Free will and determinism

[Leumas]

Dr Daniel Dennett, atheist and philosopher, has argued several times with Sam Harris and other atheists about the existence of free-will.

Dennett believes that we have free-will **because** of our genes, not in spite of them. He believes that there is evolutionary value in having a brain capable of free-will which is why we evolved that way. He describes it as being able to make decisions that 'avoid' the future. He believes free-will is a question of evolutionary biology rather than one of physics.

Here is a long Youtube video (1 hour 26 mins) where he lays out his view which is called "Dr. Daniel Dennett — Freedom Evolves: Free Will, Determinism, and Evolution"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lg-9k1uAHCo

The description reads:

I recommend starting at about 21 mins, where Dennett discusses the "Life Physics" game in describing the evolution of free-will.

Is it possible for the human brain to have evolved to have a 'free-will engine'? If so, then there is no reason to call what we do as an illusion of free-will; it really is free-will.

I think you should watch that video again and more carefully and start from the beginning not from minute 21.

It is not saying what you think it is saying... in fact if anything it is a rebuttal of your argument so far.

In summary the video is saying that the illusion of free-will is a product of random indeterministic processes in the brain and outside the brain.

In other words the illusion of free-will is just that... an illusion.... stemming out of randomness in interactions with and within the environment.

But Dennett also adds that it is better for humanity to keep the illusion going as if it were real.... not that he thinks it is real... just that it is better not to dispel the illusion because it is useful for humanity.

And let me remind you of what I said many posts ago....

Lack of free will does not entail predeterminism.

Things can be (and are) indeterministic... but that does not entail free will.

The balls' trajectories in the video below are indeterministic ... but yet the metal balls have no free will...

 

[Thermal]

I'm not going to disprove free will. As I've said, no one can prove a negative.

You can, it's just often not easy. But I'm not asking you to prove a negative; I'm asking you to prove your assertive, that we are entirely pre-determined. Free will not existing flows independently from that.

I'm asking you if this specific experiment counts as an example of the brain creating an illusion of free will in the patient. The patient was never going to stand up without the instruction. When they didn't know why they did it, they didn't say they don't know, they had a reasonable scenario ready.

So, if it can be proven that a certain patient thinks he did something for one reason, but clearly did it for another, does that count as the brain creating the illusion of free will in that specific context?

I don't think so, because the brain is crippled and not getting it's information. Kind of like asking why your car won't start when you have separated it from the primary electrical system. Of course it won't work.

{eta: of course the subjects didn't say that they didn't know; that would be a right hemisphere evaluation and the left was being isolated for the experiment. That was the whole ******* point, man.}

The left hemisphere was found to fill in the gaps when needed. Being cut off from all right hemisphere input, it had to fill in everything. Which it did, and with true statements, just not including what the right hemisphere had crucially received.

I wonder if you have had time to get into it? Gazzaniga doesn't claim what you say he claims. In that very interview, his position can be summarised as "You must be responsible for your actions, because otherwise our society doesn't work":

He basically agrees that there is no free will, but doesn't like opening that Pandora's box.

Disagreed, although he is ambiguous enough to leave room for debate in that particular one. I see him summarized as "we have some predeterminates, but we can't rule out free will wholesale". His other talks tend to give this impression, too, to my ears.

Your conclusion here is that since the left hemisphere fills in gaps, and the right deals with truth, that when the left is isolated (and of course has to wing it), that it is indicative of a fully functioning brain not having agency? I do not intend to put words in your mouth. So do I have that right? If so, why do you value a basically catastrophically malfunctioning brain as representative of a healthy one?

 

[Olmstead]

Your conclusion here is that since the left hemisphere fills in gaps, and the right deals with truth, that when the left is isolated (and of course has to wing it), that it is indicative of a fully functioning brain not having agency? I do not intend to put words in your mouth. So do I have that right? If so, why do you value a basically catastrophically malfunctioning brain as representative of a healthy one?

