Poll: Free will most people think they have

[Speakpigeon]

Complete predictability from within the universe (or any system) is not possible. This paper explains why: Determinism and the Paradox of Predictability

Sure. That's if determinism is true.

No. It's true whether determinism is true or not.

You look very determined!

So you're completely predicting that we won't ever be able to completely predict anything?
EB

 

[DBT]

Determined by ''us'' being one part of the issue of contention. For a start...what precisely is this ''us?'' That needs to be defined.

You don't know what's 'us'?!

What is it you don't understand about life?


And it's a fact that all we know of and can investigate properly that make decisions and make choices are people.

In other words, us. See?

And I'd like to see the evidence that a brain on it's own make choices.
EB

''Us'' is a broad term...a collection of many features and attributes, legs, arms, fingers, head, torso, hair, eyes, etc, etc, my comment - obviously - was related to the nature of decision making, namely, which specific feature of ''us'' that is responsible for making decisions.

Nobody is claiming that the brain ''on it's own,'' presumably meaning ''in isolation'' or ''with no input'' is making decisions. Unless you mean something else, your comment is not clear.

 

[The AntiChris]

No. It's true whether determinism is true or not.

You look very determined!

So you're completely predicting that we won't ever be able to completely predict anything?
EB

It's not a prediction. It's a logical conclusion.

 

[ryan]

When I said ''largely unconscious'' I meant the activity of the brain is largely unconscious, not meaning to suggest that consciousness is somehow able to make decisions independently from the information processing activity of a brain.

The freedom we have is not freedom of will in the sense that will is able to override what the brain is doing and make alternative choices, but in the very ability of a complex self programming (acquiring new information) brain to perceive alternatives, select options and act upon the selected choice. Which is interactive decision making, an interaction of environment and brain, with the ability to act.

But these issues you present here are already know and have been dealt with. I just wanted to respond to the nonissue that our brains are largely unconscious. That is not a problem.

You have responded and argued many times, but the issues I raised here have not been dealt with in the sense that these issues have been resolved in favour of free will.

The problem for the concept of free will still stands as described: it is the state and condition of a brain in the instance of a decision being made that determines option selected and action taken in that moment in time.

Which is rational decision making (sometimes irrational), related actions taken, but not to free will as expressed in ''freely willed decisions'' as if it is conscious will that makes decisions rather than the state and condition of a brain in any instance of decision making.

You know where I am going to go. I will not fully accept a Newtonian brain until every molecule has been explained functionally. The day this happens is the day that we will know the answer to free will. Until then, your certainty and your other general statements are unjustified.

If they do discover a fully deterministic brain, then I will admit that there is no free will, at least in my opinion. But until then, it's on the table for me, unless you can think of this from a whole new angle and provide a new argument.

 

[Subsymbolic]

You have responded and argued many times, but the issues I raised here have not been dealt with in the sense that these issues have been resolved in favour of free will.

The problem for the concept of free will still stands as described: it is the state and condition of a brain in the instance of a decision being made that determines option selected and action taken in that moment in time.

Which is rational decision making (sometimes irrational), related actions taken, but not to free will as expressed in ''freely willed decisions'' as if it is conscious will that makes decisions rather than the state and condition of a brain in any instance of decision making.

You know where I am going to go. I will not fully accept a Newtonian brain until every molecule has been explained functionally. The day this happens is the day that we will know the answer to free will. Until then, your certainty and your other general statements are unjustified.

If they do discover a fully deterministic brain, then I will admit that there is no free will, at least in my opinion. But until then, it's on the table for me, unless you can think of this from a whole new angle and provide a new argument.

Not only is the brain stochastic, but the brain relies on being stochastic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_noise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance_(sensory_neurobiology)
http://www.oxcns.org/papers/NoisyBrainContentsAndChapter5.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000348

and so on. The brain is not deterministic. It never was.

 

[Juma]

In our current understanding of nature, and outside any catastrophic situations such as a fire, a blast of radiations etc., what's physically going on inside a human being within the short window of time of a decision is essentially independent from his environment as it is at that point in time. Obviously, we can travel back in time along the causality chain and quickly find external causes. These will indeed be external to the subject but only as he is at that point in the past, not at the time of the decision. At the time of the decision, in normal circumstances, the decision is all done essentially within the subject, and so independently of external forces.

