Free thought. The very name of this blog seems to assume something which may not be true. Should the name be changed to “causally determined cognition”?
Imagine this hypothetical situation. An alien kidnaps you and puts you on his spaceship. He shows you a giant computer, and tells you that the computer has collected every bit of physical information about the universe at the moment you entered the ship. Then he takes you into a room with two boxes. He explains a game. He will have no further contact with the boxes. In box 1, he has placed either $1,000,000 or nothing. In box 2 he has placed $1000. He tells you that you can choose to take either box…or both of them. You look at him confusedly. He explains the catch. He has looked at his computer data and made a guess what you would choose. If he guessed you would take only box 1, he put $1,000,000 in it. If he guessed you would take both, he put nothing in it. What do you do? (the particular money amounts shouldn’t matter). This question involves an issue which is very important. Think about it, make a decision, and see if you can support it, especially as it relates to the rest of this article.
The question of free will is often ignored even in the discipline of philosophy. The question is far from being fully resolved, and indeed, should be scrutinized even more closely. The assumption of free will is so deeply ingrained in our thought that attempts to question it are dismissed out of hand, despite the tremendous implications for many theories in all areas of thought. It may be sufficient for the ignorant man to go about life without a thought in that direction, but if one is to make any credible argument in any discussion of human action, one must seriously consider the possibilities of determinism. The questions that arise include: What is “free will”? Do human beings have free will? What practical implications does free will or lack thereof have in daily life and morality?
There are two overlapping pairs of possible stances involving free will. The first pair is the argument of determinism and indeterminism. Determinism is the stance that all events, including human actions, can be entirely explained through causal relationships, and therefore, an infinitely intelligent being with complete information could reliably predict the entire future of the universe from any single set of circumstances. Indeterminism holds that this cannot be done, that some events are not determined by preexisting circumstances.
This is not yet a complete account to the possibilities of free will. There is also an argument between compatibilitists and incompatibilists, who may themselves belong to either of the above groups. Incompatibilists claim that determinism and free will are mutually exclusive. If the world is determined, there can be no free will. Compatibilists, sometimes called soft determinists, argue that free will can exist in a deterministic universe.
The reason we should be so concerned especially in this age about free will is that increasingly, science, as it has gotten more advanced, seems to provide indismissable evidence for determinism. Free will may have seemed intuitive, but experiments have shown that even when people think they are making a fully free choice, they are guided by complex, fully physical interactions in the brain. For example, an experiment was conducted where a patient was asked to choose randomly between an object on the left and right. Left handed people tended to choose left, and right handed people tended to choose right. However, if a certain part of the brain was stimulated, the odds became massively affected in the opposite direction, so that over 80% of right-handers would choose left. When asked, the patient insisted their action was fully free. Clearly the appeal to intuition is no longer sufficient. Beyond that, is there really any evidence in favor of free will?
What is free will? Is an unfree will possible? It is said by most that for an action to be free, the agent COULD have done otherwise. Some would add the provision: IF they had wanted to, to the end. This is important to the compatibilist argument. This IF clause, however, seems to necessitate the removal of “free” from free will, and thus they argue from a different definition.
Quantum physics, which has shown events on a tiny scale to be random, may replace determinism with a sort of probabilistic variant, but doesn’t remove the question of free will.
Free will seems to have many implications in our lives and view of the world. How do we view our own making of decisions? Especially, what effect would a deterministic worldview have on moral responsibility? Can we blame anyone for their actions if they were fully caused by circumstances before their birth? Does this affect our theory of punishment?
Is determinism a hopeless viewpoint? Useless? Some would disagree.
I will leave these questions mostly sans answers (although I myself may have them). Talk amongst yourselves, and feel free to ask questions or propose solutions. I implore that you consider very carefully. If you call yourself a free thinker, and you really think that you are free, make sure you can support that belief, and be sure you can articulate it to others. Ultimately, if one wants to lead an examined life, one cannot run from this question forever.
