A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

Aren't there rational reasons for turning left or right or going straight ahead? The Robot may need regular maintenance, it had an appointment at at its service centre just around the corner, second door on the left.

If the action was purely random, a quantum glitch, the atoms in a key motor action processor spontaneously went into wave function, the glitch turned the Robots legs into an unchosen direction, making this an unchosen action and an unchosen direction. This is not even a willed action yet alone a 'freely' willed action. Not being a matter of 'will' - this is not an example of 'free will.'

Please answer my question. I will ask it again: if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?

The Robots decision making is governed by its internal conditions....which are not accessible to an external observer, and most likely not to the Robot itself.

The best that an external observer can say is, the Robot appears to be walking randomly, it appears to be broken (a bunch of atoms have randomly flipped into wave function mode), it needs to see a quantum mechanic as soon as possible or entanglement will finish it off altogether.

Or the observer sees the Robot purposefully marching to the service centre, it is on a mission. It's decision appears rational and purposeful.....it has rational will.

Rational will, but not 'free' will. Just like us.

 

[ryan]

Please answer my question. I will ask it again: if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?

The Robots decision making is governed by its internal conditions....which are not accessible to an external observer, and most likely not to the Robot itself.

The best that an external observer can say is, the Robot appears to be walking randomly, it appears to be broken (a bunch of atoms have randomly flipped into wave function mode), it needs to see a quantum mechanic as soon as possible or entanglement will finish it off altogether.

Or the observer sees the Robot purposefully marching to the service centre, it is on a mission. It's decision appears rational and purposeful.....it has rational will.

Rational will, but not 'free' will. Just like us.

DBT, your logic is flawed.

The statement, "free will has property p" is not the same as saying, "anything with property p has free will".

My argument does not mean that anything that is random must have free will; I am saying that something that appears random is a property of free will.

For example, imagine that I try to guess what kind of fruit you are eating. You only tell me that it is red. I may not be correct by guessing a cherry, but it is at least has the required property of being red.

 

[DBT]

The Robots decision making is governed by its internal conditions....which are not accessible to an external observer, and most likely not to the Robot itself.

The best that an external observer can say is, the Robot appears to be walking randomly, it appears to be broken (a bunch of atoms have randomly flipped into wave function mode), it needs to see a quantum mechanic as soon as possible or entanglement will finish it off altogether.

Or the observer sees the Robot purposefully marching to the service centre, it is on a mission. It's decision appears rational and purposeful.....it has rational will.

Rational will, but not 'free' will. Just like us.

DBT, your logic is flawed.

The statement, "free will has property p" is not the same as saying, "anything with property p has free will".

You didn't actually read what I said. It is your proposition that 'random' or 'unpredictable' equates to 'free will' is flawed logic. I have pointed out why 'random' and 'unpredictable' does not equate to 'free will' - none of which you have addressed.

My argument does not mean that anything that is random must have free will; I am saying that something that appears random is a property of free will.

There is no apparent connection between 'random' and expressions of 'will' - will being a product of information processing and related to articles of will, articles of our desires, fears, aversions, likes, dislikes, etc, etc...which is not random. Hence your flawed association between 'randomness' as a property of ' free will'

For example, imagine that I try to guess what kind of fruit you are eating. You only tell me that it is red. I may not be correct by guessing a cherry, but it is at least has the required property of being red.

That's got nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of will or the nature of decision making. It's just an example of you, your brain, not having the necessary information that is related to me and my situation and condition. Which is essentially what I said in my example with your 'free will Robot' - apparently the point being missed.

 

[Juma]

If our thoughts were caused entirely by the world around us it would be necessary that every thought was a true reflection of reality.

Why? Causation does not imply likeness. Even if a railway crash was caused by a log on the track the nothing in the crash would look like a log on track...

 

[Kharakov]

And don't forget he really cannot help it. He has no free will. He merely thinks he has but that's an illusion.

Sad that we argue against the inevitable. The fact remains that the outcomes of our actions are a function of how well our brains perform and that they are not too polluted with chemicals and beliefs that inhibit rational thought.

