Compatibilism: What's that About?

[pood]

This should be a clean version:

Marvin,

I think we mostly agree here, though perhaps are using slightly different terminology.


I am skeptical of the idea of causal necessity. This is also called physical or nomological necessity, and I don’t believe it exists. Necessity pertains entirely to logic, I think. It is necessarily true that triangles have three sides. It is necessarily true that bachelors are unmarried. It is necessarily true that two plus two equals four, and so on. It is not necessarily true that I will have breakfast tomorrow, even if God foreknows I will or if there is a true prior proposition that I will.

Except for the “universal causal/necessity” part, I agree with you on this:

Most of the time, when we use the term "inevitable", it means that matters are out of our control, and that there is nothing we can do about it. But in the context of universal causal necessity/inevitability, the inevitability incorporates our control within the overall scheme of causation.

For example, there is a hypothesis, due to Minkowski/Einstein but mostly Minkowski, that we live in a block universe in the sense that the past, present and future all exist. If this is true, it would render the future as unchangeable as the past.

But does mean we lack relevant free will? I don’t think so. We don’t complain that we lack free will because the past is fixed. If the future if fixed, why should it be any different?

If past, present and future are indeed fixed, it means, when it comes to us, that they were, are, and will be, fixed by our actions. It may indeed be the case that no one can change the past, present or future. But I would suggest that changing past, present, or future, is not a prerequisite for relevant free will. Rather, our free acts made the past be what it was, make the present be what it is, and will make the future be, what it will be.

There does not seem to be a preview post function here?

The Preview button is in the upper right corner. The icon looks like a piece of paper with a magnifying glass. It's a toggle, so clicking it again returns to edit mode.

The block universe is a bit of fiction used to depict a deterministic universe. No such block exists in empirical reality. Time is the distance between events. Events are changes in the structure and location of objects. No object can be in different places at the same time, we simply do not have room for that.

No event is fully caused until its final prior causes have played themselves out. The meaningful causes are usually the most direct causes of the event. As we trace the causes of causes back through the chain, each cause becomes less meaningful and less relevant, and more incidental.

So, nothing in the future is already fixed. Causal necessity only means that future events will be necessitated by prior events. And that seems to be the case when we look around us at what is happening and the most recent history of the prior events leading up to the current events. In fact, we may view history as the proof of causal necessity.

The necessity you were describing is called "logical necessity". And just like it is logically necessary that 2 + 2 = 4, it is also logically necessary that every choosing operation begins with at least two real possibilities, two things that we can choose to do. For example, when choosing between A and B, it is logically necessary that "I can choose A" must be true and equally necessary that "I can choose B" is also true. If either is false, then choosing halts, because it is impossible to choose between a single possibility.

So, "I can choose A" and "I can choose B" must both be true statements, by logical necessity. And, at the end of our choosing operation, this guarantees that we end up with one "I will choose X" (A or B) and one "I could have chosen Y" (B or A).

The ability to do otherwise comes built-in, free of charge, with the choosing operation.

If I shift my weight to my left leg, and lift my right leg, then I will necessarily take one step. This is not a logical necessity, but a physical necessity. If I choose to walk to the kitchen, then I will necessarily walk to the kitchen. That is neither a logical nor a physical necessity, but rather a rational necessity, brought about by my reasoned choice to go there.

Ah, I see, Mystery Meat navigation! (This is what a prominent designer once used to describe employing enigmatic icons on the web to describe simple functions. My suggestion would be to just have words saying, “Preview Post.”

Anyway, will respond later. Right now I’m dealing with a drunk who wants to know my favorite color. I told him yellow, but he is not happy with that response.

 

[none]

Yep, sure..was in San Anton' you know nice weather that time of year around the river... you know just off downtown and there was a big sign
something to do with Healthcare doctors
And on each table was a bottle of wine
Go figure, drunks

 

[pood]

Thanks for your input, none .

 

[none]

Your welcome.

