Free Will And Free Choice

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Is there nothing inbetween? Only 'free will' - whatever that is supposed to be - and 'automatons?'

Well, perhaps you could explain what being half automatic would look like, and what physiological system would accommodate this state?

The ability to acquire information and respond to it is a matter of brain architecture and senses. Response comes automatically. That is what a brain is evolved to do, to process information and respond. The manner of response may be creative, different each time a similar situation or need arises....creative but determined by the information state of the brain in any given instance in time. That is intelligence, not free will.

I think a good analogy wrt automatic response in the brain is chemistry, after all, life is chemistry.

Think of chemical reactions. There isn't anything conscious taking place when chemical bonds come and go, yet the obvious changes are nothing short of extraordinary.

I thought this article was quite intriguing. It's worth the read:

The medications that change who we are.

We’re all familiar with the mind-bending properties of psychedelic drugs – but it turns out ordinary medications can be just as potent. From paracetamol (known as acetaminophen in the US) to antihistamines, statins, asthma medications and antidepressants, there’s emerging evidence that they can make us impulsive, angry, or restless, diminish our empathy for strangers, and even manipulate fundamental aspects of our personalities, such as how neurotic we are.

In most people, these changes are extremely subtle. But in some they can also be dramatic.

I'm convinced simple food choices do the same thing over time.

 

[fromderinside]

T.G. G. Moogly wrote:

I'm convinced simple food choices do the same thing over time.

Unfortunately the first simple food choice is where you are born which undoubtedly has a lot to do with how things go thereafter.

rat tat bumpf

 

[Tigers!]

Is there nothing inbetween? Only 'free will' - whatever that is supposed to be - and 'automatons?'

Well, perhaps you could explain what being half automatic would look like, and what physiological system would accommodate this state?

The ability to acquire information and respond to it is a matter of brain architecture and senses. Response comes automatically. That is what a brain is evolved to do, to process information and respond. The manner of response may be creative, different each time a similar situation or need arises....creative but determined by the information state of the brain in any given instance in time. That is intelligence, not free will.

How can a response be creative when you claim that the information state at any given instance determines the response? Is any response solely determined by the information state of the brain and nothing else?

 

[DBT]

The ability to acquire information and respond to it is a matter of brain architecture and senses. Response comes automatically. That is what a brain is evolved to do, to process information and respond. The manner of response may be creative, different each time a similar situation or need arises....creative but determined by the information state of the brain in any given instance in time. That is intelligence, not free will.

How can a response be creative when you claim that the information state at any given instance determines the response? Is any response solely determined by the information state of the brain and nothing else?

It's an interaction of environment and central nervous system. The brain acquires information from the external world and responds to it, as it has evolved to do.

Each person's brain and life experiences (unique to the individual, strengths, weaknesses, abilities) shapes and form their behaviour.

Not being aware of the brain, conscious self does not choose what the brain is doing, but what the brain is doing is generating conscious experience.

Creativity comes not with 'free will' but neural architecture, complexity and information processing power, recognizing patterns and combining the elements in different ways.

AI can do that without conscousness or will.

 

[Treedbear]

The ability to acquire information and respond to it is a matter of brain architecture and senses. Response comes automatically. That is what a brain is evolved to do, to process information and respond. The manner of response may be creative, different each time a similar situation or need arises....creative but determined by the information state of the brain in any given instance in time. That is intelligence, not free will.

How can a response be creative when you claim that the information state at any given instance determines the response? Is any response solely determined by the information state of the brain and nothing else?

Your inability to understand that is simply because when you have an idea you don't know where it came from. The process is subconscious and therefore a mystery to you. It just occurs to your conscious mind as if out of nowhere. A eureka moment. So you try to explain this by creating some kind of disembodied self that has some thing that is totally unaccounted for called free will. When in fact all it means is that you simply don't know where your idea came from. And the irony is the common claim that this is required for reasoning and for moral responsibility, when in fact reasoning and responsibility are always and inextricably tied to who and what we are and how we came to be that way. Creativity is the process of making small changes to existing concepts in order to adapt them to new circumstances. Not creating something by the mere supernatural act of willing it to come into existence.

