The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[Lion IRC]

Free will is as much about guessing/imagining the future as it is about remembering the specific past.

Yes, we of course rely on our memory of a hot stove when exercising our decision options whether or not to play near the fire, but in other areas we fill gaps in our knowledge with creative imaginings about what the future holds if we do X or Y or Z.

 

[Malintent]

.. and the loss of memory causing a loss of decision making is relevant to the existence of free will how.....?
If we agree that free will exists at all (I do not), what impact is there if it is reliant on memory?
I do not disagree that the fictional thing called free will would be reliant on memory, if there was such a thing, mind you.

As I've already said, it is generally believed that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. As memory function is the very foundation of neuronal decision making, connectivity, etc, it is memory that enables decision making and the belief that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. If memory function collapses the illusion is exposed.

what illusion? are you saying that free will is an illusion? I agree with that, but not because free will is "lost" along with memory loss. Your argument does suggest that IF free will exists, it cannot exist outside of the mind, though.

 

[ryan]

.. and the loss of memory causing a loss of decision making is relevant to the existence of free will how.....?
If we agree that free will exists at all (I do not), what impact is there if it is reliant on memory?
I do not disagree that the fictional thing called free will would be reliant on memory, if there was such a thing, mind you.

As I've already said, it is generally believed that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. As memory function is the very foundation of neuronal decision making, connectivity, etc, it is memory that enables decision making and the belief that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. If memory function collapses the illusion is exposed.

DBT, I am giving up on this because this subject is just too complicated, incomplete and there is too much they don't understand. I don't have anything more than what I had during that very long discussion we had a couple of years ago.

It comes down to whether or not there is physical freedom (a QM probability distribution) to choose between at least two different options during the decision making process. Is there QM involved, and is it enough to provide physical freedom so that the agent could have chosen differently? We need that question to be definitive, but it's not.

 

[DBT]

As I've already said, it is generally believed that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. As memory function is the very foundation of neuronal decision making, connectivity, etc, it is memory that enables decision making and the belief that the ability to make decisions at will is an instance of free will. If memory function collapses the illusion is exposed.

Your argument does suggest that IF free will exists, it cannot exist outside of the mind, though.

That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying that the term 'free will' does not represent either information processing (memory being information), or the conscious experience of decision making and conscious agency which is generally believed to be 'free will'
Because it does not represent brain state/activity, be it conscious or unconscious, I argue that the term 'free will' is irrelevant. It conveys no useful information in relation to human abilities or behaviours.

''what illusion? are you saying that free will is an illusion? '

Obviously I do mean that free will is an illusion. I said it several times.

I agree with that, but not because free will is "lost" along with memory loss. '

It's not that it's lost, but not there in the first place....that's what the word illusion means.

 

[DBT]

It comes down to whether or not there is physical freedom (a QM probability distribution) to choose between at least two different options during the decision making process.

Obviously there is not. Otherwise we would never make decisions that we regret a moment after we make them. We would never say things that we regret the moment they leave our mouth. Instead it is the immediate information condition of the brain that determines the decision that is made in that instance in time...which may be regretted a moment later. But of course, a moment too late.

 

[ryan]

It comes down to whether or not there is physical freedom (a QM probability distribution) to choose between at least two different options during the decision making process.

Obviously there is not. Otherwise we would never make decisions that we regret a moment after we make them. We would never say things that we regret the moment they leave our mouth. Instead it is the immediate information condition of the brain that determines the decision that is made in that instance in time...which may be regretted a moment later. But of course, a moment too late.

But this seems to help my argument. It would make sense that the free will would cause regrets - it's free from the usual automatic choices. Maybe the evolutionary use for the freedom/randomness of some choices is to force us to try new options. Of course this could go terribly wrong, but it can also create some very useful memories. So if free will was contingent on some original set of choices made earlier in life, then no adult would have free will or it would be extremely diminished.

 

[bilby]

Obviously there is not. Otherwise we would never make decisions that we regret a moment after we make them. We would never say things that we regret the moment they leave our mouth. Instead it is the immediate information condition of the brain that determines the decision that is made in that instance in time...which may be regretted a moment later. But of course, a moment too late.

But this seems to help my argument. It would make sense that the free will would cause regrets - it's free from the usual automatic choices. Maybe the evolutionary use for the freedom/randomness of some choices is to force us to try new options. Of course this could go terribly wrong, but it can also create some very useful memories. So if free will was contingent on some original set of choices made earlier in life, then no adult would have free will or it would be extremely diminished.

If a system can select what to do next, then it either makes a choice based on inputs (weighted or otherwise); or on some kind of randomness generator; or on a combination of both.

In which of these three conditions is 'free will' involved?