Apart from a few minor hiccups, those "catastrophically" malfunctioning brains often function just fine in daily life. They feel in control, and in most situations, the people they interact with would agree that they are in control. And yet, that same person stood up without knowing why. It's not just the left hemisphere filling in, it's that he couldn't consciously explain the actual reason why he did it at all.

Yes, it isn't perfect, but I value these experiments as an interesting data point. It isn't possible to expose the illusion in this way in a "normal" brain, and it points to a lack of control that goes even beyond the constraints of nature and nurture.

 

[GDon]

No, once you start invoking the super natural, the rules of secular programming no longer apply. The presumption becomes that humans have free will because God gave them free will.

Well, once we bring in God, the game is over. God could create a naturalistic universe that encodes a free-will engine within the brain. So a supernatural origin for free-will, but no need for a supernatural component, i.e. God could create a brain with free-will.

I think evolution could result in the same thing. We evolved to have a "free-will" brain, because there are advantages in having a free-will brain. When we experience choices, decision-making, consciousness, etc, those aren't illusions of those things, they are the actual things themselves. But perhaps "free-will is not an illusion" is my own personal illusion.

 

[Thermal]

Apart from a few minor hiccups, those "catastrophically" malfunctioning brains often function just fine in daily life. They feel in control, and in most situations, the people they interact with would agree that they are in control. And yet, that same person stood up without knowing why. It's not just the left hemisphere filling in, it's that he couldn't consciously explain the actual reason why he did it at all.

Because his brain was physically prevented from accessing the area that deals with TRUTH. That's a killer important piece, right there. Would you expect a reality-based answer from the part of the brain that occasionally plays fast and loose with with reality?

I get your point, in that the split brain experiments show that the brain can and will invent things to make stuff more comprehensible. You could easily extrapolate that into creating the illusion of free will. But it only happens when one hemisphere is isolated from the TRUTH. It could also follow that the TRUTH was that he had free will, but being cut off from it, his brain was FORCED to create an illusion that otherwise wouldn't have been needed to fill the gap.

Yes, it isn't perfect, but I value these experiments as an interesting data point. It isn't possible to expose the illusion in this way in a "normal" brain, and it points to a lack of control that goes even beyond the constraints of nature and nurture.

I value them as well. But as strong evidence against free will, meh. Some pretty weak T.

 

[GDon]

I think you should watch that video again and more carefully and start from the beginning not from minute 21.

It is not saying what you think it is saying... in fact if anything it is a rebuttal of your argument so far.

In summary the video is saying that the illusion of free-will is a product of random indeterministic processes in the brain and outside the brain.

You'd need to point me to where Dennett says this and actually quote him. I'll point to about 7 mins in, where Dennett says:

"I've decided that this passage [about magic] sort of is an emblem of my whole life as a philosopher. Because one of the problems that I've had over the years is, I write a book about consciousness and people say, well, that's not real consciousness.

And what they mean by that is because it's not magic enough. Because I'm explaining consciousness as something which isn't, in the end, magical. And the same I've learned is true of free will. People want freewill to be magical in the way that Dilbert [in the cartoon] suggested. They want it to to be some sort of exemption or a truncation of the laws of nature, and they think well if it's not that then it's not really free will. It's something "cheesy", something only physically possible, you know, not a miracle as it should be.

And this attitude of wanting everything wonderful like consciousness, like freewill, to be not just wonderful but supernatural, that wonderful is something that I've had to address and live with throughout my career. And in a way Freedom Evolves is my latest attempt to show people that free will can be quite wonderful enough and still be part of the natural universe.

And the way to understand this is not by looking at physics and particularly not looking at quantum physics, but looking at biology which is where the action is on this topic..."

Dennett then goes on to explain how biology might support free-will.

 

[junkshop]

Breaking news!

Damaged brain doesn't work right!

Therefore predetermination! QED, &c.

 

[psionl0]

I think evolution could result in the same thing. We evolved to have a "free-will" brain, because there are advantages in having a free-will brain.

Maybe you are conflating the ability to make decisions with having "free-will" because I fail to see how a brain could ever evolve into anything more than a computer in a deterministic universe.

