In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[DBT]

Ryan, I found an article by a theoretical physicist which gives a brief but good outline of the problem with free will in relation to physics, I hope this link helps.

The article lists 10 misconceptions in regard to the subject of free will.

As a sample;

Fact 2: All known fundamental laws of nature are either deterministic or random. To our best present knowledge, the universe evolves in a mixture of both, but just exactly how that mixture looks like will not be relevant in the following.


Having said that, I need to explain just exactly what I mean by the absence of free will:

a) If your future decisions are determined by the past, you do not have free will.

b) If your future decisions are random, meaning nothing can influence them, you do not have free will.

c) If your decisions are any mixture of a) and b) you do not have free will either.


1. If you do not have free will you cannot or do not have to make decisions.

Regardless of whether you have free will or not, your brain performs evaluations and produces results and that’s what it means to make a decision. You cannot not make decisions. Just because your thought process is deterministic doesn’t mean the process doesn’t have to be executed in real time. The same is true if it has a random component.

This misconception stems from a split-personality perspective: People picture themselves as trying to make a decision but being hindered by some evil free-will-defying law of nature. That is nonsense of course. You are whatever brain process works with whatever input you receive. If you don’t have free will, you’ve never had free will and so far you’ve lived just fine. You can continue to think the same way you’ve always thought. You’ll do that anyway.

I am a reductionist at heart, so I am happy that I am on the same page as the author for "Fact 1".

Do you understand what the author meant by, "Just because your thought process is deterministic doesn’t mean the process doesn’t have to be executed in real time."?

In 4. the author says, "Besides, as I explained above, these processes might have a random component that is even in principle not predictable. It is presently not very well understood just exactly how relevant such a random component might be."; this is my argument.

But then the author says, "but neither do you have free will because nothing can influence this randomness.". My argument is that we are the randomness. We are the ones making these random decisions, but from an outsider's point of view, it's random.

You can choose between y1 and y2. y2 might be more beneficial, but maybe y1 is more ethical. The choice is ours to make.

The point is; randomness is not a choice, nor does randomness aid the decision making process (which requires coherent information and not random events), it being the ability to make decisions that is commonly though of as being 'free will'

So if random quantum fluctuations act upon the brain and cause changes in behaviour, it is not a choice the brain made by processing information relating to its own information base, memory, and a given set of options ....it's only an unchosen wild card thrown into the system that alters the course of neural activity in an unchosen and unpredicable way.

The distance over which quantum affects are dominant is called the Compton length. For a given mass, anything smaller than its Compton length is strongly quantum, and weak or even undetectable above...

Hence random quantum changes to the brain are not an instance of 'free will' and cannot support an argument for the presence of something called 'free will' with the system.

 

[ryan]

I am a reductionist at heart, so I am happy that I am on the same page as the author for "Fact 1".

Do you understand what the author meant by, "Just because your thought process is deterministic doesn’t mean the process doesn’t have to be executed in real time."?

In 4. the author says, "Besides, as I explained above, these processes might have a random component that is even in principle not predictable. It is presently not very well understood just exactly how relevant such a random component might be."; this is my argument.

But then the author says, "but neither do you have free will because nothing can influence this randomness.". My argument is that we are the randomness. We are the ones making these random decisions, but from an outsider's point of view, it's random.

You can choose between y1 and y2. y2 might be more beneficial, but maybe y1 is more ethical. The choice is ours to make.

The point is; randomness is not a choice, nor does randomness aid the decision making process (which requires coherent information and not random events), it being the ability to make decisions that is commonly though of as being 'free will'

So if random quantum fluctuations act upon the brain and cause changes in behaviour, it is not a choice the brain made by processing information relating to its own information base, memory, and a given set of options ....it's only an unchosen wild card thrown into the system that alters the course of neural activity in an unchosen and unpredicable way.

The distance over which quantum affects are dominant is called the Compton length. For a given mass, anything smaller than its Compton length is strongly quantum, and weak or even undetectable above...

Hence random quantum changes to the brain are not an instance of 'free will' and cannot support an argument for the presence of something called 'free will' with the system.

Just in case you missed what I said, both paragraphs are very important to my argument, especially the second.

In 4. the author says, "Besides, as I explained above, these processes might have a random component that is even in principle not predictable. It is presently not very well understood just exactly how relevant such a random component might be."; this is my argument.

But then the author says, "but neither do you have free will because nothing can influence this randomness.". My argument is that we are the randomness. We are still the ones making these random decisions, but from an outsider's point of view, it's random.

