Free will and determinism

[Olmstead]

I don't see any advantage. Quite the contrary, it would seem. Acting instinctively, without thought or choosing, with the same net result would rely in a faster moving animal. That's an evolutionary plus.

Well, you're wrong, and the incredible success of the human species is obvious proof. We can speculate on why that is the case, but we already know it's true, because it has literally happened.

I smell a word game around here somewhere.

I don't.

 

[Leumas]

You probably could have summarised that in a sentence.

Please show me how... I will bow to your superior abilities if you do.

I am still interested in your suggestion.... seriously... I am always willing to learn something new...it would be very interesting... even if 2 or 3 sentences it would still be very impressive.... please feel free to use my words or use yours... no matter... if you can convey the content and meaning of that post in a succinct 1 to 3 sentences I would be very impressed.... please try.

 

[GDon]

The whole problem begins with the fact that you have to phrase it this vaguely, because you can't even come up with an example of how this would work.

What I'm arguing is that free-will is something that happens within the brain. Thus it is a product of genes and environment. For some reason people call it an 'illusion' because it is occurring within the brain, but my argument is that it isn't an illusion of free-will, it is free-will.

Genes and my life have brought me to a point where I have to decide whether I will exercise today or not ... and then what? I will force myself to do an hour of exercise because it's good for my health, or I will turn on my Playstation instead. Can you even hypothesize on a way in which either of these choices couldn't be traced back to either my genes or the environment?

Exactly. They are free-will decisions occurring within the brain. No need to propose a 'soul' or supernatural origin for free-will.

But when it's time to formulate a theory on free will, there is nothing, and it all ends right there. We can't even imagine what we would be looking for.

But if we can't even imagine what we're looking for, how can we say it's not there?

Does it make sense to say that X doesn't exist if X can't be defined in the first place? That's the problem with debates around free-will. "I think, therefore I have free-will." That works for me.

 

[GDon]

What does this mean... what is "free will choices" and how can genes determine this and yet it is still called free will?

Free-will: at time T, I can choose between ice-cream and a banana. I choose ice-cream.

The free-will choice is made based on genes (the body's preference for sugar) and environment (at a children's party).

 

[Leumas]

Free-will: at time T, I can choose between ice-cream and a banana. I choose ice-cream.

The free-will choice is made based on genes (the body's preference for sugar) and environment (at a children's party).

So it is not free will... it is a PROGRAM and since one's program/genes don't change, the chooser cannot change his choice... unless another factor made him do so... and thus it is still not free choice.

 

[GDon]

So it is not free will... it is a PROGRAM

Yes, we are programmed for free-will. If you think that's not possible, then please explain why.

and since one's program/genes don't change, the chooser cannot change his choice...

No-one can change his free-will choice. He chooses what he chooses. What makes a free-will choice possible is having the option of two choices.

unless another factor made him do so... and thus it is still not free choice.

That is a meaningless concept, I'm afraid. What "other factor" is required to turn a choice into a "free-will" choice? Trying to explain this will hopefully help you see where I am coming from.

 

[Olmstead]

What I'm arguing is that free-will is something that happens within the brain. Thus it is a product of genes and environment. For some reason people call it an 'illusion' because it is occurring within the brain, but my argument is that it isn't an illusion of free-will, it is free-will.

...

Exactly. They are free-will decisions occurring within the brain. No need to propose a 'soul' or supernatural origin for free-will.

If it's equivalent to flicking a switch, how can it be free will? My mind is an amalgamation of countless complex switches, and as my surroundings and inner workings flick them, I make the only possible decision, because that's how I'm wired. Only if different switches had been flicked, the switches had been flicked in a different way, or the switches in my brain worked differently, could I have made a different decision. There's no part of this process that includes anything resembling free will.

But if we can't even imagine what we're looking for, how can we say it's not there?

Does it make sense to say that X doesn't exist if X can't be defined in the first place? That's the problem with debates around free-will. "I think, therefore I have free-will." That works for me.

I'd argue that not being able to define something puts it on the level of other nebulous supernatural things that can't be disproven because we can still squeeze them into the gaps of our knowledge.

And in this case, there aren't even many gaps left. As I've mentioned, we have observed instances of split-brain patients taking actions for very specific reasons, but since the verbal part of their brain didn't receive the instruction, it immediatelly crafted a plausible different narrative to keep the free will illusion alive. For some reason, our brains won't ever let us observe the nuts and bolts of our decision-making, even when it has no idea what's going on.

