In Free Will, What Makes it "Free"

[ryan]

Please read the next 3 sentences I put in that same paragraph,

Yes there are many interventions from other particles that detour the "will" of other particles, but that doesn't matter to the will. My free will might lead me to go eat a piece of cake in the fridge, but on my way to the fridge somebody shoots me in the head. I still had that free will even though I wasn't successful in achieving it.

.

That doesn't make sense. There is absolutely no connection being made between quantum randomness or quantum probability and your desire to 'eat a piece of cake'

Let me break down what you said so that you know why I said what I said.

You said, "That's a contradiction. If jittery randomness turns probabilist then classical as the scale increases, it is no longer random." So at this point, it seems that you are saying that the total randomness is not random; I agree.

It's not that the total randomness is no longer random, but that total randomness virtually disappears at wave function collapse/decoherence...'wave functions - the probability waves of quantum mechanics - evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles, such as the Schrodinger equation' etc.

This is not known yet. How can you just throw this at me and expect me to buy it? You mashed together two highly controversial theories.

Still no evident connection between randomness and 'freedom'

Oxford dictionary has:

freedom: The state of being unrestricted and able to move easily

Random: Governed by or involving equal chances for each item

- nor a connection to be made between randomness and the decision making mechanisms of a brain including the decisions that are made, which are not random, or even that decisions 'evolve in time according to precise mathematical roles' - they do not.

Just like each neuron helps make-up a choice but is not a choice, so too does randomness make-up the neurons that are not random themselves.

While the brain detects photons/wavelength via its sense organs of sight, the eyes, it is the architecture of the senses/brain that converts photon stimulation to nerve impulses and interprets this information as objects (reflected light) and colours (wavelength). None of which is random or arbitrary. So, while fundamental particles such as 'photons' are indeed inputs into the system, it is the architecture of the system that determines the interpretation of shape and colour, and not the action of the inputs themselves that determines how shape and colour is interpreted....different species have different colour perception, yada, yada.

Why are you talking about photons and eyes?

So, sorry ryan, you have no case.

Something tells me that this is more important for you than just a discussion. I know I admitted why I want free will to exist. I wonder if anyone else can admit why they don't want it to exist. I have a feeling that the answer is a three lettered word.

 

[PyramidHead]

All of the randomness adds up to classical mechanics, but it is still random and free. Yes there are many interventions from other particles that detour the "will" of other particles, but that doesn't matter to the will. My free will might lead me to go eat a piece of cake in the fridge, but on my way to the fridge somebody shoots me in the head. I still had that free will even though I wasn't successful in achieving it.

2. Nothing in point #1 matters when talking about free will. Even if small scale interactions are unpredictable, which is what you mean by 'free,' it still remains to be demonstrated that they have a will.

I agree. That's why I only argue that free will might be possible.

More specifically, it remains to be demonstrated that the entity you are calling 'free' is the same entity as the entity with a will.

Well this depends on whether or not QM is actually random or if it is determinable. From what I understand, this is a major division in quantum physics.

It is not enough to say the entity with a will is composed of entities that are free, therefore the entity with a will has 'free will.' For example, my car is an entity with a muffler. My car is composed of entities that are invisible to the naked eye. From this, it does not follow that my car has a muffler that is invisible to the naked eye.

I am taking the philosophical liberties that psychology and many other sciences take.

If I am defined a certain way in some static form, then I need everyone of my particles to be me, by definition. Similarly, if you keep taking away particles from me without replacing them, then I am scattered all over the universe. The point is, I need my particles to do what they are doing. I am every action a particles takes, no more no less. I am my parts and the whole. I am random and mostly determinable.

3. Nothing in point #2 matters when talking about free will. To say that something behaves unpredictably is a necessary condition for freedom, but it is not a sufficient condition.

Now this is probably the biggest problem on the thread. I warned everyone that I was not arguing for free will; but rather, I was arguing for the possibility of free will to exist. People kept forgetting this, and I kept reminding them.

In short, unpredictability is not freedom without conscious control; even if it were, this freedom is not 'free will' just because something with a will is made of particles that are free; even if it were, quantum mechanics is not indeterminate at classical scales.

