There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[ruby sparks]

I'm thinking that a simple yes (I agree) or no (I don't agree) from DBT would help sort it out, for me at least.

What specific question would you want answered by DBT?

Drat. You caught me briefly sneaking back.

Ok. Maybe......'Do you agree in principle that there are other possible definitions and/or usages of the term, even if they are not yours and even if (by your reasoning) you consider them wrong'?

 

[The AntiChris]

I'm thinking that a simple yes (I agree) or no (I don't agree) from DBT would help sort it out, for me at least.

What specific question would you want answered by DBT?

Drat. You caught me briefly sneaking back.

Ok. Maybe......'Do you agree in principle that there are other possible definitions and/or usages of the term, even if they are not yours and even if (by your reasoning) you consider them wrong'?

I assume you mean other possible usages of the term 'free' that could be used to describe 'will'? (I want to avoid potential misunderstandings)

 

[ruby sparks]

Drat. You caught me briefly sneaking back.

Ok. Maybe......'Do you agree in principle that there are other possible definitions and/or usages of the term, even if they are not yours and even if (by your reasoning) you consider them wrong'?

I assume you mean other possible usages of the term 'free' that could be used to describe 'will'? (I want to avoid potential misunderstandings)

Pretty much, yes, I guess. I might equally have been referring to the term 'free will' I suppose. If that small distinction (between whether the question is just about the word 'free' or the term 'free will') leads to 50 pages of quibbling, consider me so out that I almost don't want anyone to even ask my opinion.

Ciao. Back to work at my end.

 

[ruby sparks]

Ps

My tuppenceworth..

If, for example DBT does largely agree, maybe try to resist the urge (if it occurs) to either whoop, claim victory or even ask 'why couldn't you have said so ages ago?' not least because (a) there could be 100 reasons and (b) it arguably doesn't matter all that much. Put it down to crossed wires maybe, or agree to disagree if you still don't both see 100% eye to eye. Dunno. None of my business, ultimately.

 

[untermensche]

Your consciousness chose the thoughts you just expressed. It picked them from all the possible thoughts that could exist. It edited them and refined them and then forced your hands to type it.

The only thing being pulled from a backside being your version of what I did not say. This strawman of your making certainly being pulled from some dark nether region that only you can access.

A gooey mash that has no foundation in reality. The reality being that it is the state and condition of a brain that is expressed in behaviour....not your illusion of smart consciousness operating a dumb brain,

You make wild claims with no rational foundation. You are a raving madman.

You cannot possibly know how the consciousness could affect the brain without first knowing what it is.

Saying it arises from brain activity does not tell us what it is or what it can do.

You have no basis for the conclusions you make about consciousness. You have irrational absurd prejudices, nothing more.

Nobody should take a word you say on the matter seriously.

 

[The AntiChris]

(b) it arguably doesn't matter all that much.

I have to very strongly disagree (it wouldn't be so important if this weren't a philosophy forum).

 

[Emily Lake]

Here's my take: I think you're conflating the architecture with the process. The two are interdependent, but neither one alone produces action.

There is no process without architecture. It is architecture that is the mechanism of the process. Cat brains produce different behaviour to Rat brains, etc, etc. Random quantum events do not play a part in rational decision making. Making decisions is not random...unless you decide on the flip of a coin.

What part of this isn't making it through? You are correct - without architecture there is no process. But by the same token, architecture alone doesn't cut it. A dead person has the same architecture but that brain doesn't produce thought. I'll say it again, perhaps give it more than a passing glance? Architecture and Process are interdependent; neither one alone is sufficient to produce agency or action.

Also, in reference to this:

The idea of randomness enabling freedom of will is not logical.

I'm seriously having trouble making out what you think free will is. Can you please give a concise explanation of the differences that you see between 'agency', 'will', and 'free will'?

 

[Emily Lake]

It might even be argued that your dice have the sort of free will you are talking about, even if only a tiny bit.

Sure, I suppose. Do the dice have a mechanism for evaluating and selecting from among plausible options within their dicey processes?

