Does free will exist? Do we have a choice?

[HypnoMix]

"You aeady made the choice, now you have to understand it."

Did you know that the brain makes decisions up to 30 seconds before we consciously know about it? Moreover, the brain sends a calming signal telling that it's "us" who made the decision.

Sounds sub conscious in a quantum state to me.

[Lancer]

I think that free will needs some definition.

If free will is defined as can we make choices by ourselves with no external forces the answer is yes. Imagine a coin then pick a side, congrats. You made a choice that is probably completely arbitrary and random but it is your choice. Now there are some biases with how our brains work. You can have preferences on completely arbitrary things if you were prompted or had flipped/seen a coin recently but by and large this is free, you can do this because your brain is always firing for no understandable reason that happens even when sleeping, acting as a very fancy randomization machine.

Where free will is challenged is why we make the choices we do. This is where I believe that freewill is often closer to randomness and irrationality than anything else, the more data and experience you have the more your logical choices get constrained, you aren't free for picking a choice believing it to be the best outcome, that's just rational programming that allows survival. Take a single ant, it has no demonstrable free will, it does what is made to do whether that be gathering food or fighting or building, an ant will never go out and do something unique afterwards.

Where this differs is beginning with dogs and cats and similar beings, when fed and their needs are well maintained they will do behavior that has little real purpose, strutting around, watching you do whatever you do, look at stuff out the window or even just plain relaxing. These are all behaviors that aren't survival related as their needs are met, they do what they do just because they have nothing that needs to be done. Similar behavior can be seen in whales and elephant who can play and communicate for no survival reason too, they just do it as they feel like it with no practical reason.

Now bringing us to people, if a person commits a crime out of desperation like stealing food because they are starving that isn't free will, the existing and normally easier pathway to survive simply doesn't work out, food will be obtained however it needs to be. Similarly you going to work is not an act of free will, you might not be desperate but you can understand cause and effect perfectly, you do work to be able to get the things you need and want, it is the easiest and most risk free way of doing it. Where free will in humans manifest is also when survival is not the priority anymore, what you do for a hobby for example is free, it isn't related to survival and is being done simply as you like it.

The interesting part is that we don't all see the world the same way, perspective, life experience, wealth, trauma among many other things can effect how we see the choices we make, someone else's choice may seem terrible to us but seem better from their perspective

Free will is also moderated by pleasure/joy and pain/discomfort. You can choose to stare at a wall but it won't make you happier and it takes tremendous effort to keep consciously staring at it, you eventually go find or do something that has been deemed evolutionary ot be more fun or productive/satisfying. Pain meanwhile is a very strong message to tell you to stop doing whatever it is you just did. These moderate free will so in theory it should only go for productive and happiness causing activities. Doesn't work properly all the time though.

[Zooy]

The following article puts a whole new dimension on whether there is something like "free will":

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/30/world...index.html
I would say: rather disturbing.

[Like Ra]

The following article puts a whole new dimension on whether there is something like "free will":

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/30/world...index.html
I would say: rather disturbing.

Interesting, I thought toxoplasma affects only mice behaviour.

Oh, need to find the articles on how gut bacteria affect human mind.

[Like Ra]

Oh, need to find the articles on how gut bacteria affect human mind.

Let's begin:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-018-0337-x

Abstract

The relationship between gut microbial metabolism and mental health is one of the most intriguing and controversial topics in microbiome research. Bidirectional microbiota–gut–brain communication has mostly been explored in animal models, with human research lagging behind. Large-scale metagenomics studies could facilitate the translational process, but their interpretation is hampered by a lack of dedicated reference databases and tools to study the microbial neuroactive potential. Surveying a large microbiome population cohort (Flemish Gut Flora Project, n = 1,054) with validation in independent data sets (ntotal = 1,070), we studied how microbiome features correlate with host quality of life and depression. Butyrate-producing Faecalibacterium and Coprococcus bacteria were consistently associated with higher quality of life indicators. Together with Dialister, Coprococcus spp. were also depleted in depression, even after correcting for the confounding effects of antidepressants. Using a module-based analytical framework, we assembled a catalogue of neuroactive potential of sequenced gut prokaryotes. Gut–brain module analysis of faecal metagenomes identified the microbial synthesis potential of the dopamine metabolite 3,4-dihydroxyphenylacetic acid as correlating positively with mental quality of life and indicated a potential role of microbial γ-aminobutyric acid production in depression. Our results provide population-scale evidence for microbiome links to mental health, while emphasizing confounder importance.

https://www.volkskrant.nl/wetenschap/dep...gle.com%2F (in Dutch)

[Like Ra]

Let's make it "sticky".

