A simple explanation of free will.

[ryan]

I don't understand what you are saying.

It's hard enough to decipher what people say in full sentences over this very limited medium of communication, never mind incomplete sentences.

The first thing you need to understand is what is a complete sentence.

"Not based on substance? Not an assertion?" You don't have a subject or a predicate!!! Leaving out a subject or predicate is unacceptable but leaving out both!? How can you expect me to know what the hell you are talking about? We aren't here to decipher your poetic nonsense.

 

[bilby]

I don't understand what you are saying.

It's hard enough to decipher what people say in full sentences over this very limited medium of communication, never mind incomplete sentences.

The first thing you need to understand is what is a complete sentence.

Indeed. 'What?', is a complete sentence.

Too.

 

[ryan]

The first thing you need to understand is what is a complete sentence.

Indeed. 'What?', is a complete sentence.

Too.

I don't think so bilby. Sometimes you can leave out the subject when making demands like, "Help.". The subject there is understood. But "What." is not a verb; it's just a subject or an object, depending on what your intentions are. It's like typing a different pronoun such as "That." and trying to call it a complete sentence.

 

[Kharakov]

Indeed. 'What?', is a complete sentence.

Too.

I don't think so bilby. Sometimes you can leave out the subject when making demands like, "Help.". The subject there is understood. But "What." is not a verb; it's just a subject or an object, depending on what your intentions are. It's like typing a different pronoun such as "That." and trying to call it a complete sentence.

No.

 

[Togo]

No, you said that determinism was an observation, not an assumption.

Really. I said that, in the exact words that you're using, in such a way that it means exactly what you claim I said?

I'm just going on what you said. If you agree that determinism is an assumption, not an observation, then that's all that matters.

Reasonable assumptions based on observations (determinism, apples won't float, chaos and pseudorandomness are generated by order, what exists causes the evolution of what exists) aren't exactly on the same footing as unreasonable assumptions based on ignorance (nondeterminism, apples might float tomorrow, true randomness exists, what exists acts according to things that don't have any influence on what exists, etc.).

This is a philosophy forum. All assumptions exist on exactly and entirely the same footing.

No they don't.

Yes, they do. You don't get to give YOUR opinion special status just because it's yours. You don't get to base your arguement that you're right on an assumptiuon that you're right.

No, it's an assumption. I know you want to label your own worldview as an observation, but logic doesn't work that way. You can't take your own opinion as a starting point.

It's an assumption like general relativity is an assumption. So what? Everything in the universe points towards deteterminism,

No it doesn't. We've covered this several time already. You can't claim that the universe behaving in a manner consistent with determinism is evidence that the universe runs on determinism, unless you also conceed that the universe behaving in a manner consistent with indeterminism is evidence against. You need a reason to conclude one rather than that the other. That you consider the alterantive silly isn't really a reason, just evidence that you havn't wanted to think about it.

But that just goes back to the earlier point about not being able to observe a distinction between determined and non-determined events. If you want to claim that Quantum Mechanics isn't support for a non-determined universe, then you can't claim that classical mechanics is support for a determined universe.

Not at all. QM doesn't provide any evidence for or against determinism.

Then nor does classic mechanics. All I'm asking is that you are consistent.

As no human can directly witness a particle, its path, or everything about it, or nonlocal variables that play into the evolution of quantum systems, you can't say that quantum events are non-determined. For all you know they are chaotic.

For all you know they are non-determined. If you can'te tell either way, then neither hypothesis has support.

Again, either you're going on what appears to be the case, in which case there is evidence for both deterministic and non-deterministic events, and you must conclude that the universe is not determined. Or you go with what you can prove absolutely, in which case neither conclusion has any support whatsoever.

What you can't do is use one arguement for conclusions you like, and another for conclusion you don't.

 

[ryan]

I don't think so bilby. Sometimes you can leave out the subject when making demands like, "Help.". The subject there is understood. But "What." is not a verb; it's just a subject or an object, depending on what your intentions are. It's like typing a different pronoun such as "That." and trying to call it a complete sentence.

No.

http://www.csuohio.edu/writing-center/definition-complete-sentence http://www.csuohio.edu/writing-center/definition-complete-sentence

 

[DBT]

But what is happening at lower levels that cause the microtubules to do what they do?