 

[pood]

That would be “you’re,” not “your.”

 

[none]

Yeah, details.. care to start over?

 

[pood]

Yeah, details.. care to start over?

No. I don’t even know what you are on about. On an up note, the guy who was a bit in the bag and whose favorite color is blue bought one of my blue artworks for 300 bucks, so that is cool.

 

[none]

yeah memes are popular.

 

[DBT]

I take it by "has been demonstrated" and "have been given", you're referring to some incident where you blerk-will debaters, after borrowing a word from the broader community and redefining it under the baleful influence of a theistic religion and using it to commit equivocation fallacies, and after some in the broader community took back our word and used it correctly, told us you own the word now.

No. Considering neuroscience, numerous experiments, case studies, lesions, memory loss, etc, it's clear that will is not means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response....

That's ridiculous. I considered whether to click your link, and then, by act of will, I clicked it -- and that's how I acquired the information that it's a dead link. "404 Not Found The resource requested could not be found on this server!". Of course will is means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response.

What is ridiculous is that you are simply labeling your ability to respond ''free will.'' The ability to respond is enabled by neural networks processing information, not ''will'' - especially not ''free will'' for the given reasons.


How Can There Be Voluntary Movement Without Free Will?

''Humans do not appear to be purely reflexive organisms, simple automatons. A vast array of different movements are generated in a variety of settings. Is there an alternative to free will? Movement, in the final analysis, comes only from muscle contraction. Muscle contraction is under the complete control of the alpha motoneurons in the spinal cord.

When the alpha motoneurons are active, there will be movement. Activity of the alpha motoneurons is a product of the different synaptic events on their dendrites and cell bodies. There is a complex summation of EPSPs and IPSPs, and when the threshold for an action potential is crossed, the cell fires.

There are a large number of important inputs, and one of the most important is from the corticospinal tract which conveys a large part of the cortical control. Such a situation likely holds also for the motor cortex and the cells of origin of the corticospinal tract. Their firing depends on their synaptic inputs. And, a similar situation must hold for all the principal regions giving input to the motor cortex.

For any cortical region, its activity will depend on its synaptic inputs. Some motor cortical inputs come via only a few synapses from sensory cortices, and such influences on motor output are clear. Some inputs will come from regions, such as the limbic areas, many synapses away from both primary sensory and motor cortices. At any one time, the activity of the motor cortex, and its commands to the spinal cord, will reflect virtually all the activity in the entire brain. Is it necessary that there be anything else? This can be a complete description of the process of movement selection, and even if there is something more -- like free will -- it would have to operate through such neuronal mechanisms.

The view that there is no such thing as free will as an inner causal agent has been advocated by a number of philosophers, scientistsand neurologists including Ryle, Adrian, Skinner and Fisher

 

[DBT]

1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise

2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control

3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible

4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable

5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

1. Does it? Or does it merely require that she would have acted otherwise, given different antecedent circumstances? There is a difference between “would” and “could.

Different antecedent circumstances produce different outcomes, that is the point.

That how things unfold within a determined system is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Will, itself an inseparable part of the weave of determinism, cannot alter outcomes.

1. I believe this is a non sequitur. I would say, rather, that free will depends upon determinism. To me, determinism just means that there are regularities in the world that are described, but not prescribed, by the so-called laws of nature. For sentient creatures to exist at all there must be regularities so that we can reliably predict the outcomes of our free acts. A world of unpredictable chaos would probably not have life at all, at least not life as we know it, to borrow from Mr. Spock.

Free will is a label being pasted upon one aspect of events that are fixed as a matter of natural law. Events unfold as they are determined. That we act without without being forced by someone doesn't mean we aren't being pressured, shaped and formed and swept along by the events of the world.

The feeling of being a 'free agent' doesn't take into account all of the elements that make us who we are, but have no control over....which is the illusion of conscious or 'free' will. We have will, which is not free will.