[MasterDQ]

The free will debate goes all the way back to questions of core, almost axiomatic, philosophy. There are two basic models for will:

1a. Materialism
There is no free will, and it's all an illusion generated by your brain as an evolutionary adaptation for survival. Everything has been preordained since the Big Bang because, whilst quantum mechanics may be real, the evidence that a truly random (i.e. un-caused) event at that scale ever effects the macro-scale our brains operate on is basically zero. As a corollary, there is no morality, because morality requires choice, and if the universe is on raioad tracks from beginning to end then NOTHING you do has any meaning, you can never be certain of ANYTHING, blah blah. Most atheists SHOULD believe this, though few actually live as if they do.

1b. Random Will
As (1a), but truly random events DO affect our brains and thus our wills. You were going to pick apples, but at just the right moment a photon popped into existence out of literally nowhere, hit the right subatomic particle, and started a cascade that resulted in you picking oranges instead. This is not much better than (1) however, because it's not like you have any control over what is happening, and again there's no choice involved. I'm not aware of anyone who lives according to this model, although if anyone does I suppose it'll be some atheists (but again, do they act on this professed belief?).

2. Free Will
Your mind is an immaterial thing not limited by the clockwork nature of the laws of physics or even the weird world of quantum mechanics, and thus can impose itself on the physical world, overriding it. Whilst there are clearly influences from the material world to the immaterial one (see: alcohol), the existence of an influence does not negate the fact that your will is real and can reject that influence. Most Christians subscribe to this, although arguably some (Calvinists?) don't. Most other religions I don't know about, although I do know that Islam has a lot of stuff in opposition to free will (i.e. Allah decides if you'll be a Muslim & go to heaven).

=====

Everything else is so much horse manure. Phrases like "emergent phenomena" are just a way of handwaving away the fact that modelling the process is too difficult - see the stock market or weather forecasting. Talk about randomness without the idea of an "un-caused event" is similarly rubbish, because otherwise the event has a cause - you just don't know what it is. This BTW is the great lie of so-called random number generators - their ENTIRE gimmick is simply that they obfuscate the complex-but-deterministic process by which they spit out a number. Train yourself to flip a coin though, and you can get it to land heads or tails as you desire every single time - and the same applies to RNG software, no matter how complex.

[Lancer]

The free will debate goes all the way back to questions of core, almost axiomatic, philosophy. There are two basic models for will:

. . .

I think this argument is a little strawman tbh, though I am an atheist and obviously biased I feel you give us an unreasonable philosophy to stand by. I don't believe uncaused events exist, simply put no action occurs without energy and energy doesn't get created from literal nothingness, if it appears to do so we simply don't understand it enough to know what energy it pulls from. 

However randomness does exist or close enough, try spinning a coin, when it eventually stops and lands on its side (or rarely stays vertical) it is practically random which side it ends up on, if you spun it enough times (assuming no vertical) it will be 50 50. If we model the physics involved accurately we can know 100% which side the coin will land on. It's just that in our everyday lives we don't have the ability to model it well enough to predict what side it will land on. 

While we are bound by the laws of physics/reality and from a omnipotent perspective would seem very predictable the reality we live in doesn't make that so easy, we can see how the major events shape who we are but not the smaller events underpinning our choices. Attempting to follow any ideology which espouses that your fate or actions are fixed is ultimately pointless as we don't know what actions are the fixed/correct path.

[MasterDQ]

I think this argument is a little strawman tbh, though I am an atheist and obviously biased I feel you give us an unreasonable philosophy to stand by.

