Free will ?

[Beguile's Mistress]

I have no wish to discuss physics on any scale. 

I stated an opinion that I believe free will exists and as proof the fact that we are all offering the ideas we have by our own choice.  I didn't introduce physics into the conversation or comment on how it could or would or should have anything to do with free will.

Do you say that I am not free to choose what I want to do and when and how I want to do it?

[Ephiral]

I have no wish to discuss physics on any scale. 

I stated an opinion that I believe free will exists and as proof the fact that we are all offering the ideas we have by our own choice.  I didn't introduce physics into the conversation or comment on how it could or would or should have anything to do with free will.

Do you say that I am not free to choose what I want to do and when and how I want to do it?

That is not proof, it is circular logic. "We can choose what we do because we choose what we think" is hardly evidence.

I say that your brain is absolutely deterministic. You are free to act in whatever way you want, or not act - but what you want, and the actions you will take, are precisely determined by the state of your brain and environment. "Choice" is what you call it when you see multiple paths that are physically possible, but no matter what, you can and will only go down a single one of these paths, predetermined by the factors I mentioned. A system of arbitrary complexity, given nothing more than the conditions of our universe at the time of the Big Bang and our laws of physics, would be able to perfectly predict every "choice" that you, I, and every other human being in existence has ever made.

The only way around this is if the brain is not deterministic. This, unfortunately, is where physics must enter the discussion - the brain is a physical object. Every single example we have of any physical object anywhere is completely deterministic in its behaviour. So we need a very compelling reason to believe that this is not the case here.

[chaoslord29]

That is not proof, it is circular logic. "We can choose what we do because we choose what we think" is hardly evidence.

I say that your brain is absolutely deterministic. You are free to act in whatever way you want, or not act - but what you want, and the actions you will take, are precisely determined by the state of your brain and environment. "Choice" is what you call it when you see multiple paths that are physically possible, but no matter what, you can and will only go down a single one of these paths, predetermined by the factors I mentioned. A system of arbitrary complexity, given nothing more than the conditions of our universe at the time of the Big Bang and our laws of physics, would be able to perfectly predict every "choice" that you, I, and every other human being in existence has ever made.

The only way around this is if the brain is not deterministic. This, unfortunately, is where physics must enter the discussion - the brain is a physical object. Every single example we have of any physical object anywhere is completely deterministic in its behaviour. So we need a very compelling reason to believe that this is not the case here.

That's not entirely the case though is it? Quantum physics more or less blow newtonian physics out of the water and render the concept of a deterministic universe epistomelogically impossible as I recall.

Of course, what you're left with looks more or less like a Probabilistic Universe, which in no way account for individual agency of free will, but still, it's at least possible now that maybe at the quantum level their is an ability to exercise "free will."

[Ephiral]

That's not entirely the case though is it? Quantum physics more or less blow newtonian physics out of the water and render the concept of a deterministic universe epistomelogically impossible as I recall.

Of course, what you're left with looks more or less like a Probabilistic Universe, which in no way account for individual agency of free will, but still, it's at least possible now that maybe at the quantum level their is an ability to exercise "free will."

Not exactly. It renders macro-scale physics a special case (much as classic Newtonian physics is a special case of modern macro-scale physics, applying reasonably well if one is in an Earthlike environment) - one that applies to anything with a consciousness (and you'd be hard-pressed to argue that something that is not conscious has will of any sort, free or otherwise). So we still need a very good reason for believing that a macro-scale physical object behaves in a non-deterministic manner.

[Jude]

It's a little circular isn't it? We evolved emotions because emotions drive us to be social and we need to be social because we live in societies? The problem with Hobbes is that he thinks the state of nature is 'nasty, brutish, and short' (IIRC). Which really isn't so. I get how that worked when we thought that humanity was unique in being a social animal. Things are different now though. From simple symbiosis to complex societies, functional group behavior can be seen at every level of life from prokaryotes up. Pseudomonas bacteria do not need concepts such as love to fill class roles in dynamic and complex social groups (though interestingly they do still display kin-selection/favoritism), so why is it that we do (or do we?)? Is this a flat out advantage? A necessary, but sub-par solution for dealing with the phenomenon of consciousness (and in turn is sapience itself beneficial?)? Or a complete accident?

