The Science and Mechanics of Free Will

[ryan]

It is a little funny reading this thread. Originally, the concept of "free will" was a philosophical argument as to whether god's omniscience meant our actions were fated or if we were capable of freely deciding our actions. Now that the concept of god is relegated to the religious area of philosophy, god has been replaced with other "arm waving" and the argument over free will rages on - but with the boundary conditions poorly (or not) understood and no one agreeing on them.

This thread allows DBT and I to carry on our conversation from the other thread because I knew from our months long free will discussion that we had a while ago that we would be at it again.

Between DBT and I, we used to talk about the definition of free will as being that the agent could have chosen differently. If there is any actual freedom allowed through QM in the decision making process, then it would seem that an agent/human could have chosen differently.

 

[fast]

It is a little funny reading this thread. Originally, the concept of "free will" was a philosophical argument as to whether god's omniscience meant our actions were fated or if we were capable of freely deciding our actions. Now that the concept of god is relegated to the religious area of philosophy, god has been replaced with other "arm waving" and the argument over free will rages on - but with the boundary conditions poorly (or not) understood and no one agreeing on them.

This thread allows DBT and I to carry on our conversation from the other thread because I knew from our months long free will discussion that we had a while ago that we would be at it again.

Between DBT and I, we used to talk about the definition of free will as being that the agent could have chosen differently. If there is any actual freedom allowed through QM in the decision making process, then it would seem that an agent/human could have chosen differently.

Logical possibility remains even when physical possibility doesn't

 

[fast]

That I will do something is one thing, and that I must do something is quite another. While it's true that if I must do something, then I will do what I must do, but the inverse isn't true, even if everything I will do is known in advance. Of all the things I will do are not therefore things I must do just because God knows everything I will do.

Hey, I'm not getting into the argument. I just think it is funny.

The debate back in the middle ages was silly but they, at least, understood and agreed to the boundary conditions. Today's argument is even sillier because no one knows or agrees on how humans make decisions but will assert their opinion on humanity's thought processes as though they are scientific fact.

But then I guess you are saying that you are on the free will side of that few hundred years of philosophical debate back in the middle ages.

I don't believe all events are necessary events.

 

[bilby]

It is a little funny reading this thread. Originally, the concept of "free will" was a philosophical argument as to whether god's omniscience meant our actions were fated or if we were capable of freely deciding our actions. Now that the concept of god is relegated to the religious area of philosophy, god has been replaced with other "arm waving" and the argument over free will rages on - but with the boundary conditions poorly (or not) understood and no one agreeing on them.

This thread allows DBT and I to carry on our conversation from the other thread because I knew from our months long free will discussion that we had a while ago that we would be at it again.

Between DBT and I, we used to talk about the definition of free will as being that the agent could have chosen differently. If there is any actual freedom allowed through QM in the decision making process, then it would seem that an agent/human could have chosen differently.

If that's your definition, then a tossed coin has free will.

Not that there's anything wrong with that - but it does seem a little too broad a concept to be really useful other than for navel-gazing.

Quantum effects might or might not introduce some randomness to our thought processes. I tend to think that they don't - but I fail to see how it is really important; A certain level of randomness, pseudo-randomness and/or chaos is almost certainly present (regardless of its source), as it is necessary to rapidly resolve decisions with no clear optimum; but it can't be too much of a contributor, or our responses would be completely irrational.

A monkey equidistant between two identical bananas doesn't starve, because of randomness; But he doesn't (usually) shove the bananas into his ears instead of his mouth, due to that randomness being limited in its effect.

I don't have a particular objection to the characterizing of randomness as 'free will' other than its lack of parsimony; we already have the word 'randomness' to describe this, so why do we need a synonymous and potentially highly confusing two word phrase, that brings with it a whole world of philosophical baggage?

 

[fast]

This thread allows DBT and I to carry on our conversation from the other thread because I knew from our months long free will discussion that we had a while ago that we would be at it again.

Between DBT and I, we used to talk about the definition of free will as being that the agent could have chosen differently. If there is any actual freedom allowed through QM in the decision making process, then it would seem that an agent/human could have chosen differently.

If that's your definition, then a tossed coin has free will.

I'm not sure why you would say that. A coin is not a decision maker.

 

[ryan]

This thread allows DBT and I to carry on our conversation from the other thread because I knew from our months long free will discussion that we had a while ago that we would be at it again.

Between DBT and I, we used to talk about the definition of free will as being that the agent could have chosen differently. If there is any actual freedom allowed through QM in the decision making process, then it would seem that an agent/human could have chosen differently.

Logical possibility remains even when physical possibility doesn't

What do you mean? Can you give an example?

 

[bilby]

If that's your definition, then a tossed coin has free will.

I'm not sure why you would say that. A coin is not a decision maker.

