A simple explanation of free will.

[Juma]

2) you are a sexist chauvinist.

Isn't sexist redundant here?

Possibly. My knowledge of fine nuances in english could be said to be somewhat lacking.

 

[Juma]

He's aping a more primitive type of man. Thus the name... apeman. dun dun dun dunnnnnnn....

A troll like Juma can bring the worst out of people. You are a troll, but not as mean spirited as Juma.

I am juste. I understand if that sometimes can seem harsh in the eye the respondee. But I always play fair.

Not something you are known for.

 

[ryan]

A troll like Juma can bring the worst out of people. You are a troll, but not as mean spirited as Juma.

I am juste. I understand if that sometimes can seem harsh in the eye the respondee. But I always play fair.

You are not just; that is the very thing about you that pisses people off. You will be a jerk for no apparent reason. Then when you get a negative reaction, you cry murder.

Not something you are known for.

Do you really think that I am going to fall for this attempt to deflect?

Your stubbornness and inability to admit when wrong is great for some leadership roles - you're welcome. But those traits are not relevant in this forum. And most of all, philosophy and science does not work this way.

But there is hardly any reason to be as rude as you are.

 

[Juma]

I am juste. I understand if that sometimes can seem harsh in the eye the respondee. But I always play fair.

You are not just; that is the very thing about you that pisses people off. You will be a jerk for no apparent reason. Then when you get a negative reaction, you cry murder.

Not something you are known for.

Do you really think that I am going to fall for this attempt to deflect?

Your stubbornness and inability to admit when wrong is great for some leadership roles - you're welcome. But those traits are not relevant in this forum. And most of all, philosophy and science does not work this way.

But there is hardly any reason to be as rude as you are.

I am not rude! I react on your bad behavior!
You are totally ignoring everyones comments on your posts: You continue to post the same shit again and again and again totallyignoring all good advoce and valid arguments against your case but you never really care to take them under actual consideration.

 

[ryan]

You are not just; that is the very thing about you that pisses people off. You will be a jerk for no apparent reason. Then when you get a negative reaction, you cry murder.

Not something you are known for.

Do you really think that I am going to fall for this attempt to deflect?

Your stubbornness and inability to admit when wrong is great for some leadership roles - you're welcome. But those traits are not relevant in this forum. And most of all, philosophy and science does not work this way.

But there is hardly any reason to be as rude as you are.

I am not rude! I react on your bad behavior!

If you truly believe this, then I suggest that you go back through your discussions with people and see what you say that would cause them to retaliate.

You are totally ignoring everyones comments on your posts: You continue to post the same shit again and again and again totallyignoring all good advoce and valid arguments against your case but you never really care to take them under actual consideration.

This is an example of stepping over a commonly shared boundary in normal social situations. It is a very offensive and unjustified claim to say that I don't care. You don't know this. Even if you really feel like somebody does not care about something, you shouldn't say it unless they actually admit it.

Do you see what I mean? You always initiate this kind of personal attack, so don't complain when people attack back at you.

 

[Kharakov]

Isn't sexist redundant here?

Possibly. My knowledge of fine nuances in english could be said to be somewhat lacking.

I always heard chauvinist associated with sexism- but that is not its original meaning.

 

[Kharakov]

He's aping a more primitive type of man. Thus the name... apeman. dun dun dun dunnnnnnn....

A troll like Juma can bring the worst out of people. You are a troll, but not as mean spirited as Juma.

Whoa... what's with all the accusations...

 

[ryan]

Possibly. My knowledge of fine nuances in english could be said to be somewhat lacking.

I always heard chauvinist associated with sexism- but that is not its original meaning.

You can be a sexist and not a chauvinist. But you can't be a chauvinist and not be a sexist. Only, chauvinist ---> sexist.

 

[Kharakov]

I always heard chauvinist associated with sexism- but that is not its original meaning.

You can be a sexist and not a chauvinist. But you can't be a chauvinist and not be a sexist. Only, chauvinist ---> sexist.

