patrick.net

uomo_senza_nome says

Greatest I am says

No one has yet shown that this test can fail and those who have taken it agree at the end of it that they have free will and can direct their choice.

Please elaborate.

My pleasure.

To the test. Let me give you the logic trail.

If you do not have something, you cannot give it up.
If you have something, free will included, then it stands to reason that you can give it up.

In your usual exercise of replying to posts, you choose whatever language word or letters that you will write down.

To prove that you have a free will, all you need do is give it up. Give it up to me. Choose to do my will instead of yours. Begin your next reply to me the way I want. The first letter only.

Just do as I asked because you will it or choose to.

Begin your next reply to me with a Y.

Regards
DL

uomo_senza_nome says

Is there such a thing called free will?

Obviously no. Free will in an illusion and a meaningless one at that. Just consider the following thought experiment. There are two disjoint universes that are identical. Every photon, every quark, ever lepton has the exact same state (energy, position, everything) as a corresponding entity in the other universe. Let there be only one difference between these two universes. In one "free will", whatever the fuck that is, operates and in the other it doesn't.

As time goes on, how do these two universe differ? The answer: not at all.

Better yet, image a billion identical disjoint universes in which free will operates and a billion in which it doesn't. Even if you play the quantum mechanics card, any variation seen in the free will universes will also be seen in the non-free-will universes.

The bottom line is that humans are decision making machines, but we are deterministic decision making machines. Regardless of how unpredictable or complex we decision making machines are, we have no less deterministic than a Turing machine like your computer. In fact, our brains meet the definition of a computer and are Turing Equivalent.

Another way to look at it is this. Your body is made entirely of atoms. Every atom does one and only one thing: choicelessly follow the laws of physics. Since your body is composed only of atoms, and those atoms are choiceless, your body including your brain is essentially choiceless. You "choose" things based on the internal state of your brain and external input, both of which are deterministic.

Free will is an illusion and a meaningless one at that.

That said, free will is not necessary for morality, justification of laws to protect rights, and other sentient activities often attributed to free will.

One more thing. It's a dead giveaway that free will is a meaningless term because no one can define it in a way that isn't inherently ambiguous and subjective. Nor can one enumerate the properties of this so-called free will any more than one can enumerate the properties of the so-called soul.

uomo_senza_nome says

rooemoore says

Free choice - yes. Free will - no.

What's the difference?

Choice is the result of decision making even when that decision making is deterministic, as it always is. Free will implies non-deterministic decision making. Such a concept is nonsensical as it violates causality. Free will is a supernatural concept. Freedom is not.

uomo_senza_nome says

rooemoore says

Free choice - yes. Free will - no.

What's the difference?

Walk into an ice cream parlor. There are 32 flavors. Chocolate is your favorite and strawberry makes you want to puke. You are free to choose strawberry but that doesn't mean you will like it.

I can choose to go to church. I cannot choose to believe in God.

uomo_senza_nome says

I cannot think of anything more interesting than studying the human brain.

Boobies

thunderlips11 says

As a psychopath, Ayn Rand saw this as a weakness as most psychopaths do. However, interestingly she wanted to bring down everyone to her subhuman level instead of exploiting that weakness while hiding her 'difference' like most other psychopaths are wont to do.

Damn, that's the best analysis of Ayn Rand I've ever heard in my life. And I've play BioShock.

rooemoore says

I can choose to go to church. I cannot choose to believe in God.

According to republicans, you can choose to be gay. And I know that the only thing keeping me from munching on man ass and loving it is that I explicitly choose to be heterosexual. Although some days, it's a hard choice to make as many anti-gay republicans know.

Dan8267 says

Just consider the following thought experiment.

OK, Dan I like your thought experiment.

Assuming that there is no free will, and all "choices" can be broken down to the physics of how matter interacts.

let's assume a creature exists than can "see" the state of every photon, quark and lepton and had an understanding on how these items interacted. Am I right to assume that this creature could then accurately predict all choices made? Let's also say that this creature could reach in to others, manipulate their subatomic structure, and effect the choices that the creature would make.

What if this creature was to look at itself.