 

[Leumas]

You'd need to point me to where Dennett says this and actually quote him. I'll point to about 7 mins in, where Dennett says:

"I've decided that this passage [about magic] sort of is an emblem of my whole life as a philosopher. Because one of the problems that I've had over the years is, I write a book about consciousness and people say, well, that's not real consciousness.

And what they mean by that is because it's not magic enough. Because I'm explaining consciousness as something which isn't, in the end, magical. And the same I've learned is true of free will. People want freewill to be magical in the way that Dilbert [in the cartoon] suggested. They want it to to be some sort of exemption or a truncation of the laws of nature, and they think well if it's not that then it's not really free will. It's something "cheesy", something only physically possible, you know, not a miracle as it should be.

And this attitude of wanting everything wonderful like consciousness, like freewill, to be not just wonderful but supernatural, that wonderful is something that I've had to address and live with throughout my career. And in a way Freedom Evolves is my latest attempt to show people that free will can be quite wonderful enough and still be part of the natural universe.

And the way to understand this is not by looking at physics and particularly not looking at quantum physics, but looking at biology which is where the action is on this topic..."

Dennett then goes on to explain how biology might support free-will.

Yes... not the free-will you are talking about... and listen carefully to the parts you transcribed (and to the rest of the video)... they are in fact rebutting your assertions in the previous posts...

 

[Leumas]

Maybe you are conflating the ability to make decisions with having "free-will" because I fail to see how a brain could ever evolve into anything more than a computer in a deterministic universe.

There are too many chaotic and indeterministic processes that are part of the universe thus rendering the universe indeterministic.

Brain responses to interaction with an indeterministic process is also indeterministic... hence the ILLUSION of free-will.

 

[psionl0]

There are too many chaotic and indeterministic processes that are part of the universe thus rendering the universe indeterministic.

Which processes are they?

 

[Leumas]

Which processes are they?

Do you know how the sun works... do you know what solar flares are... do you know what fission is... fusion... quantum physics... weather... turbulent flow... lightning... Galaxies colliding... etc. etc. etc.

 

[junkshop]

Do you know how the sun works... do you know what solar flares are... do you know what fission is... fusion... quantum physics... weather... turbulent flow... lightening... Galaxies colliding... etc. etc. etc.

That depends. Are we talking about weight, or tonal values?

 

[Leumas]

That depends. Are we talking about weight, or tonal values?

Thanks for the intense intellectual contributions you have done to this thread so far... well done!!!

As is the case every time this question comes up, we will fail to reach consensus. The concepts invoved are just too greasy. If we can't agree on what 'free will' and 'pre-determination' are, then we're ****** - and we can't, so we are (******, that is)....

 

[junkshop]

Thanks for the intense intellectual contributions you have done to this thread so far... well done!!!

As is the case every time this question comes up, we will fail to reach consensus. The concepts invoved are just too greasy. If we can't agree on what 'free will' and 'pre-determination' are, then we're ****** - and we can't, so we are (******, that is)...

Thank you. It's very kind of you to say so, and good catch, colour me embarrassed!

NB: Pretty sure I spelled my swears right, though. The autocensor wouldn't have caught them otherwise.

ETA: I believe the conventional usage is that contributions are made to the thread, not done to it, but I may be mistaken.

 

[Leumas]

Which processes are they?

Let me ask you a question.... let's say Harry was born in a year when a swarm of locusts "free-willed" to swarm and devastate his country's vegetation... and Harry grew up malnourished and contracted further diseases from pestilence that resulted from too many dead carcasses strewn all over the country.

But he managed to persevere and survived despite coming out of it crippled and debilitated and thus could not get good jobs or marry a good woman and thus became a hobo mendicant.

Did he freely will all that chaotic circumstance he was born into? Didn't all that influence his available choices and his choosing ability and choosing reasoning???

Is when a swarm of grasshoppers going to become locusts and swarm as a plague of destruction, a predetermined thing??? If the weather was slightly cooler or it rained a little more or the wind was slightly off or the sun flared less or the moon did not get a meteorite strike or or or or or... Harry would have had an entirely different trajectory of his wretched life.

