There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Emily Lake]

Personally, I might make that argument. I don't think it's woo, for the simple reason that no one that I have ever met or read can adequately explain how it could be otherwise. As such, it seems to me the woo might be the saying the situation is 'somehow, magically' otherwise.

That does not mean that there isn't agency and choice-making, obviously. But in the final analysis it's all determined and/or random. Or at least, it would seem to have to be, there never having been a good alternative process set out.

To me, the choices and the agency are sophisticated, but not actually, ultimately free, because they can't escape causality, whether determined or random, or be uncaused causes. There is no way for them to do that, it seems. Unless you can describe it, in which case I think you will be the first person ever to do so convincingly.

Ultimately, events are driven by prior causality. That would appear, from everything that we currently understand, to include everything in the universe. It would be nice to think of ourselves as an exception, but it seems like special pleading, likening ourselves to the god we imagine, or the other way around.

Well, no, those aren't the only two options. The choices being made are neither determined nor random - they're stochastic. And a stochastic decision isn't a random decision.

Take for example, a simple experiment involving dice. Let's start with a random scenario, in which you roll one die fifty times. Let's say that you get to choose a number, and if that number comes up most often in the fifty rolls of one die, you get $50. Which number should you choose? It doesn't matter. The roll of the die is random, and which number comes up most frequently is going to be a uniform distribution, so each number is equally likely to come up. So you could select a number at random, and your odds of winning with a randomly chosen number is the same as it would be for any other number on the die.

Now lets add a second die. Now you're rolling two die fifty times. Instead of just numbers 1 through 6, you're now looking at the sum of the faces of the two die - a number between 2 and 12. What number should you choose? Does a random selection of a number make sense in this situation?

Now let's consider a situation where you're rolling five dice. The outcome of any specific roll of any specific die is random. But the likelihood of the sum of those dice isn't random. The pattern of outcomes will be a normal distribution, and the likelihood of getting a result of 30 or 5 is only 0.013%. The likelihood of getting a 17 or 18 is over 10%. Making a decision about which number you should guess is stochastic - it's based on probabilities and a distribution of possible outcomes. But the decision itself shouldn't be random if you'd like to win

++++++++++++++++++++++

Let's add a slightly more applicable scenario here. Let's say you're trying to decide whether you should buy a blue pencil or a red pencil for 10 of your friends. The pencils come in batches of 10, and you can only select one color. You'd like to select the color that will satisfy the largest number of people.

Here are your friends' views on color:

Alice - Likes Red, Dislikes Blue
Bob - Dislikes Red, Likes Blue
Carl - Likes Red, Likes Blue
Diane - Likes Red, Dislikes Blue
Eric - Likes Red, Likes Blue
Frank - Likes Red, Likes Blue
Georgia - Likes Red, Likes Blue
Hannah - Dislikes Red, Likes Blue
Iris - Likes Red, Likes Blue
John - Dislikes Red, Dislikes Blue

If you were to go through this list exhaustively, you would find that the number of people who like red is equal to the number of people who like blue, so it won't make any difference which color you select - your friends would be equally satisfied either way.

But what if you didn't go through the entire list exhaustively? What if you just started, and went until you hit more than five people who liked a color? That would put you in a position where the majority of your friends would be satisfied, which is probably sufficient. It's a very reasonable approach. Take a look at the list. If you started at the top of the list, you'd call a winner at Georgia, with a color of red - at that point you've got 6 for red and 5 for blue. But what if you started at the bottom instead? If you started at the bottom, you'd call a winner at Diane and you'd select Blue as the color of choice.

In this sort of a scenario, sampling until sufficiency is fulfilled, the order in which the elements are sampled can lead to a different outcome. The criteria used for decision making are not at all random - they're clearly defined and logical. But the outcome is certainly not determined either.

 

[Emily Lake]

You can do the multiplication trick with all kinds of shapes, at least the ordinary, non-pathological ones

... What's a pathological shape?

I'm not sure but I suspect that shapes with complex concave and/or convoluted envelops would get in the way of duplication.
EB

And here I was hoping for a response of "Crazy ones, obviously" . That sounds plausible though, just never heard that term.

 

[ryan]

I meant that each male big horned owl exhibits random behavior when it is not in certain stages of its duties to its family. Or at least scientists have not found any common behaviors during this off time.

so what? the brain is complex, even simple systems can behave chaotic. why not a brain? there is no reason to connect that to will.