 

[Olmstead]

I am still interested in your suggestion.... seriously... I am always willing to learn something new...it would be very interesting... even if 2 or 3 sentences it would still be very impressive.... please feel free to use my words or use yours... no matter... if you can convey the content and meaning of that post in a succinct 1 to 3 sentences I would be very impressed.... please try.

Sorry, it was just a silly quip because I found it overlong. I thought the examples dragged on for a while unnecessarily even though the point has been made, but there's no real problem with that.

 

[Apathia]

"Man can do what he wills,
but he cannot will what he wills."

Arthur Schopenhauer

 

[theprestige]

ITT: A bunch of moral agents cosplaying as p-zombies Chinese boxing an abstruse philosophical dilemma because they literally cannot think of anything else.

 

[GDon]

If it's equivalent to flicking a switch, how can it be free will?

In that analogy, one of the switches are activated by free-will.

My mind is an amalgamation of countless complex switches, and as my surroundings and inner workings flick them, I make the only possible decision, because that's how I'm wired.

I agree with that. However, even with free-will you can only make one possible decision. You can only choose what you choose. I think you mean 'one possible option'. If there are several options for that one possible decision, then it is a free-will decision.

It's important to distinguish 'decision' from 'options'. With free-will, you can only make one decision, and that is based on all the factors -- free-will, genetic and environmental -- that go into making that one decision.

Only if different switches had been flicked, the switches had been flicked in a different way, or the switches in my brain worked differently, could I have made a different decision. There's no part of this process that includes anything resembling free will.

At this point, you'll need to define what is required to make it resemble free-will. If you can't, how can you validate that statement?

I'd argue that not being able to define something puts it on the level of other nebulous supernatural things that can't be disproven because we can still squeeze them into the gaps of our knowledge.

I agree completely. I see the same with those who argue that we don't have free-will even though they can't define free-will. I'm not directing this at you in particular, it's just my experience when arguing this topic: when some say that free-will doesn't exist, they really mean they can't define free-will. But those are two different things.

 

[Leumas]

In that analogy, one of the switches are activated by free-will.

How... free will is not an external thing to the brain... and if the brain does it then it is still the genes and so it is not free-will.

...when some say that free-will doesn't exist, they really mean they can't define free-will. But those are two different things.

Can you define it?

Yes, we are programmed for free-will. If you think that's not possible, then please explain why.

Because being programmed is the antithesis of free will.

No-one can change his free-will choice. He chooses what he chooses. What makes a free-will choice possible is having the option of two choices.

So there is no free will... when a rock is faced with two paths and rolls down one and not the other... does it have free will???

That is a meaningless concept, I'm afraid. What "other factor" is required to turn a choice into a "free-will" choice? Trying to explain this will hopefully help you see where I am coming from.

I think the problem here is you have defined free-will to mean availability of choice... which is not correct... you forgot about the WILL part... willing means choosing... and that you have previously defined as PROGRAMMED... so there is no willing there.


Let me see if this will help....

A programmed robot is faced with a selection 5 differently colored objects to choose from... so as you see there are 5 choices... but it is programmed to choose the red...

So do you say the robot has free will ... by your definition... yes... do you see the problem with your definition???

 

[GDon]

How... free will is not an external thing to the brain... and if the brain does it then it is still the genes and so it is not free-will.

I'd argue that we have free-will **because** of our genes.

Can you define it?

Yes, I'll give mine and you can give yours:

Free-will is the ability to make a decision based on two or more options, unconstrained by outside forces.

Let me see if this will help....

A programmed robot is faced with a selection 5 differently colored objects to choose from... so as you see there are 5 choices... but it is programmed to choose the red...

So do you say the robot has free will ... by your definition... yes... do you see the problem with your definition???

In your example, you write that the robot has "5 choices", but then that it is programmed to choose one. So it doesn't have 5 choices at all.

Here is my version consistent with free-will:

A programmed robot is faced with a selection 5 differently colored objects to choose from... so as you see there are 5 choices. It chooses red.

 

[Leumas]

I'd argue that we have free-will **because** of our genes.

So ... our genes... determine... our choosing... but... genes are a PROGRAMMING.

So what you are saying is that we have a program that determines how we choose.

