A simple explanation of free will.

[Speakpigeon]

For fucks sake, chill man! Going on like that is not good for your heart.

I actually worry more about yours.

Your post was funny, sad you dont reslize it...

Even there you manage to say something doubly wrong. There was no way to interpret my post as self-referencing and it was also not ironic or otherwise comical, so there was nothing funny about it, yet you said, "marvellously funny example of self reference?". What you meant, possibly, is that you were very pleased with yourself for contriving an interpretation of it that you thought would be funny, hence the interrogation mark in your post asking for vindication. What you didn't realise was that your interpretation was so implausible that it wasn't funny at all, except for you or at least so you claimed. Meanwhile, you did overlook the serious point in my post although at this stage I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

Also, I asked you not to come back until you found about mainstream scientists being serious about human freedom.
EB

 

[Juma]

Also, I asked you not to come back until you found about mainstream scientists being serious about human freedom.
EB

And i has not yet got an answer on what the heck i'm supposed to look for. "Human freedom" is so broad descriotion that is is totally useless.

And this thread is not about "human freedom". It is about "free will".

 

[4321lynx]

As a layman, very inexpert, but interested, in the philosophy and physics of all that is discussed here and on related threads (eg the Sam Harris argument against free will), may I amuse, or disgust, you with my conclusions so far, whether they are a result of free will or not?

At any one time, faced with a 'problem' we have at our disposal :

1.a finite number (which varies at any one time) of different decisions to make regarding that problem, each decision in its turn resulting in

2. a finite number (again varying at any one time) of actions.

But these decisions and actions are so numerous in practice as to make their various combinations and permutations seem infinite and so seem free to some of us, free of any external or internal influences. But others realise that the numbers are finite in each case, influenced external and internal factors, therefore not free.

The influences making each of the numbers, in 1. & 2. above, finite are:

a. Our DNA and its history, and its state at any one particular time from before conception till death. (Change a little of it in the right places and we are chimpanzees, Change very much less and we are men or women or somebody inbetween those two, etc etc etc)
b. DNA's functioning, including changes in its composition via mutations, is subject to external and internal influences by anything that influences baryonic matter and its associated leptons i.e. electrons. Or by things that influence the vibrations of 'strings' if you prefer that. Some of the results of these influences we know and some we don't know.
c. We don't know everything that influences the structure or the functioning of DNA and its baryonic matter. We know that some of its (the DNA's) 'results e.g. the brain and its functions can be influenced by education and habit, by electrchemical methods, by drugs, by atmospheric changes etc
We don't know if it can be influenced by antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, free electrons, some neutrinos, supersymmetric particles, the solar wind intensity etc.

However the end result for me is the illusion of free will, sufficient enough for everyday life and 'morality' , the latter strong enough to prevent me from looking for pretty girls in bars, knowing full well what my wife's free will or automatic reaction to that would be.

Others are welcome to their own illusions, always remembering that the man who says he has no illusions has at least that one.

 

[DBT]

Fortunately we know the universe isn't mechanistic in the sense you're claiming.

If you had paid any attention whatsoever - to what was actually said by Farah, and what I have argued - you'd know that your response is absurd. You are still so engaged in building your own strawman that you either can't comprehend, or it doesn't suit you to comprehend.

This is the clue to your erroneous interpretations. Please read carefully:


''I don't think "free will" is a very sensible concept, and you don't need neuroscience to reject it -- any mechanistic view of the world is good enough, and indeed you could even argue on purely conceptual grounds that the opposite of determinism is randomness, not free will! Most thoughtful neuroscientists I know have replaced the concept of free will with the concept of rationality -- that we select our actions based on a kind of practical reasoning. And there is no conflict between rationality and the mind as a physical system'' - - Martha Farah, director of the University of Pennsylvania's Center for Cognitive Neuroscience and a prominent neuroethicist.

John Searle's Version
Searle argues that individual particles have statistically predictable paths.

As far as human freedom is concerned, it doesn't matter whether physics is deterministic, as Newtonian physics was, or whether it allows for an indeterminacy at the level of particle physics, as contemporary quantum mechanics does. Indeterminism at the level of particles in physics is really no support at all to any doctrine of the freedom of the will; because first, the statistical indeterminacy at the level of particles does not show any indeterminacy at the level of the objects that matter to us – human bodies, for example. And secondly, even if there is an element of indeterminacy in the behaviour of physical particles – even if they are only statistically predictable – still, that by itself gives no scope for human freedom of the will; because it doesn't follow from the fact that particles are only statistically determined that the human mind can force the statistically-determined particles to swerve from their paths. Indeterminism is no evidence that there is or could be some mental energy of human freedom that can move molecules in directions that they were not otherwise going to move. So it really does look as if everything we know about physics forces us to some form of denial of human freedom. (Mind, Brains, and Science, 1984, pp.86-7)


So if you have been paying attention you'd see that it makes no difference to the issue of 'free will' whether the world is determined or non determined, the term is irrelevant either way.

