Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that divergence would only occur in unstable systems; not in stable ones.
...
There is no way to ever agree on whether or not we have free will if we first don't define what influences our decisions.

A quick look at you-tube shows the lack of stability in human decision making. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5S-JsrPu6cc What influences total stupidly or the lack of restraint in actions while others conform to norms? The massive unpredictability of human decisions at the risk of life and limb is one of reasons why I believe in 'free will' or "volition, choice, the ability to truly and consciously effect the course of our lives".

 

...
I don't think 'exactness' is possible (without super-natural powers or a computer outside our universe) even with infinite resources because time only moves forward and all matter energy interactions are wave functions with probabilities . It's just impossible to replay the past forward again with exactitude to check conditions that change maybe because of a mis-recalled event because of a small imbalance in brain function due to a electrical or chemical reaction caused by a random thermal event from a quantum event...
...

Well said. That matches my opinion on the world in general. There is quite a large chaos component within everything in reality.

Human decisions are based on three things; 1. logical decision based on response to the circumstances (ie stimulus/response), 2. the persons emotional mood at that instant, which can be a BIG part of human decision, and 3. the chaos component, where even with the same stimulus and the same mood, different neurons in the brain trigger and make a different decision. Also consider that the chaos component affects the mood component greatly.

As far as arguing about "free will", well, like most arguments here that depends on your exact definition of "free will". To me, free will directly implies choosing what you want, and humans definitely do that.

You could influence someone with stimulus, or infuence their mood, or even have some influence on the chaos component even if just its intensity. But after all that the person is still going to choose what they will.

Even the godfather "making him an offer he can't refuse" still leaves the influenced person choosing the option he wants.

 

Human decisions are based on three things; 1. logical decision based on response to the circumstances (ie stimulus/response), 2. the persons emotional mood at that instant, which can be a BIG part of human decision

True; point 1 and 2 account for our experiences and the circumstances. That only differs from my POV on our nature; which also influences, more than particular decisions, our behavior and life-style in a general sense.

and 3. the chaos component, where even with the same stimulus and the same mood, different neurons in the brain trigger and make a different decision. Also consider that the chaos component affects the mood component greatly.

Where do you get this from?

Bare in mind that even when we don't see the logic and can't even start to imagine all the considerations a person takes into account when making a decision, there are always reasons for it; even when people do all sort of random, dangerous and stupid things on YouTube -as nsaspook argued-.

The fact it would be impossible to predict with accuracy someone's behavior doesn't mean there aren't reasons for it.

As far as arguing about "free will", well, like most arguments here that depends on your exact definition of "free will". To me, free will directly implies choosing what you want, and humans definitely do that.

You could influence someone with stimulus, or infuence their mood, or even have some influence on the chaos component even if just its intensity. But after all that the person is still going to choose what they will.

Even the godfather "making him an offer he can't refuse" still leaves the influenced person choosing the option he wants.

But what you want is what is "hardwired" and "programed" into you, which is what ultimately determines every one of your choices. For example: no one will ever choose, on his own judgment, the most painful option disregarding the most pleasurable one.

 

Chaos theory is pretty well established. I would suggest you google it, the idea is an incredibly small variation in a formula can cause major changes in the output, to the point it appears random to the outside observer. Yet, it follows definite rules, even if one of the variables is truly random.

Basic quantum fluctuations can be truly random, and it is probable that our personalities are also based on variations cause by them.

 

I don't doubt the idea of chaos, but that it has anything to do with our decisions.

 

Ok, let's say for a moment that you guys are right, that chaos, quantum randomness or whatever you want to call it does influence our decisions. Well, that actually reinforces the idea that we don't have free will; doesn't it? Consider this: if our decisions depend on the random behavior of subatomic particles in our brain, or the chaos resulting from the interactions of complex systems; how can we say that we took those decisions in accordance with our will?

Furthermore, let's include chaos or randomness in the experiment posted on #115. What difference does it make, when the guy carrying the experiment can still see the decision the subject is going to make up to 6 seconds before he even knows it?

Am I being unreasonable?

 

I like chaos a lot, and have spent a lifetime intrigued and observing it.

I also encourage chaotic behaviour in myself, I have a home made electronic dice with a good RNG inside next to my computer, and often hit it to decide if I will answer a thread, or if I should respond gently or firmly to a situation.

It can be encouraged in personal behaviour, so it becomes part of your habit system and a very conscious part of your decision making system.

Your brain is capable of being quite a good RNG with some practice, actually I would go so far as to say as from birth we have to work very hard to make our brains NOT be a RNG, but we never quite succeed.