You're batting near 100% on missing the truth.

 

[ryan]

You can be a sexist and not a chauvinist. But you can't be a chauvinist and not be a sexist. Only, chauvinist ---> sexist.

You're batting near 100% on missing the truth.

Okay, then would you mind backing this up by falsifying it? Maybe explain how one can be a chauvinist and not a sexist.

 

[DBT]

Ryan, this is exactly what you said before, and many times before that, without even a bit of added detail.

Well, since you defined the consciousness below, let's go with it, "The electrochemical activity of a body/brain". That definition combines both of my essential components of "I". So now we can say that "I" is just the electrochemical activity of a brain.

Well, you just did yourself out of an argument: ''A common and central part of the definition of free will is that we could have chosen differently. The decision-making process in "I" could have chosen differently'' - ryan....electrochemical activity is neither chosen nor is it controlled by an act of will by an 'I/homunculus'

The electrochemical activity of a body/brain, which is a property of the above.

As I said above, we will define it as the electrochemical activity of the brain.

That puts the last nail in the coffin of your argument.

By "QM processor" I meant a processor that processes qubits (quantum information). In any case, "processor" is a very vague term. It essentially means that something had a physical effect on something else. So when you tell me that the brain is only an information processor, that is not really a problem for my argument.

''Processor'' is not that vague a term that you can equate the concept of a processor of informatiom to quantum randomness (which is not entirely accurate: probabilistic wave function, etc )

Information theory approach
''From the stance of information theory, information is taken as a sequence of symbols from an alphabet, say an input alphabet χ, and an output alphabet ϒ. Information processing consists of an input-output function that maps any input sequence from χ into an output sequence from ϒ. The mapping may be probabilistic or determinate.'' - Wiki

 

[bilby]

You're batting near 100% on missing the truth.

Okay, then would you mind backing this up by falsifying it? Maybe explain how one can be a chauvinist and not a sexist.

'Chauvanism' is the philosophy of (or ascribed to) one Nicolas Chauvin, who was a (possibly apocryphal) French Soldier who was said to have been wounded repeatedly, and severely disfigured, while fighting for Napoleon.

Its original meaning is therefore 'Mindless devotion to one's country'; or 'placing one's country above even one's own well being'.

This idea of sticking to an ideal, even when to do so is actively harmful to the self, has in more recent times been associated with that level of committed sexism so severe as to render its practitioners practically incapable of ever getting laid.

Obviously, if the archetypical chauvinist, Nicolas himself, was not a sexist (and there is no indication that he was), then it is clearly possible for a chauvinist to not be a sexist.

Your understanding appears, once again, to be directly opposed to reality; amusingly, your position on this matter could, quite correctly, be considered chauvinist.

 

[ryan]

Well, since you defined the consciousness below, let's go with it, "The electrochemical activity of a body/brain". That definition combines both of my essential components of "I". So now we can say that "I" is just the electrochemical activity of a brain.

Well, you just did yourself out of an argument: ''A common and central part of the definition of free will is that we could have chosen differently. The decision-making process in "I" could have chosen differently'' - ryan....electrochemical activity is neither chosen nor is it controlled by an act of will by an 'I/homunculus'

Since the electrochemical activity is part of "I", just the a car's engine is a part of the car, it should be correct to say that what EC activity does I do. If there is objective randomness within the EC activity, then it should be correct to say that we could have chosen differently.

By "QM processor" I meant a processor that processes qubits (quantum information). In any case, "processor" is a very vague term. It essentially means that something had a physical effect on something else. So when you tell me that the brain is only an information processor, that is not really a problem for my argument.

''Processor'' is not that vague a term that you can equate the concept of a processor of informatiom to quantum randomness (which is not entirely accurate: probabilistic wave function, etc )

Information theory approach
''From the stance of information theory, information is taken as a sequence of symbols from an alphabet, say an input alphabet χ, and an output alphabet ϒ. Information processing consists of an input-output function that maps any input sequence from χ into an output sequence from ϒ. The mapping may be probabilistic or determinate.'' - Wiki

But everything that has ever interacted we can call X and Y. I don't see what this has to do with your point about the brain being an information processor; because, everything is an information processor.