My logic is probably a bit sloppy... I think what I was trying to say that is that emotion makes small group cohesion easier for thinking beings, and being able to function in such units dependably is adaptive. That's certainly part of it, but I think you're on to something too. Emotion is probably especially important for sapience.

Emotions are not necessarily a human specific attribute or even that different from instinctual impulses. In my opinion, instinctual impulses are emotions minus the "sentient-side experience." Take hunger for example, it is not directly tied to an emotion, it is an instinctual impulse that we recognize (our body tells us this through a feedback mechanism), but there seems to be no strong affecting component. If we allow that impulse to go unfulfilled, emotions will eventually step in to nudge us in the direction of satisfying that impulse in a way that only a sentient, meta-cognitive being can reflect on and struggle with. Emotions seem to be stronger reminders of a problem we must deal with, the kind of reminder that pollutes consciousness in a way that dry sensory reminders cannot always.

[Beguile's Mistress]

There is something you are not taking into account and probably may not be capable of recognizing with the scope within which you have limited your reasoning so I'll not waste my time going into that..

I'm perfectly capable of making choices with no knowledge of physics or what some mathematical formula may attempt to predict.  I cannot place myself in the figurative hands of something that is not capable of understanding me or anticipating how I may feel about about something when my emotions, feelings, needs and history are not know to it.  Predict all you want about what I might do but don't place money on it. 

I do not determine how things will go but I can determine how I want them to go and whether that desire is worth the effort.  I can see how something might benefit me but I can also choose to look for how it will impact others.  I can think ahead so to speak and choose how I wish to go on.  The likelihood that I might do something is not the same as the certainty that I will.  Therefore, no thing and no person may speak for me.  I reserve that right to myself alone.

In my philosophy there is only one entity that knows me and knows all the choices I might make at any given time and knows the results of each of those choices and the next choice that comes from each. 

I keep thinking of Asimov's Foundation and a butterfly and how a whisper uttered ages ago could destroy tomorrow.

[Ephiral]

There is something you are not taking into account and probably may not be capable of recognizing with the scope within which you have limited your reasoning so I'll not waste my time going into that..

My scope is "things which have some evidence in the real world pointing to their likelihood over other possibilities".

I'm perfectly capable of making choices with no knowledge of physics or what some mathematical formula may attempt to predict.  I cannot place myself in the figurative hands of something that is not capable of understanding me or anticipating how I may feel about about something when my emotions, feelings, needs and history are not know to it.  Predict all you want about what I might do but don't place money on it.

So you can act on imperfect information. This is not a uniquely human or non-deterministic phenomenon. As I mentioned earlier, there's a mathematical formula for it:

So we appear to be back to "I don't like this", which is hardly an argument. Also, I think you may have missed my point regarding the arbitrarily complex predictor earlier: It would be capable of anticipating how you feel, because your emotions, feelings, needs, and history would be known to it. We currently have no reason to believe that all of this is not derivable from the laws of physics and an initial state. I am asking, not for appeals to emotion, not for arguments from incredulity or disgust, but for actual evidence that says otherwise.

I do not determine how things will go but I can determine how I want them to go and whether that desire is worth the effort.  I can see how something might benefit me but I can also choose to look for how it will impact others.  I can think ahead so to speak and choose how I wish to go on.  The likelihood that I might do something is not the same as the certainty that I will.  Therefore, no thing and no person may speak for me.  I reserve that right to myself alone.

In my philosophy there is only one entity that knows me and knows all the choices I might make at any given time and knows the results of each of those choices and the next choice that comes from each. 

I keep thinking of Asimov's Foundation and a butterfly and how a whisper uttered ages ago could destroy tomorrow.

But that's just it. Given perfect information on your brain's state (and thus, by extension, your mindset), which the predictor I mentioned would have (unless, again, the brain is non-deterministic), we're not talking likelihood. We're talking certainty. You might change your mind, or decide pseudorandomly - but you were always going to change your mind or decide pseudorandomly. The fact that you have limited information about your brain and mind does not mean that this information does not exist.

