According to Robert Sapolsky, human free will does not exist

[pood]

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

Who ever sugggested that it wasn't?

"Disconnected from reality" is synonymous with "insane" for a reason.

Sane people make decisions according to reality as they understand it - that fact in no way threatens or challenges any aspect of compatibilism.

That is where compatibilism goes wrong. If you acknowledge that the brain is inseparable from the system, and the system is deterministic, where the conditions do not permit alternate thoughts and actions, where what you think and do is set, fixed, inevitable, that is not a system that is compatible with the notion of freedom of will.

If you must think and do according to how events within the system evolve, not a matter of choice, that is not an example of freedom of will, and in spite of how compatibilists define free will, what we think and do has nothing to do with freedom of will, and free will is not compatible with determinism.

You keep saying “do not permit.” Determinism is not the sort of thing that permits, fails to permit, or compels.

 

[Jarhyn]

No, you're missing "positions" and "contexts" of specifically indeterminate natures, even if those happen outside the context of physics we experience.

The issue is not "natures"; the context is macrophysical indeterminateness - such as that which we think we experience when we deliberate. If you have the experience of there being such macrophysical indeterminateness, do you regard it as actual, mind-independent, physical indeterminateness? Or, do you regard it as imaginary, as illusion, as non-actual other than as being entirely produced by your own mind/being?

I. Do. Not. Think. There. Is. Macrophysical. Indeterminateness.

I don't think this in any way describes what happens when I deliberate.

You keep going back to this, and personally, I think it is word salad.

That said, maybe you will find me describing this thing you say and I think is word salad and you can highlight some phrase that clears the air...

When I make a decision based on deliberation:

I have "the avatar", some selected subset of my own brain that is going to "experience" things which I select, but with simulated inputs and outputs whose only material artifact is the understanding of how they unfolded. This IS a me who who not just CAN do otherwise than as I shall do in the future among more impactful consequences, but that does otherwise, not at the same place or time but a different one from where the doing that matters will take place.

I look at the exact context I'm in, at least in terms of was whatever macro-state I can measure, and then reproduce the effect of those inputs to "the avatar", but with adjustments to said avatar on each iteration.

I Repeat this process until I discover an avatar that succeeds.

I then compare the avatar decision tree with my default decision tree, and then operate a SECOND process which either overrides the default "for now", or which actually changes the default decision tree, and then present myself as I am to the situation all that was based on.

I don't see how any of this is "indeterministic".

There are undecidable things, things that can't be known, but we have already, hopefully, sufficiently discussed how "undecidable" does not equate to indeterminateness.

Nothing there is independent of the thing I'm calling a mind and none of it needs to be done in any way that requires indeterminateness. It's a process of calculation and evaluation of decision trees.

From my perspective on how decisions are made, your questions seem word-salad and not-even-wrong

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I. Do. Not. Think. There. Is. Macrophysical. Indeterminateness.

I don't think this in any way describes what happens when I deliberate.

Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate having a somewhat better understanding of your experience.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

Nothing there is independent of the thing I'm calling a mind and none of it needs to be done in any way that requires indeterminateness. It's a process of calculation and evaluation of decision trees.

Would you say that your process is (ever) conducted by thinking, mind-ing, or experiencing in terms of possibilities?

 

[Jarhyn]

Nothing there is independent of the thing I'm calling a mind and none of it needs to be done in any way that requires indeterminateness. It's a process of calculation and evaluation of decision trees.

Would you say that your process is (ever) conducted by thinking, mind-ing, or experiencing in terms of possibilities?

I mean, I just described the actual process of ginning up a real "possibility" to choose from.

As I have said before I am a panpsychist, who asserts all process everywhere is accomplished with the presence of some manner of experience; that experience is change and change is experience.

Obviously something had to experience the evaluation of possibilities, but those possibilities are concrete things.

You might as well be asking "did the measurements of the mass of the object involve putting objects on a balance and comparing them?"

It involves comparing the relative properties of real locations.

Those real locations are physically "possibilities", because as I have said "otherwise can be elsewhere and still be 'otherwise'".

This doesn't make it indeterminate, just undecidable except through the actual process of decision.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

I just described the actual process of ginning up a real "possibility" to choose from.

