Our concept of free will could all be an illusion, new research suggests.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

The universe just is, it needs no reasoning or purpose from us... before we evolved from our primitive hoots and grunts into hooting and grunting at string theory which happens to be the cats favorite subject btw... we want to hoot it purpose howl or bemoan the purpose we choose for ourselves and in that howling and bemoaning realize not choosing our own purpose or reason for being that is free will and choosing one already here or given or expected is of course not going to look like free will at all.

How did I discover my purpose that then led to self actualization and then furthering on and on beyond the possibility of rediculous material wealth only to detach entirely?

One day I concidered the thing I never really got from others: Encouragement. I was always told you cant, and then when I succeeded... the very same people would be there saying I knew you could, taking any sense of accomplishment wind right out of the sails and letting them have that pride even though it was no you cant. Well that crap gets old and well pulling oneself up alone by the bootstraps over and over again? I looked at encouragement... I was like why the hell do I never get the thumbs up like you can do it? Started all bemoaning the situation for a moment then digressed to thinking why dont I get encouragement? I always encourage others... then capow! right in the kisser, I was already what I thought I always lacked.

Sense of wholeness completeness? You bet. So I embraced that role, encouraged saw people at the top of their game stagnant and a sea of ass kissers... heres some constructive criticism... and hey thanks for that I was stuck like writers block not progressing... wink, no worries champ its what I do. Well after a long time doing that, more and more started opening up and not getting attached to what could come out of that, kept going instead of dropping my load to make a load... I kept going encouraging seeing more and more points of view as my limited self just floated away...

The wind may be change but it is still an embrace... we can cling to the center fearing the edge oh no its a long way down or toss the feet over the edge and cloud gaze with a stupid grin for however long the ride lasts.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
If free will doesn't exist, then why does it take me so long to figure out what I want when I go shopping?

Because you came for the "experience" of shopping.
It's why most of us don't remember our past lives, and if we do, we usually forget them.
It may seem like a "train of thought", but it was all part of the original contract. You go over the TPS reports, John from Accounting collects and counts them, and Nelly sings "It's Getting Hot in Hurr".
You have a script, and if you try to deviate from it, the universe will adjust the surrounding sequences accordingly.
I've had multiple premonitions that caused me to try to AVOID events happening, and my actions actually caused them TO happen. As Confucious Say:
"It's a giant cosmic 'Gotcha'."

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Science hasn't been able to substantiate whether or not free-will exists.

Have you ever seen any scientific evidence for the existence of free will? I don’t believe there is any. The evidence for it not existing, on the other hand, is rather overwhelming.

Not just scientific evidence, either. It seems to me that, in real life, what I will has very little influence on actual outcomes. Other forces appear much more powerful and influential. Despite this, I trust my own judgement, and remain a confident person who regularly takes decisions that are important, professionally and financially, to myself and others.

There's no point in divorcing the concepts when they were never conjoined... What I essentially am saying is that determinism deliberately removes... accountability.

You are contradicting yourself.

It actually incentivizes more criminal behavior

No, it doesn’t. That’s an old, dead argument, as shown here:

make good use of Operant conditioning.

Just because people don’t have free will, slavery is permissible? Is that the conclusion you draw from all this?

a reply to: akushla99

the conclusions reached are also predestined (obviously) and cannot be taken seriously

Why cannot predestined conclusions be taken seriously?

I am free to deny that ignorance.

On the contrary, something compels you to deny the possibility. Guess what that is?

a reply to: pl3bscheese

so how many of you don't stop to chew on things for more than a few seconds before acting.

How does that invalidate the thesis? The point is not that action precedes thought. It is that unconscious decision precedes conscious thought. You can chew things over all you like, but the results of your chewing are nevertheless predetermined.

This isn’t the first or even the dozenth experiment showing that our actions are the result of pre-conscious brain activity. The pioneer in this field was a man named Benjamin Libet.

In some cases, the brain activity predicting a ‘conscious’ decision occurs up to seven seconds before you become aware of your decision.

a reply to: AVoiceOfReason

unlike alot of people i think the universe has a purpose.

Isn’t that an argument against free will rather than for it?

a reply to: Astyanax

Have you ever seen any scientific evidence for the existence of free will? I don’t believe there is any. The evidence for it not existing, on the other hand, is rather overwhelming.

Did you read the part of my previous post where I mentioned that I don't subscribe to the concept of free will....

Not just scientific evidence, either. It seems to me that, in real life, what I will has very little influence on actual outcomes. Other forces appear much more powerful and influential. Despite this, I trust my own judgement, and remain a confident person who regularly takes decisions that are important, professionally and financially, to myself and others.

This is an Anecdote,don't really care what you do.

You are contradicting yourself.

Reread my previous posts,you'll find that I didn't state nor imply that free will and personal responsibility were conjoined ever. It's more likely you misinterpreted that statement.

