I read the article sometime last year, I’m still don’t understand how this links to either consciousness or free will.

The majority of physicists reject consciousness-dependant interpretations of quantum mechanics as being the least plausible. I’m not sure where this quote comes from, but it’s a good one:

“Was the wave function waiting to jump for thousands of millions of years until a single-celled living creature appeared? Or did it have to wait a little longer for some highly qualified measurer – with a PhD?” In other words, what happened in the billions of years before beings sufficiently intelligent to make conscious measurements of wave functions evolved?

About the movie – the idea they presented is definitely not part of the best physics around, and most of the material in that movie is not supported by experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_the_Bleep_Do_We_Know!%3F#Reception

You may want to read the academic reaction section.

Danny,

I’m sorry I misrepresented you, I knew you didn’t endorse the movie and I said as much, I just thought that your views bordered on dualism. Obviously they don’t.

In regards to repeating the restaurant performance, how could glance for any longer if the duration of your glance is constrained by causality? The crux of my argument is that everything that happens on the macro level is causal, and therefore “free” is a poor label.

I didn’t mean to cause as much argument as I have. I know from experience debates are a lousy form of communication that serve only to polarise debaters. With this in mind I’ll stop commentating on this particular entry.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/27640
Apr 20, 2007
Quantum physics says goodbye to reality
…physicists from Austria claim to have performed an experiment that rules out a broad class of hidden-variables theories that focus on realism — giving the uneasy consequence that reality does not exist when we are not observing it (Nature 446 871).

That’s a description of the experiments I referenced earlier. The movie you refer to was an entertainment. The idea that they presented is a part of the best physics around, supported by experiment, promoted by some of the greatest minds in history. If you have some way of knowing it’s wrong, a Nobel Prize awaits.

Mark, locality, and realism are technical terms that are not hard to understand. Start with an explanation of ‘Bell’s theorem’ that you can understand. (There are a bunch on the web.)

The bigger picture- the notion that there is some fact from science that rules out free will is a mistaken idea.

Andrew, I never said that I believed any of the garbage from the [bleep] movie, and frankly I don’t know how you jumped to that conclusion. I didn’t say anything about quantum indeterminacy. I argued that in situations where the subject is “on the fence” and has no major vested interest in the outcome, a repeat performance may yield different results. In a repeat performance of the “chicken or steak” example, I may glance around for a second longer, see someone eating a steak, and say steak instead of chicken. I don’t have any serious beliefs about either option, and in the end I don’t care, as long as I get fed.

I would say that we would have to at least concede that the math is nonlinear. Tiny variations in the data affect thought. But I will say this again. You and your brain are one of the same. The argument for free will is that you make choices. If your choices are made by your brain, they are still being made by you. Andrew’s argument above, that we are not free because we are limited by the causality of our brains, reeks of dualism. Your brain is part of you, therefore, you are making the decisions.

As far as cause and effect, I see them a step toward wisdom, which in turn goes a long way toward aiding the decision-making process. A self-regulating process, if you will. I would agree that as humans in a social and commercial environment (and with ever increasing numbers of fellow humans) our choices are increasingly constrained by conventions. Violating them often exact consequences best avoided, so in effect we can’t always do/act as we might want, or even think is right. Still, within the framework of our environment I think we have a fair amount of latitude as to individuality of action. Then again, those large number of people mean on a macro scale there will be many others acting like us . . . perhaps that is more a statement about individualism than with regards to free will.

ejd

I mistook the whole “weeds in the evolutionary stream” thing as an insult and I went way over the top. You’re right, free will is just a philosophical construct and I’m beginning to realise that for the majority of critically thinking skeptics the issue is semantic more than anything else.

“Response to external stimuli based on reason as opposed to instinct” is certainly a great definition of that murky concept we’ve been talking about. I still think that any label which contains the word “free” is a poor one. The decisions we make may be reasoned and run contrary to our biological instincts, but they’re still constrained by causality.

I wonder what alternative phrases we could use instead?

1) ad-hominem attacks against whom? If you feel I attacked you or your views, please accept my apologies. I was merely expressing an opinion. For the record, I’m also amused by people who profess political affiliations, loyalty to sports teams, and an emotional attachment to their alma mater. I’m sure you would be amused by my interest in guns, salami sandwiches, and comfortable underwear (not in that order). The fact we hold differing opinions does not per se imply a hierarchical relationship between us; perhaps we are both wrong, and thus inferior in the eyes of a third. (BTW, should I consider your response an attack, self-defense for a perceived attack, or just an opinion among many?)

2) you want me to address free will (a philosophical construct)in terms of science? Sorry, nothing to test. At best it is a mental exercise, something I thought I was doing. Perhaps no one is interested in my views, and that’s fine. I’m was merely pondering what the relationship of an individual’s actions are relative to what one might call free will. If my arguments seem simplistic, it’s because said relationship in my view is simplistic; we think, hence we make conscious, reasoned choices. Hence my arguments along those lines. One could argue on the degree individuals choose to exercise such ability, but that’s a different argument.

3)You say: “As a result of everything before me, I am a creature which makes choices based on logic, reason, and self-interest.” I thought that is very nearly what I said. Perhaps I was too verbose; obtuse, even. The only deviation I had from your view is allowing the possibility that self-interest (and even the fabled “survival instinct”) sometimes takes a back seat to other (arguably) uniquely human considerations.

Regardless, in a discussion on free will each individual’s view and understanding of it will guide their arguments. Your statement roughly matches my view of free will, but whether you want to label it as such, or not, is totally up to you. Suffice it to say we agree in general terms. Perhaps we should call it “response to external stimuli based on reason as opposed to instinct”. I’m sure some would disagree with that as well.

ejd

As long as you know you are making it up with no reference to actual causality, it can be great sport. I wrote this post because my new born son urinated on my shirt … no, really, just happened, what other explanation could there be?