 

[PyramidHead]

The point is; randomness is not a choice, nor does randomness aid the decision making process (which requires coherent information and not random events), it being the ability to make decisions that is commonly though of as being 'free will'

So if random quantum fluctuations act upon the brain and cause changes in behaviour, it is not a choice the brain made by processing information relating to its own information base, memory, and a given set of options ....it's only an unchosen wild card thrown into the system that alters the course of neural activity in an unchosen and unpredicable way.

The distance over which quantum affects are dominant is called the Compton length. For a given mass, anything smaller than its Compton length is strongly quantum, and weak or even undetectable above...

Hence random quantum changes to the brain are not an instance of 'free will' and cannot support an argument for the presence of something called 'free will' with the system.

Just in case you missed what I said, both paragraphs are very important to my argument, especially the second.

In 4. the author says, "Besides, as I explained above, these processes might have a random component that is even in principle not predictable. It is presently not very well understood just exactly how relevant such a random component might be."; this is my argument.

But then the author says, "but neither do you have free will because nothing can influence this randomness.". My argument is that we are the randomness. We are still the ones making these random decisions, but from an outsider's point of view, it's random.

In what sense are you the randomness? If you weren't the randomness, how would you know?

 

[ryan]

Just in case you missed what I said, both paragraphs are very important to my argument, especially the second.

In 4. the author says, "Besides, as I explained above, these processes might have a random component that is even in principle not predictable. It is presently not very well understood just exactly how relevant such a random component might be."; this is my argument.

But then the author says, "but neither do you have free will because nothing can influence this randomness.". My argument is that we are the randomness. We are still the ones making these random decisions, but from an outsider's point of view, it's random.

In what sense are you the randomness? If you weren't the randomness, how would you know?

I can't not be the randomness. We are the fundamental particles that are random in their nature.

 

[PyramidHead]

In what sense are you the randomness? If you weren't the randomness, how would you know?

I can't not be the randomness. We are the fundamental particles that are random in their nature.

"I am composed of particles that behave in random ways, therefore I behave in random ways" is a statement of the form "I am made of X, and X has property Y, therefore I have property Y." As I stated earlier, this is called the fallacy of composition.

By the same flawed reasoning, since you are made of particles that do not understand English, you must not understand English. Since you are made of cells that divide by mitosis, you must divide by mitosis. Since you are made of proteins that are constantly being broken down and replaced, you are constantly being broken down and replaced. None of these inferences are valid, and neither is your claim.

 

[Juma]

DBT and Juma, I have been thinking about how my version of free will can have the ethical factor and why it is fair to be accountable for our choices. This is a response to both of your posts.

The first part is just setting up the second part about the freedom to choose ethically and responsibly.

We have an n number of choices in t amount of time for some situation x. Our mental models will help us predict the outcome y.

Maybe quantum uncertainty tips the close-call decisions, which is the form of free will that I was talking about. Let's say that we choose y1, and y1 results in punishment, where the bad totally outweighs the good. Yes we are responsible for that choice because we chose it - live and learn. The consequences/repercussions are given to us because we chose wrongly.

I expect that evolution tells us that people who learn from parents, society, teachers, etc. have a better chance at survival and thus reproducing.

Now, y1 gets hardwired more out of being a close choice of similar choices that need to be made in the future. It will become much less likely for quantum uncertainty to allow y1 to be chosen again.


Here's where responsibility and ethics comes in.

Let's imagine the we have some other y1 and a y2. y1 in this case has less of a pay off than y2, but y1 is more ethical. We will assume that the subject is certain that y2 will be more advantageous. We will also assume that this is one of those close decisions that comes down to a "quantum superposition of choices" quantum uncertainty. The quantum mechanism simultaneously knows that there is an ethical option y1 that is outweighed by a more appealing option y2. The quantum homunculus, if you will, is ultimately responsible for making this choice. It would be part of our thought process, so it is as much of who we are than anything can be.

Outside of the thought experiment, this actually makes sense in the real world. I think that everyone has there own gray area of ethics. We have all known or know about some pretty "bad" people who seem to just glide through life leaving a path of destruction and then sleep well at night. And then there are the "bad" people who turn themselves in for an overbearing feeling of guilt. The bad people who feel guilt went too far past their personal gray area.

We don't know when this pinch of guilt will come or if it will come at all. So our "quantum consciousness", which is ultimately who we would be as agents because the more "hard wired" choices are our unchangeable natures, is what is actually responsible and rightfully so.

This word salad doesnt male sense at all.

 

[ryan]

I can't not be the randomness. We are the fundamental particles that are random in their nature.