The very idea of 'free will' implies dualism. A decision made outside the decision making system, and imposed upon it. But that just leads to infinite regress - if my brain's decisions are subject to being overruled by my 'mind', then my 'mind' needs a meta-mind imposing its will on the (otherwise deterministic or random) 'mind'.

Every decision is:
1) deterministic, or
2) random, or
3) imposed by an external system that has one of these three characters.

Where could 'free will' possibly fit in?

This argument holds for any system - from a simple coin-toss, to the intricate working of a primate brain.

Free will is logically impossible, so it's pointless looking for it in the details.

 

[ryan]

But this seems to help my argument. It would make sense that the free will would cause regrets - it's free from the usual automatic choices. Maybe the evolutionary use for the freedom/randomness of some choices is to force us to try new options. Of course this could go terribly wrong, but it can also create some very useful memories. So if free will was contingent on some original set of choices made earlier in life, then no adult would have free will or it would be extremely diminished.

If a system can select what to do next, then it either makes a choice based on inputs (weighted or otherwise); or on some kind of randomness generator; or on a combination of both.

In which of these three conditions is 'free will' involved?

The very idea of 'free will' implies dualism. A decision made outside the decision making system, and imposed upon it. But that just leads to infinite regress - if my brain's decisions are subject to being overruled by my 'mind', then my 'mind' needs a meta-mind imposing its will on the (otherwise deterministic or random) 'mind'.

Every decision is:
1) deterministic, or
2) random, or
3) imposed by an external system that has one of these three characters.

Where could 'free will' possibly fit in?

This argument holds for any system - from a simple coin-toss, to the intricate working of a primate brain.

Free will is logically impossible, so it's pointless looking for it in the details.

Dualism is not necessary but can also work.

Without dualism, assume for example that there are 2 options that are physically allowed, then the choice made had freedom to chose either.

The will had some freedom.

 

[bilby]

If a system can select what to do next, then it either makes a choice based on inputs (weighted or otherwise); or on some kind of randomness generator; or on a combination of both.

In which of these three conditions is 'free will' involved?

The very idea of 'free will' implies dualism. A decision made outside the decision making system, and imposed upon it. But that just leads to infinite regress - if my brain's decisions are subject to being overruled by my 'mind', then my 'mind' needs a meta-mind imposing its will on the (otherwise deterministic or random) 'mind'.

Every decision is:
1) deterministic, or
2) random, or
3) imposed by an external system that has one of these three characters.

Where could 'free will' possibly fit in?

This argument holds for any system - from a simple coin-toss, to the intricate working of a primate brain.

Free will is logically impossible, so it's pointless looking for it in the details.

Dualism is not necessary but can also work.

Without dualism, assume for example that there are 2 options that are physically allowed, then the choice made had freedom to chose either.

The will had some freedom.

Where does this 'freedom' arise? Either the choice is deterministic, and the other choice wasn't, in fact, possible; or the 'choice' was random, in which case there was no 'will' involved.

 

[untermensche]

Every decision is:
1) deterministic, or
2) random, or
3) imposed by an external system that has one of these three characters.

There is also the decision based on reasons or feelings.

A decision made using the mind.

It takes looking at the mind as mechanism in itself. A whole greater than the parts.

 

[ryan]

Dualism is not necessary but can also work.

Without dualism, assume for example that there are 2 options that are physically allowed, then the choice made had freedom to chose either.

The will had some freedom.

Where does this 'freedom' arise? Either the choice is deterministic, and the other choice wasn't, in fact, possible; or the 'choice' was random, in which case there was no 'will' involved.

We can use the common but vague definition that free will is the ability to have chosen differently.

 

[DBT]

Obviously there is not. Otherwise we would never make decisions that we regret a moment after we make them. We would never say things that we regret the moment they leave our mouth. Instead it is the immediate information condition of the brain that determines the decision that is made in that instance in time...which may be regretted a moment later. But of course, a moment too late.

But this seems to help my argument. It would make sense that the free will would cause regrets - it's free from the usual automatic choices. Maybe the evolutionary use for the freedom/randomness of some choices is to force us to try new options. Of course this could go terribly wrong, but it can also create some very useful memories. So if free will was contingent on some original set of choices made earlier in life, then no adult would have free will or it would be extremely diminished.

It doesn't help your argument in the least.

The decision in the first instance is determined by underlying information state represented in conscious form as it achieved readiness potential, which is followed by fresh information entering the system modifying the first decision and forming regret for having made that decision. But of course, in the first instance the fresh information was not available so it was not an option.

The brain can only make the decision it makes in any given instance in time because that is the expression of its information in that instance.

'Free will' plays no part in decision making or its conscious representation in relation to thought and deliberation. All of this is governed by underlying information exchange between cells and their networks.

 

[bilby]

Where does this 'freedom' arise? Either the choice is deterministic, and the other choice wasn't, in fact, possible; or the 'choice' was random, in which case there was no 'will' involved.

