Talk:Free will/Archive1

Topic
A hastily contructed article on free will. Please edit, tidy and modify as you see fit.--Graham 07:15, 17 September 2007 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the interesting piece!--PalMD-Oy, mein tukhas! 19:48, 17 September 2007 (EDT)

practical use of free will
I think the article should mainly focus on the logic people use in daily life when they talk in terms of choosing.

- Free will applies to a thing turning out one way or another. The act of realizing an alternative is a choice. The alternatives are in the future in respect to the decider. What is said to do the job of making it turn out one way instead of the other in a choice, like "love" and "hate", is only known to exist by deciding it is there, not by measuring.

Free will is generally not accepted to be real by most scientists, philosophers, atheists, rationalists, humanists, nazi's, communists, liberals, socialists, and parents. Specifically the spiritual part which is only known subjectively by deciding it is there is not acknowledged. Often also it is simply not accepted anything can turn out an alternative way. -

I added in "parents", so it becomes deniable for socialists, atheists, and the like that it is not seriously true, eventhough ofcourse it actually is true. --Syamsu (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

science about free will
In 2006 American scientists demonstrated (Hosten & Kwiat 2006) that they could search a database of 4 elements by only possibly running a search algorithm. "only possibly running" means a decision was made on the alternatives that would run the algorithm or not, and the decision turned out that the algorithm didn't run.--Syamsu (talk) 22:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this is in anyway significant. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is significant in light of the definition of free will given at the start. It appears you don't agree with that definition. Go ahead and point out some fault, then I will retract. --Syamsu (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You keep saying it's significant but you don't show how. All I've seen so far are some rather dubious assertions. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know what you are talking about it is very obvious. The logic people use is of things turning out one way or another, and the experiment is of things turning out one way or another. So it proves that the common practical logic is real in some place at least. Previously in qm there was no fundamental distinction made between a computer possibly running and a computer not running.--Syamsu (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Syamsu

Syamsu's edit
"Free will is generally not accepted to be real by most scientists, philosophers, atheists, rationalists, humanists, nazi's, communists, liberals and socialists. Specifically the spiritual part which is only known subjectively by deciding it is there is not acknowledged. Often also it is simply not accepted anything can turn out an alternative way." I think we need citations for this. Jack Hughes (talk) 11:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What cites can be given for tripe? 12:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the main point here is if or not to use the logic that people use on a practical level in daily life when they talk in terms of choosing. If we can't agree to take the practical logic as the basis, then there is no point to any of my contributions. Ofcourse we might then still disagree on what the practical logic is that people use. So it is better if you would comment only on if or not to use the logic in practical common knowledge. Also if too many disagree with me what the practical logic is we use, then I would withdraw my contributions.

A comment by some journalist:

"there can be no such thing as free will for the committed scientist, in his or her professional life" 

I can get several more of quotes such as these from established scientists like Robert Rosen, and Daniel Dubois which indicate a general resistance in science to knowledge in terms of having a future of alternatives.

For as far as rationalists go:

"a decision or situation is often called rational if it is in some sense optimal, and individuals or organizations are often called rational if they tend to act somehow optimally in pursuit of their goals" 

Like a chesscomputer calculating an optimum from many alternatives, but then the chesscomputer is forced to do the move it calculated as best, it can't turn out an alternative way. This is also the definition of decision that is used in artificial intelligence. The result comes from a calculation, and is therefore forced and can't turn out an alternative way. In science these different definitions of "decision" are usefully distinghuished by "weak anticipation" (calculating with alternatives / making a model etc. ), and "strong anticipation" (where the alternatives are in the future)Dubois

I mainly put rationalists in there because in the rational wiki article on love it is suggested love is some chemical process in the brain. So that is to objectify love, and that is not consistent with the generally subjective reference to love in common practical logic about free will.

Nazi's objectify the spiritual as heritable things in the blood. So that is also not subjective. etc. I can provide some quote from historian Klaus Fischer that the most lethal aspect of both nazism and communism is to rely on predestination.

etc.

I don't think these references are neccessary in the article. It is obviously a fair enough comment from the practical point of view that freedom is real that people have in daily life. It's not neccessary to evidence that atheists generally don't accept a category of things that can only be known to exist by deciding it is there, known by faith and such. --Syamsu (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What a load of bollocks. What distinguishes humans from chess computers is the ability to chose the less optimal path. This is free will. As a socialist atheist I practice free will all the time. You appear to be using bad over simplifications to make some sort of point. Why weren't Calvinists on your list? Indeed, if we're all as god made us, as the Christians would have us believe, then, by your arguments, we have no free will, we must do as we are programmed by god. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Calvinists are not on the list, because I think Calvinists still believe in free will of God, they just don't believe that people have free will. The issue here is what logic people use when they talk in terms of choosing. If I use a bad oversimplification of the logic people use, then what part is wrong in it? I would certainly retract if you point out anything wrong, because to propose a common logic this way only works if basically everybody agrees.