Here are some very quick videos just to give us the reality of what is going on, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibx0DCA3IaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGmz4xVP50M . We aren't this fixed hardwired information processor (although I agree that we process information but in the form of qbits). But instead we are a dynamic and internally chaotic system that arises from QM.

Combine what you saw in the videos with quantum vibrations microtubules as a whole, and it is hard to fathom the vibrations, or some other QM source, not having an effect on what information the microtubules carry and how they carry it.

Sorry ryan, the videos are of no more help in supporting your belief in free will than are the articles you have already posted.

The eliminator of the notion of free will remains the fact that the macro structures of the brain, neurons, dendrites, axons, glial cells, etc, are not subject to will and neither are any random changes made to the process of sifting information by quantum effects.

So whether microtubules provide scaffolding, are carriers of information....or randomly alter information flow, it makes no difference to the end result: none of this is a matter of choice or a matter of 'will'

Neural architecture is governed by DNA and rewiring is performed in response to input from the environment...and interaction of genes and environment through the medium of consciousness. Consciousness being a report, a virtual representation of information composed of the experience of vision, hearing, thoughts, feelings and so on within the brain's 'global workspace' and not the organizer or the controller exercising free will.

''Magician and mind readers have long known that free will is an illusion. In fact we've been using that knowledge for centuries. Any good performer can create the illusion of free choice and yet secretly manipulate events so that the choice is anything other than free.

It's fascinating to me that neuroscientists are only now discovering the science behind why this is possible. Choices only feel free because of a psychological principle called cognitive dissonance. Good performers use this to give an audience the feeling that they've made decisions for themselves, but in some tricks those choices are largely irrelevant as the performer has already decided on the outcome or knows what choices are likely to be made.

An audience will swear they've exercised free will, and that's what makes this principle so perfect for us.'' - Marc Paul, psychological magician.

 

[ryan]

But what is happening at lower levels that cause the microtubules to do what they do?

Here are some very quick videos just to give us the reality of what is going on, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibx0DCA3IaA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGmz4xVP50M . We aren't this fixed hardwired information processor (although I agree that we process information but in the form of qbits). But instead we are a dynamic and internally chaotic system that arises from QM.

Combine what you saw in the videos with quantum vibrations microtubules as a whole, and it is hard to fathom the vibrations, or some other QM source, not having an effect on what information the microtubules carry and how they carry it.

Sorry ryan, the videos are of no more help in supporting your belief in free will than are the articles you have already posted.

The eliminator of the notion of free will remains the fact that the macro structures of the brain, neurons, dendrites, axons, glial cells, etc, are not subject to will and neither are any random changes made to the process of sifting information by quantum effects.

Well if someone could have made a different decision because of the randomness of QM, it meets a major requirement of free will.

Neural architecture is governed by DNA and rewiring is performed in response to input from the environment...and interaction of genes and environment through the medium of consciousness. Consciousness being a report, a virtual representation of information composed of the experience of vision, hearing, thoughts, feelings and so on within the brain's 'global workspace' and not the organizer or the controller exercising free will.

I agree. The DNA builds the infrastructure, but some of our decisions are the cars that choose when and where to drive on it.

 

[DBT]

Sorry ryan, the videos are of no more help in supporting your belief in free will than are the articles you have already posted.

The eliminator of the notion of free will remains the fact that the macro structures of the brain, neurons, dendrites, axons, glial cells, etc, are not subject to will and neither are any random changes made to the process of sifting information by quantum effects.

Well if someone could have made a different decision because of the randomness of QM, it meets a major requirement of free will.

Except it is not 'someone' who made a decision. In fact it is not a ''decision'' at all. It is a random modification with no option to be anything other than what occurred in that instance in time.

I agree. The DNA builds the infrastructure, but some of our decisions are the cars that choose when and where to drive on it.

Do they choose? Why would you say that a random change to an unconscious information processing activity is chosen by the decisions? Decisions that are not even fully formed before something disrupts the process. You are asserting something that suits your needs, but cannot explain or support with evidence.

 

[bilby]

No.

http://www.csuohio.edu/writing-center/definition-complete-sentence http://www.csuohio.edu/writing-center/definition-complete-sentence

I expect that the good people at the CSU Writing Center are aware that English is far more versatile than their simplistic lesson admits; but they are trying to teach the rule, and in the process are ignoring the rich world of exceptions that make up the real use of language, in which one word sentences are both commonplace and widely understood.