"I am composed of particles that behave in random ways, therefore I behave in random ways" is a statement of the form "I am made of X, and X has property Y, therefore I have property Y." As I stated earlier, this is called the fallacy of composition.

By the same flawed reasoning, since you are made of particles that do not understand English, you must not understand English. Since you are made of cells that divide by mitosis, you must divide by mitosis. Since you are made of proteins that are constantly being broken down and replaced, you are constantly being broken down and replaced. None of these inferences are valid, and neither is your claim.

Nothing physical escapes at least some random behaviour. This a real property that everything has.

 

[ryan]

This word salad doesnt male sense at all.

It addresses your last concern.

 

[DBT]

The point is; randomness is not a choice, nor does randomness aid the decision making process (which requires coherent information and not random events), it being the ability to make decisions that is commonly though of as being 'free will'

So if random quantum fluctuations act upon the brain and cause changes in behaviour, it is not a choice the brain made by processing information relating to its own information base, memory, and a given set of options ....it's only an unchosen wild card thrown into the system that alters the course of neural activity in an unchosen and unpredicable way.

The distance over which quantum affects are dominant is called the Compton length. For a given mass, anything smaller than its Compton length is strongly quantum, and weak or even undetectable above...

Hence random quantum changes to the brain are not an instance of 'free will' and cannot support an argument for the presence of something called 'free will' with the system.

Just in case you missed what I said, both paragraphs are very important to my argument, especially the second.

In 4. the author says, "Besides, as I explained above, these processes might have a random component that is even in principle not predictable. It is presently not very well understood just exactly how relevant such a random component might be."; this is my argument.

But then the author says, "but neither do you have free will because nothing can influence this randomness.". My argument is that we are the randomness. We are still the ones making these random decisions, but from an outsider's point of view, it's random.

Randomness is a part and parcel of quantum scales, strong below Compton, weak above. Everything is subject to the same rules of physics, stars planets, hills, rivers, trees, etc, etc, but none of these things are able to process information and select options from a set of realizable alternatives based upon a given set of criteria, this being the decision making process, but not a matter of free will.

Nor are the random events on quantum scale a matter of free will, which are not an example of information processing and decision making, and do not allow rational coherant decisions....which requires an information processor

Take away the structures of brain and information processing, take away the determinstic rules of macro scale physics, letonly random fluctuations remain in this thought experiment, and what is left? Mind? thought? decision making? I think not.

Randomness as a foundation for free will is an illusion.

 

[DBT]

In what sense are you the randomness? If you weren't the randomness, how would you know?

I can't not be the randomness. We are the fundamental particles that are random in their nature.

You as a self aware entity have no direct control of random fluctuations on quantum scales. Consciousness, being a representation of an activity of the brain that is generating it, has no control of anything. A glitch in the system translates as a glitch in consciousness, a falilure of neurotransmitter/dendritic connection results in a failure to consciousnly remember or recognize, a catastrophic failure of the mechanisms of consciousness results in a cessation of conscious experience, including the experience of conscious self/self awareness.

 

[ryan]

Just in case you missed what I said, both paragraphs are very important to my argument, especially the second.

In 4. the author says, "Besides, as I explained above, these processes might have a random component that is even in principle not predictable. It is presently not very well understood just exactly how relevant such a random component might be."; this is my argument.

But then the author says, "but neither do you have free will because nothing can influence this randomness.". My argument is that we are the randomness. We are still the ones making these random decisions, but from an outsider's point of view, it's random.

Randomness is a part and parcel of quantum scales, strong below Compton, weak above. Everything is subject to the same rules of physics, stars planets, hills, rivers, trees, etc, etc, but none of these things are able to process information and select options from a set of realizable alternatives based upon a given set of criteria, this being the decision making process, but not a matter of free will.

Nor are the random events on quantum scale a matter of free will, which are not an example of information processing and decision making, and do not allow rational coherant decisions....which requires an information processor

Take away the structures of brain and information processing, take away the determinstic rules of macro scale physics, letonly random fluctuations remain in this thought experiment, and what is left? Mind? thought? decision making? I think not.

Randomness as a foundation for free will is an illusion.

Do you believe there's a difference between you and being you? In other words, is your whole body the same for me as it is for you; or is there something different about you and being you?

 

[ryan]

I can't not be the randomness. We are the fundamental particles that are random in their nature.

You as a self aware entity have no direct control of random fluctuations on quantum scales. Consciousness, being a representation of an activity of the brain that is generating it, has no control of anything. A glitch in the system translates as a glitch in consciousness, a falilure of neurotransmitter/dendritic connection results in a failure to consciousnly remember or recognize, a catastrophic failure of the mechanisms of consciousness results in a cessation of conscious experience, including the experience of conscious self/self awareness.