You can lead a horse to water polluted with lead, but you can't make them smarter without integrated nanotech, an offboard computer wirelessly integrated with the nanotech, and a few wetware programs to keep them from going where they shouldn't in case the nanotech fails because lead shielding interferes with wireless signal propagation. Are you a regular or leaded sheep?

 

[ryan]

DBT, your logic is flawed.

The statement, "free will has property p" is not the same as saying, "anything with property p has free will".

You didn't actually read what I said. It is your proposition that 'random' or 'unpredictable' equates to 'free will' is flawed logic. I have pointed out why 'random' and 'unpredictable' does not equate to 'free will' - none of which you have addressed.

My argument does not mean that anything that is random must have free will; I am saying that something that appears random is a property of free will.

There is no apparent connection between 'random' and expressions of 'will' - will being a product of information processing and related to articles of will, articles of our desires, fears, aversions, likes, dislikes, etc, etc...which is not random. Hence your flawed association between 'randomness' as a property of ' free will'

For example, imagine that I try to guess what kind of fruit you are eating. You only tell me that it is red. I may not be correct by guessing a cherry, but it is at least has the required property of being red.

That's got nothing whatsoever to do with the nature of will or the nature of decision making. It's just an example of you, your brain, not having the necessary information that is related to me and my situation and condition. Which is essentially what I said in my example with your 'free will Robot' - apparently the point being missed.

Okay, let me back up to your reply.

Please answer my question. I will ask it again: if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?

The Robots decision making is governed by its internal conditions....which are not accessible to an external observer, and most likely not to the Robot itself.

The best that an external observer can say is, the Robot appears to be walking randomly, ...

We have this robot with free will, and you agree that it appears to be walking randomly.

Now if we have a robot that processes the randomness of quantum mechanics, then we would also see the robot acting randomly.

There is a glaring account of randomness in both situations.

 

[Perspicuo]

Random behavior is not willed behavior. There is no decision-making in randomness. Worse if behind decision-making is pure randomness.

If free will is down to "How the heck should I know why I did it, I'm just a random generator of movements!", then the concept is more than useless.

And certainly, we know from the research that what is apparently cognizant decision-making is post hoc justifications for decisions made downstairs (so to speak).



"Das Ich ist nicht Herr im eigenen Haus (The ego is not a master in its own house)"... and worse even if its just a poor underling waiting for the die to be cast and then justify the result when he declares such "deliberation" to the world.

 

[ryan]

Random behavior is not willed behavior. There is no decision-making in randomness. Worse if behind decision-making is pure randomness.

I know it's not. Free will would appear random to everyone else.

If free will is down to "How the heck should I know why I did it, I'm just a random generator of movements!", then the concept is more than useless.

The agent determines what will happen.

 

[bilby]

I know it's not. Free will would appear random to everyone else.

If free will is down to "How the heck should I know why I did it, I'm just a random generator of movements!", then the concept is more than useless.

The agent determines what will happen.

One of the observed characteristics of quantum randomness is its very precise adherence to probability. The decay time for a single atom of a radioisotope is random. The half-life of a mass of such atoms is fixed; all attempts to change radioisotopic half-life have failed. But here you are claiming that mere human desire can influence such quantum randomness.

That is a truly extraordinary claim - given what we have observed of quantum systems, it is perhaps one of the most extraordinary claims imaginable. But not only have you fade to produce the extraordinary evidence required by such a claim; you have provided no evidence at all of any kind.

The appropriate response for a rational person is to reject your claim until such time as evidence to support it is presented.

Your claim is both false and risable. Support it or expect to be mocked.

 

[ryan]

I know it's not. Free will would appear random to everyone else.

The agent determines what will happen.

One of the observed characteristics of quantum randomness is its very precise adherence to probability. The decay time for a single atom of a radioisotope is random. The half-life of a mass of such atoms is fixed; all attempts to change radioisotopic half-life have failed. But here you are claiming that mere human desire can influence such quantum randomness.

As I said in the last post to you, the randomness is what we observe. QM says nothing about being the randomness.

That is a truly extraordinary claim - given what we have observed of quantum systems, it is perhaps one of the most extraordinary claims imaginable. But not only have you fade to produce the extraordinary evidence required by such a claim; you have provided no evidence at all of any kind.

It is not so much a claim as it is a possibility/hypothesis.

