A simple explanation of free will.

[Kharakov]

Recite every exception you can that violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Why would you need a violation if you have path selection, due to conscious preference, from a superposition of possible states?

 

[Togo]

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.

I will be yes. Rather than the observations you previously claimed, they're all assumptions. Worse still, from your point of view, they're assumptions of equal status.

Unless of course you can come up with some kind of arguement or consistent criteria that distinguishes one from the other. Claiming that the positions you don't like are silly is not an arguement.

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

Exactly. LFW doesn't stand up to any scrutiny,

Well you can't demonstrate that, so I have no reason to beleive you, any more than I'd believe a theist arguing that atheism doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

and relies on magical thinking about a realm that cannot be observed.

Please detail the logical reliance that LFW has on 'magical thinking'.

Determinism stands on solid ground:

Well, no it doesn't. We've just been over that. It stands on your personal opinion that the alternatives are false, apparently.

what exists causes what exists to change, sometimes in an unpredictable manner.

I'm going to stick my neck a bit and say that this is literally meaningless. It's description that includes almost any position, from determinism to LFW, to theism. About the only thing it rules out is nihilism. Stuff exists, and that stuff changes stuff. Great.

It's an assumption like general relativity is an assumption.

General relativity is a model, not an assumption. It appears to hold true in some conditions and not in others.

So what? Everything in the universe points towards determinism,

No, determinism relies on magical thinking and a view of the world that doesn't match what is observed.

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.

Classical mechancis 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.

Please state why these can't be 'reconciled'. It's not enough to just state it, you actually have to show that it's true.

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.

Ok, so neither classical mechanics nor QM are relevent, and you still havent' demonstrated anything about determinism being true or false. Where does that leave your claim that determinsim is demonstrably true?

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.

Read through what you wrote carefully. Your chosen brand of determinism includes random events. What you've written above excludes random events. And why would one event influencing rely on determinism being true?

The idea that your conclusions don't flow from your arguement, that you're simply assuming that you're right, and that your arguements contradict your own conclusion, are generally bad signs in philosophy. I'm not sure how to deal with someone who appears to wear them as a badge of pride.

 

[fromderinside]

Recite every exception you can that violates the second law of thermodynamics.

Why would you need a violation if you have path selection, due to conscious preference, from a superposition of possible states?

You wouldn't if you did. You don't.

 

[DBT]

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.

We have been through this numerous times.

Your claim being that quantum randomness alters or changes the process of decision making, thus enabling a different decision to be made....and you have given microtubules as an example of a possible factor of randomness within the system, that this is possibly the agency of randomness within the system as a whole.

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.

Who, besides yourself, is claiming that quantum randomness is capable of producing decisions?...or that an element of randomness within the system, altering the decision making process in unpredictable ways, is beneficial an assessment or calculation of cost to benefit?

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

How is randomly throwing spanners into the works going to help make rational decisions?

Don't take "you" outside of decision making.

You say that as if 'you' are an autonomous agent operating within the system with the ability to overrule the very process that is forming your experience and existence. The duality of brain and homunculus.

 

[ryan]

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

We have been through this numerous times.

Your claim being that quantum randomness alters or changes the process of decision making, thus enabling a different decision to be made....and you have given microtubules as an example of a possible factor of randomness within the system, that this is possibly the agency of randomness within the system as a whole.

Well, just so you know, I am not saying that there is a decision-making process inside of the decision-making process.

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.

Who, besides yourself, is claiming that quantum randomness is capable of producing decisions?

It shouldn't matter. It is an obvious consequence of QM making up everything.

...or that an element of randomness within the system, altering the decision making process in unpredictable ways, is beneficial an assessment or calculation of cost to benefit?

We make moral and ethical decisions that aren't necessarily beneficial to the agent.

How is randomly throwing spanners into the works going to help make rational decisions?

Not all decisions have to be rational. Sometimes we need to guess. And sometimes we decide impulsively.

Don't take "you" outside of decision making.

You say that as if 'you' are an autonomous agent operating within the system with the ability to overrule the very process that is forming your experience and existence. The duality of brain and homunculus.

No, that is exactly what I was telling you not to do in your critique of my proposal. There is no homunculus needed.

 

[Kharakov]

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.

I will be yes.

Look. If you're going to just say I can't assume my coffee cup is not a sentient LFW having dragon, I'm in quite a predicament, because I really want it to be a sentient, LFW having dragon.

