Free Will - Intro

[PiratGeneralen]

But that is only in my mind for fake

[PiratGeneralen]

But i imagine a fantasy free will...

[PiratGeneralen]

???? i dont get it

[rozeboosje]

You need to watch the whole series. But in a nutshell: I think the purist philosophical definition of "free will" is not only impossible to achieve, but useless to boot. I propose a more pragmatic use of the term, and then set out to show that THAT type of "free will" can be shown to exist. That is little consolation to those who were looking for True Free Will, but I don't care :-)

[PiratGeneralen]

@rozeboosje Free will is not possible in theory i think

but i dont know but it sounds stupid to me.

[rozeboosje]

I think an awful lot of confusion is due to what people think free will actually IS, and then they argue against it. My counter argument is: let's look at that "purist" definition of free will, and aside from the fact that indeed it would be impossible, what use would it be to anybody to have that? Then I propose how to go back to a more useful definition of the term, and one that is actually achievable in reality.

[PiratGeneralen]

@rozeboosje A reaction without a cause you tell me ?

[rozeboosje]

You can try, but don't get your hopes up.

[cardellacole2]

does physical reality include mind, mind as a physical , mind being a projection from sub atomic energy traveling into a photon as a movement in time [ from here ] as a subconcious action of sub atomic energy , [ to there ] the point of reflection an atomic surface in a cosncious awareness as the now

[rozeboosje]

mind is, I think, a manifestation of extremely complex feedback patterns at the edge of chaos. But it is firmly rooted in reality, like, I think again, everything is.

[cardellacole2]

for me the ether contains all {chaos and order] in pure harmony as pure energy and is the force that holds wave and particle together in light and as such is firmly rooted in reality

[TheHooraman]

rozeboosje, if our mind is just cause and effect... based on the science that we can measure then you say your thoughts are the sum of what happen in reality?

[rozeboosje]

Our thoughts are real manifestations of something real occuring firmly inside reality. To claim anything else is absurd. I didn't say anything about sums though, and I certainly did not mention "cause and effect" anywhere.

[funckbush]

You need to stop thinking so hard

[rozeboosje]

No muppet tells me what to do. Blocked.

[yupiie]

Yeah, I´m enjoying the vids so far. A hello from Brazil.

[tk050305cnx]

Well, wrong premise...

If physical reality is all there is then what is consciousness, mathematics, and information, just to name three examples?

Free will hinges on consciousness and therefore the question arises: is consciousness deterministic? If not, then no matter how powerful a computer you have, it cannot compute future states. It can at best give probabilistic approximations of future states.

[rozeboosje]

Patterns

[rozeboosje]

Information is closely related to energy, or, more appropriately, entropy. Energy is part of what we describe reality as. So, therefore, is entropy and energy. Mathematics is a manifestation of our collective brain output. Even though it's highly abstract it is still just as much a physical manifestation as anything else we do, including consciousness.

[premed2]

The solutions to the Schrodinger's equation are probabilistic—not deterministic. I've worked with the Schrodinger equation and this is not a semantic issue; your statement is factually incorrect. Einstein's objection that "God does not play dice" and Bohr's rejoinder "Stop telling God what to do" refers specifically to this fact.

At a fundamental level the universe appears to be probabilistic—and non-local.

[rozeboosje]

> your statement is factually incorrect

Which statement? Sorry - it's been a while since I recorded this.

That aside, it doesn't help. Even if the puppets are pulled by random strings, they're still puppets...

[premed2]

Oh my beloved Schrodinger's equation. It is a very beautiful thing and you go bad mouthing it by calling it deterministic! I don't believe in free will so I'll let it go this time. :P

At the level at which human consciousness operates most quantum effects are thought to average out so as to closely approximate a deterministic model.

[rozeboosje]

Oh sorry. I see. I thought it was the "collapse" of the wave function that was probabilistic, whereas he wave function itself doesn't contain a "random" element.

[GetMeThere1]

Since one prerequisite is a demonstration that the ultimate computer would fail to predict "what you would do next" then I think you must lose your argument. Because the only proof that you have the "ultimate computer" is that it COULD predict what you would do.

Perhaps you're going to claim contrariness: The computer makes the prediction, then you do the opposite. I would say that is NOT free will. Is that would you have in mind for further episodes? Why aren't your episodes numbered?

[rozeboosje]

No, that's not the claim I'm making. The episodes are in a play list. Check it out.

view_play_list?p=1186D880F0A3A­0E1

That's where you'll get them in the right order.

[robheusd]

Free will is an illusion, since our cognition / consciousness of our intentions, decissions or will happen strictly AFTER our brain has already made a decission for us.