 

[DBT]

Okay, let me back up to your reply.

Please answer my question. I will ask it again: if a robot had free will to turn left, go straight or turn right, would you know what it chooses, or would its choice appear random?

The Robots decision making is governed by its internal conditions....which are not accessible to an external observer, and most likely not to the Robot itself.

The best that an external observer can say is, the Robot appears to be walking randomly, ...

We have this robot with free will, and you agree that it appears to be walking randomly.

Now if we have a robot that processes the randomness of quantum mechanics, then we would also see the robot acting randomly.

There is a glaring account of randomness in both situations.

First off, what exactly is a 'free will Robot?' And how does this 'free will Robot' differ from an intelligent Robot that is able to interact and respond rationally to its environment in the form of 'rational will?'

What's the difference, Ryan?

Now if we have a robot that processes the randomness of quantum mechanics, then we would also see the robot acting randomly.

This is meaningless. Processing 'randomness' provides no apparent benefit over processing information in order to achieve the optimal course of action.

How does 'processing randomness' help you to decide which career path suits you best? Or who to marry, whether to have or not have children, what to invest in, etc, etc?

Can you explain?

 

[apeman]

That's getting in the territory of Solipsism.

Why can't you just accept that that you are a receiver of information and that that information does not need to exist mind independently? How do you know that your ideas prove a material reality?

That, for all practical purposes, is Solipsism. You have not always existed, nor will you exist for long....something predates the existence of our individual selves and continues to exist long after we disintegrate back to probability wave function/particles or 'wavicles' as some have put it.

The quantum enigma lies in the relationship of the observer to the observed. The brain itself is composed of wave function 'decohered' fundamental particles that are most likely entangled with every thing else, consequently it is probably the activity of the brain that effects wave collapse in previously 'unobserved' probability wave function...which is observed in particle state by all subsequent observers, wave function has collapsed/decoherence and the brain interprets that information in the form of the objects and events of the world, other people, houses, sun, moon, etc.

But the fact is, nobody knows how it works, or what the ultimate nature of the world is, or what the relationship between brain/mind/observation and wave function entail, whether entanglement or something else, nor is entanglement, Einsteins 'spooky action at a distance"

We don't know.

What we do know (or should know) is that you or I, or anyone else that I know of, cannot by an act of will choose what we observe. We cannot choose wave collapse or particle position, we cannot and do not consciously choose the attributes, features and conditions of existence. We do not choose the world as we observe it to be, we do not choose its objects and its events and its rules and principles.

I'm no solipsist, I have no sense that leads me to believe the whole world is just a construct of my mind.

Just because I believe all is thought does not imply that I think it is all my thought. It is just simpler to believe that the whole of reality is thought based ...so the idea that our minds are a subset (separated piece) of another mind (God/universe) is simpler than believing non-thought can produce thought....plus obviously it knocks the whole free will argument on the head.

 

[apeman]

If our thoughts were caused entirely by the world around us it would be necessary that every thought was a true reflection of reality.

Why? Causation does not imply likeness. Even if a railway crash was caused by a log on the track the nothing in the crash would look like a log on track...

Obviously if my thoughts about the crash were caused directly by the crash and its causes then I would know that the log caused the crash, there would be no alternative. However if my thoughts were not (always) caused directly by reality then I might delude myself into thinking a rock caused the accident.

Causation implies truth, the world can not cause my mind to have incorrect thoughts about the world if my mind is a part of the world...if you think it can then give me further evidence that the world can make these things, these mistakes.

 

[ryan]

Okay, let me back up to your reply.

The Robots decision making is governed by its internal conditions....which are not accessible to an external observer, and most likely not to the Robot itself.

The best that an external observer can say is, the Robot appears to be walking randomly, ...

We have this robot with free will, and you agree that it appears to be walking randomly.

Now if we have a robot that processes the randomness of quantum mechanics, then we would also see the robot acting randomly.

There is a glaring account of randomness in both situations.

First off, what exactly is a 'free will Robot?' And how does this 'free will Robot' differ from an intelligent Robot that is able to interact and respond rationally to its environment in the form of 'rational will?'

What's the difference, Ryan?

