Do humans actually have free will?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by nameless

Our concepts, which is all memory, has whatever 'meaning' that is applied (inherent), all the 'Being' that we can know.

Nothing has an inherent meaning. All conepts receive their meaning in relation to our lives. Our lives are the source of all meaning, and no concept that does not effect our lives for good or bad will have meaning.

An illusion by any other name... You 'believe' in (the representational meaning and concept of) 'freedom', or you do not. If you 'believe' in it, you will fight, kill, die in support and propagation. History shows that.
Freedom = choices. There are none (choices/options) but as a 'belief' or an 'illusion'. I see the illusion, I do not 'believe' in it's 'reality'. Others do. All the various perspectives are what give depth and breadth to the illusion/dream of 'life'.

Our belief is a value we put on a concept whether it is real or not. To say what I believe in is illusion means you hold little value, or no meaning in it.

I don't give any value (or meaning) to that which is not 'real'. Others do.

Which means you give it no value or meaning to it. But think for a moment of all we conceive of that is not real, like the individual, or like determinism.

In your concepts/memory.


Concepts are memories (not necessarily containing 'meaning'), some of which arise with 'personal/perspectival' 'meaning', some do not.
No 'concept' is the 'thing' (unless it's a 'concept' of a 'concept'?), a 'memory' is a 'memory', nothing more.
There is no evidence of anything 'more'.

Well I must disagree with you you disagreeable person you. You see, Like Anni Defraco said: we hardly have time in this life to react, let alone rehearse... And I believe her. We don't have time for useless, meaningless, concepts in our minds, so, much that is background to what is essential to us stays as background. We only conceptualize those objects or ideas that have value or that we come to value. We know we have a concept in every word in the dictionary, and repeat that, for every language. What do we talk about? Do we talk about what is unimportant? Do we talk out of necessity? Clearly some words go out of use because they lose their meaning in our lives even if they have a dictionary definition. Certainly some experiences are by themselves impossible to fairly concieve of even if we value them highly. But though it be a monumental task, you could find one word, like love or family, or philosophy that you value above all others because of the meaning you give to the concept. And from there, you could evaluate all other concepts to a gradually lesser degree. The problem is, that what was of value to you yesterday may mean nothing to you tomorrow. It happens. And you may find someone who values your most valuable concept not at all, and drags it into a dark alley, and pees on it. Shame on him. But if you tell me you do not find more meaning in one thing than another, I will believe you are abusing the little dog's intelligence and depart.

[nameless]

Originally Posted by Fido

Nothing has an inherent meaning. All conepts receive their meaning in relation to our lives.

That is what I mean when I refer to 'inherent meaning'.

Our belief is a value we put on a concept whether it is real or not.

From this perspective, you are mixing and confusing terms. I see 'belief' as a sort of pathological viral infection of the mind, vaguely similar to what Richard Dawkins describes.
I hold the concepts that I "am" to be of temporary and varying degrees of 'pragmatic utility'. I don't 'believe' them to be 'Truth/Reality'. A held 'belief' singles out a particular 'concept' (or concepts) to identify as, and egoically identify with, as 'Truth/Reality'. That is why most consider 'their beliefs' to be 'Truths/Reality' for everyone, which they obviously are not.
None of my concepts have ever been 'upgraded' to a universal 'Truth'. They are simply 'memory', like everyone else, no less, no more.

To say what I believe in is illusion means you hold little value, or no meaning in it.

All there is is 'illusion/dream/thought'. To 'believe' it to be 'Truth/Reality' is considered to be 'delusion'. I am not offering this understanding of the nature of 'delusion' in a judgemental way, merely a descriptiohn of what I see from this perspective. 'Delusion' is built into the 'system' (memory) as a necessary component. Therefore, I do not judge it as 'good or bad' (nor anything else for that matter), I simply am identifying it.
I hold no aspect of illusion to have any more 'value or meaning' than any other featute of illusion. I enjoy the dream in which I find myself, but at no point do I imagine it to be 'Reality/Truth'. But, that is 'my' memory, 'my' nature; others are theirs. All equally valid (or invalid, depending on perspective).

Which means you give it no value or meaning to it.

Right, none other than as 'make believe' value and meaning, knowing all the time that it is illusion/game/dream...'

But think for a moment of all we conceive of that is not real, like the individual, or like determinism.