Could the creature predict it's own choices? Would it be free will if the creature then altered it's own "preset" choice?

leo707 says

Dan8267 says

Just consider the following thought experiment.

OK, Dan I like your thought experiment.

Assuming that there is no free will, and all "choices" can be broken down to the physics of how matter interacts.

let's assume a creature exists than can "see" the state of every photon, quark and lepton and had an understanding on how these items interacted. Am I right to assume that this creature could then accurately predict all choices made? Let's also say that this creature could reach in to others, manipulate their subatomic structure, and effect the choices that the creature would make.

What if this creature was to look at itself.

Could the creature predict it's own choices? Would it be free will if the creature then altered it's own "preset" choice?

A lot of assumptions, but my answer is pretty much the same as the one I give to people who ask if I think God exists:

How the fuck am I supposed to know?

rooemoore says

How the fuck am I supposed to know?

Well, that is the thing with free will. It makes for a fun philosophical discussion, but at the end of the day even if we know that free will does not exist we still need to behave as if it did.

leo707 says

Could the creature predict it's own choices?

Two issues. First, predictability and determinism are independent concepts. A system could be
1. Predictable and deterministic.
2. Non-predictable and deterministic.
3. Predictable and non-deterministic.
4. Non-predictable and non-deterministic.

So whether or not the creature could predict its choices does not tell you whether or not the creature's choices are deterministic.

Second issue: recursion. Such a creature could use its predictions as the basis of its decision. Let's use the mother-in-law principle. A mother-in-law always disagrees with her son-in-law no matter what. In your example, the creature is the mother-in-law and the prediction made by the creature is the son-in-law.

The creature has the option of choosing either A or not A. If you prefer, we can say the creature has to choose either A or B but not both. Either case is the same.

Let's say the creature uses the following algorithm to choose.

1. Predict whether I will choose A or B.
2. Actually choose the compliment.

Step 1 will result in infinite recursion as the creature will have to know it is going to choose the compliment no matter what it chooses. As a result, such a creature could not know what choice it will eventually make as it would require an infinite amount of time to evaluate its decision making process. Assuming that one of the two options will be defaulted to at some period of time, the choice will be effectively random based on the various propagation delays while evaluating the decision.

Even if the creature is aware of this problem, any attempts to avoid the infinite recursion while still maintaining the mother-in-law doctrine would be futile. As such, your creature could only predict its own choices if it were willing to accept those choices rather than altering them. The same problem occurs with time travelers.

Also, a set-reset flip-flop that hasn't be initialized exhibits the above behavior.

I have decided that I am going to fully understand this question.

Hopefully, given enough 'will power,' I will succeed.

Dan8267 says

As a result, such a creature could not know what choice it will eventually make as it would require an infinite amount of time to evaluate its decision making process.

Infinite is a interesting word. Some people believe the universe and whatever is beyond it is "infinite". That moves us into the parallel universe discussion. In fact, if one subscribes to the universe being "infinite" they will have a hard time arguing that there are not "infinite" worlds identical to ours. Also, there would be "infinite" worlds that are identical except for 1 thing - say the world where you forgot to pick up the eggs at the supermarket.

And of course there would be the variation where Dan8267 is an insufferable born again Christian who spends his time on a website named Patrick.net trying to convert "lost souls".

I want to get a spaceship and fly to the world where Kate Upton is my girlfriend. It's out there!

marcus says

I have decided that I am going to fully understand this question.

Hopefully, given enough 'will power,' I will succeed.

Rational thought, not willpower, is the key to understanding. You cannot will yourself a cure for cancer, a regrown limb, or understanding of mathematics, physics, or any other subject matter.

rooemoore says

In fact, if one subscribes to the universe being "infinite" they will have a hard time arguing that there are not "infinite" worlds identical to ours

A common misconception advocated even by the likes of Neils Degrasse Tyson. The error lies in the assumption that just because the Cosmos, for lack of a better term, is infinite (for sake of this argument), that the values of variables are uniformly randomly distributed across all possible values.

Clearly, this is not a correct assumption. We could have a cosmos with an infinite number of universes but with the restriction that all universes have a mean temperature less than 1000K at time 1000 Earth-years after birth. Placing constraints on conditions as well as making certain values more probable than others ensures that not all possible states will be represented even in an infinite set.

