, that it means we don't have free will.

It would just mean that the choices we are making are being made by our subego's (i presume that's how the idea works?). At the end of they day though, they aren't predetermined and nothing else makes the decisions for us, whether the illlusion of self/self awareness and consciousness is just a really clever trick is irrelevant.

 

The microtubules, yep, that's what I was half remembering Phan. You do seem to have a good memory for details.

[Phanerothyme 12]

http://www.consciousentities.com/libet.htm

 

 

interesting reading...

[Jamie 10]

The thing is, an understanding, or trying to understand the process (of how the universe evolves and changes through time) is not some external event that is seperate from the process of the universe itself.

 

You (and indeed your thoughts and all and any action you generate) are an integral part of the universe.

 

So that, any map or model you try to hold of the universe, is not seperate from the universe itself, therefore it is impossible to hold a true representation of reality in your mind.

 

So you're all wrong, and infact, it's not possible to be 'right'.

 

HA!

 

Edit:

 

However, you're all right too, because what you thing, is.

[DragonofAna 10]

Originally posted by spiffymonkey

In what way does hope fit in with your described theory? You have already stated that "you already know what is going to happen and because of this you take the steps to ensure that it does", but clearly that cannot be the case if hope exists at all.

 

Hope exists because we cannot see where our path is going. Our awareness is of the now and the events surrounding the now, and not based upon what is going to take place in 12 months time. Although this whatever will occur, our awareness does not yet know this and therefore it has hope. If we were aware of where our path was going to take us every step of the way then what would be the point in travelling it.

 

 

I'm afraid that, whatever the "driving force" behind the universe, your arguments so far have been self-contradictory by switching between two viewpoints, one inside the system and one out.

 

I already stated that there are numerous theories and none are restricted. There are overlaps. Try writing about a single theory without involvement of any other and see how far you get.

 

If there are, as you suggest, thousands of outcomes and you 'choose' the right one, and yet you have no free will and cannot really choose at all, then are there really other outcomes? Would these other outcomes exist if the one that is taken is predetermined?

 

If you take just one part of a theory and only look at that one part then you are hardly likely to see the theory at all. For every possability there is an alternate reality. Try to imagine three copies of a film you know, that are exactly identical except for a couple of frames missing from each one that appears in the others. These few frames can alter the entire flow of the film whilst leaving it with the same beginning and the same ending.

 

In reponse to Phanerothyme - I was not disagreeing with you. The fact I agree has already been predetermined But I would suggest that this state can be measured in more than msecs. It is likely that the predetermination took place long before the events. So I actually decided to post to this thread about 7 weeks before it actually appeared on Sheff Forums.

 

And the 7 week factor is just an example.

 

Dragon