11.03.2005
Free will?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
I say not to worry about it. I chose to live life like i have free will, but if i don't have free will then what's it matter? Suppose you could crack the code of what makes humans tick, you could become ruler of the universe, but at the same time would relize that your just a slave to it. If criminals really didn't have a choice when they committed their crime, then did we really have a choice in whether or not we punished them? Lol, they can say we can't hold them accountable, but then they wouldn't be able to hold us accountable. As for your earlier question, i would go for the big bucks. It may or may not be there, but i think it would eat me up not knowing, plus i kinda beleive in go for it all or nothing. Maybe that just makes me predictable, but i'm willing to gamble the alien has no use for our money and could give it away with out flinching.
Playswithsquirrels, it is a good point that even the question "should we punish criminals" may be moot if there is no free will (what is "should" without free will?) However, there are still SOME effects on our view of the world even if we pretend free will if determinism is true, and so the question shouldnt be ignored. I think you're missing the point of the original hypothetical. The question is whether you would go for both boxes or only the one with the possible million. By "going for the big bucks" do you mean going for $10001000? The alien's ulterior motives or willingness to give the money aren't factors in the problem. Assume everything he says is true.
I'll be honest, i don't see where your going with the alien and the box. I'll just say that i would pick only box one and you can tell me what that means.
I suppose if i were to pick it, he would already have known that i would pick it and would have put a million dollors in it because he said he would. Lol, in that case i would be a rich and yet depressed man. In light of that thought perhaps i would take both of them to try and spite him and his computer. But in that case he would already have known that i would do that and put nothing in them, in which case i'd be a poor and depressed man. So again i would pick only box 1, but i would very much hope nothing was in it.
The point of the box is that the choice might appear obvious one way or the other, but there seems to be an equally valid argument for either choice. One might say "well, if he's right, then if I take just the one box, I will get $1,000,000, whereas if I take both I will only get $1000. Duh...I take only box one. What a silly puzzle." Then again, one might also reason "Well, whatever is in the boxes isnt going to change, and no matter what, if I take both boxes I will get $1000 more than if i took just the first one. Duh...I take both boxes. What a silly puzzle." One's answer to the problem of free will might affect the choice...or maybe not.
"No Charge Online Advertising Channels For Any Business"
or you could choose to not play the silly alien's silly game. Giving you the option of one box or two (etc) indicates that the alien assumes you're greedy, as he says nothing about taking no boxes.
For this to make sense to me, I have to assume that you're referring to the alien as God (or at least some higher being) in metaphor. Do I have that right?
The nature of the alien is not particularly relevant. It is simply a being that can read out the prediction offered it by its computer. Whether such a computer could ever really be built is not essential to the hypothetical.
I'm gonna post my original thoughts and then come back after reading others comments.
To me free will is confusing. There is much I don't know in this area. I do know that there is fine lines between people that choose to live as servants and those that choose to live as a monopolist. I know that through my faith we are infered to choose God or choose to not have him, but it also states that he chose us before we were in the womb. This baffels me. I believe we have free will, but I think it is a regulated free will. We are regulated by upbringings, we often follow, but we also often break the bondage of an upbringing. We'll get into routines that will bind us in a path and takes away freedom, but we also can break that path. To have ultimate free will I think not, but to a degree I believe we do.
I also don't know how reliable the scientific tests could be. To simply grab an object is a reaction mode. We react by what we are most use to. That's why lefties will usual grab with the left and righties will grab with the right. Stimulating parts of the brain will casue that side, muscle cordination and all, to be more active. This will cause a reaction to happen in more of a controlled way. Does this mean that a perosn, if stimulated correctly, will choose to save a persons life or destroy a persons life? That leaves the realm of reactions and to a realm of reason and thinking.
The alien bit leaves me with more of a question on motives. It would boggle my brain. Logically I would assume that with the comment being made that if he guessed I would pick one then he would of put $1,000,000 dollars in it I would automatically go for that one. Why chance him thinking me greedy; I'd go for just one. Now, that leaves the alien in a predicament. He could collect all the data in the universe, but that would still leave him with chance. A poker player may be known as one that folds often and takes little chance, and then in one moment bluffs his way for the whole pot.
There's far too much chance for me to believe some being has 100% control over our lives. My faith says otherwise, my logic says otherwise; but it also tells me that we don't have 100% control ourselves. I guess I would be considered more of a compatibilist.