But wait, if anything has a non-zero chance of occurring in any given universe out of an infinite set of universes, doesn't that mean that the event will occur in an infinite number of universes or at least one? No.

It's like Zeno's Motionless Runner paradox. The answer is quite simply that an infinite sequence of infinitesimal values can add up to a finite value.

In the level 1 multiverse you propose, the probability of some events may be non-zero but infinitesimal thereby having any probably (0.0, 1.0] of occurring in the infinite multiverse. Notice that the interval is open at 0 and closed at 1.

But even if in one such universe there was a genetically identical person called Dan8267 who was a born again Christian, he would not be me. I am my mind, no more or less. And such a counterpart would not have my mind and therefore would not have a brain wired up identically to me. He would be similar to me to some extent, but not me. Then again, everything is similar to anything else to some extent. So that's not much of a statement.

Finally, it's unfortunate that the probability doesn't pan out like you assumed. It could be that a law of physics places a constraint that prevents you from having Kate Upton as a girlfriend in any universe.

Zeno's paradox is cute - how many quarks per hour - in the same way that my 11 year old son said on a camping trip this summer that if the universe was infinite wouldn't the night sky have more stars or just be solid white with stars?

Dan8267 says

But even if in one such universe there was a genetically identical person called Dan8267 who was a born again Christian, he would not be me. I am my mind, no more or less.

This moves us into psychology (stuff like The Ego and the Id). Just because you are not conscious of your parallel ego doesn't mean it is not in fact you.

Bottom line is that if history teaches us anything it teaches us that we know less than we think we know. But then, who knows?

I'm keeping the Kate Upton fantasy though. Everyone has to have faith in something.

Greatest I am says

Begin your next reply to me with a Y.

This is a stupid experiment because your reply will create an inherent bias on my brain state (one way or the other).

The brain state comes first, not the will.

uomo_senza_nome says

Greatest I am says

Begin your next reply to me with a Y.

This is a stupid experiment because your reply will create an inherent bias on my brain state (one way or the other).

The brain state comes first, not the will.

It seems to me that the definition of "will" needs to be agreed upon by the participants in this debate before it goes any further.

Dan8267 says

Another way to look at it is this. Your body is made entirely of atoms. Every atom does one and only one thing: choicelessly follow the laws of physics. Since your body is composed only of atoms, and those atoms are choiceless, your body including your brain is essentially choiceless. You "choose" things based on the internal state of your brain and external input, both of which are deterministic.

Great answer Dan, loved it.

But -- there's one problem. Once one is conscious of the decision being made, the person can alter their decision. Arguably, there's not much time to alter it, but it can certainly be altered. So a choice is not entirely deterministic, right? Meaning, I can change my brain state (also called as mind).

Neuroplasticity is true. Thought alters the brain state in as much the same way as brain state influences thought.

An analogy: brain is the river bed and thought is the stream flowing through it -- the thought is constrained by the river bed, but thought can alter the river bed as well.

Dan8267 says

Boobies

LOL, What's there to study? It's all play ;)

rooemoore says

It seems to me that the definition of "will" needs to be agreed upon by the participants in this debate before it goes any further.

"I'd remind you that there was never a time in the history of biology when a bunch of us sat around the table and said, 'Let's first define what we mean by life.' We just went out there and discovered what it was—a double helix. We leave matters of semantic hygiene to you philosophers." - Dr. Francis Crick

Who cares about semantic hygiene, when we just want an intellectually stimulating discussion? :)

uomo_senza_nome says

Who cares about semantic hygiene, when we just want an intellectually stimulating discussion? :)

Ah yes, the circle jerk. I remember it well from a previous, parallel life!

rooemoore says

if the universe was infinite wouldn't the night sky have more stars or just be solid white with stars?

Only if light traveled instantaneously. It doesn't.

The observable universe is only13.75 plus or minus 0.11 billion light years because that's how long the universe has existed. Well, technically, the light barrier is slightly less than the age of the universe because photons weren't free at the beginning, but not by much.

It is speculated that the actual universe is about 90 billion light years in size. Remember this interactive animation of the scale of the universe I've posted before?

