The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

I don't have any angst about it; I don't even know if I like or dislike the idea. Many people on here seem to have strong negative feeling about it, though. There is a lot of religious connections and frustration regarding this subject, but I will probably never understand why.

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you specifically are angsty about it, just that I don't see the point of the debate when human experience is static regardless of what concepts you super-impose on it.

But what does human experience have to do with the freedom to choose? And why do you claim that experience is static? Don't we experience change, whether change exists or not?

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you specifically are angsty about it, just that I don't see the point of the debate when human experience is static regardless of what concepts you super-impose on it.

But what does human experience have to do with the freedom to choose? And why do you claim that experience is static? Don't we experience change, whether change exists or not?

Getting back to whether time is relevant ryan. What would be the look of free will if all that remained was this then than with this and that being both spatial? I'm pretty sure the temporal uncertainty you depend upon from QM would go away and just become a spatial uncertainty. In other words "when" would be meaningless.

Nice point, that static, rousseau.

 

[ryan]

But what does human experience have to do with the freedom to choose? And why do you claim that experience is static? Don't we experience change, whether change exists or not?

Getting back to whether time is relevant ryan. What would be the look of free will if all that remained was this then than with this and that being both spatial? I'm pretty sure the temporal uncertainty you depend upon from QM would go away and just become a spatial uncertainty. In other words "when" would be meaningless.

Nice point, that static, rousseau.

This is a huge issue. There are many kinds of ideas about it, but it is still a philosophical issue. I am not sure what you want me to say about it.

 

[untermensche]

Talk of QM just clouds the issue.

The issue is whether an animal with a "mind" can make "free" choices with that "mind". In other words choices that are not forced in any way but made only with knowledge and planning and the ability to move based on that planning and not some "program".

That is as close to "free will" as you can get.

 

[rousseau]

Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you specifically are angsty about it, just that I don't see the point of the debate when human experience is static regardless of what concepts you super-impose on it.

But what does human experience have to do with the freedom to choose? And why do you claim that experience is static? Don't we experience change, whether change exists or not?

I don't think it's clicking for you.

Experience is 'static' as in what it means to be a human being is unchanging, regardless of how you define that experience.

Trying to describe whether or not we have free will is an attempt to super-impose a definition onto ourselves that is arbitrary. The reason it's arbitrary is because plain and simple.. it doesn't matter, we're human and the reality of being such is our reality.

If we somehow prove that we don't have a choice, then we know that's just what we are and life remains unchanged. Or if we prove we do have a choice, then again we know that's just what we are, and life remains unchanged.

The point is that free will or lack thereof is not required to be alive, no matter how we want to define our reality, we can't change it, and it's what it means to be human.

 

[untermensche]

...If we somehow prove that we don't have a choice, then we know that's just what we are and life remains unchanged...

Not true at all.

Humans have a psychology.

Knowledge like that, as unlikely as it is, would have an effect.

The human is not static. It is a cultural creation.

 

[DBT]

Talk of QM just clouds the issue.

The issue is whether an animal with a "mind" can make "free" choices with that "mind". In other words choices that are not forced in any way but made only with knowledge and planning and the ability to move based on that planning and not some "program".

That is as close to "free will" as you can get.

In that case any form of processor able to choose options on a given set of criteria/requirements has 'free will'

In my experience Google search is pretty good at predicting my intended search based on the first few words I type, providing options that match my requirements before I finish typing my request.

So based on that ability to predict and decide, Google search algorithms have more 'free will' than many of the people I've met.

 

[fast]

Talk of QM just clouds the issue.

The issue is whether an animal with a "mind" can make "free" choices with that "mind". In other words choices that are not forced in any way but made only with knowledge and planning and the ability to move based on that planning and not some "program".

That is as close to "free will" as you can get.

In that case any form of processor able to choose options on a given set of criteria/requirements has 'free will'

In my experience Google search is pretty good at predicting my intended search based on the first few words I type, providing options that match my requirements before I finish typing my request.

So based on that ability to predict and decide, Google search algorithms have more 'free will' than many of the people I've met.

Processors don't choose

 

[DBT]

In that case any form of processor able to choose options on a given set of criteria/requirements has 'free will'

In my experience Google search is pretty good at predicting my intended search based on the first few words I type, providing options that match my requirements before I finish typing my request.

So based on that ability to predict and decide, Google search algorithms have more 'free will' than many of the people I've met.

Processors don't choose

I'm sure information processors do select options...which is making decisions, this option or that option. If several options are available, algorithms select an option based on a given set of criteria. Chess for example.

Quote:
''Do you think your high-paid managers really know best? A Dutch sociology professor has doubts.

The professor, Chris Snijders of the Eindhoven University of Technology, has been studying the routine decisions that managers make, and is convinced that computer models, by and large, can do a better job of it. He even issued a challenge late last year to any company willing to pit its humans against his algorithms.

“As long as you have some history and some quantifiable data from past experiences,” Mr. Snijders claims, a simple formula will soon outperform a professional’s decision-making skills. “It’s not just pie in the sky,” he said. “I have the data to support this.”