And I'm not trying to eliminate possibilities. I'm just trying to articulate the best interpretation of free will I can think of. An interpretation that makes sense and that fits what most people say.
EB

Thats how computers work too..

Ah, at last somebody with a working brain! Congratulation!

Now, ask you're computer what it thinks about free will and whether it has it.

And that's also how your coffee machine works for that matter, you know.

Yet, we value this property we have while computers and coffee machines don't. And they won't ever do much with it, I think.

And, humans aren't routinely switched off without their consent.
EB

Can’t you just agree thst I am right? That what you spoke of is no ”free will” at all.

 

[ryan]

You have responded and argued many times, but the issues I raised here have not been dealt with in the sense that these issues have been resolved in favour of free will.

The problem for the concept of free will still stands as described: it is the state and condition of a brain in the instance of a decision being made that determines option selected and action taken in that moment in time.

Which is rational decision making (sometimes irrational), related actions taken, but not to free will as expressed in ''freely willed decisions'' as if it is conscious will that makes decisions rather than the state and condition of a brain in any instance of decision making.

You know where I am going to go. I will not fully accept a Newtonian brain until every molecule has been explained functionally. The day this happens is the day that we will know the answer to free will. Until then, your certainty and your other general statements are unjustified.

If they do discover a fully deterministic brain, then I will admit that there is no free will, at least in my opinion. But until then, it's on the table for me, unless you can think of this from a whole new angle and provide a new argument.

Not only is the brain stochastic, but the brain relies on being stochastic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuronal_noise
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_resonance_(sensory_neurobiology)
http://www.oxcns.org/papers/NoisyBrainContentsAndChapter5.pdf
http://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000348

and so on. The brain is not deterministic. It never was.

Randomness in a Newtonian universe is only subjectively random (random from some point of reference); the universe and all that is in it would still be deterministic.

We don't know if the brain is truly deterministic yet. We probably will never know. But if we do have a deterministic brain, then the best we can hope for is the cheap compatibalism, which I think is just a word game to shoehorn in free will.

 

[beero1000]

Randomness in a Newtonian universe is only subjectively random (random from some point of reference); the universe and all that is in it would still be deterministic.

We don't know if the brain is truly deterministic yet. We probably will never know. But if we do have a deterministic brain, then the best we can hope for is the cheap compatibalism, which I think is just a word game.

A dynamical system as complicated as a brain will almost certainly be chaotic even if it is, in theory, completely deterministic. I would also say that it's basically impossible to tell with absolute certainty whether a system is stochastic or just sufficiently complex and chaotic.

 

[ryan]

Randomness in a Newtonian universe is only subjectively random (random from some point of reference); the universe and all that is in it would still be deterministic.

We don't know if the brain is truly deterministic yet. We probably will never know. But if we do have a deterministic brain, then the best we can hope for is the cheap compatibalism, which I think is just a word game.

A dynamical system as complicated as a brain will almost certainly be chaotic even if it is, in theory, completely deterministic. I would also say that it's basically impossible to tell with absolute certainty whether a system is stochastic or just sufficiently complex and chaotic.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or adding to what I said. Is there anything that I said that you disagree with?

 

[bilby]

In our current understanding of nature, and outside any catastrophic situations such as a fire, a blast of radiations etc., what's physically going on inside a human being within the short window of time of a decision is essentially independent from his environment as it is at that point in time. Obviously, we can travel back in time along the causality chain and quickly find external causes. These will indeed be external to the subject but only as he is at that point in the past, not at the time of the decision. At the time of the decision, in normal circumstances, the decision is all done essentially within the subject, and so independently of external forces.

And I'm not trying to eliminate possibilities. I'm just trying to articulate the best interpretation of free will I can think of. An interpretation that makes sense and that fits what most people say.
EB

Thats how computers work too..

Ah, at last somebody with a working brain! Congratulation!

Now, ask you're computer what it thinks about free will and whether it has it.

And that's also how your coffee machine works for that matter, you know.

