According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[bilby]

According to Newton, a rock and a feather dropped from the same height will hit the ground at the same time, which is true, as an idealization. The experiment was conducted on the moon, but I forget what was dropped.

Galileo said it first, and it was David Scott who did the experiment on the Moon, where he dropped a hammer and a feather while commanding Apollo 15:


Scott is one of only four moon walkers still alive (he is 93).


ETA I see you already anticipated those points.

 

[bilby]

What shall I eat for dinner tonight? Ask Newtonian mechanics!

Jesus.

You don't ask a dictator. He just tells you.

Newtonian mechanics sent Alexandr Solzhenitsyn to the gulag...

 

[Elixir]

The system we are modelling is not just the raindrop, but also the falling - through an atmosphere made up of trillions of nearby gas molecules all moving turbulently, and hundreds of other raindrops, each evaporating water into (and condensing water out of) the air constantly during the fall.

That is why I TRIED to clarify that reliability of prediction has an inverse (probably to some power) relationship to temporal proximity.
Give me the millisecond before impact and I can “predict” whether the location of impact will be within a 1” square, with 90+% accuracy at least in some atmospheric conditions.
A useless prediction, but to make the prediction a full second before impact would feature accuracy of one-in-a-really-big-number.
To do so a full minute prior would be what Steve would call impossible. THAT would require modeling the whole system. I think it’s more like extremely impractical than impossible.

 

[Jarhyn]

The system we are modelling is not just the raindrop, but also the falling - through an atmosphere made up of trillions of nearby gas molecules all moving turbulently, and hundreds of other raindrops, each evaporating water into (and condensing water out of) the air constantly during the fall.

That is why I TRIED to clarify that reliability of prediction has an inverse (probably to some power) relationship to temporal proximity.
Give me the millisecond before impact and I can “predict” whether the location of impact will be within a 1” square, with 90+% accuracy at least in some atmospheric conditions.
A useless prediction, but to make the prediction a full second before impact would feature accuracy of one-in-a-really-big-number.
To do so a full minute prior would be what Steve would call impossible. THAT would require modeling the whole system. I think it’s more like extremely impractical than impossible.

Not to mention having the memory and access to it in a computational system capable of generating and transforming those sorts of phenomena.

Again, you would really just be calculating a second instance of the system in parallel. The predictions only hold, as well, if you don't alter it.

You could alter it, and then as discussed... That's another "deck", and alternative to the first.

 

[steve_bank]

As to randomness it is science not just engineering. QM is based on the fact at the quantum scale we can only predict statically. A wave function is a probability distribution.

Yeah, predicting quantum raindrops would be a trick. Fortunately for the prediction business, raindrops are massive objects that largely adhere to Newtonian mechanics.

Here is my question: Does Newtonian mechanics dictate what I will eat for dinner tonight, what time I will go to sleep, when I will awaken, what I will do tomorrow, what road I will travel, when I will die?

I believe Newtonian mechanics does dictate all of the above at its core. But, that would mean that my future is inexorably fixed -- as in fatalism, predetermined, etc. To my small mind, that also would mean that I lack Free Will to determine what to eat this evening. [And, before the detractors chime in, there is no modal fallacy in play if the presumption of Newtonian mechanics is that the future events are inexorably fixed by antecedent events].

If the answer is no, I can see how I might have Free Will. If the answer is no, that also leads to a truly chaotic state of affairs -- and not simply as a matter of prediction, but also as a matter of actuality. That, however, begs the question of how Free Will can exist in an universe in which human thought is indeterministic, random, and chaotic.

It seems to me that true Free Will (i.e., the Libertarian variation, and not the version that simply states that any unpredictable future decision is free) cannot exits unless we view humans as, somehow, divorced from nature and imbued with superhuman abilities. It is very spiritual and almost religious -- with a scientific fig leaf.

Science is descriptive not prescriptive.

Quantum, Newtonian, or relativistic mechanics do not dictate behavior. They define a model that in an experiment that predicts results.

You have to be careful to avoid conflating a deterministic math function in Newtonian mechanics such as speed = distance/time with philosophical Determinism applied to the universe.

 

[steve_bank]

The system we are modelling is not just the raindrop, but also the falling - through an atmosphere made up of trillions of nearby gas molecules all moving turbulently, and hundreds of other raindrops, each evaporating water into (and condensing water out of) the air constantly during the fall.

That is why I TRIED to clarify that reliability of prediction has an inverse (probably to some power) relationship to temporal proximity.
Give me the millisecond before impact and I can “predict” whether the location of impact will be within a 1” square, with 90+% accuracy at least in some atmospheric conditions.
A useless prediction, but to make the prediction a full second before impact would feature accuracy of one-in-a-really-big-number.
To do so a full minute prior would be what Steve would call impossible. THAT would require modeling the whole system. I think it’s more like extremely impractical than impossible.

You can play games, of course the closer it gets to the ground the easier it is to predict impact pont.

The question I asked was during a stor predicting when a rraindrop hits an arbutray 1X1 inch area on the ground. It is not possible.