 

[DBT]

Yes, that is the role of will. But unfortunately for those who argue for free will, will itself doesn't run the show. The role that will plays is the prompt, the will to act.

That doesn't make our will free. It's just another cognitive function.

Nothing special in the scheme of things.

The brain chooses what it will do. The chosen intent then motivates and directs the body as it carries out that will.

The "free" part of free will simply means that, during the choosing of the will, we were not coerced or unduly influenced.

The brain acquires and processes information, 'selecting' the only possible action from a set of options in any given moment in time.

The unconscious action of response being determined by information conditions, inputs, architecture, chemical balance, etc, in that moment in time, is not an act of will, certainly not 'free will.'

Having nothing to do with will, be it conscious or not, it is incorrect to label the action of a brain processing information for a determined result, 'free will'

The illusionary nature of cognition;


Quote:
we presented evidence that the brain, when tricked by optical and sensory illusions, can quickly adopt another human form as its own, no matter how different it is. We designed two experiments. In the first one, the researchers fitted the head of a mannequin with two cameras connected to two small screens placed in front of the volunteer's eyes, so that the volunteer could see what the mannequin ''saw.''

When the mannequin's camera eyes and the volunteer's head, complete with the camera goggles, were directed downwards, the volunteer saw the dummy's body where he or she would normally have seen his or her own body. By simultaneously touching the stomachs of both the volunteer and the mannequin, we could create the illusion of body swapping.

 

[steve_bank]

Can what we see as free will be just a higher order of reflexivity?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

Yes, that is the role of will. But unfortunately for those who argue for free will, will itself doesn't run the show. The role that will plays is the prompt, the will to act.

That doesn't make our will free. It's just another cognitive function.

Nothing special in the scheme of things.

The brain chooses what it will do. The chosen intent then motivates and directs the body as it carries out that will.

The "free" part of free will simply means that, during the choosing of the will, we were not coerced or unduly influenced.

The brain acquires and processes information, 'selecting' the only possible action from a set of options in any given moment in time.

The unconscious action of response being determined by information conditions, inputs, architecture, chemical balance, etc, in that moment in time, is not an act of will, certainly not 'free will.'

Having nothing to do with will, be it conscious or not, it is incorrect to label the action of a brain processing information for a determined result, 'free will'

The illusionary nature of cognition;


Quote:
we presented evidence that the brain, when tricked by optical and sensory illusions, can quickly adopt another human form as its own, no matter how different it is. We designed two experiments. In the first one, the researchers fitted the head of a mannequin with two cameras connected to two small screens placed in front of the volunteer's eyes, so that the volunteer could see what the mannequin ''saw.''

When the mannequin's camera eyes and the volunteer's head, complete with the camera goggles, were directed downwards, the volunteer saw the dummy's body where he or she would normally have seen his or her own body. By simultaneously touching the stomachs of both the volunteer and the mannequin, we could create the illusion of body swapping.

In the experiment, the only point where choosing happens is before the experiment begins, when the subject chooses to participate. Assuming the subject volunteered, and was not coerced or unduly influenced to participate, that choice was of their own free will (that is, they chose for themselves what they will do, while free of coercion and undue influence).

Your quoted experiment is an example of an induced illusion, in which "the brain, when tricked by optical and sensory illusions" reaches some odd conclusions. This is similar to the Phantom Limb effect.

The brain organizes sensory data into a model of reality. When the model is accurate enough to be useful, as when we navigate our body through a doorway, then this is called "reality", because the model is our only access to reality. But when the model is inaccurate enough to cause problems, as when we walk into a glass door, thinking it was open. Then that is called an "illusion".

To say that cognition is always an illusion, suggests that the brain is unable to produce an accurate model of reality. If that were the case, then we'd be unable to walk through a doorway, because we would be unable to perceive ourselves as ourselves, and to perceive the doorway as a doorway. So, the correct thing to say is that cognition is always a model, not that it is always an illusion.