 * Your reasoning implies that all scientists, philosophers, atheists and others from your list are hard determinists. This is far from the truth. This is the sort of simplification that newspapers use when they talk about "the gay gene". One can be a determinist without being a hard determinist. Similarly there is nothing incompatible with those on your list and a compatibilist position. Your assertion that belief in a deterministic world implies a belief in no free will is your oversimplification. Jack Hughes (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Come on that is just sensitive political correctness, the comment is fair enough for all groups mentioned. Compatibilism is to redefine free will so that there are not alternatives, compatibilism does not mean to affirm that the practical common logic people use is valid. You can see that in the reference to Daniel Dennett I provided. I think you need to avoid using philosphical words like determinists, compatibilitst etc. and point out a fault in the practical common logic that I explained. And this is not about if people are right or wrong in using that logic, this is about accurately reflecting what logic people use.


 * It depends where you pick your cherries from. In the same article

By trying to answer the questions, by sketching out the non-miraculous paths that can take us all the way from senseless atoms to freely chosen actions, we open up handholds for the imagination. The compatibility of free will and science … is not as inconceivable as it once seemed.
 * Which say quite a different thing. Jack Hughes (talk) 16:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Even if that were true then that would still only address the point of things turning out one way or another. But in practical common knowledge there is also the reference to what does the job of deciding, and that these things can only be known by decision not measurement (love etc.) Dennett does not agree with such, nor even mention it. Or are you saying that this is not in the practical logic we use? The Darwinistic explanation for free will is for instance for predators to have the advantage of surprise in attack, and prey to have the advantage of unpredictability in escape, over organisms that behave like automatons. But Darwinists do not use such explanations for free will that focus on things actually turning out one way or another, instead Darwinists focus on free will as functioning to adapt to conditions (as you can read in the article referenced) I feel that all your arguments are besides the point, I suggest to delete it all and you start with criticizing the explanation of free will i gave--Syamsu (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have reverted that edit on the grounds of it being written so badly alone. 18:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine anybody can make improvements to language, as long as the logic and the character of common practicality is not lost. So not to include words like determinism, and incompatibilism and so on. If there is no objection I will delete much of this discussion. Lets keep things simple and straightforward, either you agree with the explantion of practcial common logic about free will or not. --Syamsu (talk) 10:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

DO NOT delete discussions. Thanks. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a picture of a brain on the topleft corner on this webpage? It's because we believe decisions are made in the brain, and for each decision that occurs there, we may decide what the spiritual quality of it is that made it turn out one way instead of the other. There is no need to reference philosphers and the like on free will, we should just explain the logic we use in daily life. --Syamsu (talk) 12:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What? What the fuck is the "spiritual quality" of a decision? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 14:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It (the picture) is because we think they are tasty. Especially when lightly sauteed. 17:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The spiritual quality is what does the job of realizing the alternative. That is the way it is in practical common knowledge, what does the job of realizing an alternative in a choice is only known to exist by deciding it is there. I can give you some millions of references in common knowledge to words like love, hate and such, where 1 this thing is doing the job of realizing an alternative 2 is only known to exist by deciding it is there, subjectively. Now you all make a decision, either this is the practical common knowledge so it should be in the article, or this is not how you talk in terms of choosing and then it shouldn't be in the article &mdash; Unsigned, by: Syamsu / talk / contribs
 * Syamsu--are you high, or just an idiot? that bit of word-salad makes no sense whatsoever. Let's start with baby steps, shall we? Given that "spiritual"/"spirituality" are nonsensical terms that don't refer to anything that actually exists, what the hell are you trying to say? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 21:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * First we already accept that things can turn out one way or another. Then given person X has options Y and Z, and it so happens that the choice turns out y, then in common knowledge what did this job of making it turn out y is only known by deciding it is there. So it was love that made it turn out y somebody might say, another might say it was hate that made it turn out y. And neither love or hate would be measurable, but they would only be known to exist by deciding they are there in that choice. That is the way it works in the logic about choosing we use in daily life.&mdash; Unsigned, by: Syamsu / talk / contribsWILL YOU SIGN, PLEASE!!

BRRRAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIINNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!! TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

A Knotty Tread
I have completely re-written this section because it was variously vague or wrong. Peterdjones (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Removed...
"Rationalists can consistently take any of them, although some are more popular than others." That's a cite that will never be found, and I'd say "rationalists" can both consistently and inconsistently take any of them. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Libet
I heard some criticisms of the Benjamin Libet experiment mentioned in the article.