[meikle]

In my philosophy there is only one entity that knows me and knows all the choices I might make at any given time and knows the results of each of those choices and the next choice that comes from each.

I think it is important to recognize that you are talking opinion, philosophy, belief, but Ephiral isn't interested in philosophy but is instead addressing the subject scientifically.  When you address a subject scientifically, what you feel or believe doesn't matter and philosophy is irrelevant; only what can be seen to be true through empirical evidence is important.

If you disagree with scientific approach, I mean, that's a different subject entirely.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Oh I totally agree.  It boils down to what I like because I enjoy being reduced to a series of figures and symbols on a page so that someone else can tell me that the most traumatic events in my life were meant to happen because the person who perpetrated them was always going to do that to me or that the most important person in my childhood was going to go against type and stereotype and be a monster because that was predetermined.

It doesn't make sense to me that a thing can do that.  It may predict what a trend may be but I don't see how it can do that for the individual.  My brain chemistry can't be duplicated because it isn't static.  My thoughts are constantly fluctuating and my history, psychology and experience constantly evolving.

Even you or I capable of rational thought will only select the words the other utters that resonate with us and ignore the rest.  I try to make a conscious effort to avoid that eventuality but that is my method of discussion. 

As far as liking and not liking go I do not like being dehumanized.  I am not a string of figures and symbols on a page and neither are my thoughts.

I think it is important to recognize that you are talking opinion, philosophy, belief, but Ephiral isn't interested in philosophy but is instead addressing the subject scientifically.  When you address a subject scientifically, what you feel or believe doesn't matter and philosophy is irrelevant; only what can be seen to be true through empirical evidence is important.

If you disagree with scientific approach, I mean, that's a different subject entirely.

Ephiral's attempt to address the subject scientifically is his choice not mine.  He has free will and may make that choice freely.  Whether I disagree with scientific approach or not I don't see how it explains that ultra-personal experiences of my own that influence me and that no one else can quantify or measure can be used to determine for me by someone or some thing what I will do.  Neither of you know me or choose to understand me.  You don't have to. 

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

[meikle]

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.

[citation needed]

You can't make absolute claims about reality and then back them up with a stance as subjective as, "that's what I believe."

Now, are you predictable presently, with any degree of accuracy?  No, we can't do that.  Does that mean that the laws of physics as we understand them don't apply to the human brain?  Seems unlikely.

[Oniya]

At the very least, she passes the Turing Test. 

[Beguile's Mistress]

[citation needed]

You would have to know me personally to verify that.  However, I'll accept any verification you can provide that human beings can be 100% predictable.  Even a consistent 75% would be acceptable.  This would have to be on an individual basis by the way.

I also need the name and specs of the computer technology and equipment available to provide 100% accuracy (or a consistent percentage of accuracy of a lesser amoung) in what I or any other human being would do.

At the very least, she passes the Turing Test. 

[meikle]

You would have to know me personally to verify that.  However, I'll accept any verification you can provide that human beings can be 100% predictable.  Even a consistent 75% would be acceptable.  This would have to be on an individual basis by the way.

I also need the name and specs of the computer technology and equipment available to provide 100% accuracy (or a consistent percentage of accuracy of a lesser amoung) in what I or any other human being would do.

The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted.  We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.

[chaoslord29]

Ephiral's attempt to address the subject scientifically is his choice not mine.  He has free will and may make that choice freely.  Whether I disagree with scientific approach or not I don't see how it explains that ultra-personal experiences of my own that influence me and that no one else can quantify or measure can be used to determine for me by someone or some thing what I will do.  Neither of you know me or choose to understand me.  You don't have to. 

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

Maybe try to look at it another way? Rather than scientific terms I can put it into logical philosophical terms that are equally indisputable. Try this on for size:

All events are the product of circumstance and stimulus.
Circumstances and stimulus are defined by past events and the physical laws of the universe.
As a human being, you have no ability to change past events or the physical laws of the universe.
Therefore, you have no functional free will.