 

[ryan]

But what does human experience have to do with the freedom to choose? And why do you claim that experience is static? Don't we experience change, whether change exists or not?

I don't think it's clicking for you.

Experience is 'static' as in what it means to be a human being is unchanging, regardless of how you define that experience.

Trying to describe whether or not we have free will is an attempt to super-impose a definition onto ourselves that is arbitrary. The reason it's arbitrary is because plain and simple.. it doesn't matter, we're human and the reality of being such is our reality.

It might just be that you are not interested in this topic. It's like people who watch movies even though there is not much to gain personally. And some people enjoy certain movies and some don't.

If we somehow prove that we don't have a choice, then we know that's just what we are and life remains unchanged. Or if we prove we do have a choice, then again we know that's just what we are, and life remains unchanged.

I think this is a very important question for so many reasons that I can not even begin to list. The areas interested in this are: religion, psychology, neurology, social science, philosophy, physics, ethics, law, A.I. engineering and science, quantum computer science and engineering, policy, history, quantum biology, eductaion and even the state of the human condition itself may change with the knowledge of free will.

 

[fast]

Processors don't choose

I'm sure information processors do select options...which is making decisions, this option or that option. If several options are available, algorithms select an option based on a given set of criteria. Chess for example.

Quote:
''Do you think your high-paid managers really know best? A Dutch sociology professor has doubts.

The professor, Chris Snijders of the Eindhoven University of Technology, has been studying the routine decisions that managers make, and is convinced that computer models, by and large, can do a better job of it. He even issued a challenge late last year to any company willing to pit its humans against his algorithms.

“As long as you have some history and some quantifiable data from past experiences,” Mr. Snijders claims, a simple formula will soon outperform a professional’s decision-making skills. “It’s not just pie in the sky,” he said. “I have the data to support this.”

Managers at least have the ability to know something. Computers with all their fancy algorithms don't know shit.

If I make a decision and do so with the use of a tool, let us remember that I made the decision, even if I would have made a poor decision without use of that tool.

 

[DBT]

Managers at least have the ability to know something. Computers with all their fancy algorithms don't know shit.

The ability to consciously 'know' does not negate the ability to select options and therefore make decisions. The brain itself makes unconscious decisions.

If I make a decision and do so with the use of a tool, let us remember that I made the decision, even if I would have made a poor decision without use of that tool.

The brain is an information processor. You are what your brain is doing and what your brain is deciding, as an information processor. You don't use your brain, a brain uses you as its interface with the external world, its Avatar if you like.

 

[fast]

The ability to consciously 'know' does not negate the ability to select options and therefore make decisions. The brain itself makes unconscious decisions.

The brain does not make unconscious decisions. If unconscious decisions are being made, they're being made by the person.

The brain is an information processor. You are what your brain is doing and what your brain is deciding, as an information processor. You don't use your brain, a brain uses you as its interface with the external world, its Avatar if you like.

I'm not what my brain is doing. I am fast. My name is, "fast," and that refers to me, fast--not my arm, not my hair (what's left of it) and not my CNS or brain.

My brain doesn't decide for me. I decide when I'm going to the store, and when I do decide to go, my brain won't be handing the cashier any money for cinnamon fireball; moreover, neither will my hand; however, rest assured, I will hand the cashier some money, but not because I fear that my brain will be arrested if I don't.

 

[DBT]

The brain does not make unconscious decisions. If unconscious decisions are being made, they're being made by the person.

No, the brain is the sole decision maker. The word 'person' is a general reference to the whole brain/mind/body/organism activity.

''In the new paper published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences, associate professor of psychology at San Francisco State University Ezequiel Morsella posits just that in what he calls the “Passive Frame Theory.” Morsella suggests that the conscious does not do nearly as much as we thought. In fact, conscious thought is just a small fraction of what is happening in the brain. Instead, it is the unconscious that is doing everything for us, and we are completely unaware of it.'

Unconscious decision making;
''Already several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain. This is shown in a study by scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences in Leipzig, in collaboration with the Charité University Hospital and the Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience in Berlin. The researchers from the group of Professor John-Dylan Haynes used a brain scanner to investigate what happens in the human brain just before a decision is made. "Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness. This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks. But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind. This is questioned by our current findings." (Nature Neuroscience, April 13th 2008)

My brain doesn't decide for me. I decide when I'm going to the store, and when I do decide to go, my brain won't be handing the cashier any money for cinnamon fireball; moreover, neither will my hand; however, rest assured, I will hand the cashier some money, but not because I fear that my brain will be arrested if I don't.

What you say is not supported by evidence. The brain is not something that 'you' as a disembodied Entity/Director control. Our conscious experience of agency is an illusion formed by the disconnect between conscious experience and its underlying production mechanism/activity, of which consciousness is not conscious of. There lies the source of our illusion of separateness of me 'having a brain' instead of the reality being ''the experience of the conscious activity of a brain.''

 

[untermensche]

Talk of QM just clouds the issue.

The issue is whether an animal with a "mind" can make "free" choices with that "mind". In other words choices that are not forced in any way but made only with knowledge and planning and the ability to move based on that planning and not some "program".