Alfred Mele has criticized the interpretation of the Libet results on two grounds. First, the mere appearance of the RP a half-second or more before the action in no way makes the RP the cause of the action. It may simply mark the beginning of forming an intention to act. In the two-stage model [of first generating multiple possible choices and then evaluating them before making a decision], it is the considering of possible options.

Libet himself argued that there is enough time after the W moment (a window of opportunity) to veto the action, but Mele's second criticism points out that such examples of "free won't" would not be captured in Libet experiments, because the recording device is triggered by the action (typically flicking the wrist) itself.

Thus, although all Libet experiments ended with the wrist flicking, we are not justified in assuming that the rise of the RP (well before the moment of conscious will) is a cause of the wrist flicking. Libet knew that there were very likely other times when the RP rose, but which did not lead to a flick of the wrist.

A few questions:
 * 1) Are these two criticisms legit, or are they BS?
 * 2) Does this "window of opportunity" after the W moment really exist, or can it simply be explained as the nervous impulses taking a non-zero amount of time getting to the muscles in the wrist or finger?
 * 3) Is there an alternative explanation of the results of the Libet experiment?

I'm trying to figure this out myself, but I feel that your inputs and discussions would help me evaluate these claims. Discuss. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Libet himself said more or less the same thing later on. See his cited paper in Journal of Consciousness Studies. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Why do people think Libet's work "disproves" free will?
The determinists' reasoning on this seems to be as follows:
 * 1) Libet has shown that a decision is unconsciously made some time before it is consciously detected by the nerves in the brain.
 * 2) Therefore, free will does not exist.

QED, right?


 * 1) Neuroscience has shown tha

t light hits the retina some time before it is consciously detected by the nerves in the brain.
 * 1) Therefore, sight does not exist.
 * 2) However, sight exists, therefore, 2 cannot be concluded from 1 with a scientific perspective.

Reductio ad absurdum. Libet's experiment does not disprove free will, with both this and the "free won't" interpretation. Should we include this in the main article, or is my logic flawed somehow? Don't want to add it if it's flawed. Constructive criticism welcome. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't disprove free will, but I'd say it provides some evidence that, in the very least, we are not fully in charge of our own 'decisions'. GodothasArrived  ( super crazy fun time! ) 19:12, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And, by the way, your logic is flawed. One, you could make an argument that free will is the conscious choosing of one out of two or more possible choices, and if our subconscious makes our decisions for us, then we cannot have free will (which I suspect is the argument most of the people you're supposedly refuting are making). Two, we know sight exists, but we don't know free will exists. An American Fallacy  ( super crazy fun time! ) 19:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of neuroessentialism. It demonstrates an unconscious mechanism in one task, but it doesn't generalize to a whole swath of other types of decisions (though there are unconscious mechanisms involved in all types of decision-making, this paper alone doesn't demonstrate that). Again, see Libet's own interpretation above.
 * Either way, there are much better arguments for the non-existence of free will. An American Fallacy  ( super crazy fun time! ) 19:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying again.
Okay, trying to say what my point was with this. Some determinists say, by the article's own admission, that they think Libet's experiment disproved free will, as the decision was made unconsciously before. To rephrase my initial argument:

DETERMINISTS SAY:


 * 1) In Libet's experiment, it was found that a decision is made some milliseconds before it is consciously percieved.
 * 2) From Item 1, we can conclude free will, i.e. the ability to consciously pick one course of action out of one or more alternatives, does not exist.

The basic form of the argument is:
 * 1) X occurs some milliseconds before the relevant information is consciously percieved.
 * 2) It is commonly believed A, that is that Y is the conscious perception of X.
 * 3) Therefore from Items 1 and 2, A is false.

Rephrasing the determist argument, we get:
 * 1) Decision-making occurs some milliseconds before the relevant information is consciously percieved.
 * 2) It is commonly believed A, that is that free will is the conscious perception of decision-making.
 * 3) Therefore from Items 1 and 2, free will is false (read "does not exist").

I am plugging in different values for X and Y so:
 * 1) Light hits the retina some milliseconds before the information is consiously detected.
 * 2) It is commonly believed A, that is that sight is the conscious perception of light hitting the retina.
 * 3) Therefore from Items 1 and 2, sight is false (read "does not exist").

Via reductio ad absurdum, there is no way to get around this without special pleading. Could somebody point out if my logic is flawed? I am trying to figure out any flaws on my own, and if I find any, I will modify/retract my argument as necessary. I am not trying to say that free will exists, but simply that this one "evidence" against free will and the reasoning behind it, is flawed. The Heidelberg Kid (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Syamsu's rewrite
I did a rollback on this not because I necessaries disagree with what Syamsu wrote but because such a massive rewrite of a bronze level article should not happen without discussion.