In any case, macro scale structures are deterministic because wave function collapse has occurred (whether observer related or particle interaction collapse) we have classical behaviour (adequate determinism) and not wavefunction probability on a macro scale.

Now don't take one aspect of what I said and construct another strawman. I doubt it though.

''If you wanted to give an example of the fallacy of the rejected middle, sure. I note that despite your heavy reliance on this concept, you've never actually given such an argument, except in the form of stating it and then demanding others disprove it.''

Nothing to do with the fallacy of the rejected middle...you are dreaming.

 

[ryan]

As far as human freedom is concerned, it doesn't matter whether physics is deterministic, as Newtonian physics was, or whether it allows for an indeterminacy at the level of particle physics, as contemporary quantum mechanics does. Indeterminism at the level of particles in physics is really no support at all to any doctrine of the freedom of the will; because first, the statistical indeterminacy at the level of particles does not show any indeterminacy at the level of the objects that matter to us – human bodies, for example.

Simple processes would not have much to do with QM. But the smaller and more intricate the process, the more QM will have an effect.

And secondly, even if there is an element of indeterminacy in the behaviour of physical particles – even if they are only statistically predictable – still, that by itself gives no scope for human freedom of the will; because it doesn't follow from the fact that particles are only statistically determined that the human mind can force the statistically-determined particles to swerve from their paths.

The mind and the particles are the same thing or they are at least closely related. Particles might be an intrinsic property of the mind.

Indeterminism is no evidence that there is or could be some mental energy of human freedom that can move molecules in directions that they were not otherwise going to move. So it really does look as if everything we know about physics forces us to some form of denial of human freedom. (Mind, Brains, and Science, 1984, pp.86-7)

Indeterminism is exactly how we would expect to see free will behave.

 

[DBT]

Indeterminism is exactly how we would expect to see free will behave.

Ryan, you have not made a connection between the mechanistic causes of will, a brains response to the objects, events and relationships of the macro world and quantum 'indeterminism.'

The problem being, observer related particle position/condition (QM) is not a matter of will, or a conscious decision.

There is no relationship between 'will' and particle state/position or velocity, apart from the fact that everything in the universe is composed of collapsed wave/particles.

 

[Speakpigeon]

As a layman, very inexpert, but interested, in the philosophy and physics of all that is discussed here and on related threads (eg the Sam Harris argument against free will), may I amuse, or disgust, you with my conclusions so far, whether they are a result of free will or not?

At any one time, faced with a 'problem' we have at our disposal :

1.a finite number (which varies at any one time) of different decisions to make regarding that problem, each decision in its turn resulting in

2. a finite number (again varying at any one time) of actions.

But these decisions and actions are so numerous in practice as to make their various combinations and permutations seem infinite and so seem free to some of us, free of any external or internal influences. But others realise that the numbers are finite in each case, influenced external and internal factors, therefore not free.

The influences making each of the numbers, in 1. & 2. above, finite are:

a. Our DNA and its history, and its state at any one particular time from before conception till death. (Change a little of it in the right places and we are chimpanzees, Change very much less and we are men or women or somebody inbetween those two, etc etc etc)
b. DNA's functioning, including changes in its composition via mutations, is subject to external and internal influences by anything that influences baryonic matter and its associated leptons i.e. electrons. Or by things that influence the vibrations of 'strings' if you prefer that. Some of the results of these influences we know and some we don't know.
c. We don't know everything that influences the structure or the functioning of DNA and its baryonic matter. We know that some of its (the DNA's) 'results e.g. the brain and its functions can be influenced by education and habit, by electrchemical methods, by drugs, by atmospheric changes etc
We don't know if it can be influenced by antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, free electrons, some neutrinos, supersymmetric particles, the solar wind intensity etc.

However the end result for me is the illusion of free will, sufficient enough for everyday life and 'morality' , the latter strong enough to prevent me from looking for pretty girls in bars, knowing full well what my wife's free will or automatic reaction to that would be.

Others are welcome to their own illusions, always remembering that the man who says he has no illusions has at least that one.

So, as I understand what you say here, you do have this impression that you have free will but you also accept that your ability to think in a rational way can only lead to the conclusion that this impression of free will is illusory, i.e. that free will is an illusion. Yes?