I would need your definition of 'real' to offer 'my' perspective on the matter. Again, the definition that most resonates with me is the Vedanta;
"Reality must rigidly adhere to that which is in an unchanging state of universal permanence."
When I use the term 'real' it is this definition that is predominately a relatively accurate reference for meaning.
I would say that there is nothing in existence, according to the offered definition, that meets the definition of 'Reality'. All existence is contextual which disqualifies it from meeting the definition.
There are multitudinous personal definitions of 'reality', all equally valid. This is ' mine'.
'Determinism' is an illusion arising with the illusions of 'motion' and 'linearity', 'time'; it is not 'Real' (from this perspective, obviously).
One false (and accepted) assumption, and we can build the most wondrous, logical, edifices thereupon! Like our lives!

Well I must disagree with you you disagreeable person you.

Hahahaha, logically, if it is 'you' who disagrees, would it not be 'you' who is the 'disagreeable' one? *__-
Semiseriously, though, as there are no two perspectives that are in perfect harmonious agreement, everyone would be 'disagreeable' at one moment or another.

You see, Like Anni Defraco said: we hardly have time in this life to react, let alone rehearse... And I believe her. We don't have time for useless, meaningless, concepts in our minds,

See, my interpretation of her words, whoever she might be, is exactly literally. Each individual (Planck) moment, is too 'short' to contain enough 'time' for there to be anything 'happening', much less 'reaction' or 'action'!
And I do not 'believe' this, I (think about it, and) posit it as the best theory that can be supported to date. Perhaps tomorrow (or the next moment), there will be new 'data' (memory)...

so, much that is background to what is essential to us stays as background.

There cannot be 'background' without 'foreground'! No 'happy' without 'sad'. That is the contextual/dualistic nature of existence.

We only conceptualize those objects or ideas that have value or that we come to value.

You seem to assume 'doership/responsibility'.
Perhaps the 'concepts/memory' is here, new, each moment, with no alternatives possible, and we 'learn' to find value therein, as there is no choice anyway, and the 'pride' certainly likes to take credit for that which it has not 'earned'.

We know we have a concept in every word in the dictionary, and repeat that, for every language.

Really? You have experience with 'hot'. The word 'hot' brings all this experience and therefore has meaning to you. The same cannot be said for words such as 'nothing' and 'infinite'. But, yes, all words exist, as does everything else, as concepts, and therefore exist.

What do we talk about?

What I must.

Do we talk about what is unimportant?

Seldom.
Often.
All the time.
Never.
I guess that it all depends on what you might define as 'important'!

Do we talk out of necessity?

No choice, so, yes.

But if you tell me you do not find more meaning in one thing than another, I will believe you are abusing the little dog's intelligence and depart.

Hahahaha! I find relative and temporary and conditional 'meaning', on a very 'superficial level'. I simply do not believe that what 'meaning' that I might see, or not see, at any particular moment, in any particular 'thing', is 'Real', or 'Truth', or of any 'value' other than to whatever temporary conditional 'value' that I might imagine at the moment... Ultimately, there is nothing of more 'value' to me than anything else; I 'know' that all is One.
I do play 'make believe' very well, and am enjoying the 'dream' immensely.. especially since 'lucidity'...

[Fido]

You play nameless and I'll play witless and ask you if you can state your particular delusion, memories, dreams, beliefs, what ever in a positive statement without contradiction, and without consideration of my delusions, illusions or contusions? Thank you. Anytime. Never mind. Friend of mine.

[GridLok]

Now, now dear people, please, little is achieved by personally confrontational comments. I did not originate the observation, but I certainly support it, that: When emotion comes in the door, reason flies out the window.

Let me be more specific about that to which I alluded previously - in proposing two distinct uses of the word 'will'. For communication to be coherent, there must exist between interlocutors, certain basic commonalities: i). All must use a common medium - it would be a fruitless exercise for someone wishing to join this thread to do so by directing spoken remarks to the computer screen, or signing them with ASLAN;
ii). There needs to be a common means of encoding and decoding information - it is apparent that in the current circumstances written English is in use (e.&o.e.); iii). Most troublingly, the meaning of individual words and phrases must be agreed (and NOT assumed!).

It is with regard to point iii). that I shall make a few comments. I acknowledge that my remarks are undoubtedly influenced by the fleeting acquaintance I have had with the work of Ludwig Wittgenstein and Eleanor Rosch and others of like mind.

Firstly, it would seem to me apparent that meaning or definition is always a 'construct'; that is to say it is always derived from and heavily influenced by experience as mediated by the peculiar attributes of the individual brain. In short there is no inherent indisputable 'meaning' to any word or use of language. This flexibility can be both a boon and a bane. The ability of the human mind to form 'new connections' - as it were, clearly has great adaptive benefits and humans understandably value creativity as a consequence. But variability alone is chaos. A requisite counterpoint is the possibility of stability. In communication this means, I suggest, there is a need for agreement on the meaning constructed for, or attached to, the language that is used. The consistency of language is then standardised arrived at by one of two ways - denotative or connotative definition. In the former case, a specific meaning is imposed on or determined for a particular word; e.g. an invented word, an existing word used in a novel way. The latter, and by far the most common approach in practice, is definition by exemplification (or as Rosch put it, "prototyping"). In this situation the meaning of a language is determined by its use. Thus the meaning of a term and its application (its contextualising) is a matter of, often informal and unspoken, consensus. And it is this which both allows for flexibility and subtlety in communication, and frustrates efforts to formalise just what is being considered. In this instance the notion of 'free-will', and necessarily the supporting concepts of 'freedom' and 'will'.