They are currently finding more and more evidence that human systems have quantum mechanisms.

And remember; big decisions can be made from the smallest cause, such as a flap from a butterfly wing.

I think you really captured the main point of zero of the things I was saying. Thanks.

 

[ryan]

I think you really captured the main point of zero of the things I was saying. Thanks.

I spent a lot of time on that, and I tried hard to reply to everything in your post.

At least explain why my replies have nothing to do with the points that you made.

 

[PyramidHead]

I think you really captured the main point of zero of the things I was saying. Thanks.

I spent a lot of time on that, and I tried hard to reply to everything in your post.

At least explain why my replies have nothing to do with the points that you made.

The point was that quantum mechanics is a complete non-starter that has nothing to do with free will. Random, unpredictable behavior is not free if it is beyond our conscious control, which quantum effects always are. The only entities that can be said to have a will are those with complex brains, which quantum particles lack. Being made of a lot of unpredictable quantum particles doesn't make you unpredictable if their behavior is predictable at large scales, which it is. When someone asks if I took an action of my own free will, I do not need a complete explanation of every particle in my body to answer the question. The point is whether I decided to do something based on weighing it against alternatives and choosing what suits me best, without being bullied or threatened to behave one way or another. The flavor of my leptons is a totally unrelated concern.

 

[ryan]

I spent a lot of time on that, and I tried hard to reply to everything in your post.

At least explain why my replies have nothing to do with the points that you made.

The point was that quantum mechanics is a complete non-starter that has nothing to do with free will. Random, unpredictable behavior is not free if it is beyond our conscious control, which quantum effects always are. The only entities that can be said to have a will are those with complex brains, which quantum particles lack. Being made of a lot of unpredictable quantum particles doesn't make you unpredictable if their behavior is predictable at large scales, which it is. When someone asks if I took an action of my own free will, I do not need a complete explanation of every particle in my body to answer the question. The point is whether I decided to do something based on weighing it against alternatives and choosing what suits me best, without being bullied or threatened to behave one way or another. The flavor of my leptons is a totally unrelated concern.

Are you a monist or a dualist? If you are a dualist, do you believe in psychophysical parallelism (no causal interaction between mind and body), or do you believe that they can interact in any way?

 

[bilby]

All of the randomness adds up to classical mechanics, but it is still random and free. Yes there are many interventions from other particles that detour the "will" of other particles, but that doesn't matter to the will. My free will might lead me to go eat a piece of cake in the fridge, but on my way to the fridge somebody shoots me in the head. I still had that free will even though I wasn't successful in achieving it.

2. Nothing in point #1 matters when talking about free will. Even if small scale interactions are unpredictable, which is what you mean by 'free,' it still remains to be demonstrated that they have a will.

I agree. That's why I only argue that free will might be possible.

More specifically, it remains to be demonstrated that the entity you are calling 'free' is the same entity as the entity with a will.

Well this depends on whether or not QM is actually random or if it is determinable. From what I understand, this is a major division in quantum physics.

It is not enough to say the entity with a will is composed of entities that are free, therefore the entity with a will has 'free will.' For example, my car is an entity with a muffler. My car is composed of entities that are invisible to the naked eye. From this, it does not follow that my car has a muffler that is invisible to the naked eye.

I am taking the philosophical liberties that psychology and many other sciences take.

If I am defined a certain way in some static form, then I need everyone of my particles to be me, by definition. Similarly, if you keep taking away particles from me without replacing them, then I am scattered all over the universe. The point is, I need my particles to do what they are doing. I am every action a particles takes, no more no less. I am my parts and the whole. I am random and mostly determinable.

3. Nothing in point #2 matters when talking about free will. To say that something behaves unpredictably is a necessary condition for freedom, but it is not a sufficient condition.

Now this is probably the biggest problem on the thread. I warned everyone that I was not arguing for free will; but rather, I was arguing for the possibility of free will to exist. People kept forgetting this, and I kept reminding them.

In short, unpredictability is not freedom without conscious control; even if it were, this freedom is not 'free will' just because something with a will is made of particles that are free; even if it were, quantum mechanics is not indeterminate at classical scales.

