Free Will, can it logically exist?

[wasmit]

So, a friend of mine mentioned this argument, and it made sense to me. I am mentally trapped, as I currently accept two opposing facts as true.

The argument goes like this:

---

Human beings are either governed by fixed physical rules, or they are not.

If humans are governed by fixed physical rules:

I must make a choice, e.g. which type of drink to have with dinner. My ears register the vibrations in the air of my wife asking my which drink I would like, they convert these vibrations to electrical signals which are transmitted to my brain, and my brain then makes a choice. This choice takes into account many things - my genes, my previous experiences with different beverages, my knowledge of what drinks are available, my knowledge of what food is for dinner, whether I am driving soon(and can’t drink alcohol), etc. The decision is made, and my brain makes my mouth/throat move to tell my wife what my choice is. Basically, a choice is a mechanical process inside my body and brain which could be predicted if we had a full understanding of the way the neurons and synapses in my brain work, and the information (name removed by moderator)uts that are used to make the decision. Therefore, there is no free will, as we are basically “robots”, made of biological parts, acting on fixed rules.

If humans are not governed by fixed physical rules:

A choice is then based upon some random process, and if someone asks me “Why did you choose a beer”, the honest answer is “I don’t know”. Even if we had a full knowledge of the decision making process in the brain, the reason for a choice can never be predicted or known. It is like asking a pair of dice “Why did you land on 6?”. We therefore cannot be responsible for our actions, as they are out of our control. Therefore we have no free will.

---

So, that’s the argument, and I can see no problem with it. It appears sound to me after seriously thinking about it for a while. However, I personally “Feel” that I have free will. So I have two conflicting ideas, and one of them must be wrong. Either my feelings are wrong, or the argument is.

What do you guys think?

 

[Matthew_J]

G’day

I am actually currently studying Physics at uni, so I found this topic particularly interesting. The implications of quantum mechanics yield a very similar controversy.

It does seem that you have found a fairly rock-solid paradox here. It’s also interesting to note that, at least in my humble opinion, human beings are capable of both making a choice for a reason (by weighing up consequences, etc) and without one. I imagine that many people might not be able to accept this, and would argue profusely against it. But I’d say this argument stems from the belief that causality is undeniable, which of course is not the case. In fact scientifically speaking, evidence tends to sway towards an indeterministic world, thanks to quantum mechanics. It’s nice to see that you consider both possibilities.

I can honestly say that, for now, I cannot find a strictly logical flaw in your argument

I do disagree, however, that your statement: “Either my feelings are wrong, or the argument is.” is necessarily true. In my humble opinion, one cannot necessarily apply our logic to everything. Especially when it comes to philosophical or spiritual issues, under which I would say the concept of free will falls. The argument may be a logical paradox (which are not uncommon) that logically disproves the existence of free will, but your “feeling” that you have free will may be absolutely correct. I at least am comfortable with the fact that things can exist and act against our logic. Especially since some things have essentially been proven to do so.

 

[Psychotheosophy]

So, a friend of mine mentioned this argument, and it made sense to me. I am mentally trapped, as I currently accept two opposing facts as true.

The argument goes like this:

---

Human beings are either governed by fixed physical rules, or they are not.

If humans are governed by fixed physical rules:

I must make a choice, e.g. which type of drink to have with dinner. My ears register the vibrations in the air of my wife asking my which drink I would like, they convert these vibrations to electrical signals which are transmitted to my brain, and my brain then makes a choice. This choice takes into account many things - my genes, my previous experiences with different beverages, my knowledge of what drinks are available, my knowledge of what food is for dinner, whether I am driving soon(and can’t drink alcohol), etc. The decision is made, and my brain makes my mouth/throat move to tell my wife what my choice is. Basically, a choice is a mechanical process inside my body and brain which could be predicted if we had a full understanding of the way the neurons and synapses in my brain work, and the information (name removed by moderator)uts that are used to make the decision. Therefore, there is no free will, as we are basically “robots”, made of biological parts, acting on fixed rules.