Claiming that the positions you don't like are silly is not an arguement.

I don't dislike LFW, it's just a silly concept. I woke up this morning, my will formed by my brain/body/whatever. I wasn't willing anything while I was asleep.

Well you can't demonstrate that,

I can't demonstrate that Russel's teapot is non-existent either, and it is infinitely more likely to exist than LFW.

so I have no reason to beleive you,

Come on Togo, you're the one who makes up stuff about physicists consulting with philosophers, and then won't admit you made it up for 100s of posts. So saying you have no reason to believe me seems a bit silly- if you told me nobody had any reason to believe you, it would be a hilarious version of the liar's paradox.

Please detail the logical reliance that LFW has on 'magical thinking'.

"my will is not caused to have the characteristics it has by what exists, yet I wake up in the morning with goals that seem to have been magically formed out of nowhere because the goals were not caused by what exists" Any sarcasm detected?

Please state why these can't be 'reconciled'.

The current formulations can't (look it up). Doesn't mean that something new won't come along that describes the whole momentum position side of things, although you cannot leave consciousness, qualia, and the like out of the system.

Ok, so neither classical mechanics nor QM are relevent,

My description of how to get to the freeway from here is relevant to any discussion of reality, because it's part of reality. So are QM and GR.

and you still havent' demonstrated anything about determinism being true or false.

Reality demonstrates that determinism is true. Of course, if you have a fucked up brain (which apparently occurs in reality), it might not. If this is the case, there really would be no way to reveal the deterministic nature of reality to you.

Your chosen brand of determinism includes random events.

Ok. Determinism does not include random events. It includes chaotic and unpredictable events, but not random.

 

[DBT]

We have been through this numerous times.

Your claim being that quantum randomness alters or changes the process of decision making, thus enabling a different decision to be made....and you have given microtubules as an example of a possible factor of randomness within the system, that this is possibly the agency of randomness within the system as a whole.

Well, just so you know, I am not saying that there is a decision-making process inside of the decision-making process.

Nor did I say that. Please read more carefully.

It shouldn't matter. It is an obvious consequence of QM making up everything.

Are you saying that decisions are made by photons and atoms? Why do you avoid the fact that it is macro scale architecture that determines characteristics and function?

Everything being composed of fundamental particles/waves, yet not everything has the ability to process and sift and sort information.

We make moral and ethical decisions that aren't necessarily beneficial to the agent. Not all decisions have to be rational. Sometimes we need to guess. And sometimes we decide impulsively.

To which I've pointed out, habits, addictions, fears, desires, brain lesions, poorly developed neural structures, etc, etc...and not the work of fundamental particles deciding to do something else.

For example:
On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

No, that is exactly what I was telling you not to do in your critique of my proposal. There is no homunculus needed.

Yet you still imply duality in some of your remarks...like the remark I responded to.

 

[Togo]

I will be yes.

Look. If you're going to just say I can't assume my coffee cup is not a sentient LFW having dragon, I'm in quite a predicament, because I really want it to be a sentient, LFW having dragon.

Um.. I think you have too many negatives there. But yes, you're in a predicament. Wanting something to be true is not a reason to believe it is true.

Claiming that the positions you don't like are silly is not an arguement.

I don't dislike LFW, it's just a silly concept.

Claiming that the positions you think are silly are just silly, isn't an arguement either.

You have done philosophy before, right?

I woke up this morning, my will formed by my brain/body/whatever. I wasn't willing anything while I was asleep.

So?

Well you can't demonstrate that,

I can't demonstrate that Russel's teapot is non-existent either, and it is infinitely more likely to exist than LFW.

Which puts your claim at the level of theism. All becuase you won't think about a problem any further than assuming you're correct.

so I have no reason to beleive you,

Come on Togo, you're the one who makes up stuff about physicists consulting with philosophers, and then won't admit you made it up for 100s of posts.

Telling lies isn't an argument either.

Seems to me you're getting desperate.

So saying you have no reason to believe me seems a bit silly- if you told me nobody had any reason to believe you, it would be a hilarious version of the liar's paradox.

Argument from authority isn't an arguement either.

Please detail the logical reliance that LFW has on 'magical thinking'.

"my will is not caused to have the characteristics it has by what exists,

Nope. You want to argue that causation is only possible under determinism, you need to argue that point.

