A simple explanation of free will.

[DBT]

Robot is an emotive term when used in this context. The brain is not robotic in the sense that it is absolutely fixed without the input of an external programmer.
A brain is self programming, but this doesn't mean the presence of an autonomous internal programmer in the form of 'free' will, or that the underlying programming (rewiring of connections and new pathways) is even open to conscious choice....hence we have both rational will and irrational will in various ratios and combinations, but not free will.

 

[DBT]

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.

If you cared to read more carefully you'd see that I did not even suggest that you simply said ''will is in the particles'' even though it is implied in your remark.

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

To which I pointed out: ''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''

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your objection: ''How many times do I have to say that will isn't in particles!''

Have you run out of ammunition ryan?

 

[George S]

Robot is an emotive term when used in this context. The brain is not robotic in the sense that it is absolutely fixed without the input of an external programmer.
A brain is self programming, but this doesn't mean the presence of an autonomous internal programmer in the form of 'free' will, or that the underlying programming (rewiring of connections and new pathways) is even open to conscious choice....hence we have both rational will and irrational will in various ratios and combinations, but not free will.

Will is in the self-programming via planning and learning. Not free in that this much is needed to have decisions matter. Effective choices. Self-will. My will be done.

 

[fromderinside]

So prior probabilities 'determine' how things are now? Interesting. Do you have access to observations of loaded dice in parts of the universe you can share with us?

 

[Kharakov]

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

A deterministic pseudorandom number generator should "obey" Baye's as well, so what?

 

[ryan]

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.

If you cared to read more carefully you'd see that I did not even suggest that you simply said ''will is in the particles'' even though it is implied in your remark.

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

To which I pointed out: ''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''

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your objection: ''How many times do I have to say that will isn't in particles!''

Have you run out of ammunition ryan?

DBT, this is something that I have tried to explain more times than anything else in this argument: the particles and interactions make up the will. So if you take out one particle, it won't have will. You need them all. Similarly, if 3 particles are in a triangular shape, you wouldn't say that a particular particle has a triangular shape. It takes all three to have a triangular shape.

That is why I get frustrated when you say that a "particular particle" does not have will. This is something that I have been trying really hard to explain over the entirety of our discussion.

 

[fromderinside]

That is why I get frustrated when you say that a "particular particle" does not have will. This is something that I have been trying really hard to explain over the entirety of our discussion.

You and Homer Simpson crack me up.

 

[ryan]

That is why I get frustrated when you say that a "particular particle" does not have will. This is something that I have been trying really hard to explain over the entirety of our discussion.

You and Homer Simpson crack me up.

Well, at least I can understand your sentence. The next thing we have to work on is making a relevant point to the discussion.

 

[fromderinside]

You and Homer Simpson crack me up.

Well, at least I can understand your sentence. The next thing we have to work on is making a relevant point to the discussion.

Your discussion requires acceptance of faeries to be meaningful. I don't. Consequently, I posted my Homer Comment. That character's not real either. Kapeesh?

 

[ryan]

Well, at least I can understand your sentence. The next thing we have to work on is making a relevant point to the discussion.

Your discussion requires acceptance of faeries to be meaningful. I don't. Consequently, I posted my Homer Comment. That character's not real either. Kapeesh?

Read the whole post. My frustration is that nothing about my argument is about a particular particle having will.

 

[Juma]

Your discussion requires acceptance of faeries to be meaningful. I don't. Consequently, I posted my Homer Comment. That character's not real either. Kapeesh?

Read the whole post. My frustration is that nothing about my argument is about a particular particle having will.

And ours is that it is really of nothing else...

 

[Kharakov]

Your discussion requires acceptance of faeries to be meaningful. I don't. Consequently, I posted my Homer Comment. That character's not real either. Kapeesh?

Read the whole post. My frustration is that nothing about my argument is about a particular particle having will.

Why not (why don't particular particles have will)?

 

[fromderinside]

Why not (why don't particular particles have will)?

The implication is that some particles, not all, have will. If such is the case we should be able to identify particles that are not like other particles. Confirmed theory is that particles have a set of properties. It is not that a each particle has a set of properties.

On the other hand if a particular particle has will due to a condition, again, we should be able to parse out that condition. That condition hasn't been identified and the theory works fine.

Conclusion: The hypothesis isn't worth the neurons used to blurt it out.

Just noodling here. The reason for posting such a 'possibility' arises from one individual's wish tank probably located in some nether land, a place that doesn't exist.

 

[ryan]

Read the whole post. My frustration is that nothing about my argument is about a particular particle having will.

And ours is that it is really of nothing else...

Suppose we have an exact mechanical replication of an instance of someone's will. Now let's replace "will" with "decision" to stay consistent with scientific terms (still in philosophy but using scientific definitions). So we have this amazingly complex machine that we isolate in an environment where all variables are controlled except for one. Then we stimulate the input that is not fixed, and we get X. Assume we do the exact same thing again, except this time we get Y.

Upon further inspection, we see where the signals changed course. We narrow it down to a very small area that depends on the state of the synthetic microtubules. They are presumed to be in a quantum state, thus breaking the symmetry of what we would expect if the machine were following classical mechanics.