Yet, we value this property we have while computers and coffee machines don't. And they won't ever do much with it, I think.

And, humans aren't routinely switched off without their consent.
EB

I routinely switch off, whether I like it or not, every night. If I try to resist, I can manage one or two nights without it happening; But I become increasingly incoherent and irrational if I do. I acquiesce to this nightly shutdown, as there is no value in fighting the inevitable. But I surely do not consent - it is a decision made under duress, and one which if I don't consent to it, is imposed upon me anyway.

 

[beero1000]

Randomness in a Newtonian universe is only subjectively random (random from some point of reference); the universe and all that is in it would still be deterministic.

We don't know if the brain is truly deterministic yet. We probably will never know. But if we do have a deterministic brain, then the best we can hope for is the cheap compatibalism, which I think is just a word game.

A dynamical system as complicated as a brain will almost certainly be chaotic even if it is, in theory, completely deterministic. I would also say that it's basically impossible to tell with absolute certainty whether a system is stochastic or just sufficiently complex and chaotic.

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or adding to what I said. Is there anything that I said that you disagree with?

I was pointing out your implicit assumption that determinism implies predictability and repeatability, even in theory. That is not the case, even for very simple dynamical systems.

 

[DBT]

You have responded and argued many times, but the issues I raised here have not been dealt with in the sense that these issues have been resolved in favour of free will.

The problem for the concept of free will still stands as described: it is the state and condition of a brain in the instance of a decision being made that determines option selected and action taken in that moment in time.

Which is rational decision making (sometimes irrational), related actions taken, but not to free will as expressed in ''freely willed decisions'' as if it is conscious will that makes decisions rather than the state and condition of a brain in any instance of decision making.

You know where I am going to go. I will not fully accept a Newtonian brain until every molecule has been explained functionally. The day this happens is the day that we will know the answer to free will. Until then, your certainty and your other general statements are unjustified.

If they do discover a fully deterministic brain, then I will admit that there is no free will, at least in my opinion. But until then, it's on the table for me, unless you can think of this from a whole new angle and provide a new argument.

As I've said before, I'm not talking about a Newtonian Brain. Quantum probability makes no difference to what I said, quantum states, particle position, superposition, wave collapse, entanglement, etc, etc, is not a matter of conscious choice or open to regulation through an act of will.

Regardless, it is still the information state and condition of a brain in the moment of decision making that determines the decision that is made in that instance, including glitches and bad decisions that must be corrected afterward.

 

[ryan]

You have responded and argued many times, but the issues I raised here have not been dealt with in the sense that these issues have been resolved in favour of free will.

The problem for the concept of free will still stands as described: it is the state and condition of a brain in the instance of a decision being made that determines option selected and action taken in that moment in time.

Which is rational decision making (sometimes irrational), related actions taken, but not to free will as expressed in ''freely willed decisions'' as if it is conscious will that makes decisions rather than the state and condition of a brain in any instance of decision making.

You know where I am going to go. I will not fully accept a Newtonian brain until every molecule has been explained functionally. The day this happens is the day that we will know the answer to free will. Until then, your certainty and your other general statements are unjustified.

If they do discover a fully deterministic brain, then I will admit that there is no free will, at least in my opinion. But until then, it's on the table for me, unless you can think of this from a whole new angle and provide a new argument.

Regardless, it is still the information state and condition of a brain in the moment of decision making that determines the decision that is made in that instance, including glitches and bad decisions that must be corrected afterward.

You say "determines" here. You are assuming that there are only determinable cause and effect reactions in the brain. I am saying that we don't know this; moreover, we are finding evidence that this is probably not the case. You just completely sidestepped my reply.

 

[DBT]

Regardless, it is still the information state and condition of a brain in the moment of decision making that determines the decision that is made in that instance, including glitches and bad decisions that must be corrected afterward.

You say "determines" here. You are assuming that there are only determinable cause and effect reactions in the brain. I am saying that we don't know this; moreover, we are finding evidence that this is probably not the case. You just completely sidestepped my reply.

