In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[ryan]

Oxford Dictionary has: "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate". http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/free-will?q=free+will

Doesn't work:

If our actions are caused by chance, we lack control.

Na na na no, to us, we are in control; to an observer, we are unpredictable. To an observer, we are limitedly random and mechanically appear out of control.

"Recent developments in physical science [viz., quantum indeterminacy] have come into play here, and the freedom of the human will has been put forward as offering logical grounds for the acceptance of only a statistical causality operative in the physical universe. As I have already stated on other occasions, I do not at all agree with this attitude. If we should accept it, then the logical result would be to reduce the human will to an organ which would be subject to the sway of mere blind chance." - Max Planck

We have the luxury of standing on the shoulders of giants since Max has been alive. We know more than he did. And, who knows, I might have even thought about this more than he did. So with all do respect, I disagree.

We are the particles. We are making the choices that appear to others as blind chance. He is forgetting that choices are private and subjective.

 

[ryan]

Unpredictable does not equate with 'free will'

John Searle describes the problem of fundamental particles/statistically predictable paths well enough:


''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.'' - John Searle (Mind, Brains, and Science, 1984, pp.86-7)

Well I don't see a good argument in here at all. People keep taking the human mind out of the system. Even I know not to do that. The human mind is the system even though I believe it is dual in nature. When the particles of the mind behave randomly, that is the mind behaving randomly.

I am only saying that the door is still wide open for free will.

 

[DBT]

Doesn't work:

If our actions are caused by chance, we lack control.

Na na na no, to us, we are in control; to an observer, we are unpredictable. To an observer, we are limitedly random and mechanically appear out of control.

But under your proposition, you are not in control, fundamental particles are randomly pulling your strings ,and like a puppet you dance to a tune that has no rhyme or reason. That is not freedom of choice or action, not by any definition of freedom. What you describe is randomness, where neither thought or rational response can form.

We are the particles. We are making the choices that appear to others as blind chance. He is forgetting that choices are private and subjective.

You still ignore the role of structure/architecture and evolved functions. Choices are not random, they are the work of defined structures in relation to give conditions, conditions that are not random. Computers can make selections from a given set options on the basis of a given set of criteria, without conscious experience of that process....as do most of the life forms on Earth. All according to the evolutionary state of their central nervous system/brain, and not random particle position.

 

[DBT]

I am only saying that the door is still wide open for free will.

You still haven't defined the term 'free will' adequately.

 

[ryan]

Na na na no, to us, we are in control; to an observer, we are unpredictable. To an observer, we are limitedly random and mechanically appear out of control.

But under your proposition, you are not in control, fundamental particles are randomly pulling your strings ,and like a puppet you dance to a tune that has no rhyme or reason. That is not freedom of choice or action, not by any definition of freedom. What you describe is randomness, where neither thought or rational response can form.

I have already tried to explain this a few times; let me try something else. The mind and the particles are intimately connected; they are both practically the same thing. They may even be what we know as the self. So the particles would not have rule over the mind; similarly the mind would not have rule over the particles or self because they would all be one with each other.

I will mention again that I am using "would" because this is not a positive claim, but rather something I see as possible.

We are the particles. We are making the choices that appear to others as blind chance. He is forgetting that choices are private and subjective.

You still ignore the role of structure/architecture and evolved functions. Choices are not random, they are the work of defined structures in relation to give conditions, conditions that are not random. Computers can make selections from a given set options on the basis of a given set of criteria, without conscious experience of that process....as do most of the life forms on Earth. All according to the evolutionary state of their central nervous system/brain, and not random particle position.

The whole system appears to be working consistently with classical mechanics, but that is just how the limited randomness of the particles collectively behave.

Any choices that we do have, I do not claim would be very significant. However, the brain is smart enough to see how even the least significant choice could lead the body into a drastically different situation in its future.

 

[ryan]

I am only saying that the door is still wide open for free will.

You still haven't defined the term 'free will' adequately.

Why do I get to define it? It would be a terrible thing if this whole time I was talking about my own personal definition of free will; that could be anything. Anyways, the definition I gave is the one I am using.

 

[DBT]

You still haven't defined the term 'free will' adequately.

Why do I get to define it? It would be a terrible thing if this whole time I was talking about my own personal definition of free will; that could be anything. Anyways, the definition I gave is the one I am using.

What definition? Your Oxford Dictionary quote that "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate?

That doesn't work in presence of randomness...randomness is a constraint on rational decision making, which produces random jitters and random twitches that you (your brain) did not choose. This is not freedom, it's just random events expressed in the form of meaningless movements.

 

[Togo]

Well, hopefully I helped at least someone see that free will might be possible.

Why is that important?

There are a few psychological studies on the negative effects of a belief that decision-making is determined. They generally show fairly negative effects. I can try and dig them out if people are fascinated.

 

[rrr6]

Uncertainty need not neccessiate chaos.

Probability is the fall back position because we do not have, and cannot ever access, gravity's ultra-complex, nodal-vertexial network/fabric/membrane.

We have trust and faith, that, the car coming toward us will not cross the center line, into our lane, for the most part.

We have trust and faith in that the electronics can manuever better than humans 99% of the time.

Chaos is uneccessary and detrimental to rational thought, so, don't go there is the simple answer, to any complex situation/circumstances.

Since all is deterministic cause and effect, chaos is only a state of mind, and we are allowed the illusion of a free will that changes our minds from chaotic thinking to rational, logical and common sense thinking.

How much do less complex animals fret over not having as much access to complex mind/intellect that a human has?