So, hopefully you can see that the microtubules did not make the decision; but instead, they were part of the decision. We may be adding an indeterminate property to the decision, but we are not adding the mechanism to the decision. Many other elements in the machine help make the decision.

 

[ryan]

Read the whole post. My frustration is that nothing about my argument is about a particular particle having will.

Why not (why don't particular particles have will)?

I never said they didn't. The reductionist part of me believes in panpsychism. How else could the mind come from nothing? But I promise you, this has nothing to do with my proposition.

 

[ryan]

Why not (why don't particular particles have will)?

The implication is that some particles, not all, have will. If such is the case we should be able to identify particles that are not like other particles. Confirmed theory is that particles have a set of properties. It is not that a each particle has a set of properties.

If will (decisions, free or not free) exists, then there must be a group of particles in some arrangement that are the decision and decision-making process as a whole.

You, like others, are not understanding me. You end up convoluting parts of what I am saying so that you have something to critique.

 

[DBT]

If you cared to read more carefully you'd see that I did not even suggest that you simply said ''will is in the particles'' even though it is implied in your remark.

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

To which I pointed out: ''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''

Which has nothing whatsoever to do with your objection: ''How many times do I have to say that will isn't in particles!''

Have you run out of ammunition ryan?

DBT, this is something that I have tried to explain more times than anything else in this argument: the particles and interactions make up the will. So if you take out one particle, it won't have will. You need them all. Similarly, if 3 particles are in a triangular shape, you wouldn't say that a particular particle has a triangular shape. It takes all three to have a triangular shape.

That is why I get frustrated when you say that a "particular particle" does not have will. This is something that I have been trying really hard to explain over the entirety of our discussion.

The first part is simply a list of what can be eliminated in terms of the presence of will. The second part describes the circumstances needed in order for will to be formed and generated....specific mechanisms and specific conditions. All of which are not formed by means of will, neural architecture, connectivity, electrochemical activity, information processing, yada, yada.

Nor does your random quantum events changing decisions enable 'free will, because neither the information processing activity of decision making, or any form of random interference, are regulated by or subject to will. It has nothing to do with will. Will is the byproduct of information processing under specific conditions...and the orchestrator or controller of nothing.

What you have is an intelligent interactive self programming system that adapts to a wide range of conditions and in the process generates rational [and sometimes irrational] will as the driver for action.

Be happy with that.

 

[DBT]

You, like others, are not understanding me. You end up convoluting parts of what I am saying so that you have something to critique.

We can only go by what you say, and this what you have said;

We are talking about choices/decisions, not the forces that influence them.

''that quantum randomness means that the outcome could have been different.''


'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)

''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 - ryan''

 

[Juma]

And ours is that it is really of nothing else...

Suppose we have an exact mechanical replication of an instance of someone's will. Now let's replace "will" with "decision" to stay consistent with scientific terms (still in philosophy but using scientific definitions). So we have this amazingly complex machine that we isolate in an environment where all variables are controlled except for one. Then we stimulate the input that is not fixed, and we get X. Assume we do the exact same thing again, except this time we get Y.

Upon further inspection, we see where the signals changed course. We narrow it down to a very small area that depends on the state of the synthetic microtubules. They are presumed to be in a quantum state, thus breaking the symmetry of what we would expect if the machine were following classical mechanics.

So, hopefully you can see that the microtubules did not make the decision; but instead, they were part of the decision. We may be adding an indeterminate property to the decision, but we are not adding the mechanism to the decision. Many other elements in the machine help make the decision.

Yes, of course. But the question is: what have this to do with libertarian free will? LFW says that YOU are free. Not that there are trillions of free nano-yous

 

[ryan]

DBT, this is something that I have tried to explain more times than anything else in this argument: the particles and interactions make up the will. So if you take out one particle, it won't have will. You need them all. Similarly, if 3 particles are in a triangular shape, you wouldn't say that a particular particle has a triangular shape. It takes all three to have a triangular shape.

That is why I get frustrated when you say that a "particular particle" does not have will. This is something that I have been trying really hard to explain over the entirety of our discussion.

The first part is simply a list of what can be eliminated in terms of the presence of will. The second part describes the circumstances needed in order for will to be formed and generated....specific mechanisms and specific conditions. All of which are not formed by means of will, neural architecture, connectivity, electrochemical activity, information processing, yada, yada.

Nor does your random quantum events changing decisions enable 'free will, because neither the information processing activity of decision making, or any form of random interference, are regulated by or subject to will. It has nothing to do with will. Will is the byproduct of information processing under specific conditions...and the orchestrator or controller of nothing.

What you have is an intelligent interactive self programming system that adapts to a wide range of conditions and in the process generates rational [and sometimes irrational] will as the driver for action.

Be happy with that.

None of this seems like a response to my post.

The first part is simply a list of what can be eliminated in terms of the presence of will.

What are you referring to?

The second part describes the circumstances needed in order for will to be formed and generated....specific mechanisms and specific conditions.

Same question: what are you referring to?

All of which are not formed by means of will, neural architecture, connectivity, electrochemical activity, information processing, yada, yada.

What does this mean?

I am really serious DBT; I have no idea what you are talking about.