However, your ability to think rationally has to grounded in something and it seems to me that the ground in this case is just more imressions: impression that there is a material world, impression that this material world obeys to a particular kind of determinism, etc. Since you explicitly accepted that you don't know everything about the material world you can't at the same time be certain that the impressions you have about it are not essentially illusory themselves, possibly in such a subtle way that we're not even able to conceive of it.
You're free to not consider this way of looking at things.
EB

 

[Juma]

Indeterminism is exactly how we would expect to see free will behave.

A coherent will requires that the system always works in the same way, ignoring some minor random noise. That is, a mostly deterministic system. Indeterminism doesnt gove you free will, only incoherent random actions,

 

[4321lynx]

As a layman, very inexpert, but interested, in the philosophy and physics of all that is discussed here and on related threads (eg the Sam Harris argument against free will), may I amuse, or disgust, you with my conclusions so far, whether they are a result of free will or not?

At any one time, faced with a 'problem' we have at our disposal :

1.a finite number (which varies at any one time) of different decisions to make regarding that problem, each decision in its turn resulting in

2. a finite number (again varying at any one time) of actions.

But these decisions and actions are so numerous in practice as to make their various combinations and permutations seem infinite and so seem free to some of us, free of any external or internal influences. But others realise that the numbers are finite in each case, influenced external and internal factors, therefore not free.

The influences making each of the numbers, in 1. & 2. above, finite are:

a. Our DNA and its history, and its state at any one particular time from before conception till death. (Change a little of it in the right places and we are chimpanzees, Change very much less and we are men or women or somebody inbetween those two, etc etc etc)
b. DNA's functioning, including changes in its composition via mutations, is subject to external and internal influences by anything that influences baryonic matter and its associated leptons i.e. electrons. Or by things that influence the vibrations of 'strings' if you prefer that. Some of the results of these influences we know and some we don't know.
c. We don't know everything that influences the structure or the functioning of DNA and its baryonic matter. We know that some of its (the DNA's) 'results e.g. the brain and its functions can be influenced by education and habit, by electrchemical methods, by drugs, by atmospheric changes etc
We don't know if it can be influenced by antimatter, dark matter, dark energy, free electrons, some neutrinos, supersymmetric particles, the solar wind intensity etc.

However the end result for me is the illusion of free will, sufficient enough for everyday life and 'morality' , the latter strong enough to prevent me from looking for pretty girls in bars, knowing full well what my wife's free will or automatic reaction to that would be.

Others are welcome to their own illusions, always remembering that the man who says he has no illusions has at least that one.

So, as I understand what you say here, you do have this impression that you have free will but you also accept that your ability to think in a rational way can only lead to the conclusion that this impression of free will is illusory, i.e. that free will is an illusion. Yes?

However, your ability to think rationally has to grounded in something and it seems to me that the ground in this case is just more imressions: impression that there is a material world, impression that this material world obeys to a particular kind of determinism, etc. Since you explicitly accepted that you don't know everything about the material world you can't at the same time be certain that the impressions you have about it are not essentially illusory themselves, possibly in such a subtle way that we're not even able to conceive of it.
You're free to not consider this way of looking at things.
EB

My answer to your first question is a definite 'Yes'. Free will is limited to our freedom to make what we call a 'rational' choice.
To your statement that follows and implies a question is a 'Yes,perhaps'. With my remark that IMO this is about as likely as a Creator of the Universe i.e. a "God". Granted this opinion is based on nothing more than a gut feeling, caused no doubt by the history of my DNA and its end product, my brain, and its end product, my mind, their history, I repeat, from antePaleolithic times until the present moment.
According to you all of this, including me and you, could be an illusion, one beyond our understanding. Yes?
If so, whose illusion is it? I have no other quarrel with it, but it sounds suspiciously like a proposal not much different from 'The ways of the Lord are mysterious'.

 

[Speakpigeon]

According to you all of this, including me and you, could be an illusion, one beyond our understanding. Yes?

Yes. I thought it was a consequence of what you yourself said that we didn't know this and that.

If so, whose illusion is it?

We usually call it the "I" but that doesn't mean much but I doesn't matter whose illusion it is. What matters is that you probably want to ground your claim into hard evidence but once you accept that no evidence can be prove not to be illusory, i.e. that whatever it seems to show may not even exist as such, then you probably have to accept that your claim cannot be grounded, something you suggested yourself by accepting you didn't know everything.

I have no other quarrel with it, but it sounds suspiciously like a proposal not much different from 'The ways of the Lord are mysterious'.