 

[DBT]

How does that work within a determined system?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

I take it by "has been demonstrated" and "have been given", you're referring to some incident where you blerk-will debaters, after borrowing a word from the broader community and redefining it under the baleful influence of a theistic religion and using it to commit equivocation fallacies, and after some in the broader community took back our word and used it correctly, told us you own the word now.

No. Considering neuroscience, numerous experiments, case studies, lesions, memory loss, etc, it's clear that will is not means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response....

That's ridiculous. I considered whether to click your link, and then, by act of will, I clicked it -- and that's how I acquired the information that it's a dead link. "404 Not Found The resource requested could not be found on this server!". Of course will is means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response.

What is ridiculous is that you are simply labeling your ability to respond ''free will.'' The ability to respond is enabled by neural networks processing information, not ''will'' - especially not ''free will'' for the given reasons.


How Can There Be Voluntary Movement Without Free Will?

''Humans do not appear to be purely reflexive organisms, simple automatons. A vast array of different movements are generated in a variety of settings. Is there an alternative to free will? Movement, in the final analysis, comes only from muscle contraction. Muscle contraction is under the complete control of the alpha motoneurons in the spinal cord.

When the alpha motoneurons are active, there will be movement. Activity of the alpha motoneurons is a product of the different synaptic events on their dendrites and cell bodies. There is a complex summation of EPSPs and IPSPs, and when the threshold for an action potential is crossed, the cell fires.

There are a large number of important inputs, and one of the most important is from the corticospinal tract which conveys a large part of the cortical control. Such a situation likely holds also for the motor cortex and the cells of origin of the corticospinal tract. Their firing depends on their synaptic inputs. And, a similar situation must hold for all the principal regions giving input to the motor cortex.

For any cortical region, its activity will depend on its synaptic inputs. Some motor cortical inputs come via only a few synapses from sensory cortices, and such influences on motor output are clear. Some inputs will come from regions, such as the limbic areas, many synapses away from both primary sensory and motor cortices. At any one time, the activity of the motor cortex, and its commands to the spinal cord, will reflect virtually all the activity in the entire brain. Is it necessary that there be anything else? This can be a complete description of the process of movement selection, and even if there is something more -- like free will -- it would have to operate through such neuronal mechanisms.

The view that there is no such thing as free will as an inner causal agent has been advocated by a number of philosophers, scientistsand neurologists including Ryle, Adrian, Skinner and Fisher

One of the problems the authors of that article will encounter is that the word "voluntary" is defined in the OED by repeatedly using the notion of "free will". For example:

A. adj.
I. Characterized by free will or choice; freely done or bestowed.

 

[Marvin Edwards]

1. Free will requires that given an act A, the agent could have acted otherwise

2. Indeterminate actions happens randomly and without intent or control

3. Therefore indeterminism and free will are incompatible

4. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable

5. Therefore determinism is incompatible with free will

1. Does it? Or does it merely require that she would have acted otherwise, given different antecedent circumstances? There is a difference between “would” and “could.

Different antecedent circumstances produce different outcomes, that is the point.

That how things unfold within a determined system is fixed as a matter of natural law.

Will, itself an inseparable part of the weave of determinism, cannot alter outcomes.

1. I believe this is a non sequitur. I would say, rather, that free will depends upon determinism. To me, determinism just means that there are regularities in the world that are described, but not prescribed, by the so-called laws of nature. For sentient creatures to exist at all there must be regularities so that we can reliably predict the outcomes of our free acts. A world of unpredictable chaos would probably not have life at all, at least not life as we know it, to borrow from Mr. Spock.

Free will is a label being pasted upon one aspect of events that are fixed as a matter of natural law. Events unfold as they are determined. That we act without without being forced by someone doesn't mean we aren't being pressured, shaped and formed and swept along by the events of the world.

The feeling of being a 'free agent' doesn't take into account all of the elements that make us who we are, but have no control over....which is the illusion of conscious or 'free' will. We have will, which is not free will.