If you flip a coin and call it just when it is settling is not the same as predicting heads or tails on the coin is tossed.

If you are in a car not seeing the process in the sstorm rain hits the roof randomly.

If you did a histogram on an audio recording it would probably have a recognizable distribution.

The point being when a nuclear material emits a particle to us is random even if is deterministic in the atom.

 

[Elixir]

of course the closer it gets to the ground the easier it is to predict impact pont.

If it can get “easier to predict” then it was harder to predict, not utterly unpredictable.

That was the “tiny flaw” I pointed out in the statement that it is unpredictable. It is relatively unpredictable, it is practically unpredictable, but it’s not utterly unpredictable in principle.

predicting when a rraindrop hits an arbutray 1X1 inch area on the ground. It is not possible.

You just admitted that it becomes more and more “possible” as impact approaches. So it IS possible and even do-able under limited conditions.

 

[Elixir]

If you flip a coin and call it just when it is settling is not the same as predicting heads or tails on the coin is tossed.

That’s what the people who designed roulette wheels thought. They were wrong.
If you can image the coin in flight, determine it’s rate of rotation, position above the surface, factor in the characteristics of the surface etc., you CAN predict which side of a coin will turn up with accuracy much greater than a random guess.

 

[steve_bank]

As juvenile as some comments on these boards may be, I appreciate that some criticism occasionally helps me to refine my thinking -- or, at least, the way I describe it. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day, and even a blind squirrel sometimes finds a chestnut. And, I acknowledge that I may be the broken clock or blind squirrel.

In any event, when I say that Determinism and/or Newtonian mechanics does or compels X, what I should say is that "the mechanism sought to be described by the paradigm of Determinism or Newtonian mechanics compels X." In so saying, I express no opinion respecting the question of whether that mechanism truly exists or is accurately described -- i.e., whether the paradigm accurately describes reality. Indeed, I will go so far as to say that no paradigm expressed in words can ever perfectly describe reality, because words are simply symbols of the reality they are used to attempt to describe and the only perfect description of something is the thing itself.

Your philosophical views are in a sense 'juvenile'. Or should I say sophomoric.

Newtonian or any other mechanics do not compel actions.

Reali8ability comes from usage. Newtonian mechanics gets space probes to the Moon and designs aircraft.

Quantum mechanics is routine in designing transistors, lasers, and integr4atedd circuits.

That the models work predicatively is not in any dispute. Putative? An attempt to appear authoritative?

From General Semantics 'the map is not the countryside'.

Whether any science models actually reflect true reality is not knowable. And that is another one of those perennial philosophical debates.

A topic for the epistemology section.

 

[steve_bank]

Buy a casino grade roulette table and see if you can affect out mes by how you introduce the ball.

There was someone who thought it was predicable and biased. Spin velocity, when the ball is droped and how, too many variables and timing problems when the ball is put on the spinning wheel.

 

[DBT]

If the subject is free will, how does a probabilistic world - or random events - enable free will? How is free will to be defined in relation to a non deterministic world? It can't be the same as compatibalism..... perhaps some version of libertarian free will?

 

[pood]

As juvenile as some comments on these boards may be,…

Which ones would those be?

 

[Jarhyn]

If the subject is free will, how does a probabilistic world - or random events - enable free will? How is free will to be defined in relation to a non deterministic world? It can't be the same as compatibalism..... perhaps some version of libertarian free will?

It doesn't.

When noise overcomes signal, that's precisely when it becomes impossible to tell what, exactly, is responsible in an outcome, other than "noise overcame signal, insufficient gain on signal".

That can happen for all kinds of reasons, including the odd cosmic ray, when dealing with electronics. "You were responsible for being somewhere where an impossible to predict event occured" seems like exactly the sort of responsibility we shouldn't care overmuch about.

 

[bilby]

As juvenile as some comments on these boards may be,…

Which ones would those be?

Never mind that, I want to know what is wrong with juvenile comments?

Isn't naïveté a central requirement for effective philosophy? Maintaining our adult prejudices is a barrier to seeing things as they are, rather than as we expect them to be.

 

[pood]

As juvenile as some comments on these boards may be,…

Which ones would those be?

Never mind that, I want to know what is wrong with juvenile comments?

Isn't naïveté a central requirement for effective philosophy? Maintaining our adult prejudices is a barrier to seeing things as they are, rather than as we expect them to be.

But he meant it in a pejorative sense, in contrast to his own long-winded, pretentious bloviations which he regards as profound.

 

[steve_bank]

Me thinks Bsilv is being out classed.

 

[steve_bank]

If the subject is free will, how does a probabilistic world - or random events - enable free will? How is free will to be defined in relation to a non deterministic world? It can't be the same as compatibalism..... perhaps some version of libertarian free will?

My philosophical view i if determinism means all things down to the atoms and states in our brains are
predetermined causal chains then there is no free will. All choices by us humans are predetermined.

If QM is taken to mean the states of al particles in the universe are statistical from one moment to the next then the universe is not predictable.

Newtonian macro scale is a superposition of all changing states in an object. The Moon at hye atomic scale is buzzing, atoms are vibrating in place in the structure..