In your example, you write that the robot has "5 choices", but then that it is programmed to choose one. So it doesn't have 5 choices at all.

Here is my version consistent with free-will:

A programmed robot is faced with a selection 5 differently colored objects to choose from... so as you see there are 5 choices. It chooses red.

But... you already said that our genes are what determines our choice... and that is precisely a program...

So no... my example is what you are defining.

When you say that genes is the reason for free will ... you are saying that our programming that determines our choice is free will... a contradiction in terms and logic.

Availability of choices is not what makes free will.

Yes, I'll give mine and you can give yours:

Free-will is the ability to make a decision based on two or more options, unconstrained by outside forces.

Good... now... you then say that our genes is why and how we make the choices... but our genes are an outside force... although it is inside our head... it is a PREPROGRAMMED force that came from outside our body initially... much like a software engineer enters a program into the robot... but then the robot is autonomous and what is inside its CPU is what makes it do decisions.

 

[Dr.Sid]

I understand "free" as unimpeded by outer influences. Ie. random. And I think human mind has lots of random noise in it, even though it can't really be proven.

 

[GDon]

So ... our genes... determine... our choosing... but... genes are a PROGRAMMING.

So what you are saying is that we have a program that determines how we choose.

I am saying that we have free-will because of our genes. Our free-will choices arise out of our genes and the environment.

When you say that genes is the reason for free will ... you are saying that our programming that determines our choice is free will... a contradiction in terms and logic.

I am saying that the programming from our genes includes the ability to make free-will choices. So no contradiction.

Availability of choices is not what makes free will.

Surely that is the very test for free-will. How do you see the availability of choices in terms of free-will?

Good... now... you then say that our genes is why and how we make the choices... but our genes are an outside force... although it is inside our head... it is a PREPROGRAMMED force that came from outside our body initially... much like a software engineer enters a program into the robot... but then the robot is autonomous and what is inside its CPU is what makes it do decisions.

I don't understand your point, I'm afraid.

Can a sufficiently complex robot be programmed to have free-will? I think it can. Eventually that might be demonstrated through a "free-will Turing" test.

 

[Darat]

I don't see any advantage. Quite the contrary, it would seem. Acting instinctively, without thought or choosing, with the same net result would rely in a faster moving animal. That's an evolutionary plus.

...snip..

In certain environments yes, in others no.

 

[Darat]

What I'm arguing is that free-will is something that happens within the brain. Thus it is a product of genes and environment. For some reason people call it an 'illusion' because it is occurring within the brain, but my argument is that it isn't an illusion of free-will, it is free-will.


Exactly. They are free-will decisions occurring within the brain. No need to propose a 'soul' or supernatural origin for free-will.


But if we can't even imagine what we're looking for, how can we say it's not there?

Does it make sense to say that X doesn't exist if X can't be defined in the first place? That's the problem with debates around free-will. "I think, therefore I have free-will." That works for me.

I come to two cave entrances. I choose to take the cave entrance to the left. How could I have chosen to take the cave entrance to the right?

All you are doing is saying the series of the events that happen in the grey matter are "freewill" even though they couldn't have happened any other way.

That really doesn't seem like a freewill definition as it is usually used, i.e. when given a "choice" to pick either a or b I could have chosen either.

 

[GDon]

I come to two cave entrances. I choose to take the cave entrance to the left. How could I have chosen to take the cave entrance to the right?

Describing it as "choosing the left cave" implies other options. If you have other options, then you have free-will. You can't choose the right cave at the same time as you choose the left, so you only have one choice you can make. But as long as there are options, it constitutes free-will.

All you are doing is saying the series of the events that happen in the grey matter are "freewill" even though they couldn't have happened any other way.

That's right. You can only make the choice that you make. But if that choice comes from evaluating options, and the grey matter in your head contains an evaluation engine (which I argue appears to be the case), then you have free-will.

That really doesn't seem like a freewill definition as it is usually used, i.e. when given a "choice" to pick either a or b I could have chosen either.

Isn't that consistent with what I describe? If you want to call that an illusion of free-will, then what would constitute the real thing? Start with the part where you are standing in front of two caves.

 

[Leumas]

....
Can a sufficiently complex robot be programmed to have free-will? I think it can. Eventually that might be demonstrated through a "free-will Turing" test.

Ok... I give up....

But... what is a free-will Turing test?? And surely it would not be a Turing test... it would be a GDon test.... but first... what is that??