The most compelling argument against free will for me has always been the problem of Agency. By what mechanism do you, in fact, exercise your free will that is not already accounted for by means outside your control like the immutable laws of the universe (large and small nuclear forces, electrochemistry, gravity, etc.)?

[Beguile's Mistress]

The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted.  We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.

Okay.  When the technology becomes available to support your claims you may provide it.  I'm content to wait.

Maybe try to look at it another way? Rather than scientific terms I can put it into logical philosophical terms that are equally indisputable. Try this on for size:

All events are the product of circumstance and stimulus.
Circumstances and stimulus are defined by past events and the physical laws of the universe.
As a human being, you have no ability to change past events or the physical laws of the universe.
Therefore, you have no functional free will.

The most compelling argument against free will for me has always been the problem of Agency. By what mechanism do you, in fact, exercise your free will that is not already accounted for by means outside your control like the immutable laws of the universe (large and small nuclear forces, electrochemistry, gravity, etc.)?

My interpretation of past events and changes in that interpretation can do much to influence my current thinking.  I am capable of changing my mind.  I am capable of taking everything said in this thread into consideration and filtering it through my consciousness.  It will also have an affect on my sub-conscious. 

So, while I can't change physical laws I can be influenced by new interpretations of those physical laws and while I can't change history I can be aware that history as we tend to present it is subject to interpretation by the presenter.  Also, new historical evidence is brought to light and discussed from time to time.  Certain facts about Thomas Jefferson come to mind.

I have a personal history that has influenced me for years.  I recently discovered some documentation about that history that alters my perception of it and my thinking today.  It will be my choice (of my own free will) how I will let that new perception influence me.

[Ephiral]

Oh I totally agree.  It boils down to what I like because I enjoy being reduced to a series of figures and symbols on a page so that someone else can tell me that the most traumatic events in my life were meant to happen because the person who perpetrated them was always going to do that to me or that the most important person in my childhood was going to go against type and stereotype and be a monster because that was predetermined.

I am truly sorry that this happened to you. But from the start, the subject has been what is true, not what we'd prefer to be true.

It doesn't make sense to me that a thing can do that.  It may predict what a trend may be but I don't see how it can do that for the individual.  My brain chemistry can't be duplicated because it isn't static.  My thoughts are constantly fluctuating and my history, psychology and experience constantly evolving.

We model dynamic, changing systems in physics all the time. Your brain is an exceptionally complex one, beyond our current technological capabilities, but it's still just another dynamic system. What makes it so special?

Even you or I capable of rational thought will only select the words the other utters that resonate with us and ignore the rest.  I try to make a conscious effort to avoid that eventuality but that is my method of discussion.

Apparently you've missed the number of times I've said "Okay, I was wrong, thanks for the rebuttal" around here.

As far as liking and not liking go I do not like being dehumanized.  I am not a string of figures and symbols on a page and neither are my thoughts.

Sorry, but not liking it doesn't make it not true. Again, I'm arguing what is, not what we wish. 

Ephiral's attempt to address the subject scientifically is his choice not mine.  He has free will and may make that choice freely.  Whether I disagree with scientific approach or not I don't see how it explains that ultra-personal experiences of my own that influence me and that no one else can quantify or measure can be used to determine for me by someone or some thing what I will do.  Neither of you know me or choose to understand me.  You don't have to.

Your experiences can be recorded, quantified, measured, and analyzed. As evidence, I submit that you yourself are capable of doing so. Why would something with more information than you have about your brain state be worse than this?

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

The bolded bit there? That is a statement about reality. You are claiming that human beings are not predictable, period. My question is: What makes them different than every other physical object in existence? How do they break the laws that everything else obeys? If you can answer this, I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel in it.

The fact that we do not have the technology to predict something does not mean it cannot be predicted.  We didn't know that the Earth orbited the Sun a thousand years ago, but that doesn't mean that the Earth's orbit was unpredictable until Copernicus wrote about heliocentrism.