If humans are not governed by fixed physical rules:

A choice is then based upon some random process, and if someone asks me “Why did you choose a beer”, the honest answer is “I don’t know”. Even if we had a full knowledge of the decision making process in the brain, the reason for a choice can never be predicted or known. It is like asking a pair of dice “Why did you land on 6?”. We therefore cannot be responsible for our actions, as they are out of our control. Therefore we have no free will.

---

So, that’s the argument, and I can see no problem with it. It appears sound to me after seriously thinking about it for a while. However, I personally “Feel” that I have free will. So I have two conflicting ideas, and one of them must be wrong. Either my feelings are wrong, or the argument is.

What do you guys think?

I think your answer may be in your question…

… I currently accept two opposing facts as true…

Since we can hold two opposing ideas
Simultaneously, side by side,
We can freely choose either one,
For no reason at all.

…Human beings are either governed by fixed physical rules, or they are not…

Human beings are governed by fixed principles, not rules,
Which we naturally seek,
But often fail to obtain.

… I personally “Feel” that I have free will…

Some of these natural principles include:
Happiness, Goodness, Existence, Truth,…
All of which we, as Catholics, give the name “God.”

Since we associate physical acts of freedom as having Goodness,
We naturally seek physical acts of freedom.
And
Naturally believe that physical acts of freedom
Have Existence and Truth.

(What is Juche, sorry, I never heard of it?)

 

[AirLiner]

You put it very well, in a materialist world there is no free will. Its just so obvious, I don’t understand why people have such a hard time with this. Even atheist often don’t realize there isn’t free will.

As to your “feeling”, I believe its irrelevant. In fact in there was a science writer recently named Michael Brooks who wrote a book about the “13 most baffling scientific mysteries of our time” and one of the chapters was dedicated to the illusion of free will. So it makes no difference whether you feel you have free will, the evidence shows that you don’t. I find it annoying when people use feelings to figure out the truth.

But anyways the Catholic answer isn’t a paradox or that the matter in our brain somehow produces free will, its actually dualism of the mind. A brain made of physical atoms should not be able to produce free will or even consciousness. So I do believe in free will and consciousness, however its impossible to reconcile those concepts with a physical materialist brain. They naturally lead you to dualism.

 

[srlucado]

Of course free will exists, and can exist logically. Not all choices are made as the result of external stimuli.

Tolstoy, in War and Peace, gives some discourse on the limits of free will vs. necessity, in the context of men in battle. Interesting reading. (As a quick example, if you’re not in a hurry–low time necessity, lots of opportunity to exercise free will–you can choose the scenic route. Choose to drive on the wrong side of the road, though–high necessity for safety, little opportunity to exercise free will–and bad things can happen very quickly.)

The next time you’re thirsty, choose your beverage this way: Toss a coin, with the obverse (heads) meaning one drink and the reverse (tails) meaning another.

Toss the coin.

What did you pick to drink? Did you follow the agreement you’d freely made with yourself? Or did you say, “The heck with it,” and have what you really preferred? Or did you decide to wait and have something to drink later? Or to drink both?

That’s free will right there. Of course it *can *exist, because it does. (Didn’t St. Augustine have some thoughts on this?)

 

[Matthew_J]

What is Juche, sorry, I never heard of it?

Yeah, I consulted wikipedia on that one

…in a materialist world there is no free will. Its just so obvious,…

AirLiner: I don’t think it is obvious at all? Even if we speak strictly materialistically, we are applying logic to a world that has provided substantial evidence towards its capability of denying it. I would not be bold enough to state that it is impossible to reconcile the concept of free will with a materialist world (or brain, as you put) when it would seem that the same logic used to make that statement fails to describe the world we live in, even from a materialistic point of view.

With that in mind, it is my humble opinion that there may be room for reconciliation between free will and a materialist world, if not from a strictly logical perspective. The answer may lie within such areas as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics?

As to your “feeling”, I believe its irrelevant.

His feeling that you refer to is simply an observation of his own behaviour. Do not forget that our materialist understanding of this world, as well as that of logic, is also based on observation. I may be misinterpreting you, but to dismiss wasmit’s “feeling” because of the untrustworthiness of such an observation, you must also validate that the observations we made that led to the understandings I mentioned above are no less untrustworthy?