The actual universe can be bigger than the observable universe because space itself can recede from us faster than the speed of light. Space has no mass and the recession is cumulative across vast distances.

I personally don't buy into the level 1 multiverse as our understanding of the universe and the Big Bang Theory is that the universe is not expanding in pre-existing space, but rather the space is being created by the expansion of the universe. Hence, there is not an infinite amount of space.

One of my favorite books, The Little Book of the Big Bang: A Cosmic Primer calculates the number of distinct places and times in the observable universe, the number of atoms 10^78 and the number of photons 10^88, and other interesting facts. It's a small book packed with knowledge and makes for great table-side conversations.

rooemoore says

I'm keeping the Kate Upton fantasy though. Everyone has to have faith in something.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Carl Sagan.

Then again, Carl Sagan's field of study didn't include heavily bodies like massive compact halo objects.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/iwM4fborwJk

Thanks for the book suggestion and, er, the other stuff!

You do have free will, but within the circumstances you find yourself in. Who you are born to, time, the place, family circumstances etc. all seem to be beyond your control.

Someone coming of age in post World War II America had it very different than someone coming of age today. Similarly someone who was born as a black slave in the south had very different circumstances than say Obama's kids.

Then babies born with HIV in impoverished nations have it very different than a normal baby in a rich country.

We do get to exercise our will in every moment, but only under the circumstance the "fates" deal us.

uomo_senza_nome says

Once one is conscious of the decision being made, the person can alter their decision. Arguably, there's not much time to alter it, but it can certainly be altered. So a choice is not entirely deterministic, right?

Pseudo-code since I don’t have Visual Studio installed right now. Recently reinstalled OS for new hard drive.

private static int chosenOption = 0;
private static bool done = false;

public void main (String[] args)
{
    Thread thread = new Thread(() => OverideDecision());
    thread.Start();

    MakeDecision();

    while (!done)
        Thread.Sleep(100);

    Console.Writeln(chosenOption);
}

private void MakeDecision ()
{
    … // Some deterministic arrival of someNonZeroValue
    chosenOption = someNonZeroValue;
}

private void OverrideDecision ()
{
    while (chosenOption == 0)
        Thread.Sleep(100);

    chosenOption++;

    done = true;
}

So, is the output of the above program deterministic or not? I say yes.

uomo_senza_nome says

An analogy: brain is the river bed and thought is the stream flowing through it -- the thought is constrained by the river bed, but thought can alter the river bed as well.

The river is dynamic and deterministic. The opposite of dynamic is static, not deterministic.

A more practical example would be self-modifying code. Such code is non-reentrant, but the process is still deterministic. Now, computer science may use the term "non-deterministic" to mean that the programmer can't be sure what the value will be, but that's a different meaning than "the value is not determined by initial conditions". It's a subtle, but important difference. When computer science teachers talk about non-deterministic algorithms, they mean ones that aren't predictable and can have volatile results.

Self-modifying code is also something determined by initial conditions which is why the "random" numbers you get are always the same if you use the same algorithm and seed value. It's why programs like MineCraft can generate random worlds, but always the same one for the same seed value. Computers don't do true randomness. As the universe itself if basically a computer, it doesn't either. Copenhagen Interpretation not withstanding.

A dynamic system can be deterministic. In fact, I believe any real, physical system is as I don't see any way the laws of physics could allow for non-determinism, and that's why computers will never be able to generate truly random numbers but rather only crafty approximations. In fact, making a good imitation of random numbers is an exceptionally hard problem and has extremely important consequences in cryptography. That's why some random number generations are referred to as "cryptography quality".

In any case, even a chaotic dynamic system like weather is deterministic. It's just not predictable except to a small extent. No one argues that the weather has free will just because its enormously complex with many feedback systems and pivot points.

lostand confused says

You do have free will, but within the circumstances you find yourself in.

You are confusing the concepts of free will and freedom and thus missing the point of this conversation. The discussion is about whether or not the very concept of free will is meaningful, and if so does free will exist or is it an illusion.

I have been advocating the position that free will is a meaningless illusion brought about as a side-effect of consciousness and emotional needs of intelligent beings.

So far, the only alternative proposed is that the dynamic nature of feedback systems in decision making might be considered free will, however, I disagree with that proposition.