There's a classic scene in 'The Blues Brothers', in which the eponymous Jake and Elwood have a six sentence conversation, with each complete and totally understandable sentence containing only a single word:

"Shit!"
"What?"
"Rollers."
"No!"
"Yeah."
"Shit."

Not one moviegoer whose first language is English was likely to fail to understand that exchange. Your link is a perfect example of just how oversimplified the teaching of most complex subjects has become; and many people are sadly unaware that the vast majority of what is taught in ALL subjects at the undergraduate level is basically lies - super-oversimplifications of the underlying reality, that (if relied upon to be complete representations of the subject matter) may result in the pupil looking like a total twit, when he presents them to a learned audience as though they were the immutable laws he fondly imagines them to be, rather than the 'lies for children' that they really are.

A sentence can easily be complete without a single verb.

Yes, really.

 

[fromderinside]

Noooo-ah .... had a little lamb .... it's fleece was white as snow ..... punctuate

 

[ryan]

http://www.csuohio.edu/writing-center/definition-complete-sentence http://www.csuohio.edu/writing-center/definition-complete-sentence

I expect that the good people at the CSU Writing Center are aware that English is far more versatile than their simplistic lesson admits; but they are trying to teach the rule, and in the process are ignoring the rich world of exceptions that make up the real use of language, in which one word sentences are both commonplace and widely understood.

There's a classic scene in 'The Blues Brothers', in which the eponymous Jake and Elwood have a six sentence conversation, with each complete and totally understandable sentence containing only a single word:

"Shit!"
"What?"
"Rollers."
"No!"
"Yeah."
"Shit."

Not one moviegoer whose first language is English was likely to fail to understand that exchange. Your link is a perfect example of just how oversimplified the teaching of most complex subjects has become; and many people are sadly unaware that the vast majority of what is taught in ALL subjects at the undergraduate level is basically lies - super-oversimplifications of the underlying reality, that (if relied upon to be complete representations of the subject matter) may result in the pupil looking like a total twit, when he presents them to a learned audience as though they were the immutable laws he fondly imagines them to be, rather than the 'lies for children' that they really are.

A sentence can easily be complete without a single verb.

Yes, really.

Creative writing can do what it wants and is sufficient as long as the message intended is understood.

Really good creative writers have the ability to pull it off. It's an amazing gift. But then, like everything else, there are those who aren't so good at it. So, just to make sure the point gets across, I swallow my creative ego and write only in complete sentences.

 

[ryan]

Well if someone could have made a different decision because of the randomness of QM, it meets a major requirement of free will.

Except it is not 'someone' who made a decision.

Using your mechanical explanation for decision making, then can we say that a human makes decisions?

If your answer is yes, what does it matter what mechanisms constitute the decision-making process of a human?

In fact it is not a ''decision'' at all. It is a random modification with no option to be anything other than what occurred in that instance in time.

I have explained many times that the decision "could have been different", not "can be different".

I agree. The DNA builds the infrastructure, but some of our decisions are the cars that choose when and where to drive on it.

Do they choose? Why would you say that a random change to an unconscious information processing activity is chosen by the decisions? Decisions that are not even fully formed before something disrupts the process. You are asserting something that suits your needs, but cannot explain or support with evidence.

Sorry, I meant that some cars are free to travel on certain roads because of QM.

 

[Kharakov]

Really. I said that, in the exact words that you're using, in such a way that it means exactly what you claim I said?

I'm just going on what you said. If you agree that determinism is an assumption, not an observation, then that's all that matters.

It's an assumption like the existence of others (non-solipsism) or gravitation are assumptions. If I told you I'm assuming that my coffee mug is not a sentient LFW having dragon tricking me into believing it is a coffee mug.. you could very well say that is an assumption as well.

You don't get to give YOUR opinion special status just because it's yours.

Exactly. LFW doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, and relies on magical thinking about a realm that cannot be observed. The foundation of LFW is an appeal to ignorance.

Determinism stands on solid ground: what exists causes what exists to change, sometimes in an unpredictable manner. It's a know brainer....

It's an assumption like general relativity is an assumption. So what? Everything in the universe points towards determinism,

You can't claim that the universe behaving in a manner consistent with determinism is evidence that the universe runs on determinism, unless you also conceed that the universe behaving in a manner consistent with indeterminism is evidence against. You need a reason to conclude one rather than that the other.