That depends on what we mean by mechanism. The dice have an arrangement of matter, a formation or system of let's say either atoms and/or forces, which are interconnected in a certain complicated way, and which respond in certain ways (including being susceptible to randomness) to what we might call 'the laws of physics'. Such responses might include, for example, the arrangement (system) responding to, let's say, being heated on one side, causing that side to expand (note that this involves internal movement of the 'parts'). We could, without too much difficulty, call that a basic mechanism, in the same way that we might say that a thermostat is a basic rational agent, even though it may only have the capacity to evaluate binary choices (do/don't's) at any given instant, though they can enact lots of these binaries in sequence (Do. Do. Do. Don't. Do. Don't. Etc). Which I think means that they (thermostats and dice) would have at least a little free will, as you (and you aren't alone) define free will.

Hmm. Interesting to think about. If nothing else, it's certainly helping me narrow down my own thoughts somewhat.

I think that the dice in this scenario would have to be considered a purely reactionary mechanism. They aren't comparing options - there's no decision being made by the dice. They're just reacting to externalities. Same thing as a river flowing around obstacles. The river isn't selecting its path, it's only reacting to externalities. I think I'd end up leaning a little more toward saying that dice have no mechanism for comparing possible outcomes and deciding on a course of action.

I circle around this concept in these sorts of conversations: What do I actually consider to be "free will". It's constantly evolving. It's certainly not the bizarre notion of free will wherein someone can change the laws of nature with their minds. And certainly, I'm fine with the process of decision-making being a defined process, in the same sense that any other learning algorithm is a defined process. It's the assumption that the outcome of any given decision is determined that I get hung up on. There's simply too much actual randomness and complexity in the world. In most situations a random forest produces better predictability than a decision tree... even though they're extremely similar in nature. For whatever reason, the incorporation of random sampling produces better results than an exhaustive review.

I end up circling around the concept of extrapolation as a key factor. Not just reacting to a stimulus, but extrapolating past experience in order to make a decision about a contingent future event. I still haven't worked out exactly where it fits in, and how vital it is... but it's an early stage thought so it'll evolve over time.

 

[Emily Lake]

As to whether or not it amplifies or diminishes our agency really depends on how the decision-making algorithm is structured. With some models or decision-making, it doesn't make it better or worse, it simply makes it more efficient (as well as not perfectly predictable). Sometimes it will lead to better outcomes, sometimes to worse. Probably never to a perfectly optimal outcome, because that takes an exhaustive comparison of all possible outcomes... and in that case randomness would probably result in no change to the outcome, making it perfectly predictable.

I can't help thinking that you're talking about predictability a lot of the time. Which is a slightly separate issue, imo.

Here, you'll like this, I think. Just now (right now if you like, let's not quibble about 'instant') something occurred to my brain. I remembered that I'm to go out this evening with a male pal for drinks in town. This is something I am looking forward to (that's the emotional content perhaps, or the 'affect'*). It also occurred to me that if I go offline (iow stop procrastinating) and get the work done that I need to get done, that later this evening I'll be able to enjoy going out for those drinks more than if I don't get the work done. So, I've decided (chosen) to go offline very soon and do some work.

You would say (and I might agree) that that's me (the system 'I' call 'me') exercising its (at least partial or conditional) free will (though I would definitely prefer to use the term human agency instead but we don't have to come to blows over terms). You and I would both agree that it all happened 'automatically' in accordance with what we might call 'the laws of physics' and that in reality there's no 'me' exercising personal or conscious control. We might also agree that my human capacities for agency are more sophisticated (and fun to experience) than those of either a pair of dice, a thermostat or most other animals (as far as we can reasonably tell).

On a side note, we might still disagree about the role of randomness (if it exists) and whether it really does or doesn't mean that I could or could not have either (a) chosen differently or (b) freely willed (ie with personal, conscious control) to choose differently. For the record I'm suggesting I couldn't (to both, shock horror!). To some extent, this will depend on when we 'stop the clock', I think.