 

[DBT]

Even Libets veto function, his attempt to salvage free will, is subject to the same underlying activity. Rather than a free will veto its just a last moment change of mind, a decision was on the point of being made but at the last moment new information came into play.

 

[fromderinside]

The problem isn't with whither will. It's whether cause and effect is singular or even applicable.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

The assumption made by some appears to be: the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will. In which case a computer has free will.

But there also has to be consciousness and desire for it to be a free-will choice.

The computer/machine might select an option, but it's not conscious of making this selection, and it has no desire for one option over another. It has no desires at all, but just makes the selection without desiring it (or desiring anything) or being conscious of what it is selecting.

We can't be absolutely certain that the machine has no consciousness or desire, but we believe it has none, and this belief is probably correct.

We have to believe in "other minds" in order to believe others have consciousness and desire. But everyone does automatically believe in "other minds." E.g., here in the message board no one would post anything if they didn't believe other posters have minds. It's a contradiction to say in a post that you don't believe others posting here have "minds" like you have. You can't post something without assuming others have minds. The "other minds" are those you're posting it to.

 

[DBT]

The assumption made by some appears to be: the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will. In which case a computer has free will.

But there also has to be consciousness and desire for it to be a free-will choice.

The computer/machine might select an option, but it's not conscious of making this selection, and it has no desire for one option over another. It has no desires at all, but just makes the selection without desiring it (or desiring anything) or being conscious of what it is selecting.

We can't be absolutely certain that the machine has no consciousness or desire, but we believe it has none, and this belief is probably correct.

We have to believe in "other minds" in order to believe others have consciousness and desire. But everyone does automatically believe in "other minds." E.g., here in the message board no one would post anything if they didn't believe other posters have minds. It's a contradiction to say in a post that you don't believe others posting here have "minds" like you have. You can't post something without assuming others have minds. The "other minds" are those you're posting it to.

Decision making doesn't depend on consciousness. Unconscious information processing precedes conscious report by milliseconds. The sequence being: inputs, propagation of information, processing, conscious activity in the form of perception and thought. Information in, behaviour output. A decision is only as good as the available information and the processor, neural architecture. Will is not the driver.

 

[fromderinside]

Is there nothing inbetween? Only 'free will' - whatever that is supposed to be - and 'automatons?'

Well, perhaps you could explain what being half automatic would look like, and what physiological system would accommodate this state?

For one to have free will there would be there would be a available a choice to do otherwise. If things were determined then at t things following are determined. Can anyone show that what takes place after time t can be otherwise?

Perhaps In a many worlds situation possibly since all possibilities are always represented.

Nobody has to date ever shown that other worlds are represented. Only the consequences of previous activity are can be found.

That suggests to me that for any one person there is only one world. However that does not mean that all possible worlds are being enacted? All that is known is that only one world is there for one.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

2nd try:

The assumption made by some appears to be: the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will. In which case a computer has free will.

No, that's not really the "assumption made by some"

It's not just "the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will."

Rather, it's

"the ability of a conscious being to make decisions/select an option from a set of alternatives is an instance of free will"

A computer can select an option, but isn't conscious, so when it chooses an option it's not free will.

But if somehow that computer was conscious, and it chose the option, then it's free will. Because when any conscious being chooses an option, it's free will.

 

[untermensche]

A computer can give a robot instructions to pour a glass of coke.

The computer does not know what a robot is or what a coke is or what pouring is.

It is not conscious.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

"free will" vs. coercion

and "instructions"

A computer can give a robot instructions to pour a glass of coke.

The computer does not know what a robot is or what a coke is or what pouring is.

It is not conscious.

Right, so when it "chooses" to obey the instructions, it's not free will. But if a conscious entity follows instructions to do it, it's an act of free will.