For now, since I have unfortunately run-out or time, I shall make some denotative assertions:

"Will" - in the context under discussion, is most commonly understood in the sense of choosing.
"Free" - freedom either exists or it does not; it makes no sense to talk of partial freedom. Conversely one may very sensibly talk about degrees of restriction.
"Free-will" - refers to the possibility of unrestricted choice
"Choice" - especially in this context, implies a number of equally possible courses of action, only one of which is (AND can ever be) realised, and the means by which that occurs.

Problem: How does 'choice' arise, how is it determined?

Have to love you and leave you for now.

[Fido]

Actually. When emotion comes in the door reason gets naked and lays on the bed and pretends to be passed out. I know those two, and they make a weird couple.

[Scattered]

I'll drop a thought here.
In response to those who mentioned that everything is a result of something before and so all is predictable and pre-ordained, quantum mechanics says this is not so. Wonderfully discussed by E. E. Doc Smith years back in SciFi.
I'm sort of inclined towards biology, so I might respond with consideration of the nature/nurture debate, which I claim is actually the nature/nurture/meme debate. I would like to say that it is a balance between them, but my research and understanding has suggested that the genes carry an inordinate control of our actions. ... Sort of annoying in my view.
In another context though is an interesting point. It is surprising that we have very limited free will in behavior. Responces are far more hard wired in than you might expect. ... What was the logic on that?... You can ignore danger, fight it, or flight it. There aren't a whole lot of alternatives. ... would be my logic, but what I read was much better and a bit different. Nature doesn't trust us enough to give us a huge amount of latitude in our response. I wish I remembered the original arguement. it was good.
Whatever, just some observations, but they are well considered.

[GridLok]

Very good! You clever little dog, Fido … well put!

But, to the matter at hand: What does it mean to say that there is 'choice'? I suggested previously that this refers to circumstances in which a number of equally possible outcomes are confronted and one of them (or none) is acted on. And let's just deal with what might be the case for human beings shall we?

Further questions occur to me (at least, that is the conventional way of putting it):

If it is said that a 'person' makes the choice, what is it that constitutes that person? Where does one look to find the person? Inside the body with which that person is associated?

But, what if (radical thought!) there is no separate entity, within or without the body, that may reasonably be called a 'person'? Afterall, there is considerable evidence to indicate that a person's character may undergo considerable change (take the classic case of Phineas Gage). How then might the question of free will be addressed?

||So it seems that, the question of whether or not humans actually have free will, must be put on hold while the question is addressed of whether or not there is even an entity by which it might be exercised.|| WRONG!!

Let me correct myself (please), with reference to Nameless on Dec. 6,

There are no 'options' to that which Is, Here/Now.

However a course of action arises (and not only within a human being), the question must surely be asked, "could it have been otherwise?" And, "how could it have been otherwise, yet it was not?" Surely the response must be that, at the very moment at which choice occurred, something caused the human being concerned to act as they did. Shall we say there really is a 'person' inside each human, and that 'person' made the choice. Now either the choice was 'determined' or 'random' - they are the only two alternatives. Were it a random choice, that is to say completely without predication on any other factor, one could not reasonably say it was an exercise of choice - although there may have been in allowing events to unfold randomly. So, if we talk of the choice as 'determined', and thereby infer causal relationship(s), we are faced with consideration of how that choice arose. Well then, did the person choose and what does it mean to assert that they did? Could a person choose without any criteria to choose by? Obviously not. How might they determine which criterion is to hold sway? They must needs have some other criteria, but then they same question arises and we have reductio ad absurdum. It simply is not possible to construct, within any coherent framework of rationality, a scenario in which the notion of freedom of choice (free will) can have logical and consistent expression, UNLESS … … unless, there is at the outset the declaration of a synthetic condition - i.e. a denotative definition of the human condition, that specifies a priori human beings do have free will. This needs then to be accompanied by corollaries that develop associated structures of reasoning, to accomodate the often inconvenient intrusions of how things actually are in the universe of our existence. Combined, these constitute a 'belief system', such as underly religions, challenges to which are commonly vigorously resisted.