In most ordinary dictionaries, free will has two distinct definitions. One can be called the operational definition, and it is used when assessing a person's moral or legal responsibility for their actions. It can be derived from the legal precedents in use as "a choice free of coercion and other forms of undue influence". The other is called the philosophical definition, and it is used to...well, it is only used to generate endless debate. It can be summarized as "a choice free of causal necessity".

Free Will
Merriam-Webster on-line:
1: voluntary choice or decision 'I do this of my own free will'
2: freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

Short Oxford English Dictionary:
1 Spontaneous will, inclination to act without suggestion from others.
2 The power of directing one's own actions unconstrained by necessity or fate.

Wiktionary:
1. A person's natural inclination; unforced choice.
2. (philosophy) The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions, without predestination, fate etc.

 

[Bomb#20]

No. Considering neuroscience, numerous experiments, case studies, lesions, memory loss, etc, it's clear that will is not means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response....

That's ridiculous. I considered whether to click your link, and then, by act of will, I clicked it -- and that's how I acquired the information that it's a dead link. "404 Not Found The resource requested could not be found on this server!". Of course will is means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response.

What is ridiculous is that you are simply labeling your ability to respond ''free will.'' The ability to respond is enabled by neural networks processing information, not ''will'' - especially not ''free will'' for the given reasons.

How do you figure I'm simply "labeling" something "free will"? Please point out where you are quoting from in your quotation of my words. Are you now claiming you own the word "will" too, and redefining it as a synonym for "free will"? Are you claiming there's no such thing as an act of will? Just how much of the English language are you planning to torpedo?

 

[Marvin Edwards]

No. Considering neuroscience, numerous experiments, case studies, lesions, memory loss, etc, it's clear that will is not means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response....

That's ridiculous. I considered whether to click your link, and then, by act of will, I clicked it -- and that's how I acquired the information that it's a dead link. "404 Not Found The resource requested could not be found on this server!". Of course will is means by which the brain acquires and processes information and generates response.

What is ridiculous is that you are simply labeling your ability to respond ''free will.'' The ability to respond is enabled by neural networks processing information, not ''will'' - especially not ''free will'' for the given reasons.

How do you figure I'm simply "labeling" something "free will"? Please point out where you are quoting from in your quotation of my words. Are you now claiming you own the word "will" too, and redefining it as a synonym for "free will"? Are you claiming there's no such thing as an act of will? Just how much of the English language are you planning to torpedo?

Excellent point. I like to call it the "incredible shrinking dictionary". First there is no free will. Then there's no responsibility. Then there's no self. And I suppose that once self is gone, there's nobody around to use the dictionary anyway.

 

[Bomb#20]

On the other hand, physics is also a fact of human psychology. And it presumes a reliable cause in everything it describes. It has no facility for describing uncaused events, as they would be irrational.

Why would physics be unable to describe uncaused events? When a photon hits glass it has a 4% chance of being reflected and a 96% chance of passing through. And when you say something can't happen because it's "irrational", you're philosophizing, not doing physics, rather like when astronomers tried to disprove Kepler by calling ellipses imperfect. "Irrational" is a property of decisions, not events.

... of staying up longer than about five seconds, even if no external horizontal forces act on it other than the table's reaction to the horizontal component of the force exerted by the pencil on the table due to compression of the pencil along its axis due to the earth's gravitational attraction of the pencil and the table's electrical repulsion of the pencil, because the pencil's finite momentum guarantees it has nonzero uncertainty in the positions of its upper and lower ends, which in turn guarantees that the horizontal component of the compression vector along its length cannot be exactly zero.

Well, that was a quick turnabout from "even if no external horizontal forces act on it" to "other than" a list of forces acting upon it.

"Turnaround". That is rather the point. It's an "equal and opposite reaction" to a horizontal force from the pencil itself: a force that as far as we can tell is completely random.

And, of course, "the pencil's finite momentum guarantees it has nonzero uncertainty" reminds us that uncertainty is a matter of missing knowledge, and not a matter of unreliable causation.