I would think that we are hardwired with most of what we do: instincts, rationality, survival, etc. But, and this will answer your concerns below, we may have all kinds freedoms such as decision to watch a movie, drink a second glass of wine, call up an old friend, etc.

Now if we have a robot that processes the randomness of quantum mechanics, then we would also see the robot acting randomly.

This is meaningless. Processing 'randomness' provides no apparent benefit over processing information in order to achieve the optimal course of action.

How does 'processing randomness' help you to decide which career path suits you best? Or who to marry, whether to have or not have children, what to invest in, etc, etc?

Can you explain?

Like I said above, this randomness (free will) would have limits and boundaries to work in.

 

[fromderinside]

It is not so much a claim as it is a possibility/hypothesis.

I'm reading wishful thought. You're being called. Listen "Mock, Mock, Mock, Mock, ........"

 

[fromderinside]

Like I said above, this randomness (free will) would have limits and boundaries to work in.

Like bilby explained randomness extends through all time and all space. So what are these limits and boundaries of which you speak for QM based will?

 

[ryan]

Like I said above, this randomness (free will) would have limits and boundaries to work in.

Like bilby explained randomness extends through all time and all space. So what are these limits and boundaries of which you speak for QM based will?

The infrastructure is already there in terms of neurons to limit the options. It might come down to a very slight quantum effect to change the course of a specific neurological process. For example, imagine the you are in a car; you can chose to drive somewhere or not. But no matter where you go, there is only so many options at each intersection.

Maybe there is quantum tunneling involved when it comes to action potentials or even regulation for synaptic exocytosis; see http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/168 .

There are many papers that show evidence of a relationship of the consciousness and quantum mechanics.

 

[Juma]

Causation implies truth, the world can not cause my mind to have incorrect thoughts about the world if my mind is a part of the world.

Of course it can. Your, and mine, mind is part of the world and often wrong. If you are to discuss these matters then you should read up.

 

[fromderinside]

Like bilby explained randomness extends through all time and all space. So what are these limits and boundaries of which you speak for QM based will?

The infrastructure is already there in terms of neurons to limit the options. It might come down to a very slight quantum effect to change the course of a specific neurological process. For example, imagine the you are in a car; you can chose to drive somewhere or not. But no matter where you go, there is only so many options at each intersection.

Maybe there is quantum tunneling involved when it comes to action potentials or even regulation for synaptic exocytosis; see http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/168 .

There are many papers that show evidence of a relationship of the consciousness and quantum mechanics.

So Lucky, the agent neuron with the developing quantum event, is storing up potential at the axon hillock for about 700 of his closest friends when, whoops, Turdfuck, his neighbor and partner in crime, fires first messing up the nice little quantum event that was about to take place.

Nerve cops came, investigate, and leave leaving the whole brain abuzz with the disaster. Turns out quantum events almost never arrive on time or place. So the whole investigation became moot. Another theory goes poof. Free will willy goes all firing causing a serious bout of tinnitus for harry the guy with this nervy brain. WTF.

Oh. .... and for relationships between consciousness and QM, one is a model which still produces reliable outcomes all the time while the other is just chance, same statistical model though, since consciousness isn't real it's only a mostly discounted a working hypothesis about how the brain works.

 

[DBT]

I'm no solipsist, I have no sense that leads me to believe the whole world is just a construct of my mind.

Just because I believe all is thought does not imply that I think it is all my thought. It is just simpler to believe that the whole of reality is thought based ...so the idea that our minds are a subset (separated piece) of another mind (God/universe) is simpler than believing non-thought can produce thought....plus obviously it knocks the whole free will argument on the head.

If the 'whole of reality' is thought based, the intricate weave of wave/particle construction of objects such as galaxies, stars, planets, people, plants, etc, is not designed by your thoughts or mine, or anyone elses....because beginning with Quantum probability/decohereance up to general relativity, motion, gravity, etc, none of this is subject to your thoughts, your will or your design. It does whatever it does regardless of your thoughts, considerations, desires for design modification and so on.

In other worlds, the world that you say is created by your thought, or even your observations does not cater to your will. It is an objective reality regardless of the desires of the observer.

That is not to say that observation is not an aspect of Reality. It is.

It just doesn't help you with 'free will'