A simple explanation of free will.

[Juma]

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 ocommon 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.

If the decision could have been different that means that the decision is not as intended. Or do you mean that also the intention is random?
Wether A is to kill B is then a totally random function?
That is not LFW!

 

[Kharakov]

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?

To will something, one must have an objective . You can hardly have deliberate intent (will) if you do not have some objective.

Not following the distinction you're drawing between 'will' and 'desire'.

One can want something without willing something. You might want to eat a piece of chocolate cake, but your will towards your objective of physical fitness is greater than your desire for a yummy piece of cake.

So you're likely to take actions you strongly don't want to take, but only if they're a really bad idea...

hahaha... You're right. will = desire + pros + cons is better than will = desire * (pros+cons). Perhaps the only reason I included multiplication in the formula was my initial desire to make a formula that resembled f=ma.

And obviously will does not include the various pros or cons that we did not think of, because we were caught up in willing a specific thing (such as creating a formula that resembles f=ma) instead of creating an accurate representation.

Will can become focused upon objectives to the exclusion of reason.

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

I suppose the fact that no non deterministic system has every been witnessed in the history of the universe doesn't have any impact? To quote the old adage "Angry ducks may begin the nuclear bombardment of Earth from their hidden lair on the dark side of the Moon tomorrow, but I see no reason to think that this will happen".

Keep in mind that hidden determinism (such as QM bs) != indeterminate, and there is enough determinism in every day life to basically rule out all claims of indeterminism. Did that tree just reverse grow into a seed? Wow....

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.

Ehh, well you aren't willing it in that case. Perhaps an underlying super/subconscious process causes your body to pick up the pencil without you willing it. That has nothing to do with you willing to do anything.

 

[ryan]

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.

I just want to add something. In the conversation that you had with apeman, it would probably be sufficient to have just said "chauvinist" in a normal conversation. The connotations of the word, at least in North America, has been narrowed to mean sexism, specifically towards women.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

I just want to add something. In the conversation that you had with apeman, it would probably be sufficient to have just said "chauvinist" in a normal conversation. The connotations of the word, at least in North America, has been narrowed to mean sexism, specifically towards women.

Unless you use a dictionary, or perhaps wikipedia to check the definition of the word. Male chauvinist has its own definition... although I've made the same error, so whatever. It's not a big deal.

 

[ryan]

I am not sure what you are saying here.

Which your proposition; ''A ocommon 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.

If the decision could have been different that means that the decision is not as intended. Or do you mean that also the intention is random?

Intention is usually the decision being put into action. The intention is more about the result of a decision. In that sense, the intention depends on the decision, so it shouldn't be a problem for my argument that if the decision were different the intention would be different too.

Wether A is to kill B is then a totally random function?
That is not LFW!

It would only appear random, objective randomness. It would still have been the agent's choice.

 

[ryan]

I just want to add something. In the conversation that you had with apeman, it would probably be sufficient to have just said "chauvinist" in a normal conversation. The connotations of the word, at least in North America, has been narrowed to mean sexism, specifically towards women.

Unless you use a dictionary, or perhaps wikipedia to check the definition of the word. Male chauvinist has its own definition... although I've made the same error, so whatever. It's not a big deal.

I totally agree. I am actually glad you and bilby corrected me. I strongly believe that everyone should be rigorous/proper when they can.

 

[fromderinside]

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.

My part of your weekly sermon.

If there are no indications going close to far bottom up and physics tells us everything is winding down, then holding out hope for a straw that becomes the wind is, well, futile. I'm not much on the mind of Mencia or Aristotle as fonts for anything, at this late date, useful.

If we put your argument in real mode the theory of cannot be a litmus test for what appears to feel right, through face validity, possess true validity. Theory comes from validation of empirical data utility rather than, as you post, pushing data through theory feels, appears, to work, but, without predictive value.

In other words what looks right today when seen through the same theory tomorrow looks wrong tomorrow. There needs be a hit of agency in the data rather than an explanation as agency seems to explain the data. As I point out our social condition makes what look like agency believable even though machines are just being machines in a complex environment.

I'm not going to accept that appearance as proof of anything. Show a mechanism where what was rung does the ringing.

Tired discussion.

Why not just say: "he's not going to bite so I'll take my magic show elsewhere."