There is no need to choose in the sense of select - there is no choice or selection to be made - if there is only one possibility. My question regarded possibilities, not possibility. But, maybe you were not able to draw from the context the concurrence/simultaneity of the possibilities brought up in the question.

Thinking that there are multiple real possibilities from which to choose is identical to thinking that there is actual indeterminateness. Thinking that there is actual indeterminateness means thinking that there is an aspect of reality which is not yet set/fixed/determined - which, of course, is a condition in which multiple real possibilities could be encountered concurrently.

This means that instead of speaking in terms of indeterminateness, expression can be done in terms of the multiple real possibilities encountered/thought concurrently.

Since indeterminateness is not a modally necessary word, let me rephrase an earlier question: Do you ever have the experience of there seeming to be multiple concurrent real possibilities from which to select? Or do you think possibilities are not real in themselves but are, instead, only products of a "ginning up" done by your mind such that those possibilities would be more imaginary than real?

 

[bilby]

You know how it works. Conditions on earth enabled life to form, three billion years of microbes and five hundred million years of multicellular evolution before a species that is capable of higher order information processing, with the ability to write, and paint and build spacecraft.

And It didn't happen through free will.

What makes you think that "higher order information processing" is any less impossible than "free will"?

Or, indeed, that the two are in any way different from each other?

What fo you think "higher order" means here?

 

[bilby]

If you must think and do according to how events within the system evolve, not a matter of choice

These are not exclusive options. It can be both. It IS both. Thinking and doing according to how events in the brain evolve IS choice; That's how we make choices.

If we made choices without regard to how events in the brain evolve, that would not be choice nor freedom, it would be madness.

 

[Jarhyn]

There is no need to choose in the sense of select - there is no choice or selection to be made - if there is only one possibility

But we just went over this: those actual material artifacts are the possibilities. They are the actual compiled, tested algorithms that accomplish various outcomes given a configuration of space around them.

Their possible-ness has been guaranteed according to the fidelity of my ability to recreate important elements of physics.

There is only one outcome between them as a result of the process of choosing (elements of which I also chose) sure... But the outcome still only exists only because of the interplay between the considerations of each; if one of the unselected options weren't there, for example it may be that the selected option would not have won, such that it's existence as a possibility was necessary in rendering the "live" result.

They are as real as a forked road along which "people could go either way", and validated by the fact that members of the set "people" do go both ways, sometimes the same person on different days, and one time different halves of the same person at the same time each way. In a very important way when I myself consider which way I will go, I went each way before I ended up going A way in the most important way.

Then, as a result of all the experiences of that journey through the possibilities of the "self" under the context, with that journey itself having changed me and made me consider which option to take, do I choose.

Some decisions end up owing to a far more trivial example, like a dwarf whose decision on any given moment amount to a completely incomprehensible dice roll. Perhaps you would consider this macro-scale indeterminateness?

Maybe the idea of an unstable equilibrium such as a ball balanced on a hill?

But I don't see that as a matter of "mindful will" unless you capture the ball there with chock blocks and put a sensor on either side that if a road runner steps on it. The mindful part is in fact that which constrains the options to particular outcomes.

It's willful in the least abstract way when it occurs according to some design or intent, and merely "insane" when it is not.

The more "according to dice rolls" behavior becomes, the less "willful" it is.

Freedoms come, however, not from the process of selection or the "dice" rolled upon, but the presence of the selectable elements - which we conveniently validate at least often enough to be reasonably successful - through simulation.

Only once we have identified what (thing in place) can do, then we decide what (thing does in places generally, or that place specifically), even if the thing evaluating this is the thing about to be transformed.

Whatever metaphysical quality is shared by these such that some other thing is gatekeeping some outcome over them, such are "freedoms" or "possibilities".

But reducing indeterminateness then is exactly what forms more meaningful and sensible wills and more deliberate minds capable of understanding and identifying more and more importantly better possibilities. We expect deliberation and good sense to be applied in reaching certain decisions. When that doesn't happen, you're still responsible, but for being an "idiot" rather than malicious.

That these will only end up in one way as the result of one context combined with one agent does not invalidate that possibility is not illusory. The illusion is that possibilities would have to exist in the same place and time or be selected in a particular situation to have been such.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

There is only one outcome between them as a result of the process of choosing (elements of which I also chose) sure... But the outcome still only exists only because of the interplay between the considerations of each

Yes, choosing/selecting settles the indeterminateness - what unsettledness there is - as presented by and as actual possibilities.

those actual material artifacts are the possibilities.

