There isn't really a 'freewill problem'.

[Subsymbolic]

Can someone explain manners and a lack of free will? You have young children and older children. Young children are dumb when it comes to social etiquette. Why is it, when taught about it, that they change their behavior. How is a lack of free will not interfering with such a substantial change in behavior?

Take this chart which is a basic chart showing proper social behavior for a child and how it improves. I'm supposed to believe there is no free will when children, who are taught to behave, behave and act more socially appropriate? That the bump in the graph is meaningless, in the context of being taught to act in certain manners?

View attachment 13955

Again, this isn't remotely my position, but the standard response would be that all that training in the social niceties is simply deterministic input - each lesson a little billiard ball nudge changing the vector of the child's dispositional states.

In fact there is a second, for some nested, position - psychological determinism. You can't blame a criminal who was brought up by criminals as they never had the opportunity to have their disposition shaped, while a child brought up to be their best selves in the Socratic Just City would be shaped by the finest sculpters of minds to be determined to be as fully human as they can achieve. The deterministic fantasy has old roots...

 

[ruby sparks]

Can someone explain manners and a lack of free will? You have young children and older children. Young children are dumb when it comes to social etiquette. Why is it, when taught about it, that they change their behavior. How is a lack of free will not interfering with such a substantial change in behavior?

You can train a dog too.

 

[Copernicus]

What could be "before religion"? Animism? It seems to me that religion exists because humans tend to anthropomorphize natural forces. We cause our body parts to move by conscious will, so maybe conscious will is behind natural events. It's not a huge leap to base a causal model on animism. And, if people see natural phenomena as caused by conscious beings, then it stands to reason that the causers can be reasoned with and cajoled. That would be a way to gain favorable treatment from the environment. It would also suggest that bad treatment was caused by disapproval of our own behavior. Gods have always judged human behavior. Abraham's god was no different from any of the others.

...

If there is no punishment for undesirable behavior, then people are less motivated to avoid it. One might punish a child in order to get that individual child to avoid such behavior in the future, but sometimes individuals disobey anyway. In a general population, punishment serves as an example to others. Giving a student a detention for throwing spitballs during class may fail to deter that individual, but the punishment does affect how others in the classroom choose to obey. Atheists go to hell so that other sinners repent. Again, reward and punishment is all about setting up a "mental program" that determines future behavior. Social determinism isn't physical determinism, but it is still causal.

Even in your argument against free will, you're relying on the existence of free will for any reward/punishment mechanism to function. The entire concept of weighing consequences is predicated on the ability to choose.

But I thought I made myself clear, Emily. I'm a compatibilist. I'm not arguing against free will. I'm arguing that there is no conflict between what we normally mean by that expression and determinism, because choice is a fully determined process. The question here is what it means for a choice to be "free" or not. Robots make choices. They can pick their way through obstacle courses. So we need to understand what we mean when we say that they do not choose how to navigate through them by means of free will.

Disapproval of behavior, and punishments that serve as lessons for avoidance exist outside of humans. Adult wolves punish puppies when they get too rambunctious or are misbehaving. Momma cats will pop a kitten when they're engaging in behaviors that are risky or unacceptable, or sometimes just annoying. Most mammals that rear young have some level of behavior engineering that they engage in... and some level of teaching that goes along with it. And it's not all pure instinct - look at the variance in behavior patterns between urban and rural raccoons, for instance. Environment plays a role, parents (and social group leaders) play a role in modifying the behavior of each successive generation.

True, but why are you bringing this up as if I would disagree or somehow hadn't thought about this? It is exactly what I have been saying.

The long-term effects of much behavior modification is to create a routine response. But much of it is based first on that individual entity weighing the consequences of a potential action, then choosing the behavior that is desired.

Absolutely. We see this kind of behavior in other animals, too. They assess their situation and choose courses of action. They have goals and goal conflicts. Fight or flight. No arguments there.

This entire discussion is based on the concept of choice - it's based on the idea that if you can just explain your position well enough, then the other people will change their mind and choose to adopt your viewpoint. It inherently relies on the ability to make an informed choice about the topic.