WS, I dont see how making a choice about saving someone's life is fundamentally different than the hand experiment. In the experiment the person was instructed to make a conscious choice, so at least in their mind it was more than a "reaction". If it was a reaction, any choice, moral or otherwise, seem analogous in all relevant ways. You also seem to misunderstand the alien hypothetical. Finally, a compatibilist viewpoint isnt just an intermediary safe ground for people who think that we are half-determined (any "half-determinist" is an indeterminist), but rather a position that whether or not we are determined makes no difference to the existence or nonexistence of free will.
I think a free will only exist in a free world, where there is no "right and wrong," pain, judging, regrets, etc.
PS, they have a word verification settings for spam control.
I write on a piece of paper a certain number, carefully concealing it from the alien -- let's call him Al. Then I bet Al ten million U.S. dollars -- don't want any of that devalued alien funny money -- that I have just recorded on the paper the exact amount of what my winnings will be.
Al agrees and I immediately show him the paper that reads "$10,000,000" and demand my money. When Al objects that I have not yet made a choice, I explain, "You said I could choose either box or both! But you did not say that I had to choose any box. I freely chose none. So where's my 10 mil, Al?"
At that, Al draws a plasma pistol from the empty box and blasts me into a flaming pile of half a million twenty dollar bills and says "Good on ya, mate!"
Moral of the story: Don't play games with strangers, even if they offer you a million bucks in a box!
If, as quantum physics may suggest, there are an infinite number of universes allowing for an infinite number of possible outcomes for each event or decision, then some universes, events, or decisions may be wholly or partially deterministic. Which do we frequent?
And, in a such spectrum of universes where events and decisions are probabilistic, just like an infinite number of monkeys Googling on an infinite number of Dell computer keyboards, all the answers are right there. However, to be intelligible, a number of somebodies with consciousness would have to look over the shoulders of the monkeys to determine which outcomes make sense -- an infinite number of us!
Who's looking over your shoulder?
For those who choose not to lead an examined life, there are daily pop quizzes and mid-term exams anyway!
And as Tuco once said, "If you're gonna choose, choose! Don't articulate!"
http://img23.photobucket.com/albums/v68/geo175/Tht%20good%20the%20bad%20and%20the%20ugly/gbu42.jpg
Most likely you already know this, but "just for the records": This is the so-called Ascombe Paradox. Game theorists have studied it in some detail.
Free will may be an illusion. Chances are that our brain produces decision in completely DETEMINISTIC with possibly same randomness built. Process that takes place is not on counscious level and data processed may come from our senses or our knowledge but again we may not be aware of it. We only register final effect - a "free" decision.
Actually, the paradox is Newcomb's paradox, not Ascombe, and indeed game theorists study it, though not always in the manner discussed here. Ianus, I think you overextend quantum theory of infinite universes to a description of consciousness it may not support. Jooks, there are many who would argue that free will is a prerequisite for morality, and it would at least appear to me that the question of free will is more fundamental than the question of morality, in that the existence of morality depends (at least partly) on the existence of free will, and not vice versa, as you seem to imply.
Great post! Thanks for making it easy to find information about online sportsbetting. Even though your blog titled, Free will? is not exactly related to our site, we feel that if you visit you could benefit greatly from all the information available.
IANUS, be aware of what scientists may suggest something leads to, they are human too and try to combine things to prove themselves right, even when there isn't any backing. I agree that morality stems from free will. If everyone went around saying they had no control, everything happens because it's made that way, there would be no reason for accepting responsibility for actions and therefore create a chaotic world, now with free will, at least implied that we have it, creates circumstances to allow punishment for wrongs and the need for responsibility.
ANSWERING A RIDDLE WITH A RIDDLE
NO NO NO, the answer is much simpler than that. There is choice there, and the choices that are possible do not conflict with each other. If I were given the choice of taking one box or the other, or both, well... what would I do?
What if I did it like this?:
I would decide, by myself, in advance, that I would first take only one box but, if and only if this box had anything in it would I then take the remaining box as well.