The future states of the Moon are statistical.

To me it comes down to how the brain works at the atomic scale. And from there it goes down a rabbit hole. I do not know enough about neuroscience to speculate.

Given an artificial neural net that models neurons down to the atomic scale with quantum uncertainties, will the response to stimulus of the net be deterministic?

I looked at someone's neural net projectt on the net. He used C++ objects to model neurons and each neuron had biochemical parameters of real neurons.

 

[DBT]

If the subject is free will, how does a probabilistic world - or random events - enable free will? How is free will to be defined in relation to a non deterministic world? It can't be the same as compatibalism..... perhaps some version of libertarian free will?

It doesn't.

When noise overcomes signal, that's precisely when it becomes impossible to tell what, exactly, is responsible in an outcome, other than "noise overcame signal, insufficient gain on signal".

That can happen for all kinds of reasons, including the odd cosmic ray, when dealing with electronics. "You were responsible for being somewhere where an impossible to predict event occured" seems like exactly the sort of responsibility we shouldn't care overmuch about.

So, in your view, where does that leave the concept of free will? Just a convenient social convention? ''Your Honor, he did it of his 'own free will?' Of course he did it, but why did he do it? How did he get to that point?

 

[DBT]

If the subject is free will, how does a probabilistic world - or random events - enable free will? How is free will to be defined in relation to a non deterministic world? It can't be the same as compatibalism..... perhaps some version of libertarian free will?

My philosophical view i if determinism means all things down to the atoms and states in our brains are
predetermined causal chains then there is no free will. All choices by us humans are predetermined.

If QM is taken to mean the states of al particles in the universe are statistical from one moment to the next then the universe is not predictable.

Newtonian macro scale is a superposition of all changing states in an object. The Moon at hye atomic scale is buzzing, atoms are vibrating in place in the structure..

The future states of the Moon are statistical.

To me it comes down to how the brain works at the atomic scale. And from there it goes down a rabbit hole. I do not know enough about neuroscience to speculate.

Given an artificial neural net that models neurons down to the atomic scale with quantum uncertainties, will the response to stimulus of the net be deterministic?

I looked at someone's neural net projectt on the net. He used C++ objects to model neurons and each neuron had biochemical parameters of real neurons.

Yet we know that the physical state of the brain equates to how a person thinks and acts. A person heavily drunk or under the influence of drugs is in a different mental state.

Lesions are known to alter personality, reduce cognitive abilities, etc.

Then memory loss, depending on the severity and extent, may entail the complete inability to function, loss of self identity, the inability to recognise familiar faces or everyday objects.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, in your view, where does that leave the concept of free will?

I already discussed this: it leaves us with exactly the ability to describe what actually happened, particularly after the facts, from any one of an infinite number of reference frames.

When what actually happened was someone deciding to not think deeply about their actions despite being asked to repeatedly; that leaves them responsible for being an idiot and not listening to others.

The issue comes in understanding that when two systems come to different conclusions on the truth of something, one or both is wrong about their observations.

That wrongness can be ascribed directly to the thing reaching the conclusion, without need to dig further into why they are wrong in that moment.

There are plenty of moments where "he did it because noise overcame signal". It's not very satisfying, but that's the point. It's the one time "the big bang did it" actually pans out.

This actually gets us to the point where we are observing it in the Newtonian scale.

Also, I'll note with regards to the Newtonian scale events and the split between quantum group-concepts giving way to more classical physics, it just means we have to think of the particle not as a fixed group with static so gilar structure, but as a permutation group.

To understand this next part requires some group theory reading;

Imagine for a moment that if, instead of just one way to represent a "group", there were as many ways as the shape has permutation groups; that the thing really important to how it behaves are not where the points or necessarily even how many of them, but that their connection scheme has some abstract property, and it is this shared abstract property across the permutations that actually generated the quality we are looking for.

In this way, it wouldn't matter which of the "micro-states" lead to the "macro-state", it is the quasi- or meta-particle properties that matter.

So humans, instead of focusing on all this shifting junk of QM, end up seeing the invariants of the more abstract properties between them.

These in turn are what we see on the scale of Newtonian physics.

This means that the mechanics of freedom and wills from compatibilist leaves us with the ability to debug, blame, respond, and be responded to in ways that allows us to meaningfully apply controls to who we are and manage outcomes so that our wills remain more free with respect to accomplishing our goals.

It tells us a tiny little fact about reality that lets us more adequately get what we want and survive.

It also lets us know that things like "the empty self" are really a lie on behalf of empowering others and convincing us atrophy some part of our brain's ability to do something important for our survival.

Instead of trying to kill some important-seeming part of ourselves, we should be focusing on understanding the frames of reference that the heuristic of self produces, and the nature of the interaction of those things in REAL terms so that more of the inevitable action of the human race becomes compatible, and thus achievable by its members rather than rotting our minds with the idea "it couldn't have turned out differently", when the reality is merely that it "wouldn't"; it turns out differently every day, and where it doesn't, it IS the fault of stuff there, from the perspective of the goal.