So the general assumption folks make, or what they understand when they speak of "free will" is that the one doing an act is conscious and has "the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives" -- and that act, or ability to do it is an instance of free will.

But what about "instructions" containing THREATS?

freedom to choose: And "ability to do it" means there's nothing intimidating them to select an option by threatening to make them worse off than they would be if this intimidating one didn't exist. I.e., if someone "intimidates" them by simply offering them something which they can refuse without being made worse off than they would have been if there had been no offer, then it's free will, or a free choice.

force: BUT -- if the intimidating one makes them worse off by offering the "choice" to them, by threatening them if they don't make the correct choice/selection demanded by the intimidator -- i.e., so the one to choose would have been better off if the intimidator had not existed -- then the choice being made is "coerced" or "forced" and is not a free-will choice.

 

[DBT]

2nd try:

The assumption made by some appears to be: the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will. In which case a computer has free will.

No, that's not really the "assumption made by some"

It's not just "the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will."

Rather, it's

"the ability of a conscious being to make decisions/select an option from a set of alternatives is an instance of free will"

A computer can select an option, but isn't conscious, so when it chooses an option it's not free will.

But if somehow that computer was conscious, and it chose the option, then it's free will. Because when any conscious being chooses an option, it's free will.

Being conscious or unconscious doesn't alter the ability to select from a set of options based on a set of criteria.

Someone may be conscious but not have the ability to reason or make rational decisions: cognitive dysfunction, memory loss, etc.

The point being, the real work of information processing happens unconsciously prior to conscious report.

Your experience of making decisions comes from that underlying information processing activity, and not your conscious state or your conscious will.

Which is why someone may be conscious but unable to make reasonable decisions, unable to select options based on the given criteria.

Which is bwsically why 'free will' is an illusion.

 

[rousseau]

Are we an unfree ghost in a machine, or are we a living organism that experiences and responds to the world in a specific way?

Does a bird get angsty over being a bird? Do people that don't spend too much time on internet forums get angsty over being human?

 

[DBT]

We respond in ways that are specific to our own makeup and Information base, inputs, outputs, the state of our parallel information processor, the brain.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

consciousness + select an option = free will

regardless what influenced the selection of this vs. that option

2nd try:

The assumption made by some appears to be: the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will. In which case a computer has free will.

No, that's not really the "assumption made by some"

It's not just "the ability to make decisions/select an option from a set of realizable alternatives, is an instance of free will."

Rather, it's

"the ability of a conscious being to make decisions/select an option from a set of alternatives is an instance of free will"

A computer can select an option, but isn't conscious, so when it chooses an option it's not free will.

But if somehow that computer was conscious, and it chose the option, then it's free will. Because when any conscious being chooses an option, it's free will.

Being conscious or unconscious doesn't alter the ability to select from a set of options based on a set of criteria.

So if you sign a contract while you're unconscious, that doesn't reduce your ability to select an option? (e.g. you're hypnotized, or better -- drugged)? In a drugged state you have more ability to make the decision than if you were not drugged? That's debatable.

Even if it's true that being unconscious sometimes increases your ability to select, still that doesn't change the fact that "free will" means you did the selection while being conscious.

So choosing "freely" or according to "free will" means that you selected while being conscious, or that you're a conscious entity doing the selection, not a computer or robot.

So it doesn't matter if something subconscious influenced your choice; what makes it a "free" choice, or a free-will choice, is that you are conscious when making the selection.

So a conscious being making a selection is a case of free will, which is not what a machine is doing when it makes a selection. Selecting an option without being conscious is not a case of free will, whereas doing it while being conscious is a case of free will. Selecting and being conscious -- the two together simultaneously -- is what "free will" means.

Someone may be conscious but not have the ability to reason or make rational decisions: cognitive dysfunction, memory loss, etc.