 

[DBT]

But everything that has ever interacted we can call X and Y. I don't see what this has to do with your point about the brain being an information processor; because, everything is an information processor.

Interaction alone is not information processing in terms of selecting options based on a given set of criteria, quantum scale alone does not do that, you need macro scale physics.

Which is the evolved function of a brain.

Which your proposition; ''A common and central part of the definition of free will is that we could have chosen differently. The decision-making process in "I" could have chosen differently'' (ryan), relates to, but fails in relation to the nature of the brain as an information processor.

 

[ryan]

Isn't sexist redundant here?

Possibly. My knowledge of fine nuances in english could be said to be somewhat lacking.

Actually, bilby has answered my question. Sexist is not redundant. It actually refers to the right type of chauvinism that you probably had in mind. There is no redundancy and both words were useful.

 

[Togo]

That's only a problem if you confuse sense of agency for agency. When you measure intentional behaviour, you're not measuring anyone's 'sense' of anything.

The fact that you can induce an artificial sense of agency doesn't imply that all agency is artificial, any more than the fact that you can induce optical illusions means that people can't really see.

Doing weekly chores, eh.

Regarding our small part of your tour de force, the problem is that sense of agency dominates experiments when, as you write, what needs be measured is agency.

You can go that route, but you don't have to. There is plenty scope between assuming the existence of agency as a thing-in-itself and then despairing of measuring it, and assuming that agency doesn't exist at all and then struggling to find a result that even remotely maps onto and succeeds in explaining anything but the simplest forms of human behaviour. The most common approach is to measure behaviour itself, and then see what theories of mind it matches. A theory of human agency matches extremely well. A theory that tries to do without human agency struggles to explain human behaviour. If all you're interested in is autonomic reflexes, the physiology of neurones, and the relationship between human reactions and an instrument panel, then you're not modelling any decisions, and don't need a theory that includes or models intentionality. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and it certainly doesn't mean that other scientists can't make good use of it.

Actually, in quantum events, a past event that has not been measured can be different. Hence quantum entanglement.

If you just had thought that thought through you would have realized what is wrong with that it: an actual decision must have "happened". an "unmeasured event" has not happened yet.

Not following your objection. In the case of quantum entanglement, the measurement at the end of the process can change what happened at the start.

When you make a choice it is either random or calculated.

<Citation Needed>

Why? Because you cannot find anythibg better to say? I dare you to actually say something useful.

It is useful. You've made a statement you can't even begin to justify. You can't arrive at determinism by assuming determinism.

except that if competing courses of action are defined as consisting of independent positive and negative numerical values multiplied by a scalar, then one course of action will generally end up higher than the other. Presumably the use of mathematical relationships was merely decoration? An attempt to make it look more sciency?

No. It was an attempt to eliminate wiggle room. Of course, I'm arguing against a position that is illogical to the core,

Any chance you can demonstrate that? This being a philosophy board, and demonstrating illogicality to be fairly standard process?

None of us would be participating in this discussion if the opportunity and desire did not pre-exist our will to participate.

Not following the distinction you're drawing between 'will' and 'desire'. And I don't see how this can possibly be a criticism of one position over any other.

Of course we know that competing courses of action aren't independent values, that treating them as interval level data is unjustified, that decision making isn't just a comparison between two values, that isolating decisions from their context doesn't occur in practice, that the processing involved in decision making in is excess of the equation shown here, and that people in practice do not treat desire as a scalar, but as a pro or con in it's own right. Which leads one to wonder why you've isolated it as a scalar in the first line? Is it because otherwise, by your equation, people would do what they want to?

Desire has the vector symbol above it for a reason. It has magnitude and direction.