Seriously, Syamsu, if you want to do something this major, first create it as a sub-page of your userspace and let us talk about it first. Bad Faith (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It was talked about 2 years ago. The opposing view is that we treat a thermostat as a decisionmaker having free will (compatibilism). I don't feel that position is worth talking about, other then mentioning that a great many people support this view. --Syamsu (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Free will means for a thing to have alternative states available from one moment to the next, and choosing one. Free will in this sense of alternatives and decision is the most fundamental logic in creation science, more fundamental than cause and effect. Most all theories and facts within creation science are based on a logic of free will. With freedom things are created.

Two categories: Dualism

The logic of free will has two main parts, the agency which does the chosing, and the alternatives which are chosen over. These two parts are wholy different from each other, the agency is called spiritual, what is chosen is called material.

Objective and subjective

The way in which something can be known about material is relatively straightforward, through measurement we can know the properties of a material thing. For instance when a videocamera is turned towards the moon, then it receives the light reflected off the moon through the lens of the videocamera. The videocamera then stores this picture on a storage device such as a videotape. The information travelled from the moon by medium of light, through the lens, through the circuitry of the videocamera, onto the videotape. This transferring or copying of information unchanged (also known as rewriting) is called being objective. The videocamera provides objective information about the moon. When somebody looks at the moon, then in the same way as the videocamera, information transfers from the moon, by medium of light, through the eyes, to the memory in the brain, resulting in objective facts about the moon in memory.

The way in which something can be said about the spiritual doing the chosing is very different from objective measurement, instead we must form a subjective opinion. We can't rely on evidence to form a subjective opinion, because evidence forces to a conclusion destroying the freedom neccessary to reach a subjective opinion. Instead of relying on evidence, if we want to identify the agency in a choice, then we must make a choice related to the choice we are investigating.

For example: suppose there is a birthday cake, with 10 slices of cake, and 10 people attending the party. Suppose Joe takes 2 slices, which neccessarily means that 1 of the people will get no cake. As said, to investigate the agency of this choice to take 2 slices instead of 1, we have to make a new choice in turn, related to the choice we are investigating. To make a new choice we need new alternatives, for example the alternatives “hate” and “love”, so we get:

A Joe was “hateful” in choosing to take 2 slices instead of 1.

B Joe was “loving” in choosing to take 2 slices instead of 1.

Now we must chose, for instance we chose B, Joe was loving in taking 2 slices instead of 1. Very appreciative of the cake. We have now formed a subjective opinion about who Joe is as the owner of his choices, namely that Joe is loving. In the same way that beauty is said to be in the eye of the beholder, a subjective opinion says as much about the one expressing the opinion, as it does about whom the opinion is expressed about. We could have chosen that Joe was hateful instead, we had the freedom to do so. We arrived at the conclusion through chosing ourselves, and by choosing we revealed who we are as the owner of our choices, as well as revealing who Joe is as the owner of his choices.

Overview of the dual categories in free will

The leftside of the table belongs together and the rightside belongs together. The spiritual and material domains are directly connected with choices, yet the choices don’t provide any evidence of a spiritual domain. It is perfectly valid to express a feeling of emptiness in regards to agency, to subjectively reach the conclusion that the spiritual domain is empty, and God does not exist. The only requirement in the logic is that the conclusion about agency must be reached through choice.

Morality

However logically valid an expression of emptiness may be, that does not mean that such an expression is morally good. In creationist theory the universe starts with a free act, and ends with a final free act. The morality of any individual choice is often portrayed in relation to these choices of original creation and final judgement. In creationism morality is about the spiritual content of the choice, and is focused more on the way in which a choice is made, then on the result of a choice.

Biblical interpretation

The biblical doctrine outlined in the book of Genesis, during the creation of the world captures the source of choosing in regards to morality. The original parents of mankind, Adam and Eve as real historical persons, made the first human choice. The choice between the will of God which they were influenced by since their creation, and also their own will influenced by Satan. Both original and separate influences offer a distinct alternative that persons decide to follow based on their free will, in relation to experience filtered through their sensory system, which is analyzed by logic within the mind, which offers up alternatives for the human spirit to decide. The free will exercised by Adam and Eve severed the covenant with God by acting outside of His will. This act of free will had the consequence of a generational curse upon the rest of mankind, fundamentally altering life as they (Adam and Eve) knew it because of their sin. The original sin against the will and therefore nature of God physically and spiritually had a sort of epigenetic affect on all of biology, introducing death and the struggle and survival that comes with it. By eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil Adam and Eve less felt what is good and bad, instead they became more emotionless and calculating in determining their course of action. Calculating in terms of survival and death.