And the settling of some particular indeterminateness/unsettledness, the converting some particular indeterminate situation into a determinate/settled situation, can certainly effect "artifacts" within (what can be described as) the newly determinate condition with those "artifacts" presenting as new possibilities to be settled in order to determine whatever then still newer determinate situation(s) follows.

In a very important way when I myself consider which way I will go, I went each way before I ended up going A way in the most important way.

Then, as a result of all the experiences of that journey through the possibilities of the "self" under the context, with that journey itself having changed me and made me consider which option to take, do I choose.

Yes, that is how deliberated imaginative/creative thinking can be described as occurring.

 

[pood]

HIghly recommended video on this topic. Not a big video fan and, as mentioned in the thread, would like to see a transcript so I could pull quotes and comment. Richard Carrier is excellent in this video IMO.

 

[pood]

The title is a misnomer, because the real target here is libertarian free will while supporting compatibilist free will and rejecting hard determinism or predeterminism. The video pretty much says everything I have argued, which I suppose is why I like it so much.

 

[Jarhyn]

The title is a misnomer, because the real target here is libertarian free will while supporting compatibilist free will and rejecting hard determinism or predeterminism. The video pretty much says everything I have argued, which I suppose is why I like it so much.

Well, "free will" is a misnomer, so I suppose it's all good and fine either way.

That said, maybe Carrier read through some of our threads here on the subject before the interview, so he wouldn't find himself eviscerated by critique on the subject.

 

[DBT]

Function is not necessarily will. Computer have programmed function and purpose, while a brain generates thought and response according to its inherent makeup and condition, life experience and memory....which is not a matter of free will.

Where memory failure alone results in an inability to recognize, understand or respond rationally. Free will? Nah, just a conscious interactive form of response determined by unconscious means, the work of neural network.

There lies the inadequacy of compatibilism and defining free will as 'acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.'

The failure being;

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

"Basic-desert responsibility" is not a core element of compatibilism.

Some compatibilists may subscribe to 'basic-desert' but many (most?) do not and, like me, find the concept incoherent.

But it is an element of the idea of free will. That is the point.

It may well be an element of your particular take on free will but as you must have noticed, there's more than one notion of free will at play here.

Sure, there are several takes on the notion of free will, Compatibilism, Libertarian, Common usage of the term, Law, etc.

Some of which contradict each other.

Even worse, there are compatibilists who argue like libertarians regardless of the contradictions between the two positions.

It's a mess. Hardly rational at the best of times. The term used casually, who cares.....but the question is; is our will really free?

Given the nature of cognition and the role of will, the answer can only be, of course not.

 

[DBT]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

No, the brain is the decision maker, where the decisions that are made are determined by the state of the brain in any given instance in time.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

You can't circumvent the terms without eroding the foundation of compatibilism, the argument that free will is compatible with determinism

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

I again invite you to offer an account of how the Big Bang writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony. To the best of my recollection you have never answered these questions.

No need, we all know how determinism is defined by now.

If not, here's a reminder;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Compatibilists are of course 'determinists' who define their own concept of free will in relation to determinism.

None of this explains how determinism — a mindless descriptive process — writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony.

That's not how it works. People write, paint, etc. If the world is deterministic, causal determinism is a definition of how the world works.

You know how it works. Conditions on earth enabled life to form, three billion years of microbes and five hundred million years of multicellular evolution before a species that is capable of higher order information processing, with the ability to write, and paint and build spacecraft.

And It didn't happen through free will.

It’s still not an answer. You are arguing not for determinism, but for predeterminisdm. And I would like to know how the Big Bang predetermined a novel, a painting, a building, a symphony. Certainly Jerry Coyne believed his jazz musician did not write his composition, but was a meat robot — his very term. Do you agree with him?

Of course it's an answer. That you can't accept the possibility that free will is an illusion is the problem.

The argument for incompatibility is based on the given definition of determinism. Not something that I cooked up, but how it is defined by both sides.

As determinism is defined by both sides, the given conditions of the system simply do not permit alternate choices or actions.

Given determinism as compatibilists define it to be, you can't just pick any option at any given time. If someone insists that you can, they are not a compatibilist.

 

[The AntiChris]

but the question is; is our will really free?