Please state why these can't be 'reconciled'.

The current formulations can't (look it up).

Not seeing the contradiction in reconciling QM and a strawberry sundae. Can you tell me where you got the idea that they can't?

Is this point relevent?

and you still havent' demonstrated anything about determinism being true or false.

Reality demonstrates that determinism is true.

Please state how. Without assuming determinism a priori.

Your chosen brand of determinism includes random events.

Ok. Determinism does not include random events. It includes chaotic and unpredictable events, but not random.

Ah, now that does make a difference. I thought you were using the same definition as DBT, in saying that true randomness was allowed.
If you're sticking with strict determinism, in which all events occur because of prior events, then surely that means all events are predetermined, even if they aren't predictable.

How are you preserving the concept of local cause and effect here?

 

[braces_for_impact]

This thread has been charmingly entertaining as I watch it appear on the "New Posts" page every day. A thread entitled "A simple explanation of free will." I remembered thinking "yeah right" when I first saw it. Now it's up to 71 pages.

 

[ryan]

It shouldn't matter. It is an obvious consequence of QM making up everything.

Are you saying that decisions are made by photons and atoms? Why do you avoid the fact that it is macro scale architecture that determines characteristics and function?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that the components, such as the atoms, of the macro scale do not also determine the characteristics and function?

Everything being composed of fundamental particles/waves, yet not everything has the ability to process and sift and sort information.

Every interaction that causes any increase of entropy processes information (information theory).

We make moral and ethical decisions that aren't necessarily beneficial to the agent. Not all decisions have to be rational. Sometimes we need to guess. And sometimes we decide impulsively.

To which I've pointed out, habits, addictions, fears, desires, brain lesions, poorly developed neural structures, etc, etc...and not the work of fundamental particles deciding to do something else.

For example:
On the neurology of morals
''Patients with medial prefrontal lesions often display irresponsible behavior, despite being intellectually unimpaired. But similar lesions occurring in early childhood can also prevent the acquisition of factual knowledge about accepted standards of moral behavior.''

Okay, but what about immoral acts of people without the lesions.

Like I have said before, the effects of QM would be more subtle. Maybe QM determines the type of immoral behavior within the more determinable neurological structure. The hard wired neural structure might provide a few options for the information to take. The QM effects may influence which option is chosen.

No, that is exactly what I was telling you not to do in your critique of my proposal. There is no homunculus needed.

Yet you still imply duality in some of your remarks...like the remark I responded to.

I gave that response because I was worried you were taking my proposal to need duality or the homunculus. You took "you" out of the system when critiquing me. I wanted to assure you the "you" must entail the decision-making process and probably more. So "you" cannot affect what the decision-making process does because they are not separate entities.

The main issue here appears to be the apparent duality, or emergence, of the parts versus the whole. The whole is subjective, but the elementary parts are objective. The parts are things that do not change no matter where they are. The whole is something that we decide to outline somewhere in the universe.

To summarise, it's what the parts are doing that is important and ultimately the true description. The whole can never be the same thing if any part of it interacts in any way causing an increase in entropy. This goes for whole processes too. If the whole process does not process information exactly the same when perfectly repeating the input, then it is not the same process as it was before. The process no longer exists, and a new one has formed. Nothing stays the same except for the elementary parts.

 

[Kharakov]

Look. If you're going to just say I can't assume my coffee cup is not a sentient LFW having dragon, I'm in quite a predicament, because I really want it to be a sentient, LFW having dragon.

Um.. I think you have too many negatives there. But yes, you're in a predicament. Wanting something to be true is not a reason to believe it is true.

Negatives are correct, and it's a joke that it's a predicament, if you need that cleared up.

Claiming that the positions you don't like are silly is not an arguement.

I don't dislike LFW, it's just a silly concept.

Claiming that the positions you think are silly are just silly, isn't an arguement either.

No. Looking at the world and understanding whats going on sort of makes LFW a silly concept- maybe not to children who believe that things magically change without cause, but not to any adult that who has observed the causal chain and their position in it.

In fact, it's quite silly to argue against LFW, because it is so obviously untrue.

I woke up this morning, my will formed by my brain/body/whatever. I wasn't willing anything while I was asleep.

So?