There is no part of our brain where our so-called "free-will" resides or where we make decissions, there are just independent processes within our brain that compete in a the-winner-takes-it-all competition.

[rozeboosje]

Depends on what you understand "free will" to be. I'd like you to watch the other episodes too. I do end up concluding that we DO have "free will", but we have to be realistic and redefine the phrase in a way that makes sense in a deterministic universe. To summarise: it makes no sense to dismiss a phrase as widely used as "free will" just because using a strict philosophical definition it cannot exist, and I propose a definition compatible with reality.

[robheusd]

"Free will" in the sense that our consciousness determines our actions is an illusion, since the brain already determines the action (the "ready potential" which we can measure) strictly before we become conscious of what we intend to do. We merely "invent" a story to explain to ourselves why we do certain things.

However, whatever our brain decides to do, and even when "free will" is an illusion, we are still responsible for what we do.

[rozeboosje]

In one of the episodes I put paid to that idea. I describe a scenario that requires full conscious attention to make the right decision. (choosing between two doors). After that, sure, the "ready potential" does still spike before the person gets up and walks toward the correct door, but the decision which one it is is something that is the result of conscious deliberation and it cannot be anything else. :-)

Still. It's a deterministic ability to evaluate choices. (more...)

[rozeboosje]

And one could argue that a person is still at the mercy of the mechanics underlying it. But I see "free will" as an ability to understand choices, evaluate them, and making a decision based on your wants and needs. That can be fully deterministic, and still I can't see how anyone could want a will that is any "freeer" than that. I'm happy to use the term "free will" to describe exactly that, and in that sense I'm happy to state that "I have free will".

[2012song]

Is a thought a physical reality? Where is your thought? Were do thoughts come from and how can you pass them to other people?

Is what you think real? Thoughts are non- physical, and not real. Right now, as you contemplate this, what you are (at your core) is absorbed in your thoughts and therefore absorbed in something that isn't real.

[rozeboosje]

Thought is the pattern of firing neurons and the constant creation and destruction of synaptic connections between neurons.

What thought *is* is very simple to explain. How it *manifests* itself is a different story. The nature of the pattern is simple. The pattern itself is extremely complex and in constant flux. The pattern is real. The firing is real. The thoughts are real. They're just not as tangible as, say, a brick would be.

[galaxydreams]

you still didn't answer the question. Let me rephrase it for 2012song, Are thoughts a physical reality? You say ALL things are. Would a thought be included in "all things"?

[rozeboosje]

In the end, thoughts are the result of real electrochemical reactions in the brain. The pattern is of course a real pattern. The firing is real firing. So yes, they're real. But it's the pattern that constitutes the thought, not the physical make-up of the neurons.

[galaxydreams]

So thoughts are NOT a physical being. Thanks for answering.

[rozeboosje]

Building a straw man, are we?

[galaxydreams]

not at all. I thought you answered your question quite well. I thought with my last comment I ended the debate.

Have a good weekend :)

[rozeboosje]

Well, thoughts are patterns. In theory you can change the substrate in which these patterns occur, without changing the patterns themselves, even if in practice this may not work. But if we could create mechanical components that could behave exactly like neurons we could replace the brain with them, and the person that "runs" on that brain would never notice. But the patterns cannot exist outside any substrate, so they are ultimately physical

[clubmondobizarre]

i would think that we have free will if a god does not exist. because if an omniscient god exists, then your life is already predestined. but if your life isn't written in stone and you can change the outcome, then you have free will.

[rozeboosje]

Yes. But then there is the whole issue of "determinism". A lot of people think that that is incompatible with "free will" and in this series I explore that problem, see where it leads, and how much of "free will" can be rescued.

[scottiepatton]

Alright skipping all the determinates and complexities and predictabilities .......you can't figure out the universe....lol...understand this is freewill. with open mind and understanding..God created this world, good and evil exists as fact, the choice we as creation have is to follow God or live our own lives that not of God.. in the end Heaven and Hell....live life according to the end choice you determine to live....it is your choice. noone can make it for you......free will

[rozeboosje]

fuck off

[popeyroach]

why does everyone assume the workings of quantum mechanics is random. what evidance is there to support this? randomness is simply the easiest available description for a behaviour we dont understand

[rozeboosje]

I don't know. It hasn't really got anything to do with the subject of this video though. Whether it's truly random or not, it won't be of any help in achieving anything remotely like an unrestricted, totally "free" will. Even if it were truly random, if we're puppets dancing to strings it would merely change us into puppets dancing to randomly pulled strings instead.

[hydraulikz]

and if its random, how can you say you WILLED it. freewill is nonsensical.