If you want something a bit more scientific then I would say that the larger and more complex a system becomes then the larger the random component becomes. If you drop a ball 1 inch (a small simple system) it lands pretty much directly underneath, with a small chaos component. But if you roll the ball down a large hill (a larger more complex system) good luck guessing where it will end up.

And the human brain is a massively complex system of billions of neurons, chemical processes, crossed wires, etc.

 

http://scienceblog.com/70583/lab-equipment-may-take-on-a-mind-of-its-own-to-trick-scientists/

Though two major loopholes have since been closed, a third remains; physicists refer to it as “setting independence,” or more provocatively, “free will.” This loophole proposes that a particle detector’s settings may “conspire” with events in the shared causal past of the detectors themselves to determine which properties of the particle to measure — a scenario that, however far-fetched, implies that a physicist running the experiment does not have complete free will in choosing each detector’s setting. Such a scenario would result in biased measurements, suggesting that two particles are correlated more than they actually are, and giving more weight to quantum mechanics than classical physics.
“It sounds creepy, but people realized that’s a logical possibility that hasn’t been closed yet,” says MIT’s David Kaiser, the Germeshausen Professor of the History of Science and senior lecturer in the Department of Physics. “Before we make the leap to say the equations of quantum theory tell us the world is inescapably crazy and bizarre, have we closed every conceivable logical loophole, even if they may not seem plausible in the world we know today?”

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1310.3288v1.pdf
​

 

The thread started by mine a year ago (probably, months only) is now unwelcome for new posts. I hope moderators will merge this post to that first thread "Do you believe in Free Will?".

--
If we have free will, does that mean, that we are out of physical laws because we can just do what we want "for no reason at all"? How can we do certain things for without reason.

If the human mind is random, so why do we feel "sense" in what we do? If our mind is random, we are supposed to be emotionless because we do not have control of what we do, and everything of what we do is not ours.

So how come randomness accounts for free will if randomness seems to take over our free will?

 

What is the point of resurrecting a discussion that has no hope of going anywhere except where it has already gone repeatedly?

 

Life is short and thus for living.
Free will means you can do as you like. It allows me to reserve the right to do as I like if upset by the likes of 'you'. No personal attack intended.
I personally think you would enjoy reading Jiddu Krishnamurti.
They have a retreat venue where your question would no doubt be answered to your satisfaction.
I've come across a few of your posts and elements of your blog. Having had episodes of profound consternation in my life I advise you to listen to what the birds are saying every time you have a deep thought, then move on and do something that requires less thought but more physical involvement.

Works for me!

 

The thread started by mine a year ago (probably, months only) is now unwelcome for new posts. I hope moderators will merge this post to that first thread "Do you believe in Free Will?".
<snip>

A side note, there was an option that would have allowed you to post in the thread, you have to click it though.

 

What is the point of resurrecting a discussion that has no hope of going anywhere except where it has already gone repeatedly?

I believe he is free to resurrect the thread, as you yourself are free to contest such.

As far as I myself go, I think I believe in free will, but let me check with my wife first and get back to you.

 

Do you mean The Disney movie ?

 

Do you mean The Disney movie ?

Another beer Al?

 

I believe he is free to resurrect the thread, as you yourself are free to contest such.

As far as I myself go, I think I believe in free will, but let me check with my wife first and get back to you.

Oh, I don't have a problem with the discussion continuing, I was just wondering what the point was so that I would have a feel for whether there might be something new that would make it worth following.

 

There's no universal constant which dictates whether a thread is worth following, that choice is down to you.


Or is it?


Dun Dun Duuuuuuuuhhhhhh!!!!

 

What is the point of resurrecting a discussion that has no hope of going anywhere except where it has already gone repeatedly?

Actually, there's almost certainly no point in making that comment... the fact that this thread has been 'resurrected' is because that is what was always going to happen.
Nothing any of us could have done to change that fact....

 

Actually, there's almost certainly no point in making that comment... the fact that this thread has been 'resurrected' is because that is what was always going to happen.
Nothing any of us could have done to change that fact....

True. Of course, your response has equally no point. Nor does my wanting to consider whether the thread might be worth continuing to follow since whether I will or not was decided at the moment of the Big Bang. On the other hand, while there was no point to either comment, the fact that we both made them is proof that we had no choice in deciding whether to make them.

 

interesting. looks like it has just been proven that there is no free will... I have to change my vote (and go back to reading about that infernal fear of death...)