Quantum mechanics is an obviously incomplete description of reality. It can't even be reconciled with GR or a strawberry sundae, much less the dragon posing as my coffee cup.

But that just goes back to the earlier point about not being able to observe a distinction between determined and non-determined events. If you want to claim that Quantum Mechanics isn't support for a non-determined universe, then you can't claim that classical mechanics is support for a determined universe.

Not at all. QM doesn't provide any evidence for or against determinism.

Then nor does classic mechanics. All I'm asking is that you are consistent.

Neither classical mechanics nor quantum mechanics are complete descriptions of reality. They only describe movement, not qualia or preferences. Obviously a deterministic system, such as reality, would include these variables.

What you can't do is use one arguement for conclusions you like, and another for conclusion you don't.

Exactly. Either things which exist influence one another and determine the next states, or non-existent things influence the next states.

 

[DBT]

Except it is not 'someone' who made a decision.

Using your mechanical explanation for decision making, then can we say that a human makes decisions?

'Human' is a broad term. It is not the toenails or the hair follicles of a human that sift information in order to meet the needs and wants of a human, but specifically the function and role of neural networks.

If your answer is yes, what does it matter what mechanisms constitute the decision-making process of a human?

Of course it matters. The information state of the brain, while conscious activity is running, is being reflect in the subjective mental experience of the person as feelings, thoughts, deliberations an decisions. All of which have prior inputs, propogation and and processing in order to correlate information and achieve readiness potential for conscious representation. Global workspace, yada, yada.

I have explained many times that the decision "could have been different", not "can be different".

If the decision could have been different, a decision has the potential to be different, hence, it can be different.

Except it can't be different in the instance it is made because the information state that brought the brain to that decision in that instance in time is not in a state of superposition.

 

[ryan]

Using your mechanical explanation for decision making, then can we say that a human makes decisions?

'Human' is a broad term. It is not the toenails or the hair follicles of a human that sift information in order to meet the needs and wants of a human, but specifically the function and role of neural networks.

But there might be more than just neural networks dealing with information as studies are starting to show. You certainty is going against evidence.

If your answer is yes, what does it matter what mechanisms constitute the decision-making process of a human?

Of course it matters. The information state of the brain, while conscious activity is running, is being reflect in the subjective mental experience of the person as feelings, thoughts, deliberations an decisions. All of which have prior inputs, propogation and and processing in order to correlate information and achieve readiness potential for conscious representation. Global workspace, yada, yada.

The true thing is the decisions that we experience. The mechanics of the decision is everything that is physically necessary for decisions. We don't know for sure what is physically necessary or what functions are necessary. Functionalism is far from proven and may be impossible to prove.

I have explained many times that the decision "could have been different", not "can be different".

If the decision could have been different, a decision has the potential to be different, hence, it can be different.

Except it can't be different in the instance it is made because the information state that brought the brain to that decision in that instance in time is not in a state of superposition.

No, it depends where you are in time. If the decision has already been made, how can it be different? Although it may be true that it could have been different.

 

[Juma]

'Human' is a broad term. It is not the toenails or the hair follicles of a human that sift information in order to meet the needs and wants of a human, but specifically the function and role of neural networks.

But there might be more than just neural networks dealing with information as studies are starting to show. You certainty is going against evidence.

If your answer is yes, what does it matter what mechanisms constitute the decision-making process of a human?

Of course it matters. The information state of the brain, while conscious activity is running, is being reflect in the subjective mental experience of the person as feelings, thoughts, deliberations an decisions. All of which have prior inputs, propogation and and processing in order to correlate information and achieve readiness potential for conscious representation. Global workspace, yada, yada.

The true thing is the decisions that we experience. The mechanics of the decision is everything that is physically necessary for decisions. We don't know for sure what is physically necessary or what functions are necessary. Functionalism is far from proven and may be impossible to prove.

I have explained many times that the decision "could have been different", not "can be different".

If the decision could have been different, a decision has the potential to be different, hence, it can be different.

Except it can't be different in the instance it is made because the information state that brought the brain to that decision in that instance in time is not in a state of superposition.

No, it depends where you are in time. If the decision has already been made, how can it be different? Although it may be true that it could have been different.

"Could" is conditionalis, that is: is being continget on something else.. It has really nothing to do with time.