Follow the causal chain. At what point does your will magically separate from your brain and become an autonomous entity, instead of something more akin to the magnetic field caused by an arrangement of atoms that (the magnetic field) influences the atoms?

so I have no reason to beleive you,

Come on Togo, you're the one who makes up stuff about physicists consulting with philosophers, and then won't admit you made it up for 100s of posts.

Telling lies isn't an argument either.

So physicists consult with philosophers on anything other than philosophy of science courses? You still stand by that claim, despite not backing it up whatsoever? I suppose there is as much proof that this consultation occurs as exists for LFW.

Nope. You want to argue that causation is only possible under determinism, you need to argue that point.

No. The only thing I'm arguing is that what exists affects what exists, and non-existent stuff does not. LFW requires non-existent stuff to have an impact on what exists (in other words, it requires a non-existent cause to push things one way or another), which is why it is illogical to the core. We can see, in nature, all around us, that things always act because of forces.

We can see that our brains generate our will. There isn't any room for human LFW.

Please state why these can't be 'reconciled'.

The current formulations can't (look it up).

Not seeing the contradiction in reconciling QM and a strawberry sundae.

The qualia of strawberry sundae (in a consciousness) cannot be broken down into individual momentum, position, charge, etc. portions and maintain an adequate description of the whole. In other words, you can't look at something as simply momentum, position, charge, etc. and capture the essence of the whole. The wavefunction of a strawberry sundae definitely does not capture the qualia, or describe it in a very meaningful way.

and you still havent' demonstrated anything about determinism being true or false.

Reality demonstrates that determinism is true.

Please state how. Without assuming determinism a priori.

Test reality for determinism, then test for non determinism. Things follow patterns- they don't change without a force impacting them, even if that force is vacuum energy perturbations, which aren't significant enough to affect human will, which appears to be entirely dependent on neural structures. Now, we can't observe exactly how qualia arise, but they have a definite impact on human interactions, so we have no reason to think they don't impact quantum level interactions as well.

Your chosen brand of determinism includes random events.

Ok. Determinism does not include random events. It includes chaotic and unpredictable events, but not random.

Ah, now that does make a difference. I thought you were using the same definition as DBT, in saying that true randomness was allowed.

Well, for all intents and purposes, a running checksum on a discretely interpreted smooth system would appear to generate random number outputs. If you used these outputs to influence the evolution of the system, it would be very unpredictable- perhaps a Bohmian style wave ?guide? equation would depend on one of these checksums. However, I don't think we could access the inputs to the checksum, so it might as well be non-deterministic, even though it isn't...

If you're sticking with strict determinism, in which all events occur because of prior events, then surely that means all events are predetermined, even if they aren't predictable.

Sure??

How are you preserving the concept of local cause and effect here?

Why would I?

 

[Kharakov]

This thread has been charmingly entertaining as I watch it appear on the "New Posts" page every day. A thread entitled "A simple explanation of free will." I remembered thinking "yeah right" when I first saw it. Now it's up to 71 pages.

Do you remember the eternal and uncaused thread on free will?

 

[DBT]

Are you saying that decisions are made by photons and atoms? Why do you avoid the fact that it is macro scale architecture that determines characteristics and function?

So let me get this straight. Are you saying that the components, such as the atoms, of the macro scale do not also determine the characteristics and function?

Of course they do. Just not in any way that's helpful to your cause...establishing a case for free will based on quantum randomness.

Every interaction that causes any increase of entropy processes information (information theory).

Case in point. There is nothing within information theory that you can use to help your cause.

Okay, but what about immoral acts of people without the lesions.

One of the biggest drivers of human behaviour?--- self interest.

''Self-interest makes some people blind, and others sharp-sighted'' - Francois de La Rochefoucauld

''The name and pretense of virtue is as serviceable to self-interest as are real vices'' - Francois de La Rochefoucauld

''The virtues are lost in self-interest as rivers are lost in the sea'' -Franklin D. Roosevelt

''Self-interest is the enemy of all true affection'' - Franklin D. Roosevelt

Like I have said before, the effects of QM would be more subtle. Maybe QM determines the type of immoral behavior within the more determinable neurological structure. The hard wired neural structure might provide a few options for the information to take. The QM effects may influence which option is chosen.

No. QM/particle position/wave function doesn't deal directly with macro scale objects and events in terms of decision making....that is the role of information processing carried out by neural networks.