Do you think if we rewound the chaos that caused his misery, it is bound to occur all over again precisely the same given that solar flares are chaotic and so is the weather and so is the wind... not to mention the birth rate of birds who could have fed on the grasshoppers before they swarmed etc. etc.

From Here

Locusts are a small handful of grasshopper species when they enter a swarming phase. When a series of factors — which can vary by geographic area, weather and species — force grasshoppers to crowd each other, their serotonin levels rise, and they begin to swarm. ... Locusts brushing against each other is often a trigger. But what causes crowding? Usually weather. In the 1990s, droughts and low humidity in Indonesia spurred a locust breeding frenzy. But in China and Central Asia, a period of flooding that leads into a dry period can create the right conditions for locusts to mate. Other outbreaks, like in Australia, might be triggered when the rain falls during locust breeding.
... And we are only making the problem worse. Deforestation, invasive species and overgrazing on fragile grasslands are helping locust populations. Climate change will likely make conditions even more favorable for swarms.

 

[psionl0]

Do you know how the sun works... do you know what solar flares are... do you know what fission is... fusion... quantum physics... weather... turbulent flow... lightning... Galaxies colliding... etc. etc. etc.

Why do you call these processes "random"?

Let me ask you a question.... let's say Harry was born in a year when a swarm of locusts "free-willed" to swarm and devastate his country's vegetation... and Harry grew up malnourished and contracted further diseases from pestilence that resulted from too many dead carcasses strewn all over the country.

But he managed to persevere and survived despite coming out of it crippled and debilitated and thus could not get good jobs or marry a good woman and thus became a hobo mendicant.

Did he freely will all that chaotic circumstance he was born into? Didn't all that influence his available choices and his choosing ability and choosing reasoning???

Is when a swarm of grasshoppers going to become locusts and swarm as a plague of destruction, a predetermined thing??? If the weather was slightly cooler or it rained a little more or the wind was slightly off or the sun flared less or the moon did not get a meteorite strike or or or or or... Harry would have had an entirely different trajectory of his wretched life.

Do you think if we rewound the chaos that caused his misery, it is bound to occur all over again precisely the same given that solar flares are chaotic and so is the weather and so is the wind... not to mention the birth rate of birds who could have fed on the grasshoppers before they swarmed etc. etc.

From Here

You are so not describing "free will".

Under identical circumstances, the "chaos" would happen again in exactly the same way. And natural events don't do anything by "free will".

 

[GDon]

Yes... not the free-will you are talking about...

What free-will am I talking about? And please actually quote Dennett, because frankly I don't trust your 'summary' of his view.

 

[Leumas]

What free-will am I talking about? And please actually quote Dennett, because frankly I don't trust your 'summary' of his view.

Watch the video... and read the bits you transcribed carefully.

 

[Thermal]

Let me ask you a question.... let's say Harry was born in a year when a swarm of locusts "free-willed" to swarm and devastate his country's vegetation... and Harry grew up malnourished and contracted further diseases from pestilence that resulted from too many dead carcasses strewn all over the country.

But he managed to persevere and survived despite coming out of it crippled and debilitated and thus could not get good jobs or marry a good woman and thus became a hobo mendicant.

Did he freely will all that chaotic circumstance he was born into? Didn't all that influence his available choices and his choosing ability and choosing reasoning???

Is when a swarm of grasshoppers going to become locusts and swarm as a plague of destruction, a predetermined thing??? If the weather was slightly cooler or it rained a little more or the wind was slightly off or the sun flared less or the moon did not get a meteorite strike or or or or or... Harry would have had an entirely different trajectory of his wretched life.

Do you think if we rewound the chaos that caused his misery, it is bound to occur all over again precisely the same given that solar flares are chaotic and so is the weather and so is the wind... not to mention the birth rate of birds who could have fed on the grasshoppers before they swarmed etc. etc.

From Here

Imma go out on a locust-gnawed limb here and assert that no one, anywhere, thinks that free will means having control over all their environmental variables.