(bible quote|1Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said to the woman, "Indeed, has God said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" 2The woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.'" 4The serpent said to the woman, "You surely will not die! 5"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." 6When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.|book=Genesis|chap=3|verses=1-6)

Pseudoscience

Words such as “selfish”, “altruistic”, “hateful”, “loving” etc. are commonly considered to be words of judgement relevant to agency, and should therefore only be used in this subjective way. That means you have to chose to arrive at the conclusion “selfish”, and you cannot measure or calculate somebody to be selfish. To make assertive statements about people being “selfish”, “loving” or “hateful” as a matter of objective fact is illogical, and is considered pseudoscience. (Although sometimes scientists use a different meaning of the words “selfishness” and “altruism” which has nothing to do with agency, in which case the selfishness and altruism can be measured). The same holds true for asserting the existence of God as a matter of fact, that is also considered pseudoscience. God is considered an agent who choses, and therefore God is only possibly known through faith, which faith neccessarily involves a choice.

Politics and Ideology

Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of subjective opinion are strongly related to democracy. Theories about free will which treat agency as a matter of objective fact instead, are strongly related to ideological and political doctrines in which freedom plays a subordinate role.

Social Darwinist doctrines about the heritable character of people, based on the theory of natural selection, greatly influenced intellectual and political climate of opinion in the past, and continues to do so at present.

For example in the early part of the 20th century the influential Darwinist Ernst Heackel treated the “loving” agency of Jesus Christ as exhibiting an “Aryan” blood character. Heackel was not a Christian but an atheist, he treated the love of Christ as a matter of scientific fact, not a matter of faith. Social-Darwinism is considered the main ideological impetus in the rise of Nazism, which led to the holocaust. Specifically the denial of free will in Nazism is considered it's most lethal aspect.

China is currentely drifting towards Social-Darwinism. The overwhelming majority of scientists in the world at present support some form of Social-Darwinism where agency is treated as a matter of objective fact, and moral imperatives are derived from an interpretation of natural selection theory.

Psychology

Pscyhological research has found that disbelief in free will is related to increased agression and reduced helpfulness.

Inducing disbelief in free will has been found to alter brain states related to preconscious motor preparation

Belief in free will predicts better job performance.

Biological function of free will

Free will of organisms appears to contribute to their survival in many ways. The variation in use of muscles caused by free will reduces wear and tear of them. Search algorithms for food are more optimal when based on freedom. Free will also appears to give predators surprise in attack, and prey unpredictability in escape. Note again that subjective opinion is entertwined with objective fact in creationist discourse. When an animal is fleeing then we might consider some high risk decisions the animal makes “courageous” or “dumb” alternatively. What is objectively observed then is a decision with a high chance of being killed, and subjectively we might note “courage” as the agency which made the decision turn out the way it did. One should not interpret these writings of creationist scientists to posit a “science of courage”, they are merely expressions of personal opinion of the scientist.

DNA consists of chosen alternatives C,A,T and G. When looking at any particular string of DNA one should consider the alternatives that could have been chosen instead. DNA from one generation to the next is constructed based on informed and reasoned choices. The DNA is kept in a state of indecision, at which point the alternative states C, A, T, and G present themselves, and the organization of DNA as a whole is chosen.

Creation, creatio-ex-nihilo

In a choice information is created, namely the information which way a choice turns out. The information is new in the universe, and therefore the information is derived from nothing. Commonly this principle is referred to with the latin phrase "Creatio ex nihilo". This nothing where the information derives from is objectively measurable. The measurements and calculations about where the information derives from simply turn out zero for position, mass, velocity, and so on. For instance the noise in a random number generator, which is used for encrypting data so that it remains secret, is derived from the socalled quantum mechanical zeropoint. When scientists look for the origin of a thing, then they always find nothing at the origin, and not a creator. The creator can only be found by deciding about the agency of the choices found.

Other views

Non-Creationist views treat the agency in a choice as a matter of objective fact. Compatibilism and Determinism are views on free will in which agency is treated as a matter of fact, and therefore in these views the same logic is used for describing freedom, as is used for describing force. For example Darwinian philosopher Daniel Dennett regards a thermostat as an agent which chooses, eventhough he says that in it's workings the thermostat is completely forced. The overwhelming majority of scientists currently support a compatibilist or determinist position on free will, and thereby the majority of scientists currently acknowledge no proper place to subjective opinion or faith.

Er... no
Right at the start you have Free will means for a thing to have alternative states available from one moment to the next, and choosing one. No, sorry, bollocks. That definition says nothing about the freedom to choose. A computer, completely deterministically, can have two alternative states and be able, depending on the state of other registers, to choose between them. Has this computer free will? Not in my book.