It is a psychological and social convention that human beings talk as if they do have free will. However, I think things probably are pretty much as Nameless also seemed to be suggesting in the Dec.6 post: the actuality of The Universe has been as it has been, is as it is, and will be as it will be. Human beings do not 'actually' have free will, but conventionally act as if they do. It is not the only way to respond to the world - for all existence is a response to the laws that have directed The Universe since its inception. And they are Laws. They are immutable and invariable.

As you may gather there is much more to be said, but that is for another occasion and perhaps, another place. Please feel free to email me.

[GridLok]

Thanks Scattered. I was in the middle of my post when notification arrived of your comments - and I'll have to be brief (hmm, not real good at that):

1.

In response to those who mentioned that everything is a result of something before and so all is predictable and pre-ordained, quantum mechanics says this is not so.

As I'm sure you are aware, Quantum Mechanics is not a coherent and consistent 'road map' to everything, demonstrably unchallengable in every aspect. It is a collection of largely mathematically generated hypotheses about the mechanism(s) whereby energy differentiated into The Universe as we know it. Theoretical ventures such as Quantum Mechanics have a history of proving incomplete and sometimes downright wrong; as such we may expect it to be superceded.

In the context of the question of human 'free will', Determinism need not, I suggest, require that "all is predictable and pre-ordained" - at least in the sense that, in everday functionality we may know the future with certaintly. Without wandering off onto matters that although contiguous with this topic would likely take us into distinctly different considerations, I would claim that it is not possible to have conceptualise what is without also establishing what is not. Thus, to talk of cause-and-effect in any necessary sense such as is implied in terms like 'predictable' and 'pre-ordained', one must necessarily allow that which is random and un-predictable/not pre-ordained. Not surprisingly, we find that randomness does exist. Further there is that which is neither completely random nor absolutely defined - the field of probability, in which outcomes are asymptotic, tending towards rather than actually reaching. Thus Schroedinger's equations relate to probability states of quanta. Yet in ways as not yet fully understood, somewhere between the total chaos of complete randomness and the invariability necessary for structure to exist, there clearly exists mechanisms whereby energy/matter in quantum-state relationships interact and stabilise (to varying extent) such that the world of classical physics is manifest. Who knows perhaps The Universe is a sort of collosal interference pattern.

Hey, sorry, but I really have to go - or I won't get fed. Let's pick this up again later.

[Scattered]

After reading your first paragraph saying that quantum mechanics may not be all that clear and defined, I was going to reply that isn't the lesson of "Schroedinger's cat" perfectly clear, but I see you already hit that. Yah, I really wonder about that physical reality thing sometimes.
Still, just in terms of biology, our free will seems rather limited... Of course that may not be the perspective you are using.

[GridLok]

You know Scattered, it has occurred to me that Schroedinger's Cat has an elemental flaw, as a thought experiment. As I understand it, and speaking very broadly, the indeterminacy of a quantum state effectively hinges upon particles in that state being maintained in isolation from any classically determined physical state. Thus when, for instance 'spin' is measured, although the state that is 'found' can only be predicted as a probability, any subsequent measurement becomes certain. This has led a number of commentators (sorry, I have not researched this, and cannot cite references) to suggest that since measurement is a function of human consciousness, the 'reality' of The Universe is entirely contingent upon human consciousness. In other words, 'the cat' exists in an indeterminate state of being both dead and not dead until such time as the probability wave function is collapsed by observation (i.e. measurement). The problem is that every item comprising the suggested experimental conditions, exists in a determinated (wave-collapsed) or classical state. As such every non-quantum state item/particle effectively 'measures' the quantum-state particle(s) such that the rate of decay of the isotope is determined and hence measurable within known (or, knowable) limits. I guess what I'm saying is, I think Schroedinger's Cat is a bit like Zeno of Elea's paradox of the arrow in flight, in that each depends on what I would call logical sleight-of-hand, that simply does not square with empirical experience, nor stand close rational consideration.

As for

consideration of the nature/nurture debate

, my understanding - as much from a general "philantiliptical"
(= philosophical) basis as from my psychology studies, is that there really is little point to it. Nurture cannot occur without there being a nature to nurture, and nature simply does not exist without nurture (at least in a human context). At any given time and dependent on the aspect of human existence being considered, either nature or nurture may be seen as dominant.

And "memes" … I haven't had time to read much on the topic. Nonetheless my first impression is that nurture, which we might do well to consider as and integral part of nature (in a broad sense), is part of the complex system that is the totality of human existence. Further, I would predict that any comprehensive theory-of-everything will have to include both order and chaos, the determinable and the random.

Ah gee, gotta go (again). I look forward to hearing from you again.