What did you pick to drink? Did you follow the agreement you’d freely made with yourself? Or did you say, “The heck with it,” and have what you really preferred? Or did you decide to wait and have something to drink later? Or to drink both?

That’s free will right there.

I’m not so convinced… the fact that a choice was made does not imply that free will exists. The issue here is whether there was a reason that the choice was made, and the paradox we’ve found that the notion of free will seems to conflict with both possibilities.

Does that make sense?

 

[wasmit]

I do disagree, however, that your statement: “Either my feelings are wrong, or the argument is.” is necessarily true.

I disagree. This statement isn’t some obscure and difficult leap of logic. These are two opposite positions, one of them must be wrong. Either it exists, or it doesn’t. Can you think of any situation where two opposite claims are both true? Where something both exists and doesn’t exist?

I at least am comfortable with the fact that things can exist and act against our logic. Especially since some things have essentially been proven to do so.

do you have any specific examples?

 

[wasmit]

As to your “feeling”, I believe its irrelevant. In fact in there was a science writer recently named Michael Brooks who wrote a book about the “13 most baffling scientific mysteries of our time” and one of the chapters was dedicated to the illusion of free will. So it makes no difference whether you feel you have free will, the evidence shows that you don’t. I find it annoying when people use feelings to figure out the truth.

I fully agree with forming opinions based on evidence, and not my “feelings”, which are often wrong.

But anyways the Catholic answer isn’t a paradox or that the matter in our brain somehow produces free will, its actually dualism of the mind. A brain made of physical atoms should not be able to produce free will or even consciousness. So I do believe in free will and consciousness, however its impossible to reconcile those concepts with a physical materialist brain. They naturally lead you to dualism.

I will look into the idea of dualism, thanks for the tip.

 

[wasmit]

Of course free will exists, and can exist logically. Not all choices are made as the result of external stimuli.

The next time you’re thirsty, choose your beverage this way: Toss a coin, with the obverse (heads) meaning one drink and the reverse (tails) meaning another.

Toss the coin.

What did you pick to drink? Did you follow the agreement you’d freely made with yourself? Or did you say, “The heck with it,” and have what you really preferred? Or did you decide to wait and have something to drink later? Or to drink both?

That’s free will right there. Of course it *can *exist, because it does. (Didn’t St. Augustine have some thoughts on this?)

I think you are saying “Free will exists because it does.” This does not invalidate my argument.

 

[srlucado]

I think you are saying “Free will exists because it does.” This does not invalidate my argument.

You seem determined to engage in some sort of existentialist reductio ad absurdam speculation, which is a waste of time.

Can a tree *logically *exist? I don’t know and don’t care; there’s one outside my window right now, which makes any debate about its theoretical existence moot.

Don’t you have anything better to think about?

 

[JimG]

My own view is that free will cannot logically exist unless there is a non-material component to human beings capable of operating in a self-referent matter. I call that component the soul, and a faculty of the soul is the will, which is able to make decisions freely.

Without a non-material component, it seems to me, free will is not possible, since a material being is strictly governed by physical laws. Some will disagree with that view, taking the position that quantum weirdness can somehow make up for the total materiality of the human being. But I’m not buying it.

 

[Matthew_J]

I disagree. This statement isn’t some obscure and difficult leap of logic. These are two opposite positions, one of them must be wrong. Either it exists, or it doesn’t. Can you think of any situation where two opposite claims are both true? Where something both exists and doesn’t exist?

Maybe you’ve missed my point all along? The argument you provided seems to disprove that free will logically exists, not that free will exists. There is an important difference, which I did think I made fairly clear in the remainder of that paragraph? Do you understand my meaning now?

If you had said: “free will either exists, or it doesn’t”, I wouldn’t have disagreed with your statement

srlucado essentially hit the nail on the head with this statement:

Can a tree logically exist? I don’t know and don’t care; there’s one outside my window right now, which makes any debate about its theoretical existence moot.

do you have any specific examples?

Absolutely. Consider any of the famous logical paradoxes. For example, The Liar Paradox, The Arrow Paradox, The Tristram Shandy Paradox. The Arrow Paradox is particularly relevant in that motion is quite obviously observed to happen, yet is logically impossible. But interestingly, most would assume that there is an adequate, materialistic explanation for motion? You can either look up such paradoxes yourself, otherwise a small, simple compilation can be found here.