Unfortunately, given your interpretation of the Definition of freedom you provide on this thread (post #1,620), it follows that absolutely nothing can be free in a deterministic universe. I've always wondered why you've always fixated on just this one particular
claim of freedom?

 

[pood]

Function is not necessarily will. Computer have programmed function and purpose, while a brain generates thought and response according to its inherent makeup and condition, life experience and memory....which is not a matter of free will.

Where memory failure alone results in an inability to recognize, understand or respond rationally. Free will? Nah, just a conscious interactive form of response determined by unconscious means, the work of neural network.

There lies the inadequacy of compatibilism and defining free will as 'acting without being forced, coerced or unduly influenced.'

The failure being;

''An action’s production by a deterministic process, even when the agent satisfies the conditions on moral responsibility specified by compatibilists, presents no less of a challenge to basic-desert responsibility than does deterministic manipulation by other agents. '

"Basic-desert responsibility" is not a core element of compatibilism.

Some compatibilists may subscribe to 'basic-desert' but many (most?) do not and, like me, find the concept incoherent.

But it is an element of the idea of free will. That is the point.

It may well be an element of your particular take on free will but as you must have noticed, there's more than one notion of free will at play here.

Sure, there are several takes on the notion of free will, Compatibilism, Libertarian, Common usage of the term, Law, etc.

Some of which contradict each other.

Even worse, there are compatibilists who argue like libertarians regardless of the contradictions between the two positions.

It's a mess. Hardly rational at the best of times. The term used casually, who cares.....but the question is; is our will really free?

Given the nature of cognition and the role of will, the answer can only be, of course not.

Carrier explains very well why compatibilism succeeds and draws a clear distinction between it and libertarianism.

 

[pood]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

No, the brain is the decision maker, where the decisions that are made are determined by the state of the brain in any given instance in time.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

You can't circumvent the terms without eroding the foundation of compatibilism, the argument that free will is compatible with determinism

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

I again invite you to offer an account of how the Big Bang writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony. To the best of my recollection you have never answered these questions.

No need, we all know how determinism is defined by now.

If not, here's a reminder;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Compatibilists are of course 'determinists' who define their own concept of free will in relation to determinism.

None of this explains how determinism — a mindless descriptive process — writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony.

That's not how it works. People write, paint, etc. If the world is deterministic, causal determinism is a definition of how the world works.

You know how it works. Conditions on earth enabled life to form, three billion years of microbes and five hundred million years of multicellular evolution before a species that is capable of higher order information processing, with the ability to write, and paint and build spacecraft.

And It didn't happen through free will.

It’s still not an answer. You are arguing not for determinism, but for predeterminisdm. And I would like to know how the Big Bang predetermined a novel, a painting, a building, a symphony. Certainly Jerry Coyne believed his jazz musician did not write his composition, but was a meat robot — his very term. Do you agree with him?

Of course it's an answer. That you can't accept the possibility that free will is an illusion is the problem.

The argument for incompatibility is based on the given definition of determinism. Not something that I cooked up, but how it is defined by both sides.

As determinism is defined by both sides, the given conditions of the system simply do not permit alternate choices or actions.

Given determinism as compatibilists define it to be, you can't just pick any option at any given time. If someone insists that you can, they are not a compatibilist.

It is not an answer. Your basic stance, from what you have written, is that hard determinism is the same as pre-determinism. I want you to explain the mechanism by which a mindless descriptive process writes symphonies, paints pictures, etc. I know perfectly well that when I am writing or drawing i must make innumerable choices. The Big Bang can choose nothing.

 

[pood]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

No, the brain is the decision maker, where the decisions that are made are determined by the state of the brain in any given instance in time.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

You can't circumvent the terms without eroding the foundation of compatibilism, the argument that free will is compatible with determinism

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

I again invite you to offer an account of how the Big Bang writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony. To the best of my recollection you have never answered these questions.

No need, we all know how determinism is defined by now.

If not, here's a reminder;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Compatibilists are of course 'determinists' who define their own concept of free will in relation to determinism.

None of this explains how determinism — a mindless descriptive process — writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony.

That's not how it works. People write, paint, etc. If the world is deterministic, causal determinism is a definition of how the world works.