Again, how does this differ from what I have been saying? Robots, too, make informed choices. They can be programmed to learn from their mistakes, just as animals learn from their mistakes. That is, they can "change their minds" about how to deal with similar situations that they encounter in the future. They assess their situation and their capabilities. They prioritize goals. Autopilots make choices, too. Do you think that robots and autopilots have "free will"? If not, what is the essential difference between robotic choice-making and animal choice-making? Why don't we hold robots accountable for their behavior? That was the point of my bringing the concepts of reward and punishment into the discussion. The threat of an undesirable outcome or promise of a desirable outcome enters into the causal calculus of an animal. Machines lack animal needs and desires, so we don't consider their choices to be "freely" made. They are "free" to do what they want, because they don't really "want" to do anything in order to escape an undesired outcome or achieve a desired one.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Free Will is wrong. Clearly we can't just decide to disobey gravity.

I'd like very much to know who are the idiots who ever argued that free will would allow you to "disobey gravity".

Most people think they have free will but I'm quite sure no one sane believes they could disobey gravity because of it. So the fact that we cannot decide to disobey gravity is irrelevant to whether our notion of free will is wrong or not.

You must be confusing free will with omnipotence.
EB

So far as I can tell... those idiots are the people who argue for the side of determinism. I've always thought it was a stupid interpretation of what free will means, but I've lost track of the number of times that (or something substantially similar) has been tossed out as an argument for why we don't have free will.

Alright, fair enough, but the way you phrased the bit I responded to suggested, and in fact still suggests to me, that you essentially agreed with this view of free will.
EB

 

[bilby]

I don't have any reason to avoid accepting free will other than "There is not one shred of evidence for it". That the exact same reasoning also applies to religion, ghosts, unicorns, etc. is not important at all - except as an illustration of the irrational consequences that arise if one were to accept things without any evidence for their existence.

I don't claim it actually exists; I am just trying to explain that it's possible and how it might be possible, proof of concept.

Oh, OK. When you are done, perhaps you could explain how Phlogiston is possible. My understanding is that it is an effective hypothetical material, with a relative atomic mass of about minus sixteen.

 

[bilby]

But you gave one example where clearly we wouldn't have free will over. We are constrained to choosing A, B, C ... and not much more than that.

To really break it down, if we only have control over one bit of information, say every minute, that is leaving an unimaginable amount of processing to the rest of the universe.

I am saying that you have no control at all. There's no physical mechanism whereby you can control anything.

Things are unpredictable, and people mistake their inability to predict their future as some kind of control, but it's an illusion.

People are very good at fooling themselves into thinking that they are in control of events that they have no influence over - the existence of prayer proves that.

There is no evidence whatsoever for free will - unless you count a vague feeling that 'things ought to be the way you expect them to be' as 'evidence'.

Some people think that they can harness the power of positive thinking to influence traffic lights. Some think that they have the ability to influence another part of physical reality - the choices their brains make - by 'will power'. But there's no reason to agree with either group.

Predicting the future isn't free will. That's a distraction from the fundamental concept here: agency and choice.

Think this through. If there is no free will, if as you say, the universe has 100% control over you (and everything)... then that means that every sentient being in existence isn't actually sentient. It means that every action they take is effectively pre-programmed. They cannot do anything other than what they actually did.

What are the ramifications of this?

It means that punishment is pointless, and is effectively torture. Your child couldn't possibly have been more careful with that grape juice. She was predestined by the universe to ignore your request to stay in the kitchen. She had no choice to do anything other than to spill it all over your white carpet. Why would you punish a child for that? It's tantamount to punishing a person for having a foot too small to fit the shoe you want them to wear. Punishment of all sorts becomes torture if there is no agency.

It means that our ability to extrapolate, hypothesize, and imagine is all a grand delusion foisted upon us. The entirety of our social structures are illusory - when a drive through clerk asks you what you want for dinner, that's just a waste of time. You can't actually make a choice. You being indecisive and having to think about whether you want the burger or the chicken sandwich is really just in your imagination - you can't actually make a choice, it's all a delusion that all of humanity has managed to share, and have built our societies, our laws, and out language around.

That's a hell of a delusion.

