A simple explanation of free will.

[Kharakov]

I will add that hidden variables in QM has been ruled out.

No it hasn't. Local hidden variables have been ruled out, which means something nonlocal is going on.

The detector is not the cause of the photon emission.

Yeah. The detector is just one of the many factors involved.

What the hell are you talking about? The detector may slightly change what the photon will do, but it won't determine what it will do.

To clarify, I'm talking about a detector to detect which slit the photon passes through:

Is it determinable which slit the photon travels through?

If you use a detector. Why?

 

[ryan]

I don't know what the fuck you think you are achieving here; but passing information to me about your ideas of free will isn't one of the things you are actually doing.

Could you please address my argument, rather than making some strange defence of the fallacy of composition, which is completely unrelated to what I am saying?

Will is an output. Forget 'free' for a minute; You can't even demonstrate any possible logical mechanism for will as an input into decision making. It therefore matters not one whit whether will is 'free'; Will cannot be anything other than a response to un-willed events - random or not; free or not.

In short, will must be a product of the brain, and cannot be a primary input into decision making.

We can decide what we want to do; and then decide what to do to get what we want. That first part is the creation of our will; and our will cannot be a primary input into it.

I want an apple; I eat an apple.

But I don't want an apple because I want to want an apple. And if I did decide to want to want an apple, it can't simply be because I decided to want to want to want an apple.

If will is an input, then you have an infinite regress. Only by having a completely unwilled starting point for your thought process (perhaps at some remove) can this regress be broken.

Will is not the creator of conscious decisions; will is PART of consciousness, and can't create itself ex-nihilo.

You seem to be internally conflicted about where will is in cognitive science, and so am I. "Will" is not the proper term. From what I understand, the lay term "will" either overlaps or is entirely in the decision-making process; the latter being an actual scientific term.

But I do know what free will is in terms of science, at least the definition I am using for my argument. It is the ability to have chosen differently. It is easy to see that QM effects in the decision-making process could have allowed us to have chosen differently.

 

[bilby]

I don't know what the fuck you think you are achieving here; but passing information to me about your ideas of free will isn't one of the things you are actually doing.

Could you please address my argument, rather than making some strange defence of the fallacy of composition, which is completely unrelated to what I am saying?

Will is an output. Forget 'free' for a minute; You can't even demonstrate any possible logical mechanism for will as an input into decision making. It therefore matters not one whit whether will is 'free'; Will cannot be anything other than a response to un-willed events - random or not; free or not.

In short, will must be a product of the brain, and cannot be a primary input into decision making.

We can decide what we want to do; and then decide what to do to get what we want. That first part is the creation of our will; and our will cannot be a primary input into it.

I want an apple; I eat an apple.

But I don't want an apple because I want to want an apple. And if I did decide to want to want an apple, it can't simply be because I decided to want to want to want an apple.

If will is an input, then you have an infinite regress. Only by having a completely unwilled starting point for your thought process (perhaps at some remove) can this regress be broken.

Will is not the creator of conscious decisions; will is PART of consciousness, and can't create itself ex-nihilo.

You seem to be internally conflicted about where will is in cognitive science, and so am I. "Will" is not the proper term. From what I understand, the lay term "will" either overlaps or is entirely in the decision-making process; the latter being an actual scientific term.

But I do know what free will is in terms of science, at least the definition I am using for my argument. It is the ability to have chosen differently. It is easy to see that QM effects in the decision-making process could have allowed us to have chosen differently.

Nope.

A random input can cause a different choice for each iteration; but the decision point is in the generation of the random input - it is not a 'choice'.

If I program a robot to navigate a maze using a coin flip - turning left on heads, and right on tails at each junction - then the result at each junction 'could have been' different; but this is not due to a choice. It is due to an external random event used as an input to the choice. The choice itself cannot be different.

No matter how deeply we embed the 'randomness generator' in the robot, it is not able to have chosen differently at any given corner - it can only choose what the random input tells it to choose.

There is no way for neurons to make 'choices' that is significantly different to the way that robot makes 'choices'. I can add other rules - for example, if one path has a red floor, follow that path regardless of the coin flip result - But there is no set of rules, no matter how complex, where the choice can be the result of anything other than pre-determined inputs (even if those inputs are from randomness generators).

You are hung up on "the ability to have chosen differently"; I am pointing out that free will cannot exist without "the ability to have chosen differently"; and that there is only the illusion of choice, even if the outcomes of repeated identical tests can be different each time the test is run.

 

[DBT]

I don't know the details. But I do know that if microtubules really are random variables as part of the decision-making process, it may allow one the ability to have made a different decision.