Such lapses in logic do not give much rise to logic’s undeniability, in my eyes at least.

 

[Matthew_J]

I’d like to make clear my own beliefs on the matter, as I have only just realised that I have not yet done so.

JimG put it excellently. I believe in free will, and I believe in dualism as the best explanation of free will’s existence (i.e. the soul). But not out of observable ‘fact’. Simply by choice, and Catholic teachings. To say that such a conclusion is obvious, especially to someone who for argument’s sake has never been exposed to Christianity, is IMHO not necessarily correct.

JimG, I must disagree with you on another account, as you probably predicted I would. Determinism was disproved (or at least, “extremely evidenced against”) some years ago, so I’d be more inclined to believe material beings are governed by “fixed physical rules”. Especially since it does conflict with Catholic beliefs. May I ask why it is you believe that?

NB, This does not mean that I believe quantum indeterminacy accounts for constructs such as free will. Simply that it is not “obvious” that it, or anything else materialistic, doesn’t.

 

[wasmit]

Dualism

Dualism or Cartesian Dualism is the philosophical position that there are two kinds of “stuff”: usually ordinary matter, and spirit. Rocks, light, clouds, etc. are composed of ordinary matter, whereas minds and souls are composed of a fundamentally different type of matter.

So, as a guess, the dualism based response to this situation might be:

“I agree that when taking a materialistic view off the body, (that humans are comprised solely of cells, atoms, etc) the body is merely a biological machine, whose reactions could be predicted if we knew the rules and (name removed by moderator)uts. However, there is more to a person than cells and atoms. Namely, consciousness or the mind. The incorporeal mind is the place where decisions are made, with free will.”

However, there are a few problems with the dualism argument I have outlined:

(1) There is no evidence for an incorporeal mind, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
(2) If an incorporeal mind exists, There must be a mind/body or corporeal/incorporeal interaction, where the mind makes the decision, and tells the brain or body how to implement that decision. It should be possible to study this interface, but no such interface has been found. Again, burden of proof.
(3) From the moment of conception, human development can be explained fully though the accumulation of matter via nutrition. A incorporeal mind is superfluous
(4) Brain damage. When a person incurs brain damage, through either disease, drugs or accident, both brain and the proposed incorporeal mind are injured. How could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured?

Perhaps I am attacking a straw man argument, though, because I do not know the full extent of the argument a dualism supporter would make.

 

[Matthew_J]

(1) There is no evidence for an incorporeal mind, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant.
(2) If an incorporeal mind exists, There must be a mind/body or corporeal/incorporeal interaction, where the mind makes the decision, and tells the brain or body how to implement that decision. It should be possible to study this interface, but no such interface has been found. Again, burden of proof.
(3) From the moment of conception, human development can be explained fully though the accumulation of matter via nutrition. A incorporeal mind is superfluous
(4) Brain damage. When a person incurs brain damage, through either disease, drugs or accident, both brain and the proposed incorporeal mind are injured. How could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured?

(1) Dualism is a metaphysical postulate, made in an attempt to explain observables such as free will. Metaphysics, like all philosophy, is not exact. To my understanding at least, it essentially has a “find some way to explain this” approach, and it is particularly difficult to logically prove metaphysical theories. The evidence for the incorporeal mind may be as thin as the paradox you yourself outlined in the OP. I have not looked far enough into it, but the mere fact that it is difficult to account for free will in a materialistic worldview is probably cause enough for the dualism postulate?
(2) I’m not sure I understand why you think it should be possible? It’d definitely be nice, but scientific study and the incorporeal really do not go hand in hand.
(3) I’m not sure I’ve understood you correctly here either. Are you suggesting that the mind (clearly an aspect of a human being, whether corporeal or not) can be similarly explained?
(4) This problem seems to have already been addressed in (2). This stems from a lack of understanding of the interface with which the incorporeal mind and the body interact.

 

[AirLiner]

(1) There is no evidence for an incorporeal mind, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

No, the evidence is the fact that consciousness exists. Trust me it is impossible through material means. Just think about it. How can atoms in motion produce consciousness? Ive discussed this in another board, I’ll bring the argument here if you need it.