Maybe, in some cases. But in other cases, being conscious improves one's ability to reason or make rational decisions. And one can reasonably give preference (or can defer) to those decisions made when the ability is improved, or the mind is healthier. E.g., a drunk, who is impaired but still conscious, may choose at that time to let someone else make the decisions.

But even if being conscious doesn't improve the decision-making, still a "free" act is one made by a being which is conscious. If it's only a machine, non-conscious, selecting an option, then it's not free will. Whereas if it's a conscious entity doing the selection, then it's a free-will choice.

Maybe in some cases the free-will choice is less reasonable than that of a non-conscious entity. Depends on the particular kind of choice being made. But "free will" means it's a conscious entity selecting an option. As opposed to a machine selecting.

The point being, the real work of information processing happens unconsciously prior to conscious report.

Maybe in some cases. But it's the consciousness plus the selecting an option which makes it "free will"

"the real work of information processing happens unconsciously" just means the consciousness, or the free will, is influenced by something prior. Even so, "free will" means someone is choosing and is conscious of making a choice, or selection, regardless what influences the will or the consciousness, or what programmed it earlier to make this or that choice.

Your experience of making decisions comes from that underlying information processing activity, and not your conscious state or your conscious will.

Maybe. But what makes the decision "free" is that you're conscious of making the decision when you make it. Regardless what "processed" the consciousness or will to make the decision or select one option over another. And it's a "free" choice if there's no threat from someone to do you harm for making this or that decision and which would make you worse off than if that someone had not threatened you.

Which is why someone may be conscious but unable to make reasonable decisions, unable to select options based on the given criteria.

But "unable to make a reasonable decision" is a judgment which only a conscious being can make. The conscious decision-maker at some point is the only one capable of judging what "unable to select options" means, or when it's "unable" or "able" to do it.

Only that conscious decision-maker can judge that the ability of the mind to decide increases or decreases according to certain conditions.

There are cases where the same individual can overrule him/herself at a different time. E.g., the sober individual at one point might overrule the intoxicated individual (same person) at another time. So we change, even become a "different person" from one point to the next. But mostly we keep our same preferences over time, or over limited time periods.

Whatever -- the "free will" means we're conscious of our selecting an option, unlike the machine making a selection. Regardless when the processing takes place which influences the choice.

Which is basically why 'free will' is an illusion.

No, that's a non-sequitur. It's no illusion. If we're conscious when we make our decision, it's a case of free will. It's real. But also we don't know everything going on in our mind or brain, and all the cell activity going in to the choosing process. But even so, it's a "free" choice, and if we learn still more, then it might influence our future decisions. Learning more can change us. But even so, we're still making "free" choices if we select an option and we're conscious.

 

[DBT]

regardless what influenced the selection of this vs. that option

Being conscious or unconscious doesn't alter the ability to select from a set of options based on a set of criteria.

So if you sign a contract while you're unconscious, that doesn't reduce your ability to select an option? (e.g. you're hypnotized, or better -- drugged)? In a drugged state you have more ability to make the decision than if you were not drugged? That's debatable.

I don't want to deal with your walls of text or multiple points that grow exponentially, I don't have the time or patience.

As for your objections. A computer program, algorithms, is able to select options on the basis of sets of of criteria and initiate actions based on the decisions made, sign contracts, switch machinery on or off, driverless cars, play chess, etc, etc, without being conscious.

Somebody can be conscious, yet unable to do any of these things.

The ability to select options and initiate actions is not reliant on being conscious.

It is the underlying neural architecture and unconscious information processing that not only enables decision making, but determines the results, the decisions that are made according to information exchange between cells and networks.

This is not 'free will.' It is information processing.

 

[Lumpenproletariat]

processing the information + consciousness = free will

I don't want to deal with your walls of text or multiple points that grow exponentially, I don't have the time or patience.

Calm down. No one is forcing you. You have free will to choose not to deal with it. By choosing not to deal with it you are proving that you have free will.