I will admit that the "free will" choices that we make are few and far between. Sometimes I only feel like I am actually in control of one or two choices per day. That is a small ratio of "free" choices over total choices. Like I said before, I agree that we have a very consistent system, but every once and a while there will be a bug.

 

[DBT]

You as a self aware entity have no direct control of random fluctuations on quantum scales. Consciousness, being a representation of an activity of the brain that is generating it, has no control of anything. A glitch in the system translates as a glitch in consciousness, a falilure of neurotransmitter/dendritic connection results in a failure to consciousnly remember or recognize, a catastrophic failure of the mechanisms of consciousness results in a cessation of conscious experience, including the experience of conscious self/self awareness.

I will admit that the "free will" choices that we make are few and far between. Sometimes I only feel like I am actually in control of one or two choices per day. That is a small ratio of "free" choices over total choices. Like I said before, I agree that we have a very consistent system, but every once and a while there will be a bug.

What exactly are ''free will'' choices?

 

[DBT]

Randomness is a part and parcel of quantum scales, strong below Compton, weak above. Everything is subject to the same rules of physics, stars planets, hills, rivers, trees, etc, etc, but none of these things are able to process information and select options from a set of realizable alternatives based upon a given set of criteria, this being the decision making process, but not a matter of free will.

Nor are the random events on quantum scale a matter of free will, which are not an example of information processing and decision making, and do not allow rational coherant decisions....which requires an information processor

Take away the structures of brain and information processing, take away the determinstic rules of macro scale physics, letonly random fluctuations remain in this thought experiment, and what is left? Mind? thought? decision making? I think not.

Randomness as a foundation for free will is an illusion.

Do you believe there's a difference between you and being you? In other words, is your whole body the same for me as it is for you; or is there something different about you and being you?

Quote;
''People suffering from Alzheimer's disease are not only losing their memory, but they are also losing their personality. In order to understand the relationship between personality and memory, it is important to define personality and memory. Personality, as defined by some neurobiologists and psychologists, is a collection of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are not controlled by the I-function. Memory, on the other hand, is controlled and regulated by the I-function of the neocortex. It is a collection of short stories that the I-function makes-up in order to account for the events and people. Memory is also defined as the ability to retain information, and it is influenced by three important stages. The first stage is encoding and processing the information, the second stage is the storing of the memory, and the third stage is memory retrieval. There are also the different types of memories like sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The sensory memory relates to the initial moment when an event or an object is first detected. Short-term memories are characterized by slow, transient alterations in communication between neurons and long-term memories (1). Long-term memories are marked by permanent changes to the neural structure''


The terminal Stages of the disease, and the consequences of such a profound memory loss being; Symptoms:

''Can't recognize family or image of self in mirror.
Little capacity for self-care.
Can't communicate with words.''

 

[ryan]

I will admit that the "free will" choices that we make are few and far between. Sometimes I only feel like I am actually in control of one or two choices per day. That is a small ratio of "free" choices over total choices. Like I said before, I agree that we have a very consistent system, but every once and a while there will be a bug.

What exactly are ''free will'' choices?

the choices made with free will

 

[HellFire]

I'm with DBT on this subject of free will.And thanks DBT for such clear and concise text.

When I was a lad I would from time to time think of free will.I thought of free will as something that is without constraint or boundaries.For example I would try to will something into existence such as more money or will a different outcome to a situation.Of course none of my wants willingly wanting them freely ever materialized.We have all heard something along the lines of "if its gods will then it will happen" or "whatever god wills it shall be" I thought wait a minute my will doesn't work and some gods will does? Didnt take long to figure out no human has free will.Also didn't take long to figure out the non existence of a god.

Tim

 

[ryan]

Do you believe there's a difference between you and being you? In other words, is your whole body the same for me as it is for you; or is there something different about you and being you?

Quote;
''People suffering from Alzheimer's disease are not only losing their memory, but they are also losing their personality. In order to understand the relationship between personality and memory, it is important to define personality and memory. Personality, as defined by some neurobiologists and psychologists, is a collection of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are not controlled by the I-function. Memory, on the other hand, is controlled and regulated by the I-function of the neocortex. It is a collection of short stories that the I-function makes-up in order to account for the events and people. Memory is also defined as the ability to retain information, and it is influenced by three important stages. The first stage is encoding and processing the information, the second stage is the storing of the memory, and the third stage is memory retrieval. There are also the different types of memories like sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The sensory memory relates to the initial moment when an event or an object is first detected. Short-term memories are characterized by slow, transient alterations in communication between neurons and long-term memories (1). Long-term memories are marked by permanent changes to the neural structure''


The terminal Stages of the disease, and the consequences of such a profound memory loss being; Symptoms:

''Can't recognize family or image of self in mirror.
Little capacity for self-care.
Can't communicate with words.''