But the big point I think is that as has been the case for ages and ages in this and many other similar threads, two people (in this case you and DBT, for example) are not talking about the same thing, and/or not using the same definition.

I'm perfectly comfortable using the term agency rather than free will... but then I see them as all interchangeable: agency, will, and free will are all the same thing. Except where DBT is concerned, and I'm still trying to ferret out where her/his definition of those three items differs in any meaningful way from mine.

And you're correct - I end up talking about predictability a LOT. That's what a deterministic framework means. Of course, I end up having a pretty strong math and stats back-end for this topic, so I probably have a bit of partiality of my own involved. That's the divide in my word: deterministic versus stochastic. The fun bit is that both involve a level of predictability (and aren't predictive models just all the rage these days? Good for my bottom line if nothing else). But a deterministic framework is perfectly predictable - any particular set of variables produces only one specific outcome... as there is no error involved. A stochastic framework, however, relies on likelihoods and probability. We can make a very serviceable prediction within a reasonable confidence range... but there's always a chance that the set of variables put into the system will produce different outcomes on different runs. And realistically, that sort of stochastic framework seems to more closely reflect the real world than deterministic ones do. Don't get me wrong - there are many, many, many cases where a deterministic model is wonderfully sufficient, either because the error in the system is so small as to be negligible, or because the accuracy necessary at that scale is immaterial. But we've seen time and again that as soon as you begin to move out of the human comfort zone, those deterministic models break down and things get strange. Get too small, and the models need to be altered to incorporate uncertainty. Get too big, and the models also need to alter - we have to take general relativity into consideration in GPS systems, or they cant' track accurately. And at even larger scales, even our standard relativistic models start to deteriorate... and then we get dark energy, dark matter, string theory, etc. All of those are ways that we attempt to capture and reflect the uncertainty in our models.

The same thing happens at human scale when a system begins to get too complex. As a system gains more and more contributors to outcome, small variations in seemingly minor inputs can amplify and drive unpredictable outcomes. At the end of the day, it seems that even knowing as much as it's possible to know about any sufficiently complex system still leaves us unable to perfectly predict the outcome from that system.

And brains are complex.

So yeah, I end up talking about predictability, because that's a fundamental aspect of a deterministic system. The handful of people arguing that there's a difference between "determined" and "predetermined" don't really make any sense to me... no more so than trying to figure out the difference that DBT sees between "will" and "free will". Maybe it's a lack of imagination on my part.

And on that bombshell (as Alan Partridge might have said)........to work!

Or Jeremy Clarkson

* We're both (very) long-term married men in our late 50's with currently unsatisfactory sex lives so if nothing else we can talk about that while very discreetly ogling the totty and sharing private comments about it/them, some of which might be of a salacious nature. My wife, as it happens, is in Italy this week, so I'm not directly evading the better alternatives regarding the carnal issues in my otherwise happy marriage (which I hope to continue trying to address when she's back). When the cat's away, the mice will play, etc. Nothing that would infringe our wedding vows, you understand. Not too much 'Male Gaze' or sexual objectification either. We will try to be careful about that (we're not daft and we're more than our penises, so we will be thinking of them as lovely women in every sense). We're both well aware of the dangers of being or being seen as dirty old men. Intelligent conversation on general topics is not ruled out, should we chat to any of them, though we might still be secretly (we sort of or at least partly hope) admiring their legs and suchlike while checking for pupil dilation (while being aware that this can be brought on by mere mental concentration or dim lighting). We both have adult daughters too, so we won't be ogling or chatting up anyone that age. Personally I prefer women nearer my age anyway. Flirting. That's what I meant. Not ogling. My wife is probably ogling a young ski instructor anyway and good luck to her I say. Whoops this is all in the wrong thread.

Lol, wrong thread, but it still made me laugh.

 

[DBT]

Anything that is determined is not free.

In a deterministic universe everything is determined.

Therefore, according to your premise, nothing in a deterministic universe can be described as free.

This is the absurdity of your argument.