Dan8267 says

You are confusing the concepts of free will and freedom and thus missing the point of this conversation. The discussion is about whether or not the very concept of free will is meaningful, and if so does free will exist or is it an illusion

Not really. You do have free will-again within the circumstances you find yourself in. Freedom is an etheral concept unique to humans. Free will is something all beings posess-humans and animals.

lostand confused says

You do have free will-again within the circumstances you find yourself in.

Define free will.

lostand confused says

Freedom is an etheral concept unique to humans.

Tell that to someone locked in a prison cell. Freedom seems to be a far more objectively measurable and verifiable condition than "free will". We write laws and pass sentences regarding freedom, but not free will.

And as for unique to humans? Few if anything are. Does a chimp locked in a cage know that its lost its freedom? You can bet your ass it does and it's quite upset about it.

Dan8267 says

Tell that to someone locked in a prison cell. Freedom seems to be a far more objectively measurable and verifiable condition than "free will". We write laws and pass sentences regarding freedom, but not free will.
And as for unique to humans? Few if anything are. Does a chimp locked in a cage know that its lost its freedom? You can bet your ass it does and it's quite upset about it.

It depends. A chimp born and brought up in a cage knows nothing about freedom. Neither do the countless number of factory farmed animals. Neither will a human brought up under similar circumstances. It is concept defined by our experiences.

As for free will-the ability to choose and act on it within the circumnstances we are given.

Dan8267 says

In any case, even a chaotic dynamic system like weather is deterministic. It's just not predictable except to a small extent. No one argues that the weather has free will just because its enormously complex with many feedback systems and pivot points.

“Experience teaches us no less clearly than reason, that men believe themselves to be free, simply because they are conscious of their actions, and unconscious of the causes whereby those actions are determined.” - Spinoza

I agree with you. I think there's some confusion between predictability and determinism, they feel like the same thing, but they're not.

A coin flip or a throw of dice: does that fall under the category of unpredictable and non-deterministic?

Dan8267 says

We write laws and pass sentences regarding freedom, but not free will.

I think you're wrong on this one. See this paper.

First, the legal system assumes a capacity for individuals not only to distinguish between right and wrong, but to act according to those distinctions—that is, an integral component of the legal system is a belief in free will. Furthermore, the legal system assumes that it is possible to distinguish those individuals who have this capacity of free will from those who lack it .

I think the legal system has to undergo a revolution if it starts to acknowledge the discoveries of science.

I found this article to be of good relevance to our discussion here.

“There is but one truly philosophical problem, and that is suicide.” —Albert Camus

As with all metaphysical questions, this is unknowable.

uomo_senza_nome says

A coin flip or a throw of dice: does that fall under the category of unpredictable and non-deterministic?

Nope, unpredictable and deterministic. It's just Newtonian physics. If you know the exact mass distribution of the coin, the linear and angular momentum at the moment the coin leaves contact with your thumbnail, the air density, wind, gravity, height, and other environmental variables you can calculate which side the coin will land on. It may be computationally expensive to do so with that much detail, but in principle you could if you're willing to wait for the answer.

uomo_senza_nome says

First, the legal system assumes a capacity for individuals not only to distinguish between right and wrong, but to act according to those distinctions—that is, an integral component of the legal system is a belief in free will.

The use of law makes just as much sense in a universe without free will. The existence of law affects decision making machines like humans, who are far less likely to assault or steal if they fear being thrown in jail for it. Law is a deterrent. It fulfills this function regardless of the existence of free will.

If science disproves the existence of free will and everyone accepts that there is no such thing, we will continue to have existing laws and we will continue to make new laws. As such, I do not buy the paper's argument.

My counter-proposal is that the law assumes freedom in the decision making of the accused. If a person is coerced into committing a crime, say by someone threatening to kill the accused's daughter, then the law would allow for the accused not to be convicted of certain crimes like theft or sabotage. But coercion would not take away a person's free will if there is such a thing, but rather his freedom or, to be more precise, his ability to make decisions freely. A person under coercion is still acting deterministically.