If there is no agency, no ability to actually make a choice... where does saving come into play? Where does foregoing an immediate benefit in favor of a longer term one come into consideration? The entire concept of saving, of delaying gratification, of investment (not limited to financial) rests upon the principle of choice.

You are right; If a conclusion has unpleasant consequences, it must be false.

 

[bilby]

In the MWI, there cannot be any choice made, because all choices are made. Everything that can happen, happens; Where's the choice? It's basically a static block multiverse, with branches at every possible decision point - our 'self' follows both branches, and is completely unaware of the part of itself that took a different course, giving the illusion that a choice was made. As the choice was an illusion, so must be any idea that the choices are made freely or by the influence of a 'will' - there's simply not a choice at all. Ever.

Of course we can't say that it is definitely, provably, false that there is a "subjective force" piloting QM; But to assume that there is such a force, is to generate a hypothetical that is not needed to explain observed reality - which is unparsimonious, and therefore to be considered wrong until shown to be right - just like Russell's teapot. 'Subjective force', 'Will', or 'Free will' don't explain any observation that isn't more parsimoniously explained without recourse to these concepts.

Of course, that's just my hypothesis; You can easily show it to be false by producing any observation that is inconsistent with it, and that can only be explained by recourse to the more complex idea of 'Subjective force', 'will' or even 'free will' - Just as Newtonian Gravity is shown to be an incomplete model by the various observations of reality that require Relativity to explain them.

Humor me here. Explain the concept of "decision" in a way that is more parsimoniously explained without agency.

A "decision point" is a point at which there is more than one possible outcome - under the MWI, it is a point at which universes divide.

I have no use for the concept of "decision", and didn't use it.

 

[bilby]

I don't have any reason to avoid accepting free will other than "There is not one shred of evidence for it". That the exact same reasoning also applies to religion, ghosts, unicorns, etc. is not important at all - except as an illustration of the irrational consequences that arise if one were to accept things without any evidence for their existence.

Have you genuinely never in your life thought about the possible consequences of a decision, and selected the option that produced what you considered the best outcome? Really?

Of course I have. In fact, I could not do otherwise.

Did you give any forethought to what you intended to write in this post? Did you re-read it and modify it in any way? Did you consider whether you were being clear, or whether different phrasing might work better to get your point across, in order to convince someone else to choose to accept your view as more true?

No, I considered what would be most likely to make people agree with me. I could not have done anything else; That action was the inevitable result of all of the massively complex influences that have affected me during my life.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Of course I have. In fact, I could not do otherwise.

Did you give any forethought to what you intended to write in this post? Did you re-read it and modify it in any way? Did you consider whether you were being clear, or whether different phrasing might work better to get your point across, in order to convince someone else to choose to accept your view as more true?

No, I considered what would be most likely to make people agree with me. I could not have done anything else; That action was the inevitable result of all of the massively complex influences that have affected me during my life.

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

 

[bilby]

Of course I have. In fact, I could not do otherwise.

Did you give any forethought to what you intended to write in this post? Did you re-read it and modify it in any way? Did you consider whether you were being clear, or whether different phrasing might work better to get your point across, in order to convince someone else to choose to accept your view as more true?

No, I considered what would be most likely to make people agree with me. I could not have done anything else; That action was the inevitable result of all of the massively complex influences that have affected me during my life.

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

Oh, I am fully aware that it would have been impossible to predict the details this inevitable event; and that it is equally only possible to influence the probability that people would agree with me - the audience is far to complex for certainty. That's not a reason to go positing weird hypotheses such as 'choice', 'will' or even 'free will', though.

 

[Copernicus]

Of course I have. In fact, I could not do otherwise.

Did you give any forethought to what you intended to write in this post? Did you re-read it and modify it in any way? Did you consider whether you were being clear, or whether different phrasing might work better to get your point across, in order to convince someone else to choose to accept your view as more true?

No, I considered what would be most likely to make people agree with me. I could not have done anything else; That action was the inevitable result of all of the massively complex influences that have affected me during my life.