And I choose, with my free will, to deal with your wall of text, point by point:

As for your objections. A computer program, algorithms, is able to select options on the basis of sets of of criteria and initiate actions based on the decisions made, sign contracts, switch machinery on or off, driverless cars, play chess, etc, etc, without being conscious.

Yes, which is why it does NOT have free will when it makes those selections. But some other entity making such selections and also having consciousness is thereby exercising free will. So making decisions PLUS HAVING CONSCIOUSNESS = free will.

Somebody can be conscious, yet unable to do any of these things.

Or ABLE to do these things. If they do both, then it's free will. I.e., conscious AND making decisions. And there are such entities doing both, like humans. Like you choosing not to answer my walls of text.

The ability to select options and initiate actions is not reliant on being conscious.

Sometimes it is. When both are happening -- consciousness and selecting options -- that's free will.

It is the underlying neural architecture and unconscious information processing that not only enables decision making, but determines the results, the decisions that are made according to information exchange between cells and networks.

No matter what enables the decision-making -- when it happens and the decision-maker also has consciousness, that is free will. But when it happens without the decision-maker being conscious, then that's not free will.

This is not 'free will.' It is information processing.

If it happens simultaneously along with consciousness, then it's free will.

If the one processing the information has consciousness while doing this, then it's free will. Such as when you process the information and choose the option to not respond to my walls of text, it's free will, because you're conscious that you're doing this processing.

Or do you claim you're not conscious as you type your walls of text?

 

[DBT]

Calm down. No one is forcing you.

Irrelevant. I'm pointing out that you are notorious for your walls of text. Why bother taking the trouble to write walls of text that nobody want to read or respond to? You waste your own time. Keeping it brief and to the point is to your benefit.

You have free will to choose not to deal with it. By choosing not to deal with it you are proving that you have free will.

And I choose, with my free will, to deal with your wall of text, point by point:

I'm inclined to say that you can't help yourself. For you, walls of text are inevitable. When challenged you try to keep it brief in an attempt to prove you have 'free will' but prove the opposite, that you are reacting to stimuli.

Plus you miss the point. Which is: decision making is not free will. You are equivocating. Computers are able to select options and initiate response based on the selected option. The ability to make decisions is not 'free will,' it is decision making.

If the one processing the information has consciousness while doing this, then it's free will. Such as when you process the information and choose the option to not respond to my walls of text, it's free will, because you're conscious that you're doing this processing.

Or do you claim you're not conscious as you type your walls of text?

The point is that there is no conscious activity without the underlying underlying information processing activity. That without prior unconscious information processing there is no conscious activity, no conscious thought and response.

Which is why some may be conscious but not able to think clearly or reason, and why algorithms and unconscious processing is able to select options and initiate response, driverless cars, chess moves, etc, etc.

Your conscious abilities are only as good as the state of the underlying system, your brain.

Quote:
When it comes to the human brain, even the simplest of acts can be counter-intuitive and deceptively complicated. For example, try stretching your arm.

Nerves in the limb send messages back to your brain, but the subjective experience you have of stretching isn't due to these signals. The feeling that you willed your arm into motion, and the realisation that you moved it at all, are both the result of an area at the back of your brain called the posterior parietal cortex. This region helped to produce the intention to move, and predicted what the movement would feel like, all before you twitched a single muscle.

Michel Desmurget and a team of French neuroscientists arrived at this conclusion by stimulating the brains of seven people with electrodes, while they underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. When Desmurget stimulated the parietal cortex, the patients felt a strong desire to move their arms, hands, feet or lips, although they never actually did. Stronger currents cast a powerful illusion, convincing the patients that they had actually moved, even though recordings of electrical activity in their muscles said otherwise.

But when Desmurget stimulated a different region - the premotor cortex - he found the opposite effect. The patients moved their hands, arms or mouths without realising it. One of them flexed his left wrist, fingers and elbow and rotated his forearm, but was completely unaware of it. When his surgeons asked if he felt anything, he said no. Higher currents evoked stronger movements, but still the patients remained blissfully unaware that their limbs and lips were budging.''