[rozeboosje]

Yup - that sort of free will is indeed

[popeyroach]

a common possible misconception, i hear this alot. why does it have to be random? if we have the ability to influance the collapse of the quantum wave function then we don't have total free will, but we do have some degree of control that is not random. we have a choice between possibilities, which is the clostest we could get to free will. if we can influance the choice over the possibilities then we do have some degree of freedom and contol.

[rozeboosje]

Exactly; and that argument is even valid if the universe is deterministic. As long as we have the ability to choose between possibilities.

[popeyroach]

yes, which is why it should be possible to have a deterministic universe in which we still can exert free will. all we have to do is drop the romanticised version of free will where we have complete control, which is evedently now impossible, and resign ourselves to the fact that at most we can make free but (universally) insignificant choices. yet we don't need to view ourselves as mechanical robots and lose the wonder of being human

[rozeboosje]

YES! That's exactly what I wanted to say. Very well put indeed.

[siddhaam]

Good point. QM is a best guess statistical system. Pretty accurate...not because it's the truth of the underlying reality...but because they have jigged the maths to make it work...it's a modern version of Ptolemy's epicycles and defferents.

[2LegHumanist]

I know better than to assume what's coming out of your mouth next. I find this topic fascinating particularly because it leads to an enormous amount of rationalisation from people who can't stomach the idea of not having free will and from the die hard determinists. I'd be in the latter camp. I've seen nothing in QM or elsewhere that has convinced me of inderterminism. Don't take that as an assumption of where I think you're going with this!

[rozeboosje]

No. QM is not going to save us :P

[Tiwaking]

This is very interesting. I believe that we may have a point of conflict on the issue of Free Will since Im an Absurdist. Anyway: I've still got over 20 more videos of yours to watch

[rozeboosje]

And there is a lot more to come in this series, too

[rUTokKIN2ME]

Well I watched the second video in the series before I realized I was not invited to participate in this little trip. I'm glad I did though, because I would like to see a twist on the typical conclusion of determinism that results from the materialist assumption.

[rozeboosje]

You are welcome to come along as long as you can put any belief in supernatural entities in the safety locker for the duration of the trip. I'm trying to explore how far down the road to true free will we can get using purely materialistic assumptions.

[rUTokKIN2ME]

I will do my best. So if information is not "matter" (my position, not yours) is it supernatural? If there is a will, and it's not made of matter, is it supernatural?

[rUTokKIN2ME]

by the way, i appreciate the exercise even if it's made with an assumption at its base. I think assumptions are easily as valuable as skepticism, if we don't forget we've made them.

[rozeboosje]

Absolutely. We must keep the assumption firmly in mind, and at the end of the exercise we must accept that even if the reasoning is sound, the conclusion is only true within the context of the original assumptions.

[rozeboosje]

No, it's pattern. And pattern is independent of substrate. But it is still <b>made</b> of the substrate. It's just that it transcends it, and you can replace one substrate with another without disturbing the pattern. But if there is <b>no</b> substrate then there can't be a pattern either.

[AtheistAaron]

I acknowledge the predictable nature of matter. You can make this argument with non sapient species (as Descartes explained), but we humans (yes, we are animals) have a certain chemical makeup that allows for spontaneity in our thought. We weigh our options and consider the long term outcomes. As such, we become responsible for our actions, and the weight of that responsibility has an impact on us. Our physicality influences us and absolute "free will" is not truly real, but I believe in choice.

[rozeboosje]

Yes, but more about that in future episodes.

[42ADENT]

Quantum Mechanics, introduces a certain amount of randomness that provides the wiggle-room needed to make the future unpredictable thus free will happens because you cannot predict a persons actions .

[rozeboosje]

Maybe it adds to it, but I don't think it's essential. But that's for later parts.

[kingbarneyoflondon]

Do relise that you spelt the tag ' will' with a 'y' ?

[rozeboosje]

Yup (grin).

[kingbarneyoflondon]

Well either you going a lot of free willy (the whale) fans watching your video.

[rozeboosje]

It if gets them thinking, my evil plan has worked.

[CousinoMacul]

I have a computer that can predict the future of the universe. It is the size (in four dimensional space-time) of the universe and runs synchronously with it (so I guess "predict" isn't quit the right word) and cannot exist outside of the universe.

[rozeboosje]

:-) - Good point, but exactly: "predict" isn't quite the right word.

[patflix]

Neurons fire. Chemicals react. Poof! An idea. A philosophy. But is it all just an illusion produced by, and limited to, our biology? I've never come to a positive and healthy conclusion when discussing free will with others. I always end up depressed (yet another chemical reaction). I'm looking forward to your series Pino. I suspect that you will take this subject somewhere other than the "biological dead-end" I always take myself to. Hope that made sense.