You know how it works. Conditions on earth enabled life to form, three billion years of microbes and five hundred million years of multicellular evolution before a species that is capable of higher order information processing, with the ability to write, and paint and build spacecraft.

And It didn't happen through free will.

It’s still not an answer. You are arguing not for determinism, but for predeterminisdm. And I would like to know how the Big Bang predetermined a novel, a painting, a building, a symphony. Certainly Jerry Coyne believed his jazz musician did not write his composition, but was a meat robot — his very term. Do you agree with him?

Of course it's an answer. That you can't accept the possibility that free will is an illusion is the problem.

The argument for incompatibility is based on the given definition of determinism. Not something that I cooked up, but how it is defined by both sides.

As determinism is defined by both sides, the given conditions of the system simply do not permit alternate choices or actions.

Given determinism as compatibilists define it to be, you can't just pick any option at any given time. If someone insists that you can, they are not a compatibilist.

This is incorrect. The libertarian insists everyone is self causing. The compatibilist acknowledges cause and effect but that ultimately his choices are his own, but based on antecedents. I have pointed out again and again that to say “could not have done otherwise” is a modal fallacy. Given certain antecedents, I WILL, but not MUST, do a certain thing. I don’t know how many times this can be explained. There is plenty of literature on it online and you can easily find it. I have linked some of it.

 

[Jarhyn]

I did. I also pointed out that it is the non chosen condition of a brain, neural architecture, brain state any instance of decision making, …

Decision making? Who or what makes the decision? The Big Bang?

No, the brain is the decision maker, where the decisions that are made are determined by the state of the brain in any given instance in time.

That is according to the terms and conditions of determinism as compatibilists define it to be.

You can't circumvent the terms without eroding the foundation of compatibilism, the argument that free will is compatible with determinism

Keep in mind that the brain itself, though the sole agent of thought and decision making, is inseparable from the system at large; the environment in which it operates.

I again invite you to offer an account of how the Big Bang writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony. To the best of my recollection you have never answered these questions.

No need, we all know how determinism is defined by now.

If not, here's a reminder;

Determinism: The world is governed by (or is under the sway of) determinism if and only if, given a specified way things are at a time t, the way things go thereafter is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Determinism: given the state of the world at any moment in time, there is only one way it can be at the next moment.

What Does Deterministic System Mean?
''A deterministic system is a system in which a given initial state or condition will always produce the same results. There is no randomness or variation in the ways that inputs get delivered as outputs.''

Compatibilists are of course 'determinists' who define their own concept of free will in relation to determinism.

None of this explains how determinism — a mindless descriptive process — writes a novel, paints a picture, designs a building or composes a symphony.

That's not how it works. People write, paint, etc. If the world is deterministic, causal determinism is a definition of how the world works.

You know how it works. Conditions on earth enabled life to form, three billion years of microbes and five hundred million years of multicellular evolution before a species that is capable of higher order information processing, with the ability to write, and paint and build spacecraft.

And It didn't happen through free will.

It’s still not an answer. You are arguing not for determinism, but for predeterminisdm. And I would like to know how the Big Bang predetermined a novel, a painting, a building, a symphony. Certainly Jerry Coyne believed his jazz musician did not write his composition, but was a meat robot — his very term. Do you agree with him?

Of course it's an answer. That you can't accept the possibility that free will is an illusion is the problem.

The argument for incompatibility is based on the given definition of determinism. Not something that I cooked up, but how it is defined by both sides.

As determinism is defined by both sides, the given conditions of the system simply do not permit alternate choices or actions.

Given determinism as compatibilists define it to be, you can't just pick any option at any given time. If someone insists that you can, they are not a compatibilist.

This is incorrect. The libertarian insists everyone is self causing. The compatibilist acknowledges cause and effect but that ultimately his choices are his own, but based on antecedents. I have pointed out again and again that to say “could not have done otherwise” is a modal fallacy. Given certain antecedents, I WILL, but not MUST, do a certain thing. I don’t know how many times this can be explained. There is plenty of literature on it online and you can easily find it. I have linked some of it.

My only thought is that this, according to the assumptions, may be owing to an inability to perform a certain kind of abstraction.

This is one of the reasons I am SO very interested in seeing DBT actually attempt a course on software engineering or some manner of "foundational" math.

Anything requiring proofs or looking at pointers would do.

If he struggles badly with pointers or proofs, this would give me my answer.