''Determines'' in the sense that the information state of the brain in any given instance, adaptive, maladaptive, glitches, connectivity failure, etc, that is expressed in conscious form, this not being open to modification through an act of will. The same rule applies to realizable veto, which is possible if there is sufficient time within the sequence of cognitive events to alter a decision in progress, ie, a train of thought interrupted by new information and vetoed...you change your mind. Or more to the point, your mind is changed by fresh input within the neuronal decision making process. All being related to states and conditions within a brain, which is information. Including a failure to connect here, a chemical imbalance there, particle position, ion flow and so on.

 

[ruby sparks]

You are assuming that there are only determinable cause and effect reactions in the brain.

What else could there be going on, I suppose?

Don't say 'indeterminism' because surely that won't get you to 'free will' anyway?

 

[ryan]

Regardless, it is still the information state and condition of a brain in the moment of decision making that determines the decision that is made in that instance, including glitches and bad decisions that must be corrected afterward.

You say "determines" here. You are assuming that there are only determinable cause and effect reactions in the brain. I am saying that we don't know this; moreover, we are finding evidence that this is probably not the case. You just completely sidestepped my reply.

''Determines'' in the sense that the information state of the brain in any given instance, adaptive, maladaptive, glitches, connectivity failure, etc, that is expressed in conscious form, this not being open to modification through an act of will. The same rule applies to realizable veto, which is possible if there is sufficient time within the sequence of cognitive events to alter a decision in progress, ie, a train of thought interrupted by new information and vetoed...you change your mind. Or more to the point, your mind is changed by fresh input within the neuronal decision making process. All being related to states and conditions within a brain, which is information. Including a failure to connect here, a chemical imbalance there, particle position, ion flow and so on.

The will itself let's define physically as state A. If the prior state causes state A in accordance with some kind of determinable mechanics (such as Newtonian or QM pilot wave theory) then I agree that we do not have free will. The will would have to follow mechanical principles.

However, if the prior state does not determine state A, and state A determines itself, then that is equivalent to free will.

 

[ryan]

You are assuming that there are only determinable cause and effect reactions in the brain.

What else could there be going on, I suppose?

Don't say 'indeterminism' because surely that won't get you to 'free will' anyway?

So do you think compatibilism is the only kind of free will? Like how wouldn't indeterminism work for free will?

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ah, at last somebody with a working brain! Congratulation!

Now, ask you're computer what it thinks about free will and whether it has it.

And that's also how your coffee machine works for that matter, you know.

Yet, we value this property we have while computers and coffee machines don't. And they won't ever do much with it, I think.

And, humans aren't routinely switched off without their consent.
EB

Can’t you just agree thst I am right? That what you spoke of is no ”free will” at all.

Is that all the argument you have?

Well, I suppose I could. It's just that I am free to do what I want.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Ah, at last somebody with a working brain! Congratulation!

Now, ask you're computer what it thinks about free will and whether it has it.

And that's also how your coffee machine works for that matter, you know.

Yet, we value this property we have while computers and coffee machines don't. And they won't ever do much with it, I think.

And, humans aren't routinely switched off without their consent.
EB

I routinely switch off, whether I like it or not, every night. If I try to resist, I can manage one or two nights without it happening; But I become increasingly incoherent and irrational if I do. I acquiesce to this nightly shutdown, as there is no value in fighting the inevitable. But I surely do not consent - it is a decision made under duress, and one which if I don't consent to it, is imposed upon me anyway.

Do coffee machines dream of electric sheep?

No. You don't "switch off".

And personally, I don't fight going to bed too much. It comes as a relief. You should try it.

Come to think of it, it's definitely time to go.

What a relief!
EB

 

[Juma]

Ah, at last somebody with a working brain! Congratulation!

Now, ask you're computer what it thinks about free will and whether it has it.

And that's also how your coffee machine works for that matter, you know.

Yet, we value this property we have while computers and coffee machines don't. And they won't ever do much with it, I think.

And, humans aren't routinely switched off without their consent.
EB

Can’t you just agree thst I am right? That what you spoke of is no ”free will” at all.

Is that all the argument you have?

Well, I suppose I could. It's just that I am free to do what I want.
EB

And how is that different from just doing what you want?