[rozeboosje]

Yes, perfect.

[redcardisgone]

i was going to ask you to explain this idea!!! yay!!

[rozeboosje]

:-)

[x71isnwor]

Looking forward to hearing more on this. You make me want to make more intelelctual videos.

[rozeboosje]

Good! Because I think you're well able for it.

[x71isnwor]

Thanks for your confidence in me. LOL

[kurtilein3]

in my personal oppinion determinism really has some problems:

- no evidence (in fact we know chaotic systems quite well)

- symmetry breaking is not taken into account

- the complexity of the human brain and knowledge from neuroscience is ignored

determinism is just another form of claiming to know something that you in fact do not know. the free will / determinism-issue cannot be decided at the moment because of lack of evidence. just my oppinion on this.

[rozeboosje]

;-)

[phaexus]

If we agree that determinism claims that all events are the result of one or more causes, then to disprove determinism you just have to give a single example of an event which has no cause. Can you do that? I'd be very impressed :)

[kurtilein3]

well, there are lots of those examples in physics and mathematics.

take a flute and blow air in it, you will hear a sound caused by vibrating air. if you start with very few air and add more and more pressure the vibration will start around a certain point. but where is the first vibration? mathematics can explain why it cannot possibly be tracked down.

you have the same in electronics, search wikipedia for RLC circuit.

we have examples like this also in evolution, society, history.

[phaexus]

So you are saying that the event you call the first vibration is without cause? Then it would happen even if you didn't blow in the whistle otherwise you'd have to conclude that the first vibration was caused by you blowing in the whistle.

What are the examples from evolution, society and history?

[kurtilein3]

what im saying is that you cannot even track down the first vibration, something like a first vibration doesnt exist. therefore you cannot know the cause of the second vibration, and so on. but still you hear the sound when you blow in the whistle. by blowing the whistle you increase the probability that a vibration starts.

in society, well, how did a specific vendetta start? evolution: what was the first cause that startet a symbiotic relationship between 2 species?

[phaexus]

You are still saying there are causes for the first vibration, vendettas and symbiotic relationships, even if they are hard to pin down. They didn't just appear out of nowhere. They are still the result of cause and effect.

[kurtilein3]

second reply to phaexus...

the real problem is that we have tons of neurons in our brain that are interconnected much like a RLC circuit in electronics, what i want to say is... we need to know how our brain works and how consciousness works in order to decide if we have free will or not. the subject is currently crowded with gaps in our understanding, an agnostic point of view, looking for more data and new research, is my choice.

[phaexus]

How do you define Free Will though?

[rozeboosje]

"Cause" and "Effect" are not actual physical terms, you may be surprised to find. Most laws of physics we have come up with do not contain an "arrow of time". They work just as well the "other way 'round".

[phaexus]

What do you mean the other way around? Does that mean the effect is the cause and vice versa?

[rozeboosje]

No, I mean that terms like "cause" and "effect" are just human constructs. Nature doesn't appear to work that way in reality.

[phaexus]

If you aren't allowed to use human constructs to describe nature, such as "cause" and "effect", how can you say that nature doesn't appear to work like that. You'd be using your own human constructs to make that claim ;o)

[rozeboosje]

Just look at recent theories, dating all the way back to Newton. Tell me where, in those theories, do "cause" and "effect" come into the equation(s)?

[phaexus]

Sorry. I'm confused. It happens all too often :o)

You said in your video that the laws of physics appear to be deterministic in nature and they describe how matter is going to behave. Simply stated doesn't the laws work like this in relation to matter: "condition X causes effect Z on matter"?

[rozeboosje]

No, as the form of those laws do not incorporate "cause" or "effect". The laws work just as well when applied "backwards", i.e. from the later state you can infer the original state by applying the exact same laws. So what "causes" what then?

[phaexus]

Can you give an example or maybe it'll be explained later in the series?

[rozeboosje]

Just look at Newton's laws of motion, for example, and try and find "cause" and "effect" there.

I don't think I'll be going into it later as I don't think it has a bearing on free will....

[inmendham]

Within our circle I beat you to it by a few hours on this subject by title... and I threw in some eye, and mind, candy. Me brain doesn't exactly know how you are going get this loaded cart, up the impossibly steep hill without ending up flat as a pancake... but me brain supposes either way it will be worth watching ;)

[rozeboosje]

I reckon you'll find the "will" you'll get is rather free, but maybe not quite as free as a purist would have liked.

[GalacticAtom]

I look forward to the forthcoming videos.

[rozeboosje]

It may take some time but, looking forward to making them.

[inarticulatespeech]

"capricious winds"

[rozeboosje]

Put that way it sounds like one has gas! :-)