I tend to fret/chaos, yet I know it is only detrimental to my overall-- if not short time ---being ok, in the moment.

r6

 

[ryan]

Why do I get to define it? It would be a terrible thing if this whole time I was talking about my own personal definition of free will; that could be anything. Anyways, the definition I gave is the one I am using.

What definition? Your Oxford Dictionary quote that "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate?

That doesn't work in presence of randomness...randomness is a constraint on rational decision making, which produces random jitters and random twitches that you (your brain) did not choose. This is not freedom, it's just random events expressed in the form of meaningless movements.

In post #445, I explained how it might not be random. If we are the randomness, and since our intentions come to fruition, then maybe it's not random. Maybe it only appears to be random by a different observer.

 

[Juma]

What definition? Your Oxford Dictionary quote that "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate?

That doesn't work in presence of randomness...randomness is a constraint on rational decision making, which produces random jitters and random twitches that you (your brain) did not choose. This is not freedom, it's just random events expressed in the form of meaningless movements.

In post #445, I explained how it might not be random. If we are the randomness, and since our intentions come to fruition, then maybe it's not random. Maybe it only appears to be random by a different observer.

But we are not randomness and people are not hard to predict.

 

[ryan]

In post #445, I explained how it might not be random. If we are the randomness, and since our intentions come to fruition, then maybe it's not random. Maybe it only appears to be random by a different observer.

But we are not randomness and people are not hard to predict.

Yeah, I am not saying that we would constantly be making these limitedly free decisions. We are mostly predictable, but we cannot be fully predictable. This just allows for the possibility of free will.

 

[Juma]

But we are not randomness and people are not hard to predict.

Yeah, I am not saying that we would constantly be making these limitedly free decisions. We are mostly predictable, but we cannot be fully predictable. This just allows for the possibility of free will.

No it doesnt. It is just your fantacies. You are imaginating things. You dont have any arguments only handwaving and fantasies.

 

[ryan]

Yeah, I am not saying that we would constantly be making these limitedly free decisions. We are mostly predictable, but we cannot be fully predictable. This just allows for the possibility of free will.

No it doesnt. It is just your fantacies. You are imaginating things. You dont have any arguments only handwaving and fantasies.

If you were to observe a human with limited free will, how exactly would this human act that would be so different than if he were a real human?

Not only would this human appear to other humans to have some randomness in his behavior, he would claim that the randomness we would observe from him is actually what he intended on doing. It would appear random to us just like a real human will sometimes appear random even with a fully mechanical description.

 

[Juma]

No it doesnt. It is just your fantacies. You are imaginating things. You dont have any arguments only handwaving and fantasies.

If you were to observe a human with limited free will, how exactly would this human act that would be so different than if he were a real human?

Not only would this human appear to other humans to have some randomness in his behavior, he would claim that the randomness we would observe from him is actually what he intended on doing. It would appear random to us just like a real human will sometimes appear random even with a fully mechanical description.

If you were to observe a human with no free will, how exactly would this human act that would be so different?

You see: you doesnt observe free will, you imagine it.

 

[ryan]

If you were to observe a human with limited free will, how exactly would this human act that would be so different than if he were a real human?

Not only would this human appear to other humans to have some randomness in his behavior, he would claim that the randomness we would observe from him is actually what he intended on doing. It would appear random to us just like a real human will sometimes appear random even with a fully mechanical description.

If you were to observe a human with no free will, how exactly would this human act that would be so different?

I don't think you are reading my posts carefully.

 

[Juma]

In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

If you were to observe a human with no free will, how exactly would this human act that would be so different?

I don't think you are reading my posts carefully.

Yes i do but what i try to explain to you is that your post makes no sense. Libertanian free will is not something we observe. It is not something that actually explain something.

 

[DBT]

Why is that important?

There are a few psychological studies on the negative effects of a belief that decision-making is determined. They generally show fairly negative effects. I can try and dig them out if people are fascinated.

Having a religion is also beneficial in terms of a sense of security and well being. It also depends on how something is perceived. I understand that the brain functions according to architecture, inputs and memory...and it doesn't bother me in the least. Or rather, it doesn't bother the brain that represents me in conscious form......

 

[DBT]

What definition? Your Oxford Dictionary quote that "The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate?

That doesn't work in presence of randomness...randomness is a constraint on rational decision making, which produces random jitters and random twitches that you (your brain) did not choose. This is not freedom, it's just random events expressed in the form of meaningless movements.

In post #445, I explained how it might not be random. If we are the randomness, and since our intentions come to fruition, then maybe it's not random. Maybe it only appears to be random by a different observer.

You are ignoring the fact that the absence of a single element can and does does disintegrate consciousness; memory function.

If memory function breaks down, recognition and comprehension and self identity and character and thought and decision making break down into unrecognizable, incomprehensible sensation....memory being integrated or woven into the very fabric of consciousness.

This is not random particle position or QM, but organized connections, protein shape and function, pathways, synapses open or closed, etc, etc. an organized system processing information - which is not random - and generating conscious representation of some, but not all, of that information.

There is no case for QM randomness, which is only one aspect of QM, as a source for either consciousness or 'free will'

It's a dead end.

 

[ryan]

I don't think you are reading my posts carefully.

Yes i do but what i try to explain to you is that your post makes no sense. Libertanian free will is not something we observe.

No you are not reading my posts. I know this because your last post asks a question that I answered in the very same post you were replying to.

ryan: "It would appear random to us just like a real human will sometimes appear random even with a fully mechanical description."

In other words, a human with some free would behave exactly the same as a real human. They both do things that don't make sense with classical mechanics.

It is not something that actually explain something.

I don't know what you mean here.