Not according to QM. Uncertainty in QM is not a matter of missing knowledge; there is simply no fact of the matter to be known or unknown. The uncertainty in the position times the uncertainty in the momentum is never less than Planck's Constant. So whenever the uncertainty in the momentum is less than infinity, the pencil does not have a position more precise than a certain positive distance.

This goes beyond not discovering a cause. We haven't even been able to come up with a fantasy guess at any hypothetical something that could possibly cause it if that something were real -- never mind whether we can discover evidence for that something actually existing and actually causing quantum events.

Well, there is always the "God of the gaps".

Which is pretty much what determinists sound like when they talk about quantum mechanics. It's Cause of the Gaps.

He just says, "My GPS would still work, same as always. Time slowing down is just an illusion due to our movement in the Lorentz Ether." And then he can run the numbers and show the LET calculations and prove his GPS still works.

Oh. So the Lorentz Ether was the "God of the gaps". Cool.

Well, it would have been, if "Goddidit" were a differential equation that allowed us to predict what we'd see in an experiment.

I.e., the force of the earth on the moon is propagated from the one to the other -- it's mediated by physical events we can describe and quantify taking place at every point between the two.

So, if we had an explanation like that for quantum entanglement then physicists would no longer find it spooky. Actually, an explanation as to why it happens is unnecessary. It is sufficient that it reliably happens in order for it to qualify as a common law of physics.

Exactly. But what we observe to happen reliably is not an event -- it's a statistical correlation between two or more events. If X happens on this side of the lab then there's an elevated probability of Y happening on that side of the lab. So the statement of probabilities qualifies as a common law of physics. But X and Y individually are unreliable.

This poses a big problem to anybody trying to come up with a deterministic model of the phenomenon. If we assume there's some prior event W that's a cause of X, then W becomes a potential point for intervention by the experimenter. If she can do something to make W happen or not happen, that will change the odds of X happening. But there's a reliable correlation between X and Y, so changing the odds of X will change the odds of Y. And when the odds of Y happening are changed, that will be observable on that side of the lab, simply by measuring the frequency of Y. So an observer on that side of the lab can tell whether the experimenter on this side of the lab is making W happen. I.e., if there's some prior event W that's a cause of X, then it seems this will make it possible to send a message from this side of the lab to that side of the lab, faster than the speed of light. But according to Relativity, you can't send a message any faster than light. This is why it's so difficult mathematically to reconcile Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and Determinism. "Pick any two."

The theory of predictability is that every effect is reliably caused. It's that ordinary notion of reliable "cause and effect".

That's not a theory. For it to be a theory you'd have to be able to get a testable prediction out of it.

But reliable cause and effect is very testable. We all test it every day and in everything we do. We move one foot forward and shift our weight and walk to the kitchen and back. That's reliable causation in every step.

It is the opposing theory, that some events are uncaused, that has yet to be demonstrated with experimental evidence.

It looks like you're using "reliable" in two different senses. For philosophizing about determinism, you use it to mean "metaphysical certainty". But for testing your hypothesis, you're using it to mean "able to be relied on". But we rely on uncertain things all the time. If there's a 99.99% chance that our foot will hold our weight, that's plenty good enough to rely on being able to walk to the kitchen and back. And people do that -- we rely on it -- even though sometimes we fall down. Whether the 0.01% chance of falling results from true randomness or merely chaotic cause and effect makes no difference to our ability to rely on our feet.

For testing the hypothesis that every effect is reliably caused, you'd need a way to observationally distinguish a true-random fall from a chaotic fall. You don't have that. Therefore "every effect is reliably caused" is not a theory. It's metaphysics.

 

[steve_bank]

Uncertainty relates to what are called conjugate variables. Given two conjugate variables when you try to increase measured formation about one variable the other diminishes.

It is not theoretical or philosophical, it is an experimental fact. It does not mean the universe is uncertain, it means a measurement problem.