Maybe this answer is inadmissible because it does not follow any choice rigidly. Though, it may be my interpretation of the question that is flawed because, as I understand, it requires that the subject of the test makes exactly one of the choices offered: Take one box or take both boxes. But, it was made clear that the alien would have no further contact with the boxes so, what would stop the subject from opening the boxes as he goes along?
I don't believe that the alien stipulated that the subject should decide before acting, and that no further decision should be made while acting.
Hmmmm... interesting question. Interesting case? Email me your thoughts or answers natemurd@hotmail.com.
Oh, another passing thought, from the same ANONYMOUS person.
Is it possible to alter this given question in order to avoid the problem that I have explained?
The question could be changed so that the subject of the experiment would be allowed to choose only one box and the alien could make a prediction and maybe put money into the box that he believes will be chosen. Maybe this would require a room full of boxes, so that the chances are not 50/50.
The alien could say to the man "Choose one of these boxes" and let the man know "One of these boxes contains $1 000 000" but, then the question is ruined, and fails to have the same consequences given free will, which, or course, was the whole point.
To fix the original question, maybe the alien could make it clear that the subject MUST choose either one box or both, and MUST not touch the boxes himself. Then, the choice of taking no boxes is eliminated, and the choice of taking one box and then deciding to take the other after seeing the contents would be eliminated.
I really enjoyed reading you question. The most interesting thing is that both the subject of the experiment and the experiment's creator would have solved this issue of free will after the experiment is over or would it have been solved?
No, not quite solved. Either the subject believes the alien and takes one box only or the subject does not believe the alien and takes both. In either case, if the alien did know, in advance, what the subject would choose to do then, even after the subject has chosen it is hard to see what the question answers. So, I am wondering, which choice would provide both the alien and the subject with the most information about free will? Which choice would provide them with the least information about free will? Would any choice that the subject makes give us any information at all about free will?
natemurd
Are we really supposed to think THAT HARD about everything in life???? I feel sometimes like I've invested too much time and energy into thinking too much about too many things, instead of just living - or the thinking and the pondering the real LIVING and everything else we do is not?
I used to think I had SOME answers, but now I don't.
I used to think some things in life were predictable and certain, but now I don't.
I am at a place where I am questioning the beliefs I held closely - and I think my questions are valid and are not easily answered, are even, perhaps, unanswerable.
What do you think? My blog is lots of musings about life, not like my daily journal, more about certain experiences or questions. I hope you'll visit mine. Yours is quite interesting and intriguing.
Late In The Game
Not knowing anything about Ascombe, Newcomb or Hairbrush, I see the underlying question behind the argument of 'free will' and the 'alien with a box of money' thought experiment as a question of fate or destiny. One could argue their response to this question, and thus infer their belief in destiny (or no destiny), but it may be one of those meaningless questions because there is no way to conduct a test to see what is the 'correct' answer to this thought experiment.
I personally believe that our 'free will' is determined by our environment, our past, and our circumstances. It is bounded by our experiences in life, and thusly only as free as it can be within these boundaries. What we have been trained to see as acceptable or inacceptable, right or wrong, moral or immoral, will affect whatever decision we ultimately make with our 'free will.' For example: one could have been brought up to believe that money (or as one of my favorite writers calls it, 'bio-survival tickets') is of the utmost importance, and 'the person with the most toys wins.' Well, if that's the case, and you feel that picking just box 1 is a 'sure thing' to getting a million dollars, you will choose, with your own version of 'free will,' box 1. If you're a gambling man, or just the kind of person who likes to thumb his nose at fate (dominance issues? parents were over-controlling?), you will pick both boxes, either because you're hoping the alien is wrong, or because--well--you're a rebel. Or, because the alien has guaranteed $1000 in box 2, and the imprints on your psyche throughout life has made you either (a) desperate and/or (b) cautious, you pick box 2. Or, you're an a*?hole and pick none (like I and one other suggested earlier).
Again, like was mentioned in the original post, the actual amounts don't matter. It boils down to a matter of one's faith (do I believe in destiny?), and what formed this particular pattern in the person's past (why do I believe in destiny?) to make them choose the way they do.
So that's my two cents.
-- Everything in this comment is false.
What a great site film editing schools
What a great site » »
Post a Comment