Is there a workable defintion of free will?

[Aridas]

Which is neither silly nor self-contradictory.

It is, however, "If A, than free will is not A," which you had denied. If we're dealing with it like formal logic, then the biggest immediate concern in the formulation would be that it simply rules out free will from the start on questionable grounds. Simply assuming one's answer generally doesn't make a particularly trustworthy argument, after all. Going a bit further, there's still the very real question of "What questions and/or concerns would this version of free will actually be relevant to address?" like there is for all of them. What would you propose that the questions and concerns that this actually dealt with would be?

 

[BobTheCoward]

You are seriously suggesting that you are going to use the control algorithm to alter the control algorithm?

Well, you are clearly bright enough to understand the gist of strict determinism based on physics. Instead of saying why his explanation is a contradiction, write one that isn't.

 

[Aridas]

You are seriously suggesting that you are going to use the control algorithm to alter the control algorithm?

Not quite. The algorithm isn't actually altering itself, after all. Rather, one could state it as invoking the concept of a different algorithm that has the ability to modify the actual decision-making algorithm. Conscious evaluation and editing of an effectively subconscious decision-making process, at last check, is well within the current scientific possibilities for the practical applications of consciousness. Such a version would work at the level of brain chemistry/"programming" (i.e. uses closer to the socially relevant area that free will can address), and not work as well at the abstract level where determinism would become relevant in the first place.

It's worth remembering that determinism only conflicts with some versions and uses of free will, after all.

 

[Thor 2]

There is absolutely zero way to keep this from just turning into the "The Soul" argument again. Nothing will happen but people arguing around each other, obviously using the term to mean very different things.

I agree with you about the soul argument I think. That is if it goes like this:

We are 100% physical beings and our actions are determined by our physical makeup. Part of our actions are influenced by our memories, and our memories are contained in our physical brains. Every voluntary action is determined by what we know, which is mostly as a result of memory. Hence it is predetermined.

To assume we are capable of doing something contrary to the directions of our brains, must assume the influence of an outside, independent, entity ...... the soul.

 

[Dr.Sid]

Well I think the process can have some quantum noise in it .. nothing in this universe is strictly deterministic .. and brain seems to contain actions small enough for it to have some effect. And even if brain contained strong anti-noise measures, the way our digital computers do, you still have noise at the inputs ..
Anyway .. people can behave quite logically, if they want to, so I guess there is not that much noise .. and obviously, noise isn't free will. Set of cog wheels is not free will, and occasional throw of dice won't improve it a bit.
The noise however plays role in things like creativity imho. Some people say the 'cog wheel' model does not allow for any creativity. I think creativity is basically noise viewed through our experience.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Well I think the process can have some quantum noise in it .. nothing in this universe is strictly deterministic .. and brain seems to contain actions small enough for it to have some effect. And even if brain contained strong anti-noise measures, the way our digital computers do, you still have noise at the inputs ..
Anyway .. people can behave quite logically, if they want to, so I guess there is not that much noise .. and obviously, noise isn't free will. Set of cog wheels is not free will, and occasional throw of dice won't improve it a bit.
The noise however plays role in things like creativity imho. Some people say the 'cog wheel' model does not allow for any creativity. I think creativity is basically noise viewed through our experience.

Highly speculative. We would have to identify how many neurons involved in a single thought, how much randomness occurs, and if that is sufficient to alter a deterministic thought into a non deterministic one.

 

[Aridas]

Well I think the process can have some quantum noise in it .. nothing in this universe is strictly deterministic ..

Possibly. It's also possible that even quantum noise is actually caused in fundamentally deterministic ways, but that we haven't actually figured it out yet, for lack of sufficient relevant information and tools to do so.

 

[Loss Leader]

On a practical day to day level, of course we do in the sense that we have personal volition that we can be held accountable for and are in control of.

In Criminal Law, we discussed the difference between walking onto someone else's property and being thrown there. The difference is how much your own desire played in you ending up on someone else's lawn.

 

[BobTheCoward]

In Criminal Law, we discussed the difference between walking onto someone else's property and being thrown there. The difference is how much your own desire played in you ending up on someone else's lawn.

But how much of that is dependent on the reality of a physics based deterministic outcome?

 

[Myriad]

From an adaptation standpoint, it occurs to me that true arbitrary free will, separate from thought processes such as the weighing of risks and benefits, would be an extraordinarily dangerous (and disadvantageous) trait.