To which I have pointed out: that given random interference within the system alters an intended outcome, that outcome has been neither chosen or willed.

Your random number generator, for example, spits out the numbers 6 and 11, but while you (brain) were in the process of adding the two numbers together a microtubule goes into overdrive effecting a change in the calculation process of 'your' brain and instead of your result being 17 your brain spits out the number 15 - you have experienced a mental glitch, a brain fart - this being one of your proposed 'different decisions' (not that math results are a decision, but just an example of the process).

So given my example, the question is: why do you believe such a non chosen, non willed alteration to information processing is an example of 'free will?'

 

[ryan]

No it hasn't. Local hidden variables have been ruled out, which means something nonlocal is going on.

Maybe, but there is no known reason why the universe can't ultimately be probabilistic.

To clarify, I'm talking about a detector to detect which slit the photon passes through:

Is it determinable which slit the photon travels through?

If you use a detector. Why?

I think I know what you mean now. You are using "determinable" for future outcomes, thus missing the point of determinism.

 

[ryan]

You seem to be internally conflicted about where will is in cognitive science, and so am I. "Will" is not the proper term. From what I understand, the lay term "will" either overlaps or is entirely in the decision-making process; the latter being an actual scientific term.

But I do know what free will is in terms of science, at least the definition I am using for my argument. It is the ability to have chosen differently. It is easy to see that QM effects in the decision-making process could have allowed us to have chosen differently.

Nope.

A random input can cause a different choice for each iteration; but the decision point is in the generation of the random input - it is not a 'choice'.

If I program a robot to navigate a maze using a coin flip - turning left on heads, and right on tails at each junction - then the result at each junction 'could have been' different; but this is not due to a choice. It is due to an external random event used as an input to the choice. The choice itself cannot be different.

No matter how deeply we embed the 'randomness generator' in the robot, it is not able to have chosen differently at any given corner - it can only choose what the random input tells it to choose.

There is no way for neurons to make 'choices' that is significantly different to the way that robot makes 'choices'. I can add other rules - for example, if one path has a red floor, follow that path regardless of the coin flip result - But there is no set of rules, no matter how complex, where the choice can be the result of anything other than pre-determined inputs (even if those inputs are from randomness generators).

You are hung up on "the ability to have chosen differently"; I am pointing out that free will cannot exist without "the ability to have chosen differently"; and that there is only the illusion of choice, even if the outcomes of repeated identical tests can be different each time the test is run.

If the freedom of QM is part of the decision-making process, the decision-making process may also have the same property. If it's all in "I", "I" could have chosen differently.

 

[DBT]

Maybe, but there is no reason why the universe can't ultimately be probabilistic.

Which is just a form of softer determinism. The rules of probability being neither chosen or willed. You cannot will particle position/wave collapse, or how events evolve/unfold probabilistically. And there are other interpretations to consider.

 

[ryan]

I don't know the details. But I do know that if microtubules really are random variables as part of the decision-making process, it may allow one the ability to have made a different decision.

To which I have pointed out: that given random interference within the system alters an intended outcome, that outcome has been neither chosen or willed.

Your random number generator, for example, spits out the numbers 6 and 11, but while you (brain) were in the process of adding the two numbers together a microtubule goes into overdrive effecting a change in the calculation process of 'your' brain and instead of your result being 17 your brain spits out the number 15 - you have experienced a mental glitch, a brain fart - this being one of your proposed 'different decisions' (not that math results are a decision, but just an example of the process).

So given my example, the question is: why do you believe such a non chosen, non willed alteration to information processing is an example of 'free will?'

"I" still chose it.

 

[ryan]

Maybe, but there is no reason why the universe can't ultimately be probabilistic.

Which is just a form of softer determinism. The rules of probability being neither chosen or willed. You cannot will particle position/wave collapse, or how events evolve/unfold probabilistically.

It's not so much that one needs to will a particle to collapse; it's more about the particle collapsing in an instance of will.

 

[DBT]

"I" still chose it.

You need to give a far more detailed explanation.

If random vibrations effect non chosen changes within the system, how were these changes chosen?

Why would you say they were chosen?

Including a more detailed account of the following:

It's not so much that one needs to will a particle to collapse; it's more about the particle collapsing in an instance of will.

 

[ryan]

You need to give a far more detailed explanation.

If random vibrations effect non chosen changes within the system, how were these changes chosen?

But I am assuming that random vibrations are a part of the decision-making process. My choice is the same thing as what they do.

Why would you say they were chosen?

Including a more detailed account of the following:

It's not so much that one needs to will a particle to collapse; it's more about the particle collapsing in an instance of will.

The particle collapse is the will.