They are currently finding more and more evidence that human systems have quantum mechanisms.

And remember; big decisions can be made from the smallest cause, such as a flap from a butterfly wing.

 

[DBT]

This is not known yet. How can you just throw this at me and expect me to buy it? You mashed together two highly controversial theories.

Nothing is 'mashed together' - I simply mentioned the options that do not support your belief in quantum freedom/free will.....which is wild and highly unlikely speculation, to say the least.

freedom: The state of being unrestricted and able to move easily

Random: Governed by or involving equal chances for each item

The Earth freely orbits the sun, it has done this for 4.5 billion years. But it cannot choose to do something else. You ignore context.
Nor is chance a choice. The coin flip doesn't allow the coin to take one option over another...but the coin does spin freely and fall to earth without impediment, until it comes to a halt.

Just like each neuron helps make-up a choice but is not a choice, so too does randomness make-up the neurons that are not random themselves.

Neurons are coherent structures that have evolved to process information input, neurons are not an example of quantum uncertainty, not is information processing a random activity.

Why are you talking about photons and eyes?

Isn't it obvious that I gave an example of sensory input in the form of reflected light and explained that it neural processing that interprets this information as colour and shape, and that the process does not support your random quantum explanation for free will?

Something tells me that this is more important for you than just a discussion. I know I admitted why I want free will to exist. I wonder if anyone else can admit why they don't want it to exist. I have a feeling that the answer is a three lettered word.

It's not a matter of wanting something to be what it's not, but understanding the mechanisms of cognition as they are and not what we would like them to be.

 

[DBT]

I use the very same criteria that you, yourself describe;

''... you would arrive at a working definition of what the word means within that community. What the theory would not tell you is whether the concept of god in that community refers to something that has any real existence.'' - The AntiChris

That is, that the theory of common usage of words and terms refer to objects that may or may not exist, and it is the latter that needs to be established in order to prove a proposition of reality, actual attributes and features, etc.

This doesn't address my question. I'm clearly talking about what people mean by free will not whether or not what they mean makes any sense.

You can't put any stipulation on what popular usage must refer to but of course you can stipulate the criteria by which you then assess the validity of any claims implicit in that usage. Establishing what a word means (i.e. its referent) is quite separate from establishing whether or not that referent 'exists'.

Do you agree?

We have established that word meanings are derived from usage.

We have established that word usage normally relates to something in order to convey information and meaning for the purpose of communication; objects, events, ideas, concepts, etc.

We have established that word usage, the theory, the working definition of what the word means.. does not tell us whether the concept, the object, the idea, the event, etc, being represented as a word or term as used in that community refers to something that has any real existence.

Because word usage alone cannot establish whether the object of reference has any real existence, we must look elsewhere for evidence to support the proposition that the object of reference is indeed an actual thing, that it has any real existence.

What the word means is merely established by common agreement, with perhaps no relationship to reality, for example, gods, demons, young Earth Creationism...and in relation to this topic: free will.

What people commonly refer to or mean when they talk about free will is conscious agency, conscious control of decision making and consciously making a decision from a set of option and acting upon the chosen action.


This raises the question of the nature of cognition, the nuts and bolts, the how and why of the experience of conscious agency in order to determine whether the common perception of conscious agency and word usage and meaning that is a reflection of that perception is indeed true and valid

 

[PyramidHead]

The point was that quantum mechanics is a complete non-starter that has nothing to do with free will. Random, unpredictable behavior is not free if it is beyond our conscious control, which quantum effects always are. The only entities that can be said to have a will are those with complex brains, which quantum particles lack. Being made of a lot of unpredictable quantum particles doesn't make you unpredictable if their behavior is predictable at large scales, which it is. When someone asks if I took an action of my own free will, I do not need a complete explanation of every particle in my body to answer the question. The point is whether I decided to do something based on weighing it against alternatives and choosing what suits me best, without being bullied or threatened to behave one way or another. The flavor of my leptons is a totally unrelated concern.

Are you a monist or a dualist? If you are a dualist, do you believe in psychophysical parallelism (no causal interaction between mind and body), or do you believe that they can interact in any way?