Then nor is a brain.

 

[ryan]

This thread allows DBT and I to carry on our conversation from the other thread because I knew from our months long free will discussion that we had a while ago that we would be at it again.

Between DBT and I, we used to talk about the definition of free will as being that the agent could have chosen differently. If there is any actual freedom allowed through QM in the decision making process, then it would seem that an agent/human could have chosen differently.

If that's your definition, then a tossed coin has free will.

I second fast. I am just using "will" as the scientific term "conscious intention".

Not that there's anything wrong with that - but it does seem a little too broad a concept to be really useful other than for navel-gazing.

Quantum effects might or might not introduce some randomness to our thought processes. I tend to think that they don't - but I fail to see how it is really important; A certain level of randomness, pseudo-randomness and/or chaos is almost certainly present (regardless of its source), as it is necessary to rapidly resolve decisions with no clear optimum; but it can't be too much of a contributor, or our responses would be completely irrational.

A monkey equidistant between two identical bananas doesn't starve, because of randomness; But he doesn't (usually) shove the bananas into his ears instead of his mouth, due to that randomness being limited in its effect.

I don't have a particular objection to the characterizing of randomness as 'free will' other than its lack of parsimony; we already have the word 'randomness' to describe this, so why do we need a synonymous and potentially highly confusing two word phrase, that brings with it a whole world of philosophical baggage?

But I would only say it's random to an outside observer. To the agent, it would at least seem to be his/her intention.

 

[bilby]

If that's your definition, then a tossed coin has free will.

I second fast. I am just using "will" as the scientific term "conscious intention".

Not that there's anything wrong with that - but it does seem a little too broad a concept to be really useful other than for navel-gazing.

Quantum effects might or might not introduce some randomness to our thought processes. I tend to think that they don't - but I fail to see how it is really important; A certain level of randomness, pseudo-randomness and/or chaos is almost certainly present (regardless of its source), as it is necessary to rapidly resolve decisions with no clear optimum; but it can't be too much of a contributor, or our responses would be completely irrational.

A monkey equidistant between two identical bananas doesn't starve, because of randomness; But he doesn't (usually) shove the bananas into his ears instead of his mouth, due to that randomness being limited in its effect.

I don't have a particular objection to the characterizing of randomness as 'free will' other than its lack of parsimony; we already have the word 'randomness' to describe this, so why do we need a synonymous and potentially highly confusing two word phrase, that brings with it a whole world of philosophical baggage?

But I would only say it's random to an outside observer. To the agent, it would at least seem to be his/her intention.

Yes. But that's an illusion. Humans are very good at being badly wrong about themselves.

 

[ryan]

But I would only say it's random to an outside observer. To the agent, it would at least seem to be his/her intention.

Yes. But that's an illusion. Humans are very good at being badly wrong about themselves.

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

 

[Juma]

Yes. But that's an illusion. Humans are very good at being badly wrong about themselves.

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

The thing is: "free will" isnt an illusion. It isnt even observed in the first place. It is a folly.
Think about it: what in "free will" is an actual observation of what?

 

[bilby]

Yes. But that's an illusion. Humans are very good at being badly wrong about themselves.

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

Then demonstrate that.

"It feels like it must be true" is a very common argument indeed; and it is just about the least compelling argument in history. It is the woeful performance of this epistemology that required us to develop science - we needed to replace this failed path to knowledge with one that actually worked.

 

[fast]

Logical possibility remains even when physical possibility doesn't

What do you mean? Can you give an example?

They say that with God anything is possible, and what a feat that must be, but He is not without rival, for with logic, the same is true, barring impossibilities, that is. I say that in jest, but here's the gist: absolutely everything is logically possible--except contradictions, of course.

For example, it's logically possible that standing from a standing position on Earth unaided by technological or mechanical devices, I can jump 50 feet straight up in the air. So, is it possible? Yes.

However, as anyone would know, one cannot possibly do such a thing, as there is no way on this planet can we accomplish such a feat. It's physically impossible. So, is it possible? Yes! Although it's physically impossible, it's nevertheless logically possible, as there is no contradiction.

If there is no combination of events that could possibly lead a tree to fly away after being hit by lightening (as opposed to falling to the ground given the laws of nature), it doesn't negate the fact that logically, logically speaking to be sure, that it's nevertheless true that it's logically possible that the tree could defy the laws of nature. Physically impossible, sure, but logically possible, you bet.

 

[fast]

I'm not sure why you would say that. A coin is not a decision maker.

Then nor is a brain.

My legs don't walk, my eyes don't see, my mouth don't speak, and my brain doesn't think. I walk, and I do so with the use of my legs. I see, and I do so with the use of my eyes. I speak, and I do so with the use of my mouth. I think, and I do so with the use of my brain.