No, it doesn’t. That’s an old, dead argument, as shown here:

That video shows how the system currently treats people with mental illness whom commit crimes and how social workers are just as crazy as their patients...That's a pretty bad example. Since it is nearly impossible to validate the deterministic causality of any crime,How exactly would determinism not incentivize crime...?

Just because people don’t have free will, slavery is permissible? Is that the conclusion you draw from all this?

Wow you need to take some reading comprehension classes...Seriously. How does Operant conditioning permit slavery...? It is simply positive and negative reinforcement or punishments,parents use this to effectively get their kids to behave..WTF does slavery have to do with that?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: akushla99

the conclusions reached are also predestined (obviously) and cannot be taken seriously

Why cannot predestined conclusions be taken seriously?

I am free to deny that ignorance.

On the contrary, something compels you to deny the possibility. Guess what that is?

Your first question doesn't even bear answering...I am under the impression that you are astute enough to know why.

To the second: the topic is not about me and what opinions other posters have of the limited information available about individual posters - regardless, the thread is not about me - probably prudent to remain on topic...

...which is the notion that the concept of free will 'might' be an illusion - a concept 'suggested' by research conducted and appraised by researchers who are under the illusion that their conclusions could be anything other than an illusion, as if immune from their own conclusion in designing and conducting the research, let alone the interpretation of all of the above. The conclusions reveal the confirmation bias - the propensity to interpret information according to pre-existing beliefs (which is what the research is 'suggesting') leading to errors...

That will be the last time I explain it.

A more pertinent question could be directed at the question of whether either can be proved or disproved while the subject of its existence (or not) is participating in a conflict of interest either way, and what (if any) agency could design, perform and interpret an experiment that does not implicate the researcher in its own conclusion in the fashion in which this research does...which is confirming an inbuilt bias by dent of its conclusion.

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

I am under the impression that you are astute enough to know why.

I am not. Please enlighten us.

This is precisely the point you are too afraid to consider.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

Did you read the part of my previous post where I mentioned that I don't subscribe to the concept of free will....

No. I was responding to the post you addressed to me.

It does not matter what you believe concerning free will. What matters is the suggestion that without it there is no responsibility. And the idea that people may be conditioned like Pavlov's dogs. This is very old hat, as illustrated by a scene from a very old musical comedy.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: akushla99

I am under the impression that you are astute enough to know why.

I am not. Please enlighten us.

This is precisely the point you are too afraid to consider.

I see.
Then I have no reason to credit what you are not bringing to a discussion(?) that you admit you are not astute enough to understand...

The second remark is just comedy gold...boring, but comedy gold nonetheless...

Å99

a reply to: japhrimu
You definitely have free will to choose. Most situations in life are reactionary situations and do not involve any planning at all however you have the choice to react to the situations however you choose. As the majority of people in society do not choose to monitor their thought processes ( a choice ) then the brain subconsciously will choose the default choice. The default choice is usually predetermined subsciously and usually comes from societial preconditioning, enviroment, biology etc. In life most decisions are generally limited to a choice between only a couple or at most a few different alternatives and generally require a preconditioned response. When their is limited choices then the choice can usually be predicted if the person is known well enough and as god knows each of us perfectly then god would naturally know what choices we would make including choices that are not limited to the expected choices. Their usually are of cause more choices but that takes a person that is both highly intelligent to see through the manipulation and highly self controlled to keep a level head.
Meditation, learning self control and other methods to try and control our thought processes will help us to make better decisions. How can a person make better choices if they cannot even control their thought processes and most people in society today cannot.

a reply to: cuckooold

We have free will when you look at things like the Free Will Theorem, current scientific understanding and the death of local realism.

Here's more on the Free Will Theorem.

The free will theorem of John H. Conway and Simon B. Kochen states that, if we have a free will in the sense that our choices are not a function of the past, then, subject to certain assumptions, so must some elementary particles. Conway and Kochen's paper was published in Foundations of Physics in 2006.[1] They published a stronger version of the theorem in 2009.[2]

The proof of the theorem as originally formulated relies on three axioms, which Conway and Kochen call "fin", "spin", and "twin". The spin and twin axioms can be verified experimentally.

Fin: There is a maximum speed for propagation of information (not necessarily the speed of light). This assumption rests upon causality.

Spin: The squared spin component of certain elementary particles of spin one, taken in three orthogonal directions, will be a permutation of (1,1,0).

Twin: It is possible to "entangle" two elementary particles, and separate them by a significant distance, so that they have the same squared spin results if measured in parallel directions. This is a consequence of quantum entanglement, but full entanglement is not necessary for the twin axiom to hold (entanglement is sufficient but not necessary).

In their later paper, "The Strong Free Will Theorem",[2] Conway and Kochen replace the Fin axiom by a weaker one called Min, thereby strengthening the theorem. Min asserts only that two experimenters separated in a space-like way can make choices of measurements independently of each other. In particular it is not postulated that the speed of transfer of all information is subject to a maximum limit, but only of the particular information about choices of measurements.

en.wikipedia.org...