(2) If an incorporeal mind exists, There must be a mind/body or corporeal/incorporeal interaction, where the mind makes the decision, and tells the brain or body how to implement that decision. It should be possible to study this interface, but no such interface has been found. Again, burden of proof.

It’s pretty difficult to study the immaterial, we don’t know how the brain and the mind interact exactly. Studying the material brain is already difficult enough. The fact that we don’t know exactly how the mind interacts with the brain doesn’t cancel out the evidence that dualism is real though.

(3) From the moment of conception, human development can be explained fully though the accumulation of matter via nutrition. A incorporeal mind is superfluous

It isn’t logically impossible for the incorporeal mind to be present since conception. Since its immaterial the development of the physical body wouldn’t affect the existence of the mind. However since the brain is the mind’s medium of communication then as it develops more the mind is able to exhibit more of its capacity.

(4) Brain damage. When a person incurs brain damage, through either disease, drugs or accident, both brain and the proposed incorporeal mind are injured. How could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured?

I don’t see how an accident, the movement of matter, will affect the immaterial mind. As I stated the brain is the mind’s medium of communication so it will lack the medium in which to exhibit its previous abilities. Look at it this way, pretend I’m the mind and a phone is the brain, if I am talking to you through a phone and the phone gets damaged, I’ll be perfectly fine, however I won’t be able to say as much to you because my method of communication has been damaged.

 

[wasmit]

I think you are saying “Free will exists because it does.” This does not invalidate my argument.

I’m not trying to reduce the discussion to “nothing can be proven to exist” silliness.

I previously held your position - saying to myself: “free will clearly exists. I have free will. I can make choices. I am making choices right now! It is quite obvious!”. But the argument in the OP has me doubting my personal internal feeling about this issue.

Using your tree analogy, my situation is analgous to you noticing the corner peeling off the picture of a tree that is glued to your window. You can look at your window and clearly see the tree. But it kind of looks there is a drawing on paper that is glued to the outside of my window… Is this just an illusion(picture) of a tree? How do I reconcile these two pieces of information?

 

[wasmit]

I disagree. This statement isn’t some obscure and difficult leap of logic. These are two opposite positions, one of them must be wrong. Either it exists, or it doesn’t. Can you think of any situation where two opposite claims are both true? Where something both exists and doesn’t exist?

Ah, I see I misunderstood your meaning.

so, you are saying that something can logically be shown to be unable to exist, but still objectively exist in reality? That seems crazy to me (Again another personal feeling?..)

Are you able to explain this concept further with examples, and with reference to how this solves my conundrum?

I at least am comfortable with the fact that things can exist and act against our logic. Especially since some things have essentially been proven to do so. ’

do you have any specific examples?

Absolutely. Consider any of the famous logical paradoxes. For example, The Liar Paradox, The Arrow Paradox, The Tristram Shandy Paradox. The Arrow Paradox is particularly relevant in that motion is quite obviously observed to happen, yet is logically impossible. But interestingly, most would assume that there is an adequate, materialistic explanation for motion? You can either look up such paradoxes yourself, otherwise a small, simple compilation can be found here.

Such lapses in logic do not give much rise to logic’s undeniability, in my eyes at least

The problem I see with the paradox of motion(arrow’s paradox) is the problem of counting “instants” of time. No matter how many instants of time you count, you will never add these instants together to form a period of time.

As far as I can tell, this paradox states that there is no motion at an instant of time, which seems fime to me. It says nothing about motion over a period of time.

I don’t see how the arrow’s paradox logically shows that “things can exist and act against our logic.”

 

[tonyrey]

Dualism

(1) There is no evidence for an incorporeal mind, and the burden of proof lies with the claimant.

1. Since our thoughts, emotions and decisions are intangible they are explained more readily in terms of an intangible entity than a physical brain. Since truth, goodness, freedom, equality and justice are intangible they too correspond more closely to an intangible self than to an observable organ. The relation of the mind to the body is mysterious but the mind directs the body in the literal sense of the term - it introduces direction and purpose into what would otherwise be a purposeless process. Inanimate matter has no goal or end.

