The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[DBT]

What do you mean by 'will' - and why can't it be talked about?

It isn't understood, scientifically, at all.

We don't have the slightest clue beyond; "It is something the brain does".

As I said, we don't even have a clue what it is in simpler organisms like worms.

To talk about whether it is "free" or "unfree" is absurd when you don't even have a clue what it is.

You don't have a working definition of 'will?' What about 'a conscious impulse or drive to act'....the will to respond?'

 

[untermensche]

It isn't understood, scientifically, at all.

We don't have the slightest clue beyond; "It is something the brain does".

As I said, we don't even have a clue what it is in simpler organisms like worms.

To talk about whether it is "free" or "unfree" is absurd when you don't even have a clue what it is.

You don't have a working definition of 'will?' What about 'a conscious impulse or drive to act'....the will to respond?'

Is saying "I can see" a scientific explanation of vision?

 

[ryan]

Doesn't it seem like a possible reason why people do things that they know they shouldn't?

Perhaps it's because their condition only allowed that option in that given time, and if they could go back in time - 'knowing what I know now'' - they would not make the decision that they first made. A common lament, but demonstrates that decisions are based on the information available to the brain at any given moment, and nothing to do with 'freedom of will''

For many reasons, the cost benefit ratio favors a nice 30 minute run. It's not going to happen. I want to waste a little time today.

 

[DBT]

You don't have a working definition of 'will?' What about 'a conscious impulse or drive to act'....the will to respond?'

Is saying "I can see" a scientific explanation of vision?

That doesn't relate to what I said.

 

[DBT]

Perhaps it's because their condition only allowed that option in that given time, and if they could go back in time - 'knowing what I know now'' - they would not make the decision that they first made. A common lament, but demonstrates that decisions are based on the information available to the brain at any given moment, and nothing to do with 'freedom of will''

For many reasons, the cost benefit ratio favors a nice 30 minute run. It's not going to happen. I want to waste a little time today.

How does that relate to what I said? You are only describing subjective experience.

 

[ryan]

For many reasons, the cost benefit ratio favors a nice 30 minute run. It's not going to happen. I want to waste a little time today.

How does that relate to what I said?

It relates to what you said because it is a case where I have two options. One option is clearly worse than the other, yet I chose it.

You are only describing subjective experience.

I could be wrong, but subjectivity seems to imply dualism, unless of course you are a solipsist.

 

[untermensche]

Is saying "I can see" a scientific explanation of vision?

That doesn't relate to what I said.

It most definitely does.

You are claiming the subjective experience of "will" is somehow a scientific explanation.

Is the subjective experience of vision a scientific explanation of vision?

Not you or anybody else has a clue, scientifically, what it means for an animal to "will' something. What specifically is happening in the animal to allow an expression of "will".

 

[fast]

Do you believe that free will can be scientifically explained? Why or why not?

Free will is the ability to do as we please without compulsion. For instance, if I am constrained to or restrained from acting in opposition to what I want to do, then I'm not behaving of my own free will. The classic carjacking example illustrates: She did not want to relinquish possession of her vehicle (the want aspect), but she was forced to act in opposition to what she wanted (the compulsion aspect).

Even a dog can be held against his will by either a chain or even fear of reprocussion. Let's say he is chained up and couldn't get to the food bowl even if he wanted to. If the dog doesn't for whatever reason want to move, the dog is not being held against his will, as he doesn't want to get up.

If you want to travel at a safe speed, the law is not compelling you to drive at a safe speed, but if I want to drive 100 MPH but choose to drive 70MPH in a 50MPH zone, I am driving slower than I would otherwise (because of the law and potential consequences), but it's done against my will since I want to drive faster than what I'm being restrained from doing.

Compulsion should be thought of as a force that can sometimes be overcome. When the lady got out the car, she could have stayed, but that only shows she can overcome the compelling force. That she made the choice to not overcome the force doesn't mean there was no force.

Also, the issue of free will is a macro-world issue--we need no microscope. No sense in delving into the interworkings of the brain and discuss the cause and effect of electrochemical transmissions in neural pathways.

 

[DBT]

It most definitely does.

You are claiming the subjective experience of "will" is somehow a scientific explanation.

Where did I make that claim? Can you show me?

Not you or anybody else has a clue, scientifically, what it means for an animal to "will' something. What specifically is happening in the animal to allow an expression of "will".

You seem to have gone off on a tangent of your own. What you are saying doesn't relate to my argument. We know that animals have needs; the need for water, food, shelter, to procreate, to survive (Maslow's hierarchy of needs and wants) and that these are the fundamental drivers of behaviour.

 

[DBT]

How does that relate to what I said?

It relates to what you said because it is a case where I have two options. One option is clearly worse than the other, yet I chose it.

But the choice was made milliseconds before conscious report, the latter being your experience. Nor could it have been different in that moment in time as I've pointed out: the information state of the brain in any given moment in time determines the decision that is made and represented in conscious form. That's what is being overlooked.