Quantum particles have no awareness of the world at large.

To summarise, it's what the parts are doing that is important and ultimately the true description. The whole can never be the same thing if any part of it interacts in any way causing an increase in entropy. This goes for whole processes too. If the whole process does not process information exactly the same when perfectly repeating the input, then it is not the same process as it was before. The process no longer exists, and a new one has formed. Nothing stays the same except for the elementary parts.

Whatever it is that fundamental particles happen doing, it is not your choice.

Nor is it subject to your will, whether conscious, unconscious, free or determined... Particle interaction does what it does regardless of your will. Which is one reason why the term 'free will' is incoherent.

Be happy with rational will, ryan. That's the best you can get.

 

[ryan]

Particle interaction does what it does regardless of your will.

You are still stuck on this. The will is the particle interaction. They are the same thing.

 

[DBT]

Particle interaction does what it does regardless of your will.

You are still stuck on this. The will is the particle interaction. They are the same thing.

You appear to be using quite an eccentric definition of 'will' to say the least. It looks like you are trying to bang a big square peg into a little round hole using a sledge hammer. Very messy.

 

[ryan]

You are still stuck on this. The will is the particle interaction. They are the same thing.

You appear to be using quite an eccentric definition of 'will' to say the least. It looks like you are trying to bang a big square peg into a little round hole using a sledge hammer. Very messy.

I can say it with confidence because if everything is particles and their interactions, will must be too.

The whole is the sum of its parts. If QM plays a role in the whole/will, the whole has the freedom of the various possible outputs.

 

[DBT]

You appear to be using quite an eccentric definition of 'will' to say the least. It looks like you are trying to bang a big square peg into a little round hole using a sledge hammer. Very messy.

I can say it with confidence because if everything is particles and their interactions, will must be too.

The whole is the sum of its parts. If QM plays a role in the whole/will, the whole has the freedom of the various possible outputs.

Will is not present in any particular particle, or any particular molecule or any particular protein, cell or even collections of cells...it takes a very specific arrangement of particles and interactions of particles, building ever more complex structures, electrochemical activity, etc, in order to produce conscious will. Even then, will is formed in response to a stimuli....none of the lead up to production of will being performed on the basis of conscious will.

Will only emerging at the last stages of the process. And even then not being able to directly manipulate particles thorough an act of will in order to benefit from a new arrangement.

This is your sticking point.

The thing (deterministically formed will) that you persistently brush aside or ignore.

Just be happy with rational will, ryan, that is more than adequate for anyone's needs.

 

[ryan]

I can say it with confidence because if everything is particles and their interactions, will must be too.

The whole is the sum of its parts. If QM plays a role in the whole/will, the whole has the freedom of the various possible outputs.

Will is not present in any particular particle, or any particular molecule or any particular protein, cell or even collections of cells...it takes a very specific arrangement of particles and interactions of particles, building ever more complex structures, electrochemical activity, etc, in order to produce conscious will.

How many times do I have to say that will isn't in particles!? There is no will in the will. Yet you keep bringing it up.

Please understand that we both have the exact same definition of will in terms of componentry. We just differ on the driving mechanisms. So once and for all, will you please understand that my argument is not about particles, cells, neurons, etc having will. I agree with you that neurons, neurotransmitters, synapses, and beyond are the necessary components of human will.

Will only emerging at the last stages of the process. And even then not being able to directly manipulate particles thorough an act of will in order to benefit from a new arrangement.

But you still need the willing mechanism to act. If your will is to raise your arm, and then your arm is raised, I would have to think that your will, free or not free, is necessary to raise your arm.

But maybe the will can sometimes intervene. Normally, if I have an urge, say to eat ice cream after supper, my will may allow me to do it. But sometimes my will intervenes on my urge, and then I don't eat ice cream.

 

[George S]

Okay, we don't have free will. I am a robot. This robot notes that my decisions affect the future. Is making meaningful choices with deterministic hardware any different if the hardware is non-deterministic?
The future is affected by this robot through planning And learning.. I have saved a falling baby whose head was inches from concrete. I thank my instinct -- hardware -- and playing catch -- programming/learning.
Did I save that child due to my free will?
Or was it karma or fate -- all predetermined since t=0?
I don't give a damn.

 

[George S]

The universe is not deterministic, but probabilistic.
The universe obeys Baye's' theorem.