I'm not sure why suddenly God pops up. It seems pretty clear that things are mysterious but I don't see that this mysteriousness should involve God at all. Otherwise things would no longer be mysterious.

The question is simple: do you know for a fact that free will doesn't exist? You've already explained this is your opinion. It seems to be just that.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

My point was that if you and I are only an illusion we cannot be holding that illusion ourselves. An illusion that holds an illusion sounds to me more like a delusion.

 

[ryan]

Indeterminism is exactly how we would expect to see free will behave.

The problem being, observer related particle position/condition (QM) is not a matter of will, or a conscious decision.

Apparently QM mechanisms have been found in the consciousness as I have shown you in the other thread. This might be a part of the consciousness; who knows, it might even be necessary for a consciousness.

There is no relationship between 'will' and particle state/position or velocity, ...

Judging from past conversations with you, you seem to be a monist. In this case particles are the will.

... apart from the fact that everything in the universe is composed of collapsed wave/particles.

Even if we knew that wave function collapse theories were true - which is controversial - why would you say that everything is collapsed? Surely there must be much that isn't collapsed.

 

[ryan]

Indeterminism is exactly how we would expect to see free will behave.

A coherent will requires that the system always works in the same way, ignoring some minor random noise. That is, a mostly deterministic system.

Why does free will have to be coherent?

If by "coherent" you mean mechanically coherent, then I am not sure. I am not a big fan of compatibilism.

It might be random for everything/everybody except for the agent. The agent would be the one making the choice.

 

[Juma]

A coherent will requires that the system always works in the same way, ignoring some minor random noise. That is, a mostly deterministic system.

Why does free will have to be coherent?

If by "coherent" you mean mechanically coherent, then I am not sure. I am not a big fan of compatibilism.

It might be random for everything/everybody except for the agent. The agent would be the one making the choice.

And surely the agent want to have control over what choices it makes?

 

[ryan]

Why does free will have to be coherent?

If by "coherent" you mean mechanically coherent, then I am not sure. I am not a big fan of compatibilism.

It might be random for everything/everybody except for the agent. The agent would be the one making the choice.

And surely the agent want to have control over what choices it makes?

The agent and the control may be inherently related, or they may be the same thing.

 

[Juma]

And surely the agent want to have control over what choices it makes?

The agent and the control may be inherently related, or they may be the same thing.

That is dualism.

 

[ryan]

The agent and the control may be inherently related, or they may be the same thing.

That is dualism.

The former might be, but it is not necessarily mind body dualism. There are scientifically accepted forms of dualism, such as property dualism: wave/particle duality, fundamental particles having multiple intrinsic properties, hole argument, spacetime, etc.

And if control and agency are the same thing, then it is monistic.

 

[freshie23]

Look at what differentiates humans from animals: choice. Unlike animals, whose behavior is embedded solely on instinct, not choice, we have both. We must make choices every day, yet to a certain point we're still influenced by our instincts - how much we can guess.

 

[DBT]

My point was that if you and I are only an illusion we cannot be holding that illusion ourselves. An illusion that holds an illusion sounds to me more like a delusion.

The illusion of free will stems from the disconnect between unconscious neural processes, which shape and form all conscious experience, and conscious experience that is aware of thoughts and decisions and urges to act, but is not aware of the unconscious production that is generating conscious experience of self and conscious decision making. In other words, it is not conscious self or consciousness that is performing the calculations behind decisions made, but the physical state of the system. The physical state of the system determining all experiences, decision, behaviours and motor actions.

Which is why many neuroscientists consider the term 'free will' to be irrelevant.

 

[DBT]

Even if we knew that wave function collapse theories were true - which is controversial - why would you say that everything is collapsed? Surely there must be much that isn't collapsed.

That is what experiments like the double slit and superposition have shown, that wave function distributed between two boxes (in superposition), once observed, a particle is present in one box but not the other, and remains a particle for all observers. But if not observed, both boxes display wave interference behaviour (double slit) and wave function/superposition remains distributed between the two boxes. The act of observation collapses wave function: Bells Inequality/Theorem, Clauser's initial experiments having been confirmed, reality and separability, etc, etc.

Another interpretation being that wave function is not 'collapsing' but expressing particle position in an alternative world, the many worlds interpretation.

Take your pick, or construct another interpretation, it makes no difference....the observer does indeed effect wave function collapse or expression (MW), or whatever, but the observer cannot manipulate quantum behaviour, particle position, state, polarity, etc, according to his or her act of will.

Your decisions and your will are performed by complex collections and interactions particles that act as an information processor, producing both consciousness and will not functioning in a way that is willed, this being the role of architecture/biology.