"Not currently possible". does not equal "not possible" Commonly-accepted wisdom just over a century ago told us that human beings could not fly, let alone leave the planet. Does that mean it didn't happen?

In the absence of the technology, we have to look at what evidence we have about reality. And what it consistently says is that every macro-scale physical object - every last one! - behaves in a manner that, given sufficient information, is perfectly predictable. You are making an exceptional claim by saying that the brain, a macro-scale physical object, does not behave in this way. The burden of proof is on you, not us.

EDIT: Minor grammatical fix, removed a bit of snark.

[meikle]

It will be my choice (of my own free will) how I will let that new perception influence me.

I think this flies in the face of most of our modern understanding of human psychology, as well.

[DarklingAlice]

Feelings and arbitrary beliefs really have no place in this forum. I cannot fathom why it seems impossible that Elliquiy U stay on mission to discuss science, technology, and subjects of an academic nature without interference of dogmatically held, irrational belief. And I don't mean to imply that beliefs about such concepts are wrong, but they are beyond the confines of the discussion; and simply that if you assert something to be beyond the testable, phenomenal world of fact and reason it has no place here. There is already a place to discuss things that make us happy and/or sad and a place to discuss religious beliefs. It is not this place.

As far as arguments against free will go, I have to drop one of the more interesting.

There is no such thing as freedom, but everything in the world happens solely according to the laws of nature.

Granted, that there does exist freedom in the transcendental sense, as a peculiar kind of causality, operating to produce events in the world—a faculty, that is to say, of originating a state, and consequently a series of consequences from that state. In this case, not only the series originated by this spontaneity, but the determination of this spontaneity itself to the production of the series, that is to say, the causality itself must have an absolute commencement, such that nothing can precede to determine this action according to unvarying laws. But every beginning of action presupposes in the acting cause a state of inaction; and a dynamically primal beginning of action presupposes a state, which has no connection—as regards causality—with the preceding state of the cause—which does not, that is, in any wise result from it. Transcendental freedom is therefore opposed to the natural law of cause and effect, and such a conjunction of successive states in effective causes is destructive of the possibility of unity in experience and for that reason not to be found in experience—is consequently a mere fiction of thought.

We have, therefore, nothing but nature to which we must look for connection and order in cosmical events. Freedom—independence of the laws of nature—is certainly a deliverance from restraint, but it is also a relinquishing of the guidance of law and rule. For it cannot be alleged that, instead of the laws of nature, laws of freedom may be introduced into the causality of the course of nature. For, if freedom were determined according to laws, it would be no longer freedom, but merely nature. Nature, therefore, and transcendental freedom are distinguishable as conformity to law and lawlessness. The former imposes upon understanding the difficulty of seeking the origin of events ever higher and higher in the series of causes, inasmuch as causality is always conditioned thereby; while it compensates this labour by the guarantee of a unity complete and in conformity with law. The latter, on the contrary, holds out to the understanding the promise of a point of rest in the chain of causes, by conducting it to an unconditioned causality, which professes to have the power of spontaneous origination, but which, in its own utter blindness, deprives it of the guidance of rules, by which alone a completely connected experience is possible.

-from the Meiklejohn translation of the Critique of Pure Reason

Now, that is set counter an equally rational citation of the fallacy of infinite reduction, which is a compelling case against the absence of any other causal system but for natural law (and, I think, one that has to be embraced). These two together make up the third antimony of pure reason (being mutually exclusive ideas yet each possessing a rational proof).

[chaoslord29]

Okay.  When the technology becomes available to support your claims you may provide it.  I'm content to wait.

That's not quite how it works. I can prove her thesis with raw logic without ever having to appeal to science. I mean, it's not like you can prove how the science doesn't work or doesn't exist so just putting off the burden of proof on one another gets us nowhere fast.

My interpretation of past events and changes in that interpretation can do much to influence my current thinking.  I am capable of changing my mind.  I am capable of taking everything said in this thread into consideration and filtering it through my consciousness.  It will also have an affect on my sub-conscious. 