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

Neural networks need to be modeled stochastically, but the brain itself is a much larger structure of neurons, and it is far from clear that we understand how stochastic processes--vast numbers of neurons, glial cells, and other brain components--translate into the gross level of emergent brain activity that lead to complex models of game theory, etc., that illuminate our understanding of mental calculations in human beings. IOW, we may not be able to understand brain function adequately merely by considering the behavior of neural networks and other kinds of low level events in a functioning brain. We also need to link that activity to higher level (emergent systemic) mental activity.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

Oh, I am fully aware that it would have been impossible to predict the details this inevitable event; and that it is equally only possible to influence the probability that people would agree with me - the audience is far to complex for certainty. That's not a reason to go positing weird hypotheses such as 'choice', 'will' or even 'free will', though.

Stochastic processes are not inevitable until they have concluded. I'm happy to dump will and freewill, but you are going to struggle to sell rejecting ideas like choice, especially in a system that is in the business of predicting and explaining itself.

However, I'm keen to see the argument.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

Neural networks need to be modeled stochastically, but the brain itself is a much larger structure of neurons, and it is far from clear that we understand how stochastic processes--vast numbers of neurons, glial cells, and other brain components--translate into the gross level of emergent brain activity that lead to complex models of game theory, etc., that illuminate our understanding of mental calculations in human beings. IOW, we may not be able to understand brain function adequately merely by considering the behavior of neural networks and other kinds of low level events in a functioning brain. We also need to link that activity to higher level (emergent systemic) mental activity.

Oh I agree, unsurprisingly, but the fact is that we can say with absolute certainty that it is stochastic and we certainly can say a fair bit about at least some of the ways this plays out in, for example, interpreting degraded signals and avoiding local minima.

 

[Wiploc]

Can someone explain manners and a lack of free will? You have young children and older children. Young children are dumb when it comes to social etiquette. Why is it, when taught about it, that they change their behavior. How is a lack of free will not interfering with such a substantial change in behavior?

Take this chart which is a basic chart showing proper social behavior for a child and how it improves. I'm supposed to believe there is no free will when children, who are taught to behave, behave and act more socially appropriate? That the bump in the graph is meaningless, in the context of being taught to act in certain manners?

View attachment 13955

You can train them because training adds deterministic inputs which change their behavior by changing their programming.

You have to train them because, according to determinists, you don't have a choice.

 

[bilby]

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

Oh, I am fully aware that it would have been impossible to predict the details this inevitable event; and that it is equally only possible to influence the probability that people would agree with me - the audience is far to complex for certainty. That's not a reason to go positing weird hypotheses such as 'choice', 'will' or even 'free will', though.

Stochastic processes are not inevitable until they have concluded. I'm happy to dump will and freewill, but you are going to struggle to sell rejecting ideas like choice, especially in a system that is in the business of predicting and explaining itself.

However, I'm keen to see the argument.

I am sorry to disappoint, but I think we are in agreement, but talking past each other.

In my thought experiment in which we accept, ad argumentum, the Many Worlds Interpretation, reality is a static block multiverse. No choice is possible, insofar as all possibilities actually occur. 'Choice' is real only from the POV of a single thread of this multiverse - and so from the POV of any intelligence inhabiting it, the universe is Stochastic. A Tropical Cyclone could make landfall anywhere on a thousand km or more stretch of coast; Under MWI, it actually does make landfall at all of the possible locations, but in different universes. From the POV of a single thread, the Cyclone 'chooses' a place to make landfall. But that 'choice' is a result of the action of the components of the Cyclone upon each other, and of the rest of the environment on those components, all interacting in ways that defy prediction - but which can be described probabilistically. No 'thought' or 'intelligence' on the part of the Cyclone is assumed.

Complex systems constantly make 'choices' (as viewed from a single 'strand' of the multiverse), but not in the sense of the word that advocates of 'free will' use it. Whether or not the other 'strands' exist is a whole other question, and I suspect is also unimportant - the difference between multiple universes which cannot communicate with one another after being spawned at a decision point, and a single universe where the other possibilities do not get realized once a decision point is passed, is nil, from our perspective in any given strand.

 

[Copernicus]

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

Neural networks need to be modeled stochastically, but the brain itself is a much larger structure of neurons, and it is far from clear that we understand how stochastic processes--vast numbers of neurons, glial cells, and other brain components--translate into the gross level of emergent brain activity that lead to complex models of game theory, etc., that illuminate our understanding of mental calculations in human beings. IOW, we may not be able to understand brain function adequately merely by considering the behavior of neural networks and other kinds of low level events in a functioning brain. We also need to link that activity to higher level (emergent systemic) mental activity.