Nothing in a determined world is free. And I have repeatedly pointed out the distinction between inhabitants referring to freedom in the relative sense, chain off as opposed to chain off/ free of the chain, etc, and the ultimate condition of a determined world where the chain must necessarily be on when it is on and must necessarily be off when it is off, hence no ultimate freedom and references to freedom being related to the limitations of perception.

That you still fail to grasp this distinction despite numerous attempts at explaining it, including examples, is kind strange. Just as it is notable that you have not addressed my point.

Again.

Free;
a. Not affected or restricted by a given condition or circumstance

1. Freedom requires that given an act A, the agent (will) could have acted otherwise
2. Determinate actions are fixed and unchangeable
3. Therefore determinism is incompatible with freedom
4. Therefore will, determined by brain state, is not free.


That which is fixed and unchangeable is not free. Not by any definition of the word. Though some folk may want to redefine the word 'free' in order to suit their own need to rationalize.


And the distinction between the experience of freedom and the ultimate nature of the world, which should be quite easy to understand;

n 1931, Einstein, in response to questions about belief in free will, responded with the following comparison of the will of the moon:

“If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.”

 

[DBT]

I'm seriously having trouble making out what you think free will is. Can you please give a concise explanation of the differences that you see between 'agency', 'will', and 'free will'?

No wonder you are having trouble. Considering that I am arguing that there is no free will, it is kind of hard for me to be describing what free will is.....don't you think?

I am saying that to call will free is false for the given reasons....will being fixed by brain condition, anything that is fixed or determined cannot be described as 'free'

Simple as that. We have will. It is will, but it is not 'free' will. It is simply 'will' - a consciously felt desire or impulse to think and act in certain ways as shaped and generated by brain activity in response to stimuli. You read this post and you either feel a need to respond, or you don't. It is brain function.

 

[ruby sparks]

I think that the dice in this scenario would have to be considered a purely reactionary mechanism. They aren't comparing options - there's no decision being made by the dice. They're just reacting to externalities. Same thing as a river flowing around obstacles. The river isn't selecting its path, it's only reacting to externalities. I think I'd end up leaning a little more toward saying that dice have no mechanism for comparing possible outcomes and deciding on a course of action.

The way I see it is.........we are, ultimately, in the final analysis, 'just' much, much more sophisticated reactionary mechanisms. If we agree that it's all 'happening automatically' then I think it's hard to avoid saying what I just said, when you dig down into it. We may never fully understand the processes in detail, but it seems to be very, very difficult to explain, even in principle, how it could be otherwise (than that we are very sophisticated reactionary mechanisms). That some of the responses are 'machine learned', or stochastic, or due to random effects, wouldn't change this, nor would the fact that the system runs forward/backward (in 'time') simulations, since those would appear to run automatically too.

For example, yesterday, 'I' ('me') did not with any personal control 'call up' the options about whether to work or not to work, or 'call up' the 'simulations' for different scenarios. They all just happened in my system automatically and I reacted, and no matter how sophisticated it felt, or the complexity of the various external and internal factors affecting my system, it's hard to even suggest that I reacted any other way than automatically at any given moment, no matter what I did.

I get what you say about determinism, indeterminism and predictability and without taking anything at all away from what you said about them, I think they are slightly separate issues to the above. In a nutshell, randomness (if it plays a part) wouldn't essentially change what I said above. Everything would still be happening automatically and we would be part of the amazing unfolding of the universe while having the mental sensation of both 'watching ourselves' and the sensation that our 'self' can voluntarily initiate control.

To paraphrase Einstein (I think it was him), if, hypothetically, the weather (or equally the universe) were for any set of reasons or permutations to become self-conscious, it might readily think that it was steering itself around. But that would be a wonderful illusion. Possibly one that the weather or the universe in that scenario would be (or us in our actual scenario are) almost compelled to experience, even if at certain intellectual moments we find ourselves catching a mind-blowing and humbling glimpse of what is (probably) really happening. In some ways (only some) it seems akin to intellectually realising certain other things, such as that we are almost certainly apes descended from apes or that there's probably no god, two things which although relatively easy to accept today for many people, have been (were) for many people more profoundly difficult to accept when first put forward. One could make a case that not having the capacities and abilities that we think we have is the biggest bogeyman of all, the hardest to accept and possibly the one with the most worrying day-to-day implications. Though to be fair, that has been said about the other two as well.