The paper also tries, as many people have before, to use the Uncertainty Principle to create "wiggle room" for free will. I believe that the Copenhagen Interpretation, upon which this argument is based, is at best wrong and perhaps even meaningless as I discussed in the link provided above. Furthermore, the use of the Copenhagen Interpretation and/or the Uncertainty Principle to create wiggle room for free will is essentially a God of the Gaps argument and as such should not be taken seriously.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/HooeZrC76s0

Here is the crux of the paper you linked to...

If free will is an illusion, then it becomes more difficult to hold people responsible for their actions. I have argued that one of the reasons that individuals have been so reluctant to question the reality of free will is the belief that it would be difficult for society to function under a system in which this concept was abandoned. However, this has not stopped people from speculating about the inadequacies of the present system and alternative possibilities. As argued by Wright, “All told, then, “free will” has been a fairly useful fiction, a rough proxy for utilitarian justice.

Basically, it says that sure free will is a meaningless illusion, but it's a useful one because keeping the masses ignorant allows us to justify our legal system and keep society running. I say hogwash.

We can easily construct meaningful and just legal systems and societies without the lie of free will. One simply has to understand the purpose of law. The purpose of law is not to bring justice to an unjust system for it could never do that. If a person has been murdered, killing the killer isn't going to make things right. Nor is the purpose of law to punish the wicket. That is simply an emotional response that nature crudely cobbled together to improvise a solution to disputes in social species. But nature rarely, if ever, finds the optimal solution to a problem. Gradual assent does not result in a global maximum.

No. The purpose of law is to prevent injustices by aligning the self-interests of all persons and making it against every person's self-interest to harm another. This purpose is justifiable and satisfiable without the lie of free will.

One of the fundamental beliefs I hold is this. Anything that is justifiable can and should be supported by the truth and only the truth. To say otherwise would mean that the thing is not justifiable, and that would contradict your premise. There are no contradictions in the universe.

uomo_senza_nome says

Furthermore, the legal system assumes that it is possible to distinguish those individuals who have this capacity of free will from those who lack it .

To be precise, a legal system should only assume that the decision making machine is capable of distinguishing right from wrong and is making the decision without undue interference from outside forces. Whether or not that decision making machine is deterministic should be irrelevant.

The reasoning behind this is that decision making machines that cannot distinguish right from wrong or understand the law, by definition, cannot be deterred by law. Therefore punishing such machines serves no purpose.

uomo_senza_nome says

I think the legal system has to undergo a revolution if it starts to acknowledge the discoveries of science.

I think that most of our legal system and others are workaday solutions to workaday problems. Greater understanding of human nature will have little effect on those legal systems in the short-term. Perhaps over a century or two advancements in science will make legal systems more just, but it will be a gradual process.

The biggest problem with science in the courtroom is junk science, the abominable practice of using fake science and incorrect procedures to gain convictions. Junk science and apathy of lawyers and judges are responsible for the execution of at least one innocent man. There is absolutely no doubt that Cameron Todd Willingham did not commit the crime for which he was executed.

From the Why evolution is true article...

Yes, there may be quantum uncertainties, but I don’t see how those can be influenced by our minds, or play any role in the notion that our decisions are freely taken.

In theory, quantum mechanics allows a perfect replica of Kate Upton to spontaneously spawn into existence in your lap. The probability of this happening is just slightly less than the chance of getting a date with the real Kate Upton. The fact is that quantum uncertainty only plays a role in quantum mechanics, not in anything big.

And by big, I mean even anything as huge as a human cell. A neuron is freaking gigantic compared to an atomic nucleus, which in turn is unbelievably large compared to a quantum string. Sure, one could argue that some ions along a neuron could get stimulated by quantum effects. But these effects are random and cancel each other out on any large system.

Even if quantum effects caused a single firing of a neuron in the brain, which is a huge "if", there is no reason to believe that a single neuron firing is going to have a significant effect on the day-to-day decision making of a human being.

Furthermore, why would a "random" quantum event resulting in a macroscopic change, say inducing the desire to have an ice cream cone, be considered an act of free will? If an external event like a meteor falling on me changes my day, does that mean I choose to be squashed by the meteor? Of course not. So why would external random events from quantum mechanics be an act of my free will?