And, after that, you go off on a list of logical fallacies that's almost text book. Splendid stuff but not quite what the article needs whether there are great many (appeal to popularity) people support this view or not. Bad Faith (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is basically about validating the legitemacy of subjective opinion, and challenging the mad emotionless scientist stereotype. The mad scientist understands subjectivity to be evil, and objectivity to be good, and thereby the scientist makes expression of emotion into an evil. As explained subjectivity is valid in respect to agency, and objectivity in respect to agency is invalid. The alternate view to dualism, as proposed by Daniel Dennett, is that thermostats have free will, which is clearly the crank idea, by any reasonable interpretation of rationality.


 * What you write is nonsense, if a computer has alternative states available, then it is not behaving deterministicly. But for a computer to have alternative states available it needs to have a hardware random noise generator built in which is not based on registers. And yes if a computer acts on this hardware random noise generator then the computer has a very simple form of free will.--Syamsu (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re:Syamsu
Aside from actual content issues, I just noticed Syamsu seems to be copy-pasting his (and possibly others') work from CreationWiki's article (if not somewhere else as well). CreationWiki apparently uses GNU FDL 1.2, while we use CC-BY-SA 3.0; GNU seems to require that reuse or modification includes their license and is kept under it. So yeah, I recommend avoiding even partial use, if it's brought up again. 17:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes I wrote that on creationwiki also. Compatibilist and determinist explanations of free will use a logic of being forced, the explanations therefore belong in some subsection of forces, or cause and effect. I motion to focus on the dualist scheme as by Ockham, Reid, which is the generally practised definition of free will. (ie. focus also on practical applications of this logic) --Syamsu (talk) 11:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Whole-brain simulation
Could someone please add this to the article? I'm not quite sure where it fits in. Anyway, some people believe we will eventually be able to simulate human brains. For example, the Blue Brain project seeks to simulate mammalian brains down to the molecular level. If we ever succeed at deterministically simulating particular people's brains, or simply creating unique intellects that choose and act just like humans do, it will cast doubt on the idea of a special "free will" possessed by biological brains.Abraxas (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

dualism
I don't know what it's about, but two guys seem to be warring over it-- "Shut up, Brx." 14:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at several of the topics above, Syanawhatsit has been at this for over 2 years. Тy Bother me 14:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Dualism duelling? Генгис silverbrain.png 15:05, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Very well.-- "Shut up, Brx." 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Deterministic Chaos
The bottom line about Free Will is the observation of people's actions being unpredictable, and more so as the time horizon expands. Philosophic positions can be summarized as: (1) Actions are, indeed, unpredictable. (2) Actions are predictable, but we just don't know the full deterministic model to run a simulation. Position (2) rests on the assumption that a deterministic models would bring predictability, but Deterministic Chaos theory has proven it's not the case. Sensitivity of the model to initial conditions (butterfly effect) shortens the prediction horizon. Additionally, the initial conditions can never be determined beyond a level of error, and the deterministic model becomes random. So in fact (1) and (2) have exactly the same implications regarding Free Will and no more knowledge is gained from one position relative to the other.-- Brasov 14:57, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Free will article rewritten
On the link is the new article on free will. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Syamsu/Free_will

-straightforward logical (rulebased) understanding of free will -controversial concepts of free will addressed like the concept of free will used in scientism, social darwinism, nazism, communism -short to the point descriptions of nonsensical ideas about free will like compatibilism, determinism, dualism of fantasy and reality

One might ask why is any attention being paid to nonsense about free will? Why not straightforwardly focus the politics section simply on democracy for instance, instead of focusing on social darwinism, nazism, communism, where free will is basically absent? This is because the concept of free will is very controversial, and the social darwinist concept of free will has been very influential in history. It is still the main concept of free will supported by the scientific community today.

However this support from science for the social darwinist concept of free will is mainly political, what concept is actually used in practice the most by scientists, and everybody else, is the straightforward logical concept of free will described by Ockham.

So this is meant to be a fair balancing of views, where the concept of free will used the most is up front, and the most important other views on free will get much more attention in the politics section. The practical application of the social darwinist concept of free will in politics is much more informative than copious amounts of argument about it. -Syamsu (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I stopped reading at "The logic of free will has 2 main parts" because of free will not being logical--Token Conservative (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
 * The concept of free will presented is logical in the sense that it is rulebased and consistent. There is plenty of attention paid to non logical ideas about free will in the rest of the article.--Syamsu (talk) 00:48, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes yes, I know you're a little god outside of the laws of causality, don't worry.--Token Conservative (talk) 00:58, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this mean you agree with putting the article in?--Syamsu (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with you shutting up --MikallakiM 02:38, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I read the article -- not even wrong is the only way to describe it. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 03:36, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we just ban Syam? They aren't here to take part in the process or actually try and debate, atleast others would go on and on on talk pages instead of edit warring. D: --MikallakiM 03:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No Syamsu, I'm making fun of you and the idea of free will. Why do we even have this article?--Token Conservative (talk) 17:02, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why do we have an article on free will, or why do we have this article on free will? Both questions have self-evident answers to me, regardless of how you feel about the concept.Tielec01 (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Mikal, self admitted bisexual atheist depressive. Got identity problems written all over him. Then he rejects his emotions because emotions cant be objectively measured. Then that pervert self-destructive asshole pretents he has something to say about free will.