That makes even less sense. Take a desire for an action that had pros (+10) and cons (+5), for a total of +5. A large negative desire for this action would mean you're more likely to avoid doing it if the pros outweighed the cons. While if the cons outweighed the pros (total of -5) then the desire would be negative, the total would be negative, and you end up with a positive result. So you're likely to take actions you strongly don't want to take, but only if they're a really bad idea...

I appreciate you wanted to codify your assumptions into a more concrete form, but doing so doesn't make them any less of an assumption.

More generally the problem with this kind of equation is that it can be used to model almost any process. Because it can be used to model any process, the idea that it fits a particular process isn't terribly useful.
....

The fact that you can use QD models to predict deterministic systems with multiple variables doesn't mean that the systems aren't deterministic.

Then you would agree with the corollary? That because you can use deterministic models to predict such systems, doesn't mean the systems are deterministic?

 System might not be the right word, if you're going for something non-deterministic. Even if a system has pseudorandom inputs, and chaotic outputs, in isn't non-deterministic.

The system is still deterministic, because it is a system, even if it produces chaotic outputs, or samples pseudorandom noise for inputs.

Can you explain why all systems must be deterministic? Without invoking determinism (all processes must be determined or random) to justify the statement?

Last, but not least, will cannot exist without desire. You do not intend (will) to do something without having the desire to do so. And accomplishing one thing often leads to wanting to do more things, unless one wants a nap.

Again, not following this. I understand that you're trying to separate an underlying propensity to do something from an intention to act. But it doesn't appear to be true that you can't take an action without desiring to do so. I can pick up a pencil from the ground without having any particular feelings about whether I want to pick up pencils in general, or that pencil in particular. I don't see how you can come up with useful conception of 'desire' in drawing this distinction, or why drawing the distinction is useful or important.

 

[Juma]

[In the case of quantum entanglement, the measurement at the end of the process can change what happened at the start.

1) Sounds that you have misread something. Can you please direct me to the text that states this? wave collapse has no duration in time which makes what you state impossible.

2) there is no entanglement in the brain. (Entanglement requires very low energies) So even if your objection is true it has no bearing on brains.

When you make a choice it is either random or calculated.

You've made a statement you can't even begin to justify. You can't arrive at determinism by assuming determinism.

I do not assume determinism.

Please state an other way of making a choice!

 

[Togo]

1) Sounds that you have misread something. Can you please direct me to the text that states this? wave collapse has no duration in time which makes what you state impossible.

I didn't realise this was controversial. A few seconds of searching found this http://www.livescience.com/19975-spooky-quantum-entanglement.html which may help, or we can take it to the natural science forum.

2) there is no entanglement in the brain.

Meh, if you say so. I was just commenting on what you posted.

When you make a choice it is either random or calculated.

You've made a statement you can't even begin to justify. You can't arrive at determinism by assuming determinism.

I do not assume determinism.

Please state an other way of making a choice!

Making a choice that isn't pre-determined? However, I'd rather hear your proof that all decisions must be determined or random. That's the claim you made, so let's hear where it comes from. I predict that you'll be totally unable to trace this belief back to anything other than an assumption of determinism.

 

[ryan]

But everything that has ever interacted we can call X and Y. I don't see what this has to do with your point about the brain being an information processor; because, everything is an information processor.

Interaction alone is not information processing in terms of selecting options based on a given set of criteria, ...

I am not sure what you are saying here.

Which your proposition; ''A common and central part of the definition of free will is that we could have chosen differently. The decision-making process in "I" could have chosen differently'' (ryan), relates to, but fails in relation to the nature of the brain as an information processor.

If the quantum randomness of the microtubules is a part of "I" and if it has an effect on a decision/choice, then the choice might have been different.

 

[Juma]

Making a choice that isn't pre-determined? However, I'd rather hear your proof that all decisions must be determined or random. That's the claim you made, so let's hear where it comes from. I predict that you'll be totally unable to trace this belief back to anything other than an assumption of determinism.

What i said was this: a decision is either calculated or random.

What other possibllities are there? You seem to have no answer.