We can use the common but vague definition that free will is the ability to have chosen differently.

Sure; but only by saying that 'freely willed choice' and 'randomly selected' are synonymous. Which renders the whole concept pointless.

"The roulette wheel freely chose to turn up a 12"; "The die freely chose to show a 3"; "The coin freely chose heads".

These are not entities that are usually considered to have 'will' of any kind; but if we accept your definition, then these statements are perfectly reasonable; and humans have just as much say in their choices as roulette wheels, dice and coins.

So we have gone from Dualism to Animism. Not a step in the right direction, if we care about reality.

 

[DBT]

We can use the common but vague definition that free will is the ability to have chosen differently.

Which - as I've already pointed out - is shown to be false every time that you (your brain) make a decision that you regret a moment after it is made. If you could have chosen differently, would you not have done so in order to avoid a costly or embarrassing mistake?

 

[skepticalbip]

Where does this 'freedom' arise? Either the choice is deterministic, and the other choice wasn't, in fact, possible; or the 'choice' was random, in which case there was no 'will' involved.

We can use the common but vague definition that free will is the ability to have chosen differently.

As I suggested much earlier, before arguing about free will a definition should be agreed on first so everyone is arguing about the same thing.

For instance there is a definition of free will that has nothing to do with the general arguments. That definition is something like the ability to make choices without external constraint, force, or duress.

 

[bilby]

We can use the common but vague definition that free will is the ability to have chosen differently.

As I suggested much earlier, before arguing about free will a definition should be agreed on first.

For instance there is a definition of free will that has nothing to do with the general arguments. That definition is something like the ability to make choices without external constraint, force, or duress.

There are always external constraints, usually duress, and frequently force. No man is an island.

 

[skepticalbip]

As I suggested much earlier, before arguing about free will a definition should be agreed on first.

For instance there is a definition of free will that has nothing to do with the general arguments. That definition is something like the ability to make choices without external constraint, force, or duress.

There are always external constraints, usually duress, and frequently force. No man is an island.

Then I suppose that the definitions of constraints, force, and duress also need to be agreed to before arguing. Might as well define "choice" too. People are reluctant to use dictionaries, I guess that is because that would make a great many philosophical arguments irrelevant.

 

[ryan]

But this seems to help my argument. It would make sense that the free will would cause regrets - it's free from the usual automatic choices. Maybe the evolutionary use for the freedom/randomness of some choices is to force us to try new options. Of course this could go terribly wrong, but it can also create some very useful memories. So if free will was contingent on some original set of choices made earlier in life, then no adult would have free will or it would be extremely diminished.

It doesn't help your argument in the least.

The decision in the first instance is determined by underlying information state represented in conscious form as it achieved readiness potential, which is followed by fresh information entering the system modifying the first decision and forming regret for having made that decision. But of course, in the first instance the fresh information was not available so it was not an option.

The brain can only make the decision it makes in any given instance in time because that is the expression of its information in that instance.

'Free will' plays no part in decision making or its conscious representation in relation to thought and deliberation. All of this is governed by underlying information exchange between cells and their networks.

Your response does not seem to address my reply. You mentioned regret, and I gave you my response. Can we please keep a linear discussion, or please tell me if you are branching out.

 

[ryan]

We can use the common but vague definition that free will is the ability to have chosen differently.

Sure; but only by saying that 'freely willed choice' and 'randomly selected' are synonymous. Which renders the whole concept pointless.

"The roulette wheel freely chose to turn up a 12"; "The die freely chose to show a 3"; "The coin freely chose heads".

These are not entities that are usually considered to have 'will' of any kind; but if we accept your definition, then these statements are perfectly reasonable; and humans have just as much say in their choices as roulette wheels, dice and coins.

So we have gone from Dualism to Animism. Not a step in the right direction, if we care about reality.

It's just semantics. There are "roulette wheels", and then there are "choices".

 

[bilby]

Sure; but only by saying that 'freely willed choice' and 'randomly selected' are synonymous. Which renders the whole concept pointless.

"The roulette wheel freely chose to turn up a 12"; "The die freely chose to show a 3"; "The coin freely chose heads".

These are not entities that are usually considered to have 'will' of any kind; but if we accept your definition, then these statements are perfectly reasonable; and humans have just as much say in their choices as roulette wheels, dice and coins.

So we have gone from Dualism to Animism. Not a step in the right direction, if we care about reality.

It's just semantics. There are "roulette wheels", and then there are "choices".

Could you please explain the difference? Because I can't see one. What is it about a choice made by a human brain that differs in a substantial way from a choice made by a roulette wheel? As far as I can see, both are subject to deterministic elements, plus random (or at least, chaotic/pseudo-random) elements, the sum of which leads to the final outcome, without leaving any place for 'will'.