 

[Juma]

You need to give a far more detailed explanation.

If random vibrations effect non chosen changes within the system, how were these changes chosen?

Why would you say they were chosen?

Including a more detailed account of the following:

It's not so much that one needs to will a particle to collapse; it's more about the particle collapsing in an instance of will.

How do you make the collapse happen?

 

[ryan]

You need to give a far more detailed explanation.

If random vibrations effect non chosen changes within the system, how were these changes chosen?

Why would you say they were chosen?

Including a more detailed account of the following:

How do you make the collapse happen?

Assuming monism, I am the collapse. We are the same thing. The will collapses randomly/freely.

 

[Juma]

How do you make the collapse happen?

Assuming monism, I am the collapse. We are the same thing. The will collapses randomly/freely.

But the collapse is of a single particle.
What then after you collapsed?

 

[ryan]

Assuming monism, I am the collapse. We are the same thing. The will collapses randomly/freely.

But the collapse is of a single particle.
What then after you collapsed?

There would be trillions of them collapsing. The point is that the decision-making process has a random component that may result in unfixed decisions. Our decisions may have been different.

 

[Juma]

But the collapse is of a single particle.
What then after you collapsed?

There would be trillions of them collapsing.

So what? Which of them is you?

 

[Kharakov]

Maybe, but there is no known reason why the universe can't ultimately be probabilistic.

Yeah. Ignorance is the only refuge for that type of thought, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the universe is deterministic and sometimes chaotic or pseudorandom when conditions are right.

To clarify, I'm talking about a detector to detect which slit the photon passes through:

Is it determinable which slit the photon travels through?

If you use a detector. Why?

I think I know what you mean now. You are using "determinable" for future outcomes, thus missing the point of determinism.

Yeah. Of course you meant "is it possible to determine which slit the photon will pass through?"

Not if you don't have access to all of the variables which determine which slit it passes through. That's the point of stochastic modelling- creating models to describe systems in which we don't have access to all of the variables.

 

[ryan]

Yeah. Ignorance is the only refuge for that type of thought, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the universe is deterministic and sometimes chaotic or pseudorandom when conditions are right.

Would you mind providing this evidence of hidden variables?

Yeah. Of course you meant "is it possible to determine which slit the photon will pass through?"

Not if you don't have access to all of the variables which determine which slit it passes through. That's the point of stochastic modelling- creating models to describe systems in which we don't have access to all of the variables.

Since you claim to have overwhelming evidence of determinism, would you be able to use that knowledge to predict/determine - beforehand - which slit a single photon goes through and the known mechanism that causes it to go through that particular slit?

 

[George S]

Would you mind providing this evidence of hidden variables?

Yeah. Of course you meant "is it possible to determine which slit the photon will pass through?"

Not if you don't have access to all of the variables which determine which slit it passes through. That's the point of stochastic modelling- creating models to describe systems in which we don't have access to all of the variables.

Since you claim to have overwhelming evidence of determinism, would you be able to use that knowledge to predict/determine - beforehand - which slit a single photon goes through and the known mechanism that causes it to go through that particular slit?

You cannot know, even after the event, which slit it went through. You may address the probabilities, though. It came all ways weighted by probability. Beforehand all you know is that it will go all ways weighted by probability. We can only predict a pattern after multiple trials. One trial? Random.

 

[Kharakov]

Yeah. Ignorance is the only refuge for that type of thought, in the face of overwhelming evidence that the universe is deterministic and sometimes chaotic or pseudorandom when conditions are right.

Would you mind providing this evidence of hidden variables?

I can provide you with a partial list of previously hidden variables, that turned out to be part of the sometimes chaotic deterministic system we live within:

Gravity was a hidden variable. Bacteria were hidden variables. Penicillium mold was a hidden variable. Genes were a hidden variable. Chemical structure was a hidden variable. Elements were a hidden variable. The fundamental forces were hidden variables. The existence of the CMB was a hidden variable. The existence of distant galaxies was a hidden variable. The existence of sociological phenomena was a hidden variables. Memes were hidden variables. Pi was a hidden variable. The potential existence of higher dimensional spacetime was a hidden variable. The existence of cement, the effects of lead on humanity were hidden variables.

Every single place that humanity has persisted in exploration, they have found hidden variables that impacted the evolution of the system. Things were not happening without reason.

Since you claim to have overwhelming evidence of determinism, would you be able to use that knowledge to predict/determine - beforehand - which slit a single photon goes through and the known mechanism that causes it to go through that particular slit?

I can't predict the outcome of a deterministic pseudorandom number generator. Being able to predict something with complete accuracy has little to do with whether it is deterministic.