 

[fromderinside]

Anything that is determined is not free.

In a deterministic universe everything is determined.

Therefore, according to your premise, nothing in a deterministic universe can be described as free.

This is the absurdity of your argument.

Actually his argument is not incorrect, it's only incomplete. Just as there are open systems and closed systems one can arrange events in groups where the input is random while the output is selected from among a group of local knowable/known possibilities. Selecting one of those possibilities could be called freely selected relative to the local system which it is referred.

 

[The AntiChris]

Anything that is determined is not free.

In a deterministic universe everything is determined.

Therefore, according to your premise, nothing in a deterministic universe can be described as free.

This is the absurdity of your argument.

Nothing in a determined world is free.

So every use of the word 'free' in our [assumed] deterministic universe is mistaken?

 

[The AntiChris]

Actually his argument is not incorrect,

I didn't say it was incorrect, I said it was absurd.

 

[fromderinside]

So, analogously, considering relations in closed isystems is absurd? I, too, am usually opposed to the notion of abstraction ladders. However, in isolation, they often serve as generators of insight for systems. I'd say a nice part-tool, not absurd, but never an explanation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nothing in a determined world is free. And I have repeatedly pointed out the distinction between inhabitants referring to freedom in the relative sense, chain off as opposed to chain off/ free of the chain, etc, and the ultimate condition of a determined world where the chain must necessarily be on when it is on and must necessarily be off when it is off, hence no ultimate freedom and references to freedom being related to the limitations of perception.

DBT, I get what you're saying here. I think what the rest of us are saying is that none of us are using it in the sens of an ultimate condition. I believe you are alone in insisting upon that definition. I believe that everyone else in this thread is using the term in a relative sense.

You're also, by the way, assuming a perfectly determined world. You seem to be treating that as axiomatic... and you also avoid responding to any discussion that considers a stochastic world as a possibility. On this, you appear to be reflecting a belief.

n 1931, Einstein, in response to questions about belief in free will, responded with the following comparison of the will of the moon:

“If the moon, in the act of completing its eternal way around the earth, were gifted with self-consciousness, it would feel thoroughly convinced that it was traveling its way of its own accord…. So would a being, endowed with higher insight and more perfect intelligence, watching man and his doings, smile about man’s illusion that he was acting according to his own free will.”

Yeah, Einstein also said that "God does not play dice with the universe"... which is wrong on a couple of different levels.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm seriously having trouble making out what you think free will is. Can you please give a concise explanation of the differences that you see between 'agency', 'will', and 'free will'?

No wonder you are having trouble. Considering that I am arguing that there is no free will, it is kind of hard for me to be describing what free will is.....don't you think?

I am saying that to call will free is false for the given reasons....will being fixed by brain condition, anything that is fixed or determined cannot be described as 'free'

Simple as that. We have will. It is will, but it is not 'free' will. It is simply 'will' - a consciously felt desire or impulse to think and act in certain ways as shaped and generated by brain activity in response to stimuli. You read this post and you either feel a need to respond, or you don't. It is brain function.

You're not answering my question. I didn't ask you to define free will. I'm asking you to explain what you think the difference is between 'agency' (which you have expressed acceptance of) and 'will' (which you have also expressed acceptance of) and 'free will' (which you have vehemently declared doesn't exist).

What do you see as the material differences?

 

[Emily Lake]

I think that the dice in this scenario would have to be considered a purely reactionary mechanism. They aren't comparing options - there's no decision being made by the dice. They're just reacting to externalities. Same thing as a river flowing around obstacles. The river isn't selecting its path, it's only reacting to externalities. I think I'd end up leaning a little more toward saying that dice have no mechanism for comparing possible outcomes and deciding on a course of action.