 

[untermensche]

Where did I make that claim? Can you show me?

Right here:

You don't have a working definition of 'will?' What about 'a conscious impulse or drive to act'....the will to respond?'

You are asking if the subjective experience of "will" is in any way a scientific explanation of "will". It isn't.

Not you or anybody else has a clue, scientifically, what it means for an animal to "will' something. What specifically is happening in the animal to allow an expression of "will".

You seem to have gone off on a tangent of your own. What you are saying doesn't relate to my argument. We know that animals have needs; the need for water, food, shelter, to procreate, to survive (Maslow's hierarchy of needs and wants) and that these are the fundamental drivers of behaviour.

Yes it is possible to observe animals doing things and then label those behaviors as "willful". But you haven't explained one thing.

Saying animals seek food for survival is a million miles away from understanding the internal mechanisms, supposedly in the brain, of why and how they do it.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Do you believe that free will can be scientifically explained? Why or why not?

No.

It could be scientifically studied if there were first a very specific definition of what is meant by "free will". But as the whole argument is over that definition then it is a philosophical problem that will never be resolved very much like philosophers have been arguing over the meaning of "moral" for thousands of years.

Correct. The task is to define it, then make observations of human behavior same as we do with other species and see if it exists. Not so very hard really.

The sounds that come out of our mouths and the squiggles we put on paper may or may not have accepted, agreed-upon objective counterpart in the environment. Some are easier, like tree or dog. "Free will" is a behavior, if a definition can be agreed upon. Otherwise it's just another sound/symbol we make and use that helps us communicate and facilitates survival. Sure are lots of those.

 

[ryan]

It relates to what you said because it is a case where I have two options. One option is clearly worse than the other, yet I chose it.

But the choice was made milliseconds before conscious report, the latter being your experience.

In total I spent about 5 minutes thinking about whether or not I should go for that run.

Nor could it have been different in that moment in time as I've pointed out: the information state of the brain in any given moment in time determines the decision that is made and represented in conscious form. That's what is being overlooked.

The key word here is "determines". You are assuming that the choice was determined, which assumes that there is no QM effects. You are essentially coming to a conclusion on the premise of determinism. I have no problem with that; as I said long ago, I need QM to make this work.

 

[fromderinside]

.... I need QM to make this work.

When it comes to choice for any particular cause this follows that even with QM. So if you think probability about timing is choice you've got a surprise coming.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

In total I spent about 5 minutes thinking about whether or not I should go for that run.

You actually consciously did that for 5 minutes? That indicates to me that subconsciously there was much more to the decision.

 

[untermensche]

You will never explain "will" by talking about the subjective experience.

Just as you don't explain hearing by talking about the music you like.

 

[ryan]

.... I need QM to make this work.

When it comes to choice for any particular cause this follows that even with QM. So if you think probability about timing is choice you've got a surprise coming.

Let's say it is true that we make decisions a short time before we consciously feel like we made the choice, as per the Libet experiments. Now the choice of, say, going to get a chocolate bar, maybe quickly revisited depending on my conscious reaction to the decision. My conscious reaction may cause my unconsciousness to re-examine what the readiness potential will be the second time based on whether or not the reaction was positive of negative.

The reaction may have freedom, but would not be totally free.

 

[ryan]

In total I spent about 5 minutes thinking about whether or not I should go for that run.

You actually consciously did that for 5 minutes? That indicates to me that subconsciously there was much more to the decision.

Well, there is. I like to exercise about 4 times a week. Yesterday would have put me on pace for 5 times in the week. It would be better if I would have done it. Of course there is a nagging guilt involved when deciding against something that is good for me.

 

[ryan]

You will never explain "will" by talking about the subjective experience.

Just as you don't explain hearing by talking about the music you like.

Right, there can't really be scientific evidence of free will, but I am trying to give an explanation of free will that is parallel with science/matter.

If we agree to assume that these "immaterial" experiences and subjective notions exist, then maybe we can match them up to scientific phenomena. If we can do that, then the mind, if it exists, is parallel with and thus just as important and real as matter. Mind and matter would be unified for all practical purposes.

Or, this explanation could allow physicalists to believe in free will as is defined into the material, and the mind would not even have to come into the argument.

 

[untermensche]

Right, there can't really be scientific evidence of free will, but I am trying to give an explanation of free will that is parallel with science/matter.

Of course there can, in theory, be a scientific explanation.

But "will" is too narrow a topic.

It is just a subset of "consciousness".

Once "consciousness" has a scientific explanation then "will" would be understood as well.

If we agree to assume that these "immaterial" experiences and subjective notions exist, then maybe we can match them up to scientific phenomena. If we can do that, then the mind, if it exists, is parallel with and thus just as important and real as matter. Mind and matter would be unified for all practical purposes.

The subjective experience occurs because of objective activity.

The objective activity that gives rise to subjective experience can certainly, in theory, be completely understood.