Come on, pay attention the conversation.

 

[ryan]

When we have got a choice between, say, actual information processing that demonstrably promulgates information across the brain and some very speculative physics which is all a bit mysterious really, which is the more tempting option, especially when the quantum option sounds a bit like Teilhard De Chardin on a bad day.

My argument is about the possibility of QM and whether or not it can allow for free will.

Don't you always have to add at least some information by way of the instruction? Either way, I am interested to know why you ask this question?

Of course, that's the point - if the instructions plus the message need to take up more message than the message alone then that's a pretty good test for randomness. And a stochastic system needs good random. I remember writing a Boltzmann machine for my second year AI project - after several weeks of abject failure and increasingly desperate debugging and rewriting it turned out that 'lib newrandom' wasn't random enough and we had to buy some proper random - and that was just simulated annealing.

Thus, I'm just checking that we are using a formal mathematical definition of randomness rather than a folk one.

Okay

 

[ryan]

1) We have will.

Which is not being disputed

I know; it's part one of the necessary premises to the conclusion.

2) Our will is objective randomness (at least partially)

Our will is related to the objects and events of the world....randomness does not help rational decision making or the urge, prompt or will that is related to decisions being made.

Sure, but that doesn't negate partial randomness.

3) Objective randomness is followed by more objective randomness.

How so? When you see something that you desire and feel the urge to acquire the object of your desire....where does randomness come into the picture? And how is randomness supposed to help?

The point os that we might be free to have that desire

It follows, or it is at least possible, that we will objective randomness.

No, it doesn't. For the reasons outlined above.....the world and its objects and events are not random and the role of decision making by the brain being to interact with the objects and events of the world/our environment in a rational manner, not randomly, not arbitrarily.

Not realy, one of the interesting things from Wang's research is that order of questions asked to the subjects mattered. This goes against the idea that the internal decision making is fixed probabilistically and that QM mathematics of probability explains some kinds of decision making better than maths based on classical mechanics.

 

[DBT]

I dunno... clearly he is unable to stop doing so. He is compelled by "the Universe" to have this argument.

Well, not quite....it is the brain that is the agent of response. If we feel compelled to respond it's because 'our' brain has generated this compulsion or prompt to respond, including the form of resonse, for some reason, stimuli, interest, etc

What you are saying, if you are able to comprehend, is an asymmetry in the early universe forced him to write that. It has forced all human events, the election of Trump, since there is no opportunity for any choice.

That is what you are peddling.

Why you bother to write it is astonishing though.

Are you not able to tell yourself no, like most people?

What I write is not even controversial. Basic neuroscience; which accepts brain agency and rejects autonomous consciousness...something that you happen to peddle...which is not only astonishing but absurd given the vast body of evidence supporting brain agency.

 

[DBT]

I know; it's part one of the necessary premises to the conclusion.

2) Our will is objective randomness (at least partially)

Our will is related to the objects and events of the world....randomness does not help rational decision making or the urge, prompt or will that is related to decisions being made.

Sure, but that doesn't negate partial randomness.

3) Objective randomness is followed by more objective randomness.

How so? When you see something that you desire and feel the urge to acquire the object of your desire....where does randomness come into the picture? And how is randomness supposed to help?

The point os that we might be free to have that desire

It follows, or it is at least possible, that we will objective randomness.

No, it doesn't. For the reasons outlined above.....the world and its objects and events are not random and the role of decision making by the brain being to interact with the objects and events of the world/our environment in a rational manner, not randomly, not arbitrarily.

Not realy, one of the interesting things from Wang's research is that order of questions asked to the subjects mattered. This goes against the idea that the internal decision making is fixed probabilistically and that QM mathematics of probability explains some kinds of decision making better than maths based on classical mechanics.

Ryan, random interference within the decision making process cannot help make rational decisions because rational decisions are based on information, not randomness, decision making being the weighing of cost to benefit ratio between options based on a given set of criteria.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Also, downward causation strikes me as essentially an appeal to miracles rather than natural interactions. However, there is an extensive literature on the subject, and I am far from well-read in this area.

Yeah, well, any evidence of downward causation would be the most important and the most sensational scientific discovery ever made in the whole history of mankind.

As I haven't heard of it yet, my guess is nobody has any evidence yet.

And then, I'm also very, very sceptical about even the principle of downward causation, so I'm very happy to wait for the breaking news announce if it ever comes.