And nebuchadnezzar is a self admitted absurdist. Conservative token rejects free will altogether. Intellectual thugs one and and all who try to ruin knowledge about free will. And as whole societies can become crazy with communsim and nazism, so is the whole collection of rationalists crazy through rejecting subjectivity. Murderous, rapist thugs hellbent on destroying everything good.



Easily take a position on the free will article rewrite
Here is the rewritten article on free will: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/User:Syamsu/Free_will

If your position is that a decision has at least 2 possible alternative results in the moment, then you basically agree with the rewrite.

If your position is that a decision has 1 neccessary result in the moment, then you basically agree with the article as is.

note: your answer may be recorded for use in prosecutions in future courts of justice, when societies have gone haywire again under the influence of determinist philosophies like nazism and communism. --Syamsu (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Basically world war 1, 2 and 3(counting the cold war), were scientific experiments to try to establish whether free will is real or not. Scientists proposed determinist ideologies like social darwinism, biological determinism, dialectic materialism, and see how they worked out. Now they have cultivated a fourth variant of determinism, new atheist naturalism, being tested in China.....--213.46.126.12 (talk) 11:44, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not even wrong.--ZooGuard (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Those who don't use a category of a spiritual domain doing the choosing, leave no room for emotions. They kill, or not kill, marry or not marry, have children or not, regardless of what they do, they do not let emotions decide what they do, but instead some rationality determines what they do. --Syamsu (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)--Syamsu (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That, again, is impossible to parse. If my attempts at reading it are correct, it contradicts observed reality.--ZooGuard (talk) 12:09, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The spiritual domain, what chooses, cannot be observed. If it could, then objectivity would apply to it, and not subjectivity. This we can see of nazi's who stated that the human spirit can be objectively measured, and then proceeded to marry or not marry, kill or not kill, based on this rationality, their emotions being just silent witnesses to the tragedy they performed as automatons of a rationality.

There is no genuine subjectivity except in reference to what chooses. Tasting, smelling, feeling, they can only occur with free will, and they relate through the chosen alternatives of what an object consists of, to the spiritual owner of those decisions. An orange consists of chosen alternatives, as like a bit consists of 1 instead of 0, or viceversa. Things could have turned out differently than they did, therefore it was decided, therefore things consist of chosen alternatives. One does not enjoy the material thing chosen, but the spirit which chose the material thing to be. Or something like that, in any case we can see that experiments trying to rule out a subjectively identified spiritual domain doing the choosing, have consistently failed in society.

Yet they...rationalists, atheists, naturalists, communists, nazi's, social darwinists and various religions based on measuring gods, are all clamouring to try again....and again, untill there is nothing left of the earth.

The basic decency to be subjective towards your fellow man is treated as not modern and therefore not good. Only objectivity is acknowledged as a valid way to reach a conclusion about what exists, therefore they measure their fellow man, and not subjectively relate to what is in the heart of another.--Syamsu (talk) 12:35, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, not really. (talk to a) Nihilist  16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

The nickname "zooguard" refers to the idea that religions belong in a cultural zoo. The nickname "nihilist", doesn't refer to the nilpotency theory in which freedom is regarded as a reality, but to the destruction of everything held to be of value......
 * User name, not nickname. A nickname is a shortened name given to someone by other people, a user name is something someone choses oneself.
 * And no, my username doesn't refer to that.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:34, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No, the "An American" part refers to the destruction of everything held to be of value (self-national-deprecation!). (talk to a) Nihilist  19:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

It is my birthright, that everybody I deal with subjectively acknowledges who I am as the owner of my decisions, as I do likewise subjectively acknowledge their human spirit, you fucking anti-emotional scumbag mad evil scientist murderous rapists.

FUCKING ASSHOLES WHO LEAVE NO ROOM FOR SUBJECTIVITY
Also known as atheists, rationialists, communists, nazi's, liberals.

The agency of a decision can only be identified in a free way. This practice is called subjectivity, expressing emotions. This means objectivity, reaching a conclusion forced by evidence, is wrong for identifying agency. 10:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit war
There seems to be a bit of an edit war here. Care to talk?