So, while I can't change physical laws I can be influenced by new interpretations of those physical laws and while I can't change history I can be aware that history as we tend to present it is subject to interpretation by the presenter.  Also, new historical evidence is brought to light and discussed from time to time.  Certain facts about Thomas Jefferson come to mind.

I have a personal history that has influenced me for years.  I recently discovered some documentation about that history that alters my perception of it and my thinking today.  It will be my choice (of my own free will) how I will let that new perception influence me.

What you seem to be missing in that whole narrative is where the 'decision' actually takes place. What are your "choices"  but the product of your interpretation of the events at hand, which are in turn a product of your interpretation of past events which is dependent on how you have previously interpreted events, which is based on how you previously interpreted events, ad infinitum. It's an infinite regress, one that precludes any individual agency on your part.

The part that you seem to be having trouble with is that this in no way diminishes your unique personhood and the greater effect and part you play in the grand scheme of things. Think about it, your individual actions are in fact the cumulative result of the actions and interactions of the combine total of creation stretching back through time.

[Beguile's Mistress]

I am not a machine and I am not predictable with 100% accuracy or any sort of accuracy.  In fact, I am finding it highly amusing how this is progressing when normally I would be completely frustrated.  I actually have no wish to be frustrating either and it's unfortunate that is what is happening.

The bolded bit there? That is a statement about reality. You are claiming that human beings are not predictable, period. My question is: What makes them different than every other physical object in existence? How do they break the laws that everything else obeys? If you can answer this, I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel in it.

Explain please.  I am missing the part where I made the claim about all humanity.

Also, no matter how the laws of physics, chemistry, biology or any other science can be employed to explained how a brain functions no one has explained how a mind works or why humans have deductive reasoning on a level no other biological organism possesses. 

[meikle]

Explain please.  I am missing the part where I made the claim about all humanity.

... What?  Are you now suggesting that you are unique in your brain's refusal to obey the laws of physics?

[Ephiral]

Explain please.  I am missing the part where I made the claim about all humanity.

Okay, then, you're making an even bolder claim: Why are you the special exception that doesn't function the same way every other member of the species does?

Also, no matter how the laws of physics, chemistry, biology or any other science can be employed to explained how a brain functions no one has explained how a mind works or why humans have deductive reasoning on a level no other biological organism possesses.

Err... the entire field of neuropsychology would very much like to have a word with you about the claim that science can't tell us how the mind works. Your second claim is pretty bold: You know the exact psychological capabilities of every biological organism in existence? Particularly the ones that have already demonstrated a very high level of communication, abstract reasoning, and tool-using ability?

[chaoslord29]

Also, no matter how the laws of physics, chemistry, biology or any other science can be employed to explained how a brain functions no one has explained how a mind works or why humans have deductive reasoning on a level no other biological organism possesses.

1) What is your mind if not your brain? How do you distinguish your mind, from your brain, and if it is in fact distinguishable, by what mechanism does the one interact and influence with the other? Huge stumbling block for your assertion.

2) Humans do not utilize deductive reasoning on a higher level than any other animal. Perhaps to a more extended degree (Anthropologists posit that it has something to do the the decelerated rate of brain development in human beings compared to other primates and animals), but that is more a factor of our civilizations ability to record, perpetuate, and expand upon knowledge. Biologically, there is no deciding factor in how the brain of a higher primate functions compared to most other vertebrates.

[Hemingway]

Very interesting discussion here. It's one of the few times I've actually been interested enough to read through it all ( or near enough that it makes no difference! ).

I do have one question for those claiming that no computer could ever reach the level of human brains - to think, to decide, and to love, as it were. It seems to me that the only difference is that we're biological, and they're not. Which isn't even as clear-cut a difference as it might seem.

[Ephiral]

Very interesting discussion here. It's one of the few times I've actually been interested enough to read through it all ( or near enough that it makes no difference! ).

I do have one question for those claiming that no computer could ever reach the level of human brains - to think, to decide, and to love, as it were. It seems to me that the only difference is that we're biological, and they're not. Which isn't even as clear-cut a difference as it might seem.

Frankly, it's a distinction that doesn't speak well of us, either - evolution is the shittiest of all possible successful engineers.