The only simple explanation for free will is free will is an assumed mantle of beings who are after the fact aware of events over some measurable time frame that seems measurably socially useful. Human free will is self deceit that works to keep one from being killed as it were.

 

[Kharakov]

I totally agree. I am actually glad you and bilby corrected me. I strongly believe that everyone should be rigorous/proper when they can.

I too strongly believe that everyone should be rigorous/proper when they bloody can.

 

[DBT]

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.

A natural process, radioactive decay, glaciation, weather patterns, etc, do not select options that benefit the process in some way. Life does filter information that enables growth, reproduction, gathering food.....which is selection according to the benefit/needs/wants of the organism.

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.

A random event that effects a change upon a process is not a chosen effect, therefore it's not a choice. Certainly not anything like you said about LFW; ''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) - the effected random change not being chosen, but caused by an element beyond the regulative control of the system. Which is not even willed, yet alone 'freely willed'

 

[ryan]

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.

A random event that effects a change upon a process is not a chosen effect, therefore it's not a choice.

I know the random event is not the choice, but it may be a part of the choice. In this case, the choice could have been different.

Certainly not anything like you said about LFW; ''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) - the effected random change not being chosen, but caused by an element beyond the regulative control of the system. Which is not even willed, yet alone 'freely willed'

As long as the random event is in "I" and the random event causes a random output in the form of a decision, then "I" could have chosen differently.

 

[DBT]

A random event that effects a change upon a process is not a chosen effect, therefore it's not a choice.

I know the random event is not the choice, but it may be a part of the choice. In this case, the choice could have been different.

Which means the outcome was not chosen but imposed upon the system, including you as a part of the system by that random event.

You are strolling to the corner shop and a car, losing control due to oil on the road, swerves and knocks you to the ground, luckily not hurt you dust yourself off....would you say to yourself - ''well that was a bad choice on my part?''

It was (for the purpose of the example) a random event.

Would you call it a decision that you made? A free choice?

If so...why?

As long as the random event is in "I" and the random event causes a random output in the form of a decision, then "I" could have chosen differently.

A random event that causes a random output is not a decision by any definition of the word decision

decision
[ dɪˈsɪʒ(ə)n ]
NOUN

''a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration:'' Oxford Dictionary.

 

[ryan]

I know the random event is not the choice, but it may be a part of the choice. In this case, the choice could have been different.

Which means the outcome was not chosen but imposed upon the system, including you as a part of the system by that random event.

You are strolling to the corner shop and a car, losing control due to oil on the road, swerves and knocks you to the ground, luckily not hurt you dust yourself off....would you say to yourself - ''well that was a bad choice on my part?''

It was (for the purpose of the example) a random event.

Would you call it a decision that you made? A free choice?

If so...why?

No, it was the car's fault. My choice would be my choice's fault.

Your analogy is about an effect from outside of the system; I am talking about an effect that is a part of the system.

If we define a decision as having random components that produce random results among whatever else, the decision has internal ability to have been something else.

As long as the random event is in "I" and the random event causes a random output in the form of a decision, then "I" could have chosen differently.

A random event that causes a random output is not a decision by any definition of the word decision

decision
[ dɪˈsɪʒ(ə)n ]
NOUN

''a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration:'' Oxford Dictionary.

I never said that only randomness is a decision.

 

[bilby]

Which means the outcome was not chosen but imposed upon the system, including you as a part of the system by that random event.

You are strolling to the corner shop and a car, losing control due to oil on the road, swerves and knocks you to the ground, luckily not hurt you dust yourself off....would you say to yourself - ''well that was a bad choice on my part?''

It was (for the purpose of the example) a random event.

Would you call it a decision that you made? A free choice?

If so...why?

No, it was the car's fault. My choice would be my choice's fault.

Your analogy is about an effect from outside of the system; I am talking about an effect that is a part of the system.

If we define a decision as having random components that produce random results among whatever else, the decision has internal ability to have been something else.

As long as the random event is in "I" and the random event causes a random output in the form of a decision, then "I" could have chosen differently.

A random event that causes a random output is not a decision by any definition of the word decision

decision
[ dɪˈsɪʒ(ə)n ]
NOUN

''a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration:'' Oxford Dictionary.