That is as close to "free will" as you can get.

In that case any form of processor able to choose options on a given set of criteria/requirements has 'free will'

In my experience Google search is pretty good at predicting my intended search based on the first few words I type, providing options that match my requirements before I finish typing my request.

So based on that ability to predict and decide, Google search algorithms have more 'free will' than many of the people I've met.

Does that processor have a mind and is it able to make choices based on ideas in that mind?

Just making choices does not demonstrate you have a mind.

The mind is the mechanism humans make choices with.

When one understands what the mind is they will know if choices are restrained in some way or "free".

 

[rousseau]

...If we somehow prove that we don't have a choice, then we know that's just what we are and life remains unchanged...

Not true at all.

Humans have a psychology.

Knowledge like that, as unlikely as it is, would have an effect.

The human is not static. It is a cultural creation.

That's true although my meaning is more subtle than that.

Studies have proven that you're correct, but the point is that whatever the nature of our 'will' is its already an intrinsic part of our experience as a human being.

If suddenly we believe we aren't responsible for our actions, or believe anything, our behavior will change, but out essential nature does not change.

 

[Speakpigeon]

In that case any form of processor able to choose options on a given set of criteria/requirements has 'free will'

In my experience Google search is pretty good at predicting my intended search based on the first few words I type, providing options that match my requirements before I finish typing my request.

So based on that ability to predict and decide, Google search algorithms have more 'free will' than many of the people I've met.

Does that processor have a mind and is it able to make choices based on ideas in that mind?

Just making choices does not demonstrate you have a mind.

The mind is the mechanism humans make choices with.

When one understands what the mind is they will know if choices are restrained in some way or "free".

If we follow you, (2) just making choices does not demonstrate you have a mind but if (3) the mind is the mechanism humans make choices with, as you say, then whatever computers use to make choices we have to call it "a mind". So, computers have minds. Not human minds, God forbid, but "computer minds" or electronic minds" whatever you want to call them. QED.

This way you should all agree.

Though probably you won't.

Ah, I don't mind because I don't have a choice.
EB

 

[fast]

No, the brain is the sole decision maker.

It's a necessary organ that makes it possible for us to make decisions.

The word 'person' is a general reference to the whole brain/mind/body/organism activity.

I can go with that.

Morsella suggests that the conscious does not do nearly as much as we thought.

That strikes me as likely.

In fact, conscious thought is just a small fraction of what is happening in the brain.

Sounds reasonable.

Instead, it is the unconscious that is doing everything for us, and we are completely unaware of it.'

Much, not everything.

Unconscious decision making;
''Already several seconds before we consciously make a decision its outcome can be predicted from unconscious activity in the brain.

That sounds like a stretch. I wonder the degree to which language muddles the interpretation of the results.

"Many processes in the brain occur automatically and without involvement of our consciousness.

I'm okay with that.

This prevents our mind from being overloaded by simple routine tasks.

Good with that too.

But when it comes to decisions we tend to assume they are made by our conscious mind.

Well, yeah. We contemplate many of our decisions. If there are underlying processes in our unconscious mind (that we are not consciously aware of), that's no good reason to think that we are not consciously making decisions.

The brain is not something that 'you' as a disembodied Entity/Director control.

Agreed.

Our conscious experience of agency is an illusion formed by the disconnect between conscious experience and its underlying production mechanism/activity, of which consciousness is not conscious of.

That's a mouth full.

First, that stuff about an illusion is enough for me to disagree. I'm okay (but barely) with that disconnect stuff. That last part, well, you did it again ... speaking of consciousness as if itself can or cannot be conscious of something. I consider that a category error.

There lies the source of our illusion of separateness of me 'having a brain' instead of the reality being ''the experience of the conscious activity of a brain.''

So, you think the proposition, "I have a brain" is false. Lovely. Not sure how to feel about that

 

[untermensche]

Does that processor have a mind and is it able to make choices based on ideas in that mind?

Just making choices does not demonstrate you have a mind.

The mind is the mechanism humans make choices with.

When one understands what the mind is they will know if choices are restrained in some way or "free".

If we follow you, (2) just making choices does not demonstrate you have a mind but if (3) the mind is the mechanism humans make choices with, as you say, then whatever computers use to make choices we have to call it "a mind". So, computers have minds. Not human minds, God forbid, but "computer minds" or electronic minds" whatever you want to call them. QED.

This way you should all agree.

Though probably you won't.

Ah, I don't mind because I don't have a choice.
EB

The question is: Is making choices with a mind the same as making a programmed choice?

When we know what a mind is we may be able to answer that.

 

[ryan]

Not true at all.

Humans have a psychology.

Knowledge like that, as unlikely as it is, would have an effect.

The human is not static. It is a cultural creation.

That's true although my meaning is more subtle than that.

Studies have proven that you're correct, but the point is that whatever the nature of our 'will' is its already an intrinsic part of our experience as a human being.

If suddenly we believe we aren't responsible for our actions, or believe anything, our behavior will change, but out essential nature does not change.

You seem to be only talking about compatibilism. There are other definitions of free will that allow free will to actually have an effect on the physical universe.