We have direct, personal experience of the power of our mind.It is putting the cart before the horse to explain mind in terms of matter. Without a mind we wouldn’t even know matter exists. Our starting point is our stream of consciousness with its thoughts, sensations, feelings and decisions. We have direct knowledge of ourselves whereas our knowledge of physical reality is inferred from the evidence of our senses. Epistemological precedence does not necessarily entail ontological precedence but it indicates that the presumption that matter has emerged from mind is more likely than mind from matter.

(2) “If an incorporeal mind exists, There must be a mind/body or /incorporeal interaction, where the mind makes the decision, and tells the brain or body how to implement that decision. It should be possible to study this interface, but no such interface has been found.”

The flaw in this argument lies in the word “where” which implies interaction has a corporeal element. There is no need for the mind to be located anywhere because it transcends all the brain processes. The expression “He is out of his mind” conveys this fact admirably.

(3) “From the moment of conception, human development can be explained fully though the accumulation of matter via nutrition. A incorporeal mind is superfluous.”

It is impossible to explain responsibility if every aspect of human development is explained fully. As Kant remarked, “Ought implies can”, i.e. the ability to choose. Why do humans differ from animals in not being regarded as responsible?

(4) “Brain damage. When a person incurs brain damage, through either disease, drugs or accident, both brain and the proposed incorporeal mind are injured. How could it be possible that every single time the brain is injured, the mind is also injured?”

The fact that brain damage prevents the mind from using the brain or communicating tells us nothing about the mind. If a guitar is damaged and unplayable it does not follow that the guitarist is also injured

Truth, goodness and justice do not cease to exist when human beings die. Why not?

 

[Matthew_J]

I don’t see how the arrow’s paradox logically shows that “things can exist and act against our logic.”

Without directly addressing your problems with the arrow paradox (especially as, upon recollection, the paradox has been solved mathematically using limits/integration), I simply meant that, if it were a solid paradox, then the concept of motion can exist against logic. Why then can’t the concept of free will? But admittedly, that argument is moot now.

so, you are saying that something can logically be shown to be unable to exist, but still objectively exist in reality?

Yes, that is exactly what I’m saying. It seems crazy simply because we as humans (foolishly?) seek to explain everything with logic. At least in modern times, it is our primary and most satisfactory tool for doing so. However, if logic is the only tool we use to explain our world, we have a very solid requirement. That logic is undeniable. But as I’m trying to show you, this is not the case. Logic is flawed and unfortunately, logic itself doesn’t allow for imperfection, virtually by its definition.

As a Catholic, it is very easy to believe that our logic is, if not incorrect, at least incomplete. It is also easy for me to believe that it is impossible to complete the holes in our understanding of the world, simply because we were never given the capability to do so. Such holes in our understanding are fairly apparent; consider our difficulty in comprehending such concepts as infinity, time, a 4+ dimension world, etc. IMHO, these holes correspond to incomplete logic. However, I will defer from this argument simply because (I imagine) you wouldn’t find it satisfactory. Indeed, it would make this discussion far less interesting.

I should point out that I cannot provide an indubitable example of, or really any solid, irrefutable evidence for the deniability of logic. I am simply trying to soften your (and everyone’s) blind dependence on logic to explain everything in this world.

My goal here is simply to provide evidence against logic’s infallibility. Of course, in our world, there are even more absurd inconsistencies in logic. For example, the Copenhagen interpretation, being (certainly not lightly) the most widely accepted interpretation of quantum mechanics inevitably yields the concept that one can create a scenario in which a cat (or any being) can be considered to be both alive and dead at the same time! 99.9999999% of people would scoff at this absurdity, but I assure you, there is a reason that intellectual giants such as Niels Bohr and Werner Heisenberg, not to mention a majority of physicists over the past 70 years, maintain that the Copenhagen interpretation is the most adequate one. And we are talking about some of the greatest minds in the world, many of whom would find it even harder to accept the interpretation than your average Joe, considering the startling proportion of physicists who stubbornly want to believe in determinism.

So, the very people who make a living out of describing this world with (essentially) logic are willing to dismiss it where the occasion calls for it. Humbly, so am I.