Reading about what some people may think about that idea sounds like a total waste of time to me.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Interesting how you fudged emergence to require a new set of rules rather than to assert that the known rules are not complete which is normal when one resolves combinations. Rather than complete an understanding of combination you go all woozy at the complexity of the problem making things worse by requiring two new conditions. Your fudging is much less obfuscation than where you went on defense though. I agree with you on that.

Me? Or someone else?

I was responding to Treebar's response to you where he saw emergence coming as result of complexity of scale requiring new rules, emergent ones.

 

[fromderinside]

Also, downward causation strikes me as essentially an appeal to miracles rather than natural interactions. However, there is an extensive literature on the subject, and I am far from well-read in this area.

Yeah, well, any evidence of downward causation would be the most important and the most sensational scientific discovery ever made in the whole history of mankind.

As I haven't heard of it yet, my guess is nobody has any evidence yet.

And then, I'm also very, very sceptical about even the principle of downward causation, so I'm very happy to wait for the breaking news announce if it ever comes.

Reading about what some people may think about that idea sounds like a total waste of time to me.
EB

Damn. I knew there was a reason I kept coming back for your abuse. You've read your physics. Good job here.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Also, downward causation strikes me as essentially an appeal to miracles rather than natural interactions. However, there is an extensive literature on the subject, and I am far from well-read in this area.

Yeah, well, any evidence of downward causation would be the most important and the most sensational scientific discovery ever made in the whole history of mankind.

As I haven't heard of it yet, my guess is nobody has any evidence yet.

And then, I'm also very, very sceptical about even the principle of downward causation, so I'm very happy to wait for the breaking news announce if it ever comes.

Reading about what some people may think about that idea sounds like a total waste of time to me.
EB

Damn. I knew there was a reason I kept coming back for your abuse. You've read your physics. Good job here.

Okay, so let me disabuse you cool: you said you "knew"? Hmm, no, actually, you didn't. Knowledge is a delusion. All there is really is the physical world. Forget about knowing anything at all for real.

Sorry to have to break the knews to you here.
EB

 

[untermensche]

What you are saying, if you are able to comprehend, is an asymmetry in the early universe forced him to write that. It has forced all human events, the election of Trump, since there is no opportunity for any choice.

That is what you are peddling.

Why you bother to write it is astonishing though.

Are you not able to tell yourself no, like most people?

What I write is not even controversial. Basic neuroscience; which accepts brain agency and rejects autonomous consciousness...something that you happen to peddle...which is not only astonishing but absurd given the vast body of evidence supporting brain agency.

Appeals to authority are fallacies.

Saying you share the bad prejudices of some scientists is nothing to brag about.

There is no need to be conscious of the bear if you can do nothing about it.

To say what consciousness can do requires first knowing what it is.

Knowing the phenomena of consciousness means you have a model for how some activity in the brain results in conscious animal experience. Knowing what a phenomena is capable of doing means you have a working tested model of that phenomena.

Your "explanations" are really just prejudices. But like many with prejudices there is a certain blindness to them.

 

[untermensche]

...Forget about knowing anything at all for real...

Everything we know is for "real".

We really know it.

The question is only about the accuracy of the knowledge. All knowledge is "real" knowledge.

If it exists it is "real".

 

[Emily Lake]

Knowledge is a delusion.

Are you intending to be sarcastic?

If you aren't, then this is absurd. Science works, we build rockets, we learn things, and we even manage to record that knowledge so that others can learn and further that knowledge. If that's a delusion... it's a remarkably powerful, prevalent, and persistent delusion shared by all humans and a good chunk of animals that engage in teaching and passing on acquired knowledge to their progeny.

 

[untermensche]

Being able to predict the future shows your knowledge is not a delusion.

Landing a rover on Mars proves your knowledge is no delusion.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Knowledge is a delusion.

Are you intending to be sarcastic?.

I was being sarcastic but only up to a point.

Up to a point because I believe the only knowledge we have is subjective experience. You know pain whenever you experience pain. You know redness whenever you experience it.

As to knowledge of the so-call objective world, I think it doesn't amount to knowledge at all.

If you aren't, then this is absurd.

I agree it would be absurd to claim seriously to know we don't know. I wasn't serious about that bit.