Where are your legs walking, what is your eyes seeing, what is your mouth speaking, and what is your brain thinking are questions assuming false assumptions. You walk, you see, you speak, and you think.

Coins are not decision makers, and brains aren't decision makers. You are a decision maker, not your organs that are needed to do such a thing. But yeah, brains are not decision makers.

 

[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.

Just reposting my position.

 

[ryan]

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

The thing is: "free will" isnt an illusion. It isnt even observed in the first place. It is a folly.
Think about it: what in "free will" is an actual observation of what?

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

Then demonstrate that.

"It feels like it must be true" is a very common argument indeed; and it is just about the least compelling argument in history. It is the woeful performance of this epistemology that required us to develop science - we needed to replace this failed path to knowledge with one that actually worked.

You both seem to be making free will about something that has to be magical.

If we agree that we could have chosen differently, then there is no need for this unobservable or woeful concept of free will.

Ironically, being in the science thread, it helps that the only limits to nature is physics. This easily works in science because of QM.

 

[ryan]

What do you mean? Can you give an example?

They say that with God anything is possible, and what a feat that must be, but He is not without rival, for with logic, the same is true, barring impossibilities, that is. I say that in jest, but here's the gist: absolutely everything is logically possible--except contradictions, of course.

For example, it's logically possible that standing from a standing position on Earth unaided by technological or mechanical devices, I can jump 50 feet straight up in the air. So, is it possible? Yes.

However, as anyone would know, one cannot possibly do such a thing, as there is no way on this planet can we accomplish such a feat. It's physically impossible. So, is it possible? Yes! Although it's physically impossible, it's nevertheless logically possible, as there is no contradiction.

If there is no combination of events that could possibly lead a tree to fly away after being hit by lightening (as opposed to falling to the ground given the laws of nature), it doesn't negate the fact that logically, logically speaking to be sure, that it's nevertheless true that it's logically possible that the tree could defy the laws of nature. Physically impossible, sure, but logically possible, you bet.

But don't you have to define premises? Don't we have to assume that, say, anything can happen; then since anything can happen, a tree could ...

 

[fast]

They say that with God anything is possible, and what a feat that must be, but He is not without rival, for with logic, the same is true, barring impossibilities, that is. I say that in jest, but here's the gist: absolutely everything is logically possible--except contradictions, of course.

For example, it's logically possible that standing from a standing position on Earth unaided by technological or mechanical devices, I can jump 50 feet straight up in the air. So, is it possible? Yes.

However, as anyone would know, one cannot possibly do such a thing, as there is no way on this planet can we accomplish such a feat. It's physically impossible. So, is it possible? Yes! Although it's physically impossible, it's nevertheless logically possible, as there is no contradiction.

If there is no combination of events that could possibly lead a tree to fly away after being hit by lightening (as opposed to falling to the ground given the laws of nature), it doesn't negate the fact that logically, logically speaking to be sure, that it's nevertheless true that it's logically possible that the tree could defy the laws of nature. Physically impossible, sure, but logically possible, you bet.

But don't you have to define premises? Don't we have to assume that, say, anything can happen; then since anything can happen, a tree could ...

It's not an assumption. You'd be hard pressed to find a logician with decent scholastic credentials to deny the truth of my claim. Logical impossibility is absent if a proposition regarding the possibility of an event lacks contradiction.

 

[Juma]

The thing is: "free will" isnt an illusion. It isnt even observed in the first place. It is a folly.
Think about it: what in "free will" is an actual observation of what?

Then why isn't all other kinds of knowledge illusions too?

It might not be an illusion.

Then demonstrate that.

"It feels like it must be true" is a very common argument indeed; and it is just about the least compelling argument in history. It is the woeful performance of this epistemology that required us to develop science - we needed to replace this failed path to knowledge with one that actually worked.

You both seem to be making free will about something that has to be magical.

If we agree that we could have chosen differently, then there is no need for this unobservable or woeful concept of free will.

Ironically, being in the science thread, it helps that the only limits to nature is physics. This easily works in science because of QM.

You didnt respond to my post at all...

I give you another chance; what in "free will" is actually observed?

The main ingredients in what you attribute as "free will" is never really observed:

1) "i could have chosen otherwise".
2) "there is no necessary causual condition for my choice"
3) 'there is a "point of decision"'

These are all assumptions, not observations.

 

[ryan]

But don't you have to define premises? Don't we have to assume that, say, anything can happen; then since anything can happen, a tree could ...

It's not an assumption. You'd be hard pressed to find a logician with decent scholastic credentials to deny the truth of my claim. Logical impossibility is absent if a proposition regarding the possibility of an event lacks contradiction.

Oh, I don't know how this works. So is it that any yes/no question favors the positive even when there is no information about it at all?