I must say that the bit about denying free will being like addiction does not come off as well reasoned at all. It is fortunate that free will does not exist. If it did, you might be responsible for your actions, and who the hell wants that? - Smerdis of Tlön, for the defense. 15:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I created an account in part because of this talk page. In my years of lurking, both here and on other sites, I've felt frustrated when I arrived late to the party. I often read the transcript of a long argument or debate and feel that I can see where the disconnect is and wish that I had been reading back when it actually happened so that I could try to help broker a solution, or at least a productive discussion. Similarly, I think I get what Syamsu was trying to say and why everyone responded the way they did. It seems to be a simple case of everybody making the assumption that what is perfectly obvious to them is perfectly obvious to everyone else or, in a few cases, deciding that IF the other person doesn't find something perfectly obvious then they're of such a low intellectual caliber it isn't worth engaging them at their level. I understand that point of view, but I often find it an enjoyable mental exercise to try to figure out where a person's logic has broken down and to bridge the gap.


 * tl;dr: I'd really like to invite Syamsu or anyone that would care to argue on his behalf back to discuss our respective understandings of free will in an open, respectful way without violent ad hominem attacks from either side. It's a topic I have discussed at length with family and friends and it seems that every time I do, I encounter a new wrinkle. UnerringlyErrant (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Syamsu won't be able to respond, as they are under a three month block due to their editing pattern. If you want, I can unblock them, but I doubt that you'll make much of a headway with them (here's a short and a long reason).--ZooGuard (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, that link was certainly... informative. In an unfortunate sort of way. Well, I certainly won't ask you to unblock them but I'll say here that, whenever that block expires, I'll still be willing to give that conversation I spoke of a shot. UnerringlyErrant (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

The war is finished, douchebag remove whatever is added. awsome participative encyclopedia, I now understand that rationalwiki is shit

Determinism and Calvinism
A cursory glance at this article seems to reveal a "sceptical" predisposition to determinism of one kind or another. And yet, I see no reference to one of the first modern notions of determinism: Calvinism. You suppose there might be an addition some time soon? 174.19.85.155 (talk) 06:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

I also see you decided to redact my changes. Any particular reason why? 174.19.85.155 (talk) 07:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Omniscience and free will
Even if [free will] was [Biblically compatible] however, this belief is also incompatible with an omniscient God, as if God already knows what you're going to do, then how are you making the choice to do it? Technically, if the omniscience of such a being was inherent rather than total (that is, if he could pick and choose what he knows), he could create humans without violating free will, at least not of the compatibilist variety. This requires the being to limit his omniscience whenever interacting with the universe, lest he manipulate a person's thoughts or actions. A totally omniscient being, on the other hand, would violate compatibilism, but only if he interacts with the universe in a significant enough manner to manipulate a person's thoughts or actions; if such a being never interacts with the universe at all and only observes, no free will is violated.

Needless to say, any kind of omniscient being conflicts with libertarian free will, even if that being never interacts with the universe at any point in time, and even if that being is powerless to do anything at all. A being with inherent omniscience doesn't need to use his selective omniscience on a person to violate libertarianism; his mere existence would violate libertarianism.

(Note: This isn't about Christianity at all, as I am well aware that Christianity is incompatible with free will.) — 23:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If free will exists, then "what you're going to do" is meaningless; there is only "what you've done", "what you're doing", and "what you might later do". Therefore, if free will existed, even a totally omniscient being would know all of those three things, but wouldn't know what you were going to do any more than they would need to know how colourless green ideas sleep furiously or why friendly milk will countermand my trousers if the waiter doesn't hold the reader's nose squarely. --99.234.197.221 (talk) 21:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Christianity is not incompatible with free will except for Calvinism, and even then there is some limited free will among those who are not Hyper-Calvinists. Non-Calvinist Christians have to accept some level of cognitive dissonance between the Godly battle of omnipotence and omniscience. Bongolian (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Second Section
A determinists' disbelief in free will does not demonstrate free will from such a perspective: their apparent choice to disbelieve could be the result of their brain construction, which is the product of a deterministic universe. Much of the first paragraph in the "Problems with the Wager" section is questionable. &mdash; Unsigned, by: 64.106.111.38 / talk / contribs 02:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Karl Marx on free will
How many people would see Karl Marx's view in this context as reasonable? Anna Livia (talk) 21:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

If there is no free will, how should we view arguing about free will?
Heh, I re-editted my change in non-gibberish form. Sorry about that; I think my cursor was jumping around in my original contribution. Please discuss concerns, though, even when an initial change looks. . . off. -- Bertrc (talk) 21:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless, though, trying to hide a revert as a minor edit is not really cricket. -- Bertrc  (talk) 21:28, 21 March 2021 (UTC)