I'm not really sure. I am not a physicalist because I don't think 'physical' or 'material' actually mean anything. But I'm not a dualist either, in that I don't think there is a separate class of substance that minds are made out of.

 

[The AntiChris]

This doesn't address my question. I'm clearly talking about what people mean by free will not whether or not what they mean makes any sense.

You can't put any stipulation on what popular usage must refer to but of course you can stipulate the criteria by which you then assess the validity of any claims implicit in that usage. Establishing what a word means (i.e. its referent) is quite separate from establishing whether or not that referent 'exists'.

Do you agree?

We have established that word meanings are derived from usage.

We have established that word usage normally relates to something in order to convey information and meaning for the purpose of communication; objects, events, ideas, concepts, etc.

We have established that word usage, the theory, the working definition of what the word means.. does not tell us whether the concept, the object, the idea, the event, etc, being represented as a word or term as used in that community refers to something that has any real existence.

Because word usage alone cannot establish whether the object of reference has any real existence, we must look elsewhere for evidence to support the proposition that the object of reference is indeed an actual thing, that it has any real existence.

What the word means is merely established by common agreement, with perhaps no relationship to reality, for example, gods, demons, young Earth Creationism...and in relation to this topic: free will.

What people commonly refer to or mean when they talk about free will is conscious agency, conscious control of decision making and consciously making a decision from a set of option and acting upon the chosen action.


This raises the question of the nature of cognition, the nuts and bolts, the how and why of the experience of conscious agency in order to determine whether the common perception of conscious agency and word usage and meaning that is a reflection of that perception is indeed true and valid

Was that a yes?

If not, can you point to the exact part with which you disagree. Here it is again broken down:

1) "You can't put any stipulation on what popular usage must refer to"

2) "you can stipulate the criteria by which you then assess the validity of any claims implicit in that usage"

3) "Establishing what a word means (i.e. its referent) is quite separate from establishing whether or not that referent 'exists'."

Sorry to insist on this but we agreed to take this one step at a time. It's pointless moving on to the next step unless it's clear what we've agreed.

 

[fromderinside]

We have established that word meanings are derived from usage.

We have established that word usage normally relates to something in order to convey information and meaning for the purpose of communication; objects, events, ideas, concepts, etc.

We have established that word usage, the theory, the working definition of what the word means.. does not tell us whether the concept, the object, the idea, the event, etc, being represented as a word or term as used in that community refers to something that has any real existence.

Because word usage alone cannot establish whether the object of reference has any real existence, we must look elsewhere for evidence to support the proposition that the object of reference is indeed an actual thing, that it has any real existence.

What the word means is merely established by common agreement, with perhaps no relationship to reality, for example, gods, demons, young Earth Creationism...and in relation to this topic: free will.

What people commonly refer to or mean when they talk about free will is conscious agency, conscious control of decision making and consciously making a decision from a set of option and acting upon the chosen action.


This raises the question of the nature of cognition, the nuts and bolts, the how and why of the experience of conscious agency in order to determine whether the common perception of conscious agency and word usage and meaning that is a reflection of that perception is indeed true and valid

Was that a yes?

If not, can you point to the exact part with which you disagree. Here it is again broken down:

1) "You can't put any stipulation on what popular usage must refer to"

2) "you can stipulate the criteria by which you then assess the validity of any claims implicit in that usage"

3) "Establishing what a word means (i.e. its referent) is quite separate from establishing whether or not that referent 'exists'."

Sorry to insist on this but we agreed to take this one step at a time. It's pointless moving on to the next step unless it's clear what we've agreed.

I don't think my evaluation need be consistent with popular usage. My evaluation is consistent with my view of popular usage which is obviously individual and unique. Mining those comments for differences is what usually leads to evolution of meaning in popular usage objectively in text and individually, though separately, in individual minds. Unfortunately we don't mind meld so the process is never ending.

 

[ryan]

Nothing is 'mashed together' - I simply mentioned the options that do not support your belief in quantum freedom/free will.....which is wild and highly unlikely speculation, to say the least.