Oh I agree, unsurprisingly, but the fact is that we can say with absolute certainty that it is stochastic and we certainly can say a fair bit about at least some of the ways this plays out in, for example, interpreting degraded signals and avoiding local minima.

I think it depends on what "it" is. I won't quarrel with models of neuronal activity. I'm just not sure that the stochastic nature of those processes really explains much about the systemic nature of decision-making behavior. Perhaps someday, but that doesn't help us much in this discussion about "free will".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Can someone explain manners and a lack of free will? You have young children and older children. Young children are dumb when it comes to social etiquette. Why is it, when taught about it, that they change their behavior. How is a lack of free will not interfering with such a substantial change in behavior?

Take this chart which is a basic chart showing proper social behavior for a child and how it improves. I'm supposed to believe there is no free will when children, who are taught to behave, behave and act more socially appropriate? That the bump in the graph is meaningless, in the context of being taught to act in certain manners?

View attachment 13955

You can train them because training adds deterministic inputs which change their behavior by changing their programming.

You have to train them because, according to determinists, you don't have a choice.

Don't have a choice or lean towards the path of least resistance?

 

[Wiploc]

You have to train them because, according to determinists, you don't have a choice.

Don't have a choice or lean towards the path of least resistance?

Wiploc make joke.

I'm not a determinist myself, but a determinist would say that if you something, then you had to do it.

 

[Juma]

Or at least it was until neurobiologists realised that the brain is stochastic not deterministic...

Oh, I am fully aware that it would have been impossible to predict the details this inevitable event; and that it is equally only possible to influence the probability that people would agree with me - the audience is far to complex for certainty. That's not a reason to go positing weird hypotheses such as 'choice', 'will' or even 'free will', though.

Stochastic processes are not inevitable until they have concluded. I'm happy to dump will and freewill, but you are going to struggle to sell rejecting ideas like choice, especially in a system that is in the business of predicting and explaining itself.

However, I'm keen to see the argument.

”Choice” and ”decision” are high level terms we use to describe perceived behavior. There is nothing physical to it.

 

[DBT]

DBT, do you fancy unpacking what ‘rationality’ means to you?

Just the standard definition, logical, reasoned....the weighing of a set factors, including the cost to benefit ratio of each of the available options; empathy allows you to understand how someone who may be effected by your choice would feel if you did this rather than that, the consequences of actions as opposed to gain or reward.

Stealing may offer instant reward but has the high risk of being caught and punished, the shame to oneself and family if caught, etc, hence the factor of deterrence in the Law of the Land. Some may act on their own ethical standards and seek to be fair toward others, Sociopaths may not care how others are effected by their actions but may be deterred by the thought of getting caught and punished, which effects their decisions.

Cool. I guess I was also wondering what where the content holders of rationality - are the conceptualised or non conceptualised. Are we talking about something like acting on your beliefs to bring about your desires and avoid your fears in a propositional attitude sort of way (Using something none too different from the laws of logic and narrative). Or do you have something more arcane in mind?

Basically, memory function enabling recognition. Without which, consciousness, the ability to associate information, reason and make decisions falls apart.


Quote;
Neuroscientists have repeatedly pointed out that pattern recognition represents the key to understanding cognition in humans. Pattern recognition also forms the very basis by which we predict future events, i e. we are literally forced to make assumptions concerning outcomes,and we do so by relying on sequences of events experienced in the past.

Huettel et al. point out that their study identifies the role various regions of prefrontal cortex play in moment-to-moment processing of mental events in order to make predictions about future events. Thus implicit predictive models are formed which need to be continuously updated, the disruption of sequence would indicate that the PFC is engaged in a novelty response to pattern changes. As a third possible explanation, Ivry and Knight propose that activation of the prefrontal cortex may reflect the generation of hypotheses, since the formulation of an hypothesis is an essential feature of higher-level cognition.
A monitoring of participants awareness during pattern recognition could provide a test of the PFC’s ability to formulate hypotheses concerning future outcomes.