Quantum fluctuations happen everywhere in the universe. Even if they did affect my behavior, again a big "if", why would those effects constitute free will anymore than being drugged without your consent?

I look at it this way. A computer in a satellite is running a simple program.

public void Main (String[] args)
{
    for (int counter = 1; counter <= 10; counter++)
    {
        Console.Write(" " + counter);
        Thread.Sleep(1000);
    }
}

The expected output is

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

However, during the execution of this program, a cosmic ray hits the memory chip of the computer in the satellite and changes the value of the variable counter from 3 to 5 during the call to the Sleep method. Stuff like this can and does actually happen in space.

As a result, the actual output of the program is

 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10

Would you say that the computer exhibited "free will" and choose to skip the number 4? Why would your answer for a human being be any different? The effect of quantum mechanics, if any, on the human brain is no different from the effect of a cosmic ray on a satellite's computer.

Now, if lightening were to strike a Turing machine, that of course would induce free will.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/POxMp61Ksbk

Damn, now I'm getting a hankering for a Johnny 5 Versus the Terminator crossover. See what all your questions have done.

Peter P says

As with all metaphysical questions, this is unknowable.

I disagree. Many mathematical questions were at one time consider metaphysical until they were answered. The same for physics, chemistry, and biology.

Essentially, the question of determinism is one of physics and should be, in principle, knowable.

lostand confused says

It is concept defined by our experiences.

Irrelevant. The concept of freedom is still well-defined and we can make meaningful statements like a prisoner has far fewer freedoms than an ordinary citizen. We can even precisely talk about which freedoms the prisoner lacks. We cannot do the same for "free will".

Whether or not your experience affects your perception of reality does not change the nature of reality itself. Degrees of freedom exist whether or not the individual is aware of them. Such degrees can be measured, recorded, and increased or decreased. Freedom is clearly an objectionable, verifiable, and quantifiable state.

Free will is none of these things. I have yet to hear a single, clear definition of free will or any criteria by which I can objectively discern an entity that "has free will" from one that doesn't.

For example, by what criteria will I classify the following objects as possessing free will or not: homo sapien, homo erectus, australopithecus africanes, bonobo chimpanzee, canine, lizard, ant, worm, starfish, tulip, amoeba, bacteria, virus, stable vesicles formed by fatty acid chains that consume nearby free fatty acids?

Surely an amoeba is a sophisticated decision making system on par with even modern supercomputers. Does it have free will? It's not important that I know the answer to that question, but it is important that I have a criteria for answering that question. Otherwise, the term free will is meaningless.

uomo_senza_nome says

Greatest I am says

Begin your next reply to me with a Y.

This is a stupid experiment because your reply will create an inherent bias on my brain state (one way or the other).

The brain state comes first, not the will.

I may create a bias, as all choices that you have to make in life do, but that does not negate the efficacy of the test.

BTW, whose free will decided to reply at all?

If not yours, then whose will was it?

My point is made I think.
We are the only ones we can blame or praise for our free will choices. Just as your will is responsible for your reply.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am says

My point is made I think.

"Though I don't think," added Deep Thought. "that you're going to like it."
"Doesn't matter!" said Phouchg. "We must know it! Now!"
"Now?" inquired Deep Thought.
"Yes! Now..."
"All right," said the computer, and settled into silence again. The two men fidgeted. The tension was unbearable.
"You're really not going to like it," observed Deep Thought.
"Tell us!"
"All right," said Deep Thought. "The Answer to the Great Question..."
"Yes..!"
"Of Life, the Universe and Everything..." said Deep Thought.
"Yes...!"
"Is..." said Deep Thought, and paused.
"Yes...!"
"Is..."
"Yes...!!!...?"
"Forty-two," said Deep Thought, with infinite majesty and calm.

uomo_senza_nome says

An analogy: brain is the river bed and thought is the stream flowing through it -- the thought is constrained by the river bed, but thought can alter the river bed as well.

"Eventually, all things merge into one, and a river runs through it. The river was cut by the world's great flood and runs over rocks from the basement of time. On some of those rocks are timeless raindrops. Under the rocks are the words, and some of the words are theirs. I am haunted by waters."

- from: "A River Runs Through It"