My whole argument is based on QM having randomness and being indeterminable. I need that to be assumed for my argument, so please don't bother to bring up a determinable QM.

freedom: The state of being unrestricted and able to move easily

Random: Governed by or involving equal chances for each item

The Earth freely orbits the sun, it has done this for 4.5 billion years. But it cannot choose to do something else. You ignore context.

According to the definition that I am using, "freedom" is something that is unrestricted. I would say that the Earth is mostly restricted to its orbit, and ultimately CM.

Just like each neuron helps make-up a choice but is not a choice, so too does randomness make-up the neurons that are not random themselves.

Neurons are coherent structures that have evolved to process information input, neurons are not an example of quantum uncertainty, not is information processing a random activity.

Please read,

"Mainstream views assume consciousness emerges from complex synaptic computation among brain neurons, each acting as a fundamental information unit. However such views fail to 1) generate testable predictions, 2) provide supportive evidence, or 3) distinguish conscious from non-conscious processes. Moreover, single cell organisms perform cognitive activities without synaptic connections, utilizing cytoskeletal microtubules which regulate neuronal synapses, and organize neuronal activities."

from http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/2014WorkshopsQuantumBiology.htm , and please go to that website.

I didn't even know that the above information existed on such a mainstream stage, but for the love of common sense I can't think of anything more unsurprising and obvious than quantum effects anywhere and everywhere in a quantum universe.

Why are you talking about photons and eyes?

Isn't it obvious that I gave an example of sensory input in the form of reflected light and explained that it neural processing that interprets this information as colour and shape, and that the process does not support your random quantum explanation for free will?

What happens on my feet doesn't support my argument either. I don't know what that has to do with my argument.

Something tells me that this is more important for you than just a discussion. I know I admitted why I want free will to exist. I wonder if anyone else can admit why they don't want it to exist. I have a feeling that the answer is a three lettered word.

It's not a matter of wanting something to be what it's not, but understanding the mechanisms of cognition as they are and not what we would like them to be.

You and what seems like 99% of the rest of the population is in what I call "the definite now". Whatever is hypothesised or theorized you believe must be the true reality. You don't leave room for other possibilities no matter how small they are.

Looking through history, we know that our hypothesises and theories have always been wrong or corrected. It is science that can predict that science will continue to be corrected.

You have a false sense of certainty.

 

[The AntiChris]

Was that a yes?

If not, can you point to the exact part with which you disagree. Here it is again broken down:

1) "You can't put any stipulation on what popular usage must refer to"

2) "you can stipulate the criteria by which you then assess the validity of any claims implicit in that usage"

3) "Establishing what a word means (i.e. its referent) is quite separate from establishing whether or not that referent 'exists'."

Sorry to insist on this but we agreed to take this one step at a time. It's pointless moving on to the next step unless it's clear what we've agreed.

I don't think my evaluation need be consistent with popular usage.

Of course not. I clearly wasn't suggesting that.

In fact I was specifically pointing out the distinction between usage and evaluation.

 

[ryan]

Are you a monist or a dualist? If you are a dualist, do you believe in psychophysical parallelism (no causal interaction between mind and body), or do you believe that they can interact in any way?

I'm not really sure. I am not a physicalist because I don't think 'physical' or 'material' actually mean anything. But I'm not a dualist either, in that I don't think there is a separate class of substance that minds are made out of.

Okay, it seems like you're closest to a monist. Id not, let's just go with that because it seems like most people are monists anyways.

Everything that I am about to say has to do with this quote from your second last post, "Random, unpredictable behavior is not free if it is beyond our conscious control, which quantum effects always are."

So let's assume monism. Now, a monist would say that there is one substance that makes up your consciousness. This substance is all there is to be you; ley's assume this substance is particles in a certain process, no more no less.

Please keep in mind that this whole post is about your quote.

So, your consciousness is your particles and what they do; in monism there is no separation and nothing else is attributed to your particles in their processes. You are trillions of quantum mechanical processes. When you feel like you are "willing" something to happen, maybe that's when an outside observer would see something happen by random through QM processes that can't be causally explained. You are your particles, and maybe you are an input to the rest of your body. Sure we don't have total control, but that's to be expected in an environment of your body and the outside world.