Your "nonphysical" consciousness would just have different memories and a different personality.

I really would like you to answer the questions after this thought experiment.

You accept to do an experiment. You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room.

Which city are you in?

What is it about the body in Perth that makes you in that place?

 

[ryan]

I'm with DBT on this subject of free will.And thanks DBT for such clear and concise text.

When I was a lad I would from time to time think of free will.I thought of free will as something that is without constraint or boundaries.For example I would try to will something into existence such as more money or will a different outcome to a situation.Of course none of my wants willingly wanting them freely ever materialized.We have all heard something along the lines of "if its gods will then it will happen" or "whatever god wills it shall be" I thought wait a minute my will doesn't work and some gods will does? Didnt take long to figure out no human has free will.Also didn't take long to figure out the non existence of a god.

Tim

I claim that free will is very constrained and localised. Close your eyes; you can will the particles in your brain to imagine almost anything. You can also will your arm to move because it's within the constraints of your physical influence.

There some things that we can't even control within our own bodies, so this free will is very constrained and selective.

 

[DBT]

Quote;
''People suffering from Alzheimer's disease are not only losing their memory, but they are also losing their personality. In order to understand the relationship between personality and memory, it is important to define personality and memory. Personality, as defined by some neurobiologists and psychologists, is a collection of behaviors, emotions, and thoughts that are not controlled by the I-function. Memory, on the other hand, is controlled and regulated by the I-function of the neocortex. It is a collection of short stories that the I-function makes-up in order to account for the events and people. Memory is also defined as the ability to retain information, and it is influenced by three important stages. The first stage is encoding and processing the information, the second stage is the storing of the memory, and the third stage is memory retrieval. There are also the different types of memories like sensory, short-term, and long-term memory. The sensory memory relates to the initial moment when an event or an object is first detected. Short-term memories are characterized by slow, transient alterations in communication between neurons and long-term memories (1). Long-term memories are marked by permanent changes to the neural structure''


The terminal Stages of the disease, and the consequences of such a profound memory loss being; Symptoms:

''Can't recognize family or image of self in mirror.
Little capacity for self-care.
Can't communicate with words.''

Your "nonphysical" consciousness would just have different memories and a different personality.

You are just making this up as you go along, there is not a single example of non physical consciousness for you to base your claims on.

I really would like you to answer the questions after this thought experiment.

You accept to do an experiment. You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room.

Which city are you in?

What is it about the body in Perth that makes you in that place?

As I've already said, there would be two identical human beings, one being the original and one a copy, the original being in Perth and a copy in Sydney and in the instance that the copy came into being the two would begin to diverge in terms of perception and experience, consequently the two would no longer be perfectly identical but two separate and distinct brains generating two separate and distinct sets of conscious experiences.

- - - Updated - - -

What exactly are ''free will'' choices?

the choices made with free will

That is not an explanation.

 

[ryan]

Your "nonphysical" consciousness would just have different memories and a different personality.

You are just making this up as you go along, there is not a single example of non physical consciousness for you to base your claims on.

That's what I have been talking about in most of these threads. I am not trying to find a physical difference because the consciousness/mind that I am trying to demonstrate exists is not anything observable - it is pure subjectivity.

I really would like you to answer the questions after this thought experiment.

You accept to do an experiment. You are in an isolated room in Perth. In Sydney they make a perfect replica of you in an equally identical room.

Which city are you in?

What is it about the body in Perth that makes you in that place?

As I've already said, there would be two identical human beings, one being the original and one a copy, the original being in Perth and a copy in Sydney and in the instance that the copy came into being the two would begin to diverge in terms of perception and experience, consequently the two would no longer be perfectly identical but two separate and distinct brains generating two separate and distinct sets of conscious experiences.

Then please allow identical bodies for 5 seconds - and hey it's actually a possibility according to quantum probabilities.

For those 5 seconds, you are in Perth and not in Sydney. Shouldn't that be a ridiculous thing to say if there is absolutely no difference between you both?

What exactly are ''free will'' choices?

the choices made with free will

That is not an explanation.

My whole argument is based on some of our choices having free will. I am just using my own term for what we have been arguing about.