I never said that only randomness is a decision.

No. You just implied that randomness was of critical importance to your argument; which logically implies exactly that.

 

[DBT]

Which means the outcome was not chosen but imposed upon the system, including you as a part of the system by that random event.

You are strolling to the corner shop and a car, losing control due to oil on the road, swerves and knocks you to the ground, luckily not hurt you dust yourself off....would you say to yourself - ''well that was a bad choice on my part?''

It was (for the purpose of the example) a random event.

Would you call it a decision that you made? A free choice?

If so...why?

No, it was the car's fault. My choice would be my choice's fault. Your analogy is about an effect from outside of the system; I am talking about an effect that is a part of the system.

But the 'car' as an analogy represents the random element within the system that is 'you.' The external car causes an unchosen change upon the system that is you, being just as much an unchosen event as the random event within your system effecting an unchosen change upon the system that is 'you'

You don't get to choose an outcome in either case.

Whether it's a non chosen external event/cause, or an non chosen internal event/cause that is imposed upon your system, the outcome is not a part of the rational decision making process of your system and therefore not a choice, yet alone a willed decision.

I never said that only randomness is a decision.

You said - ''If we define a decision as having random components that produce random results among whatever else, the decision has internal ability to have been something else - but the problem is that rational decisions are based on a set of criteria, and are not random. Random changes to the decision making process are not decided.

 

[Togo]

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.

I gave you an answer. Make a decision that is neither determined nor random. What's the problem?

Of course, I'm arguing against a position that is illogical to the core,

Any chance you can demonstrate that?

To will something, one must have an objective . You can hardly have deliberate intent (will) if you do not have some objective.

OK,. go on.. How does that make the position you're arguing against 'illogical to the core'.

Not following the distinction you're drawing between 'will' and 'desire'.

One can want something without willing something. You might want to eat a piece of chocolate cake, but your will towards your objective of physical fitness is greater than your desire for a yummy piece of cake.

How is willing the objective different from wanting the objective? I get that you're drawing distinction, but I'm wanting to know what that distinction is, and if it's important.

So you're likely to take actions you strongly don't want to take, but only if they're a really bad idea...

hahaha... You're right. will = desire + pros + cons is better than will = desire * (pros+cons). Perhaps the only reason I included multiplication in the formula was my initial desire to make a formula that resembled f=ma.

Possibly.. the problem is that if you use desire + pros + cons then you can choose to make decisions that the environmental factors have not determined, simply by force of will (or desire). It would occur whenever desire > (pros+cons). Which sounds very similar to the free will that you were implying your equation was eliminating. I think what you need for your claim to work is a relationship where desire has no causal effect on action whatsoever.

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

I suppose the fact that no non deterministic system has every been witnessed in the history of the universe doesn't have any impact?

No, not really. Partly for the reasons we discussed earlier. As you said, the fact that we can model something non-deterministically doesn't make it non-deterministic, and the corollary to that is that the fact we can model something deterministically doesn't make it deterministic. From we can conclude that there is no such thing as 'witnessing a deterministic system' or 'witnessing a non-deterministic system'. Which means all we're left with pointing to the idea that all systems must be deterministic is an a priori assumption on your part. Note that it may be a reasonable useful and/or practical assumption, but still an assumption.

To quote the old adage "Angry ducks may begin the nuclear bombardment of Earth from their hidden lair on the dark side of the Moon tomorrow, but I see no reason to think that this will happen".

Indeed so, but that cuts both ways. You might believe that intentions that people report having are illusory constructs secretly controlled by a host of undetectable prior determinants, but my point is simply that there isn't any reason to think so.

Keep in mind that hidden determinism (such as QM bs) != indeterminate,

But again, you've no reason to assume that Quantum Indeterminism is secretly determinism, except for your personal fondness for the concept.

 

[ryan]

No, it was the car's fault. My choice would be my choice's fault.

Your analogy is about an effect from outside of the system; I am talking about an effect that is a part of the system.

If we define a decision as having random components that produce random results among whatever else, the decision has internal ability to have been something else.

As long as the random event is in "I" and the random event causes a random output in the form of a decision, then "I" could have chosen differently.