In layman's terms, this is simply saying, that elementary paticles have free will and so do we. It's an elegant theorem. Here's an example:

You have an Experimenter walk into a room to measure the spin of a particle. The particle's spin state doesn't exist until the experimenter chooses how to carry out the measurement. So the particle has to have the freedom to choose say spin up or spin down and the Experimenter has to have the freedom to measure spin up or spin down. This isn't a function of something the Experimenter did in the past because information about what state will be measured doesn't exist for the particle or the Experimenter. This goes for two Experimenters separated in space measuring entangled particles. This is yet another nail in the coffin of local realism.

Here's a recent experiment.

Experiment suggests that reality doesn't exist until it is measured

Researchers working at the Australian National University (ANU) have conducted an experiment that helps bolster the ever-growing evidence surrounding the weird causal properties inherent in quantum theory. In short, they have shown that reality does not actually exist until it is measured – at atomic scales, at least.

www.gizmag.com...

This is exactly what the Free Will Theorem is saying.

In fact, the entire universe is subject to the FREE WILL of the Experimenter and the particle. Let's go back to our example.

Let's say our Experimenter carries out a measurement and it's spin up, in this universe he eventually goes home but he gets into a car accident on the way home. On the other hand, say the Experimenter measured spin down. He eventually goes home and he doesn't get into a car accident.

This would mean the entire universe is subject to the Free Will of the Experimenter and the particle. This again goes to the point that local realism is dead so there's nothing that we know of that's propping up the universe outside of our observation.

Quantum physics: Death by experiment for local realism

A fundamental scientific assumption called local realism conflicts with certain predictions of quantum mechanics. Those predictions have now been verified, with none of the loopholes that have compromised earlier tests.

www.nature.com...

The article you quoted could actually support Free Will and the Quantum Mind. If wave function collapse is occuring in the Quantum Mind then the outcome of that collapse reaches the Conscious mind, then you still have free will. You just have a Quantum Mind-Classical Brain interface where the Quantum Mind is non local and the Classical Brain experiences the illusion of local outcomes as an objective reality.

Reductionist bull....at least the story is not the finding itself.
The story is spun with the intent of furthering the lie that we are nothing more than a meat bag controlled by chemical processes.
There is a very evil political agenda down that line of thinking.

The truth is this is nothing more than what those of us in the shooting community call "muscle memory". You perform a task so many times that it moves from being a conscious choice to one that is programed based on environmental stimulants. Its evolved because it short circuits the OODA loop. That's Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. The OODA loop takes time. Time that we may not have so our brains push that decision way down into sub-conscious processing. We can train ourselves to do this by repetitive practice of a task. Such as drawing a firearm from its holster. There are many examples of Police officers who recall after a stressful encounter that they suddenly looked down ad realized they had their pistol in their hand. They did not consciously make the decision to draw it just occurred.

originally posted by: LAkadian

originally posted by: TzarChasm
If free will doesn't exist, then why does it take me so long to figure out what I want when I go shopping?

Because you came for the "experience" of shopping.
It's why most of us don't remember our past lives, and if we do, we usually forget them.
It may seem like a "train of thought", but it was all part of the original contract. You go over the TPS reports, John from Accounting collects and counts them, and Nelly sings "It's Getting Hot in Hurr".
You have a script, and if you try to deviate from it, the universe will adjust the surrounding sequences accordingly.
I've had multiple premonitions that caused me to try to AVOID events happening, and my actions actually caused them TO happen. As Confucious Say:
"It's a giant cosmic 'Gotcha'."

Its does indeed feel like a god damned dirty trick at first... you want to find the buddha and punch her in his baby maker, twist off tongues and go full wrathful but then after awhile one sits back and enjoys the shadow puppet show because? Done. Yet others are not and well you too can either just dance in shadow in accordance to script... or brace for the punch to your baby maker.

That's just it: our choices ARE a function of the past.

"and freedom is not the word you think it is" - Paradise Mind lyric

a reply to: LAkadian

Lets not bring karma into this... posting creates enough as it is.

a reply to: pheonix358

But Neo took the pill and woke up … ?

originally posted by: nOraKat
I don't think you need neuro-science to answer this question.

If you observe your own decisions, you can observe that all of your decisions were due to conditions -that is, it was due to such and such reason(s). It is observable.

Or maybe there can be random factors that effected a decison..

Whether a decision was decided by random factors or whether it was conditioned, that is not free will is it?

What other things can exit that effect a decision?

Right on, … maybe.

I used to believe like you that in a material universe free will cannot exist, because of the causal law that governs atoms. To my utter amazement I heard a top scientist say that consciousness may be a fundamental part of physics that we have not addressed yet. That would change everything. Don't you think?