 

[Juma]

I didn't even know that the above information existed on such a mainstream stage, .

Mainstream my ass! That is a highly speculative hypotesis. Not near mainstream science.

 

[ryan]

I didn't even know that the above information existed on such a mainstream stage, .

Mainstream my ass! That is a highly speculative hypotesis. Not near mainstream science.

First of all, I said it was a mainstream "stage". Second, this is only evidence that science is not sure that the consciousness does not have quantum mechanisms.

 

[ryan]

The more and more I see these misguided arguments from a false sense of certainty, the more and more I am concerned that this discussion is about something else - something that is too painful to accept for reasons I don't know yet. My guess is that it is about god or the inability to forgive one's self and take responsibility for past and present actions.

If my assumptions are wrong, then please ignore this as I will try hard not to bring it into the argument. If I am right, then I hope for the best, and I can help through with private messages by telling you how I have dealt with it. But most importantly, I would recommend that you seek professional help no matter what the price or what your situation is - you must find a way.

Some people find peace with the Christian God. To be honest, it hurt me quite a bit when I tried that, but I have heard over and over again that it helps others.

 

[bilby]

The more and more I see these misguided arguments from a false sense of certainty, the more and more I am concerned that this discussion is about something else - something that is too painful to accept for reasons I don't know yet. My guess is that it is about god or the inability to forgive one's self and take responsibility for past and present actions.

If my assumptions are wrong, then please ignore this as I will try hard not to bring it into the argument. If I am right, then I hope for the best, and I can help through with private messages by telling you how I have dealt with it. But most importantly, I would recommend that you seek professional help no matter what the price or what your situation is - you must find a way.

Some people find peace with the Christian God. To be honest, it hurt me quite a bit when I tried that, but I have heard over and over again that it helps others.

Your quantum God is no better.

It pervades the universe, doing exactly what you want it to do in order to justify your need to believe in dualism in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

And here you are, evangelising to us about how much better it would be if we joined you in your delusional beliefs.

I bet that if I don't accept that quantum uncertainty leads (via some hand waving) to free will, I will miss my chance at eternal life. Am I right?

 

[ryan]

The more and more I see these misguided arguments from a false sense of certainty, the more and more I am concerned that this discussion is about something else - something that is too painful to accept for reasons I don't know yet. My guess is that it is about god or the inability to forgive one's self and take responsibility for past and present actions.

If my assumptions are wrong, then please ignore this as I will try hard not to bring it into the argument. If I am right, then I hope for the best, and I can help through with private messages by telling you how I have dealt with it. But most importantly, I would recommend that you seek professional help no matter what the price or what your situation is - you must find a way.

Some people find peace with the Christian God. To be honest, it hurt me quite a bit when I tried that, but I have heard over and over again that it helps others.

Your quantum God is no better.

It pervades the universe, doing exactly what you want it to do in order to justify your need to believe in dualism in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

I don't need dualism for my argument. Dualism would actually complicate things.

And here you are, evangelising to us about how much better it would be if we joined you in your delusional beliefs.

It might be better, but I have not brought that into the discussion since a couple of weeks ago.

I bet that if I don't accept that quantum uncertainty leads (via some hand waving) to free will, I will miss my chance at eternal life. Am I right?

What have I said - or ever said - that would make you think that?

My life and work is purely about how we can live for as long as we want by advancing medicine and practices. Free will may or may not help my cause; it depends on the wills of the people and if they are willing to use their free will to support or hinder the cause. Some people do not want people to live as long as they want. In fact, my life was threatened on here for only advocating it.

 

[DBT]

The more and more I see these misguided arguments from a false sense of certainty, the more and more I am concerned that this discussion is about something else - something that is too painful to accept for reasons I don't know yet. My guess is that it is about god or the inability to forgive one's self and take responsibility for past and present actions.

No, the objection to your belief is about an absence of evidence to support quantum, or randomness as a foundation for an argument for 'free' will...will itself being formed from information processing, the process of cognition. Neural network agency, and not randomness.

You have no foundation for your proposition so now you are drifting into an 'argument from ulterior motives' defence.