A random event that causes a random output is not a decision by any definition of the word decision

decision
[ dɪˈsɪʒ(ə)n ]
NOUN

''a conclusion or resolution reached after consideration:'' Oxford Dictionary.

I never said that only randomness is a decision.

No. You just implied that randomness was of critical importance to your argument; which logically implies exactly that.

Of course there are other components other than microtubules in the decision-making process. I have always stated that in my argument.

 

[ryan]

No, it was the car's fault. My choice would be my choice's fault. Your analogy is about an effect from outside of the system; I am talking about an effect that is a part of the system.

But the 'car' as an analogy represents the random element within the system that is 'you.' The external car causes an unchosen change upon the system that is you, being just as much an unchosen event as the random event within your system effecting an unchosen change upon the system that is 'you'

You don't get to choose an outcome in either case.

Whether it's a non chosen external event/cause, or an non chosen internal event/cause that is imposed upon your system, the outcome is not a part of the rational decision making process of your system and therefore not a choice, yet alone a willed decision.

This is all just circular logic. You are just forcing your argument.

Decision-making process = DMP. Let's assume: microtubules + A + B + C + ... = DMP. Then, microtubules are integral to DMP like any other component.

The decision from the decision-making process could have been different

I never said that only randomness is a decision.

You said - ''If we define a decision as having random components that produce random results among whatever else, the decision has internal ability to have been something else - but the problem is that rational decisions are based on a set of criteria, and are not random. Random changes to the decision making process are not decided.

You snuck in "changes to the decision making process". I am assuming that randomness is a part of the process.

 

[Juma]

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

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

I gave you an answer. Make a decision that is neither determined nor random. What's the problem?

That is just avoidibg the question. Please specify another way to reach a decision.

 

[Togo]

I gave you an answer. Make a decision that is neither determined nor random. What's the problem?

That is just avoidibg the question. Please specify another way to reach a decision.

I believe I have fully and completly answered your question. Unless you can tell me what is missing from my answer, we can't continue.

 

[Kharakov]

OK,. go on.. How does that make the position you're arguing against 'illogical to the core'.

Do you really think that someone wills something without having some sort of desire to reach an objective that causes them to will, because that desires outweighs the other desires they have?

It would occur whenever desire > (pros+cons). Which sounds very similar to the free will that you were implying your equation was eliminating. I think what you need for your claim to work is a relationship where desire has no causal effect on action whatsoever.

Not where I was going whatsoever. Desire causes will. You hardly will something without wanting something.

I suppose the fact that no non deterministic system has every been witnessed in the history of the universe doesn't have any impact?

No, not really. Partly for the reasons we discussed earlier. As you said, the fact that we can model something non-deterministically doesn't make it non-deterministic,

We can't model something non-deterministically. We can make deterministic models that describe probabilities, but we cannot make a non-deterministic model. We can sample "noise" which was generated by a natural, chaotic (unpredictable) process to input into our model, but chaos!= non-deterministic. We don't have the ability to create anything non-deterministic. We have the ability to sample things, which are so complex that they might as well by actually random, instead of simply chaotic, but they aren't.

To quote the old adage "Angry ducks may begin the nuclear bombardment of Earth from their hidden lair on the dark side of the Moon tomorrow, but I see no reason to think that this will happen".

Indeed so, but that cuts both ways. You might believe that intentions that people report having are illusory constructs secretly controlled by a host of undetectable prior determinants, but my point is simply that there isn't any reason to think so.

Well, if you don't want to believe the truth- you have the ability of self deception. I suppose there is no reason to be logical about anything, if logic is not getting you where you want to go. That piece of paper on your desk just became a pot of petunias wondering why a whale was in the sky above it, before it occurred to the petunias that petunias don't think, however the word petunia, being one that a certain author found slightly amusing, made it into a deliberately silly bit of writing.

Now, every word here is linked together, in my mind, by experiences that I've had. Every act I do is based upon what I feel and what I know. My mind's totally deterministic, and sometimes a bit chaotic because of its complexity.

Keep in mind that hidden determinism (such as QM bs) != indeterminate,

But again, you've no reason to assume that Quantum Indeterminism is secretly determinism, except for your personal fondness for the concept.

Ok. Those leaves on the tree outside are going to start behaving indeterminately in the wind. Not chaotically. Indeterminately.