You may feel that, but it's the logical outcome of the atheistic position*. Plenty of atheists (and not just atheists) of course do at least say they believe we don't have free will. You can put it in syllogistic form if you prefer:

Premise 1: There is nothing supernatural.
Premise 2: All things are subject at all times to the laws of physics.
Premise 3: The laws of physics are ordered.
Conclusion: A clockwork universe.

Unless one or more of the above premises is false, the conclusion must inevitably follow from them, just like 2+2=4.

Now, what to do with this knowledge? I think there are three basic options:

1. Accept it and embrace nihilism. Few people actually do this, for obvious reasons.
2. Ignore it and live your life. Most people will do this, much like how rarely people act on the certain knowledge that they will, one day, die.
3. Reject it and find a model that permits free will etc. Probably that involves religion or spiritualism in some form or other, although you can also find esoteric alternatives in the fringes of physics and such.

simply put no action occurs without energy and energy doesn't get created from literal nothingness, if it appears to do so we simply don't understand it enough to know what energy it pulls from.

Well, there's the big bang, though maybe you consider that cheating as regards getting something from nothing.

However randomness does exist or close enough, try spinning a coin, when it eventually stops and lands on its side (or rarely stays vertical) it is practically random which side it ends up on, if you spun it enough times (assuming no vertical) it will be 50 50. If we model the physics involved accurately we can know 100% which side the coin will land on. It's just that in our everyday lives we don't have the ability to model it well enough to predict what side it will land on.

While we are bound by the laws of physics/reality and from a omnipotent perspective would seem very predictable the reality we live in doesn't make that so easy, we can see how the major events shape who we are but not the smaller events underpinning our choices.

Sure, but the fact that we cannot model something does not mean it is not entirely predictable. It's just a case of acting AS IF something is random, even though it's not. Below is a great interview of Richard Turner, a genius when it comes to manipulating playing cards. For you and I, if we shuffle a deck we accept it's "basically random" ... for him it's really not.

[video=youtube]

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDwKxlcx-4
[/video]

(Also, just watch it anyway, it's a real eye-opener.)

Attempting to follow any ideology which espouses that your fate or actions are fixed is ultimately pointless as we don't know what actions are the fixed/correct path.

The fixed/correct path is the one that actually takes place, of course. No other one was actually possible to begin with.

=====

* Sort of. You see, the atheistic position is almost always predicated on an orderly universe based on universe laws of physics that apply everywhere, AND that we can discern what those laws are through observation and experimentation. But if your mind & your senses are just something that evolved to help you survive, how can you trust your senses to accurately report to your mind the state of reality? After all, your senses might be reporting what is in evolutionary terms most advantageous to survival & reproduction, not what is most accurate... and you have no way of telling because you cannot trust your mind or your senses. It turns out that throwing out all supernatural phenomena means building a house of straw on a foundation of sand, with both a wolf & a big storm on the way 😋 .

[Zooy]

1a. Materialism
There is no free will, and it's all an illusion generated by your brain as an evolutionary adaptation for survival. Everything has been preordained since the Big Bang because, whilst quantum mechanics may be real, the evidence that a truly random (i.e. un-caused) event at that scale ever effects the macro-scale our brains operate on is basically zero. As a corollary, there is no morality, because morality requires choice, and if the universe is on raioad tracks from beginning to end then NOTHING you do has any meaning, you can never be certain of ANYTHING, blah blah. Most atheists SHOULD believe this, though few actually live as if they do.

I disagree completely with your interpretation of quantum mechanics. Even the device on which you are typing is completely ruled by quantum mechanics, and although you may argue that it still behaves as one would expect from macroscopic rules, this will stop immediately once you enter the realm of quantum computing.

Anyway, nature is chaotic, which means that even extremely small causes can have macroscopic effects. And those quantum effects fall is the domain of small causes. Whether a positron electron pair pops up from the vacuum for a very short time is totally random, but it can cause effects.

I think that in order to come up with answers, as so often, you should first understand the question (where did we hear that before?). What do you call free will? To me this absolutely not clear.