 

[DBT]

'Human' is a broad term. It is not the toenails or the hair follicles of a human that sift information in order to meet the needs and wants of a human, but specifically the function and role of neural networks.

But there might be more than just neural networks dealing with information as studies are starting to show. You certainty is going against evidence.

Your objection is too vague...what exactly is that gathers and processes information other than the central nervous system with its central processor, the brain? Of course the brain is composed of many structures, including your microtubules. But as I've pointed, microtubules are not information processors or decision makers...at best carriers of information, but that is not proven.

It is you who is trying to build a case without evidence to support it, even worse, with the evidence going against you.

The true thing is the decisions that we experience. The mechanics of the decision is everything that is physically necessary for decisions. We don't know for sure what is physically necessary or what functions are necessary. Functionalism is far from proven and may be impossible to prove.

You don't experience anything without a functioning information processor, a brain. We know that s certainly as anything can be certain.

A knock on the head immediately effects your experience. Apply general anesthetic and your conscious experience is switched off; you are switched off, progressive memory failure disintegrates both self and conscious experience, etc, etc...

No, it depends where you are in time. If the decision has already been made, how can it be different? Although it may be true that it could have been different.

Information state being what it is in any given moment in time, a given condition cannot be in state x and in state y, consequently there is no alternative action possible in that moment in time.

If you are lying down, you cannot be standing up at the same time and so on...which, however more intricate and complex a brain, applies equally to brain state. Any given synapses cannot be both closed open at the same time, a receptor cannot be both vacant and occupied at the same time. The decision that is made is the only possible decision in that moment in time, perhaps to be regretted a moment later.

Plus you have no conscious input into the processing. You have no access to the process. You cannot alter neural processing by an act of will. You as conscious self are not the master of brain activity, but the product.

Your notion of of free will is an illusion. Be happy with intelligence and rational will.

 

[fromderinside]

The following exchange serves

What you can't do is use one arguement for conclusions you like, and another for conclusion you don't.

Exactly. Either things which exist influence one another and determine the next states, or non-existent things influence the next states.

Recite every exception you can that violates the second law of thermodynamics. Seems to me that precludes both indeterminism and qualia being hidden in some greater reality.

Or, put another way, a pox on both your houses. Oh, and Togo (darn, I keep typing toto; sorry), your english use of extra characters is so, so, enlightenment (that's a remotely located, keyboard abusing, left coaster joke silly).

 

[ryan]

But there might be more than just neural networks dealing with information as studies are starting to show. You certainty is going against evidence.

Your objection is too vague...what exactly is that gathers and processes information other than the central nervous system with its central processor, the brain? Of course the brain is composed of many structures, including your microtubules. But as I've pointed, microtubules are not information processors or decision makers...at best carriers of information, but that is not proven.

Why would you still think that I am saying that the microtubules are the decision makers??? There are other parts too.

The true thing is the decisions that we experience. The mechanics of the decision is everything that is physically necessary for decisions. We don't know for sure what is physically necessary or what functions are necessary. Functionalism is far from proven and may be impossible to prove.

You don't experience anything without a functioning information processor, a brain. We know that s certainly as anything can be certain.

A knock on the head immediately effects your experience. Apply general anesthetic and your conscious experience is switched off; you are switched off, progressive memory failure disintegrates both self and conscious experience, etc, etc...

If scientists see any activity that only happens when decisions are being made and that affect decisions being made, they would be justified by at least hypothesising that the activity is a part of the decision-making process.

No, it depends where you are in time. If the decision has already been made, how can it be different? Although it may be true that it could have been different.

Information state being what it is in any given moment in time, a given condition cannot be in state x and in state y, consequently there is no alternative action possible in that moment in time.

If you are lying down, you cannot be standing up at the same time and so on...which, however more intricate and complex a brain, applies equally to brain state. Any given synapses cannot be both closed open at the same time, a receptor cannot be both vacant and occupied at the same time. The decision that is made is the only possible decision in that moment in time, perhaps to be regretted a moment later.

I agree, but only if everything is deterministic within the decision-making process.

Plus you have no conscious input into the processing. You have no access to the process. You cannot alter neural processing by an act of will. You as conscious self are not the master of brain activity, but the product.

Don't take "you" outside of decision making. "You" deciding is partly or all of "you" depending on how much they overlap with there respective definitions.