Science works, we build rockets, we learn things, and we even manage to record that knowledge so that others can learn and further that knowledge. If that's a delusion... it's a remarkably powerful, prevalent, and persistent delusion shared by all humans and a good chunk of animals that engage in teaching and passing on acquired knowledge to their progeny.

And you could make exactly the same argument about our senses. You could argue that the colours we perceive must be real since we use them and it works wonderfully, and so we would be supposed to know real colours that would be out there. Except this is contradicted by science. The colours as we experience them can only be inside our heads, somehow, and whatever is outside that we believe we perceive can only be something like electromagnetic waves of various wavelengths, whatever that is. No blue. No red. Just "electromagnetic waves".

So, instead of knowing the world, we know our model of the world. So, at least that's something we know. Some of this model is perceptual, some of it abstract formalism. Same effect. It's a model. And instead of knowing the world, we trust our model, and that's good enough. I can say the same thing, it works! But we're subject to naive realism, which is simply that we naively take our perceptual model to be the actual world outside. We really believe there's a blue flower there and a red tomato. We really do. And then we extend our belief to our abstract and formal scientific model of the world. And, clearly, we also suffer a kind of naive realism about it, too, the one you display by insisting science is real knowledge of the world. Some things never change.
EB

 

[fromderinside]

Damn. I knew there was a reason I kept coming back for your abuse. You've read your physics. Good job here.

you said you "knew"? Hmm, no, actually, you didn't. Knowledge is a delusion.
EB

Actually I believed there was some basis for responding to you after you abuse or disabuse me. You confirmed that belief. My belief became personal knowledge so I am correct to have above written "I knew:, promoted belief, there was a reason ... Are you sure it's the physical world or is it just information? Here comes Shannon again.

 

[Kharakov]

Also, downward causation strikes me as essentially an appeal to miracles rather than natural interactions. However, there is an extensive literature on the subject, and I am far from well-read in this area.

Yeah, well, any evidence of downward causation would be the most important and the most sensational scientific discovery ever made in the whole history of mankind.

As I haven't heard of it yet, my guess is nobody has any evidence yet.

And then, I'm also very, very sceptical about even the principle of downward causation, so I'm very happy to wait for the breaking news announce if it ever comes.

Reading about what some people may think about that idea sounds like a total waste of time to me.
EB

Damn. I knew there was a reason I kept coming back for your abuse. You've read your physics. Good job here.

Somehow I'm not surprised that someone with the moniker FDI said this.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Actually I believed there was some basis for responding to you after you abuse or disabuse me. You confirmed that belief. My belief became personal knowledge so I am correct to have above written "I knew:, promoted belief, there was a reason ...

I didn't confirm your belief. I just reinforced it. And whatever I might want to say to disabuse you, you'll keep believing.

So touchingly faithful.

Are you sure it's the physical world or is it just information? Here comes Shannon again.

Remember, it's you who thinks he knows things.

Me, I only believe, so I can't be sure of anything except for blueness and such.
EB

 

[DBT]

What you are saying, if you are able to comprehend, is an asymmetry in the early universe forced him to write that. It has forced all human events, the election of Trump, since there is no opportunity for any choice.

That is what you are peddling.

Why you bother to write it is astonishing though.

Are you not able to tell yourself no, like most people?

What I write is not even controversial. Basic neuroscience; which accepts brain agency and rejects autonomous consciousness...something that you happen to peddle...which is not only astonishing but absurd given the vast body of evidence supporting brain agency.

Appeals to authority are fallacies.

Saying you share the bad prejudices of some scientists is nothing to brag about.

There is no need to be conscious of the bear if you can do nothing about it.

To say what consciousness can do requires first knowing what it is.

Knowing the phenomena of consciousness means you have a model for how some activity in the brain results in conscious animal experience. Knowing what a phenomena is capable of doing means you have a working tested model of that phenomena.

Your "explanations" are really just prejudices. But like many with prejudices there is a certain blindness to them.

Hang on, I'll interpret your remark about appealing to authority....the so called authority being actual evidence and the researchers who study and publish their findings, so when you say appealing to authority is fallacious you mean ''I don't like considering actual evidence and actual research and actual results because I have my own beliefs and all the evidence and research and results must be wrong, therefore one cannot ''appeal to authority''

Is that correct? I'm sure it is. You reject all evidence that falsifies your belief in 'smart autonomous consciousness in a dumb brain'' because that is what you feel is right based on experience while ignoring the mechanisms and means of your experience...