The way I see it is.........we are, ultimately, in the final analysis, 'just' much, much more sophisticated reactionary mechanisms. If we agree that it's all 'happening automatically' then I think it's hard to avoid saying what I just said, when you dig down into it. We may never fully understand the processes in detail, but it seems to be very, very difficult to explain, even in principle, how it could be otherwise (than that we are very sophisticated reactionary mechanisms). That some of the responses are 'machine learned', or stochastic, or due to random effects, wouldn't change this, nor would the fact that the system runs forward/backward (in 'time') simulations, since those would appear to run automatically too.

For example, yesterday, 'I' ('me') did not with any personal control 'call up' the options about whether to work or not to work, or 'call up' the 'simulations' for different scenarios. They all just happened in my system automatically and I reacted, and no matter how sophisticated it felt, or the complexity of the various external and internal factors affecting my system, it's hard to even suggest that I reacted any other way than automatically at any given moment, no matter what I did.

I get what you say about determinism, indeterminism and predictability and without taking anything at all away from what you said about them, I think they are slightly separate issues to the above. In a nutshell, randomness (if it plays a part) wouldn't essentially change what I said above. Everything would still be happening automatically and we would be part of the amazing unfolding of the universe while having the mental sensation of both 'watching ourselves' and the sensation that our 'self' can voluntarily initiate control.

To paraphrase Einstein (I think it was him), if, hypothetically, the weather (or equally the universe) were for any set of reasons or permutations to become self-conscious, it might readily think that it was steering itself around. But that would be a wonderful illusion. Possibly one that the weather or the universe in that scenario would be (or us in our actual scenario are) almost compelled to experience, even if at certain intellectual moments we find ourselves catching a mind-blowing and humbling glimpse of what is (probably) really happening. In some ways (only some) it seems akin to intellectually realising certain other things, such as that we are almost certainly apes descended from apes or that there's probably no god, two things which although relatively easy to accept today for many people, have been (were) for many people more profoundly difficult to accept when first put forward. One could make a case that not having the capacities and abilities that we think we have is the biggest bogeyman of all, the hardest to accept and possibly the one with the most worrying day-to-day implications. Though to be fair, that has been said about the other two as well.

I here you. I just haven't figured out how to square all of that with things like imagination, invention, and innovation - the extrapolative functions. I don't see how those can possibly work in a purely reactionary world.

Now granted, we don't make nearly as many decisions as we think we do. We run on routine an awful lot. There's a lot I don't know, but what I *think* I understand is that we tend to make a conscious or semi-conscious decision once on most things, and then we just repeat until it no longer works. So we get a new pair of shoes, and for a while, we actually consider whether or not that new pair of shoes goes with a particular outfit or not. Once we've established that it goes with an outfit, we'll usually wear those same shows. Until we get another pair of shoes that also goes with that same outfit... or until that pair of shoes wears out. As long as the initiating conditions don't change, neither does our previously chosen response. But when conditions do change... then we re-evaluate.

That evaluation doesn't have to be particularly sophisticated, nor does it have to be fully conscious. It can be as basic as "I like red" so given a selection of colors, you choose red almost all the time. But sometimes it is a lot more sophisticated... such as when trying to decide which car to buy, when "red" isn't necessarily the only factor at play, let alone the most important one.

 

[DBT]

Nothing in a determined world is free.

So every use of the word 'free' in our [assumed] deterministic universe is mistaken?

You are missing the distinction between the ultimate nature of the system and references to freedom that are made by its inhabitants in relation to the workings of its parts.

Consider Einsteins example....the Moon freely orbits the Earth, its motion is not impeded, but is it free to do anything else? It is not. There lies the distinction and the our use of the word freedom.

Plus, it does not matter that our Universe is not subject to Hard Determinism because any quantum probabilistic events that 'leak' into or effect changes to macro scale structure behaviour is not chosen, is not subject to regulation by an act of will.

It doesn't matter either way, pure randomness won't help establish an argument for free will.