Hundreds of times of day, I face situations where it would take only a few seconds of simple voluntary action to do myself in. There are balconies and stairs I could fling myself off of, poisons I could ingest, simple turns of the steering wheel that would quickly result in a fiery crash. And that's just one extreme. It would take me little time or effort to commit a foolish crime for which I'd quickly be caught, take actions at work that would get me immediately fired, or act so as to ruin my marriage, lose all my money, or burn down my home.

On those occasions when someone actually does something like that, we don't say, "Wow, that guy who smashed a jewelry store window in broad daylight with a cop standing right nearby must have had unusually strong (or unusually free) will." Quite the opposite. We speak of the "uncontrollable impulses" of a mental disorder.

It might be helpful to attempt an operational understanding of cognition related to the internal narrative of free will. What kinds of decisions and behaviors do we most associate with exhibiting or acting upon free will? How are those decisions and behaviors advantageous relative to alternative automatic, habitual, routine, or rote behaviors that would seem to involve less cognitive effort? What cognitive mechanisms are necessary to reliably result in the more advantageous behavior more of the time?

 

[Dr.Sid]

Possibly. It's also possible that even quantum noise is actually caused in fundamentally deterministic ways, but that we haven't actually figured it out yet, for lack of sufficient relevant information and tools to do so.

I doubt it. Quantum noise is random. Perfectly, uniformly random. It's not affected by anything we know. If there is some mechanism in play, it's mechanism to achieve perfect randomness. IMHO it's important part of our universe .. just wanted to point out, that you can't look for free will there either. Some people do ..

 

[Ozzie]

Not necessarily.

It sounds like what you have there is Id, Ego, and Superego all over again. This doesn't need to mean a soul, though. It just means that we evolved Reason and Judgment.

 

[Elwin Garland]

460 days until 2,300 days - Daniel 8:14

The absolute definition of free will belongs to our Creator alone, but through Christ Jesus we are blessed with our Creator's longing to share that absolute with us.

The best way to conceptualize human free will is to look at some one who is alive and some one who is dead.

This basic concept is presented in the Creation story of man in the Holy Bible.

Although mans shape and form are complete, he doesn't become a living soul until our Creator breathes into his nostrils the breath of life; in essence his free will before being alive is hypothetical, dormant, only potential.

That is why death is but a sleep to the Lord, the real sanctity in free will is our interaction with Him.

 

[barehl]

Well, you are clearly bright enough to understand the gist of strict determinism based on physics. Instead of saying why his explanation is a contradiction, write one that isn't.

So instead of me asking questions you want me to explain. I see.

Several have suggested that volition is algorithmic. This seems like a reasonable hypothesis within computational theory. However, if this were true then volition would work without consciousness. Since consciousness does exist and clearly evolved from non-conscious organisms this is something of a problem for the claim. Computational theory itself has no basis for consciousness, so the assumption that this somehow emerges from a particular algorithm not only uses special pleading but also resorts to the same magical explanation that people use when they talk about a soul.

This is the first problem.

 

[BobTheCoward]

So instead of me asking questions you want me to explain. I see

Well, if you have an explanation, no reason to bother with the questions.

 

[jrhowell]

Computational theory itself has no basis for consciousness,

Are you saying that because we do not now know an algorithm for consciousness that it is in principle impossible for there to be one? That the brain performs activities that cannot be explained by materialism?

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Science can't explain (insert perfectly explainable neurological process here)"

Yeah this is totally different from the soul argument. All this thread needs is some Bayesian Statistics.

 

[jrhowell]

if this were true then volition would work without consciousness.

Here is a thought experiment. It isn’t doable with today’s technology, but if neural activity is produced by materialistic processes then it should be possible to map out the neurons in a brain and replicate their firing in a computer simulation. If I ask you if you are conscious you would say yes and would be telling the truth. If I ask the simulation the same question it would replicate the neural activity of your brain and give the same answer.

Would the simulation be telling the truth or lying?

If you have consciousness and the simulation does not then what difference does having consciousness make if exactly the same behavior (volition) results without it?

Is the proposed experiment impossible because neural activity is subject to non-materialistic influences?

Something else?

 

[barehl]

Are you saying that because we do not now know an algorithm for consciousness that it is in principle impossible for there to be one?

We don't know of an algorithm.
Such an algorithm is not theoretically possible.
There is a disproof that consciousness can be created computationally.

That the brain performs activities that cannot be explained by materialism?

You've lost me here. The brain is completely mechanistic. We know that the brain functions based on neuronal activity. Neurons are not particularly mystical or supernatural (unless you are part of the Chalmers cult).

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay you're all over the map here. The brain is completely materialistic but consciousness is not "computational."