Free will and determinism

[GDon]

You would see the synapses firing, of course. What other options exist?

Exactly. No need to propose a "supernatural" origin for the 2 choices, if that was ever needed. They occur as physical processes within the brain. This lays the foundation for the possibility for free will, since free will requires the existence of choices.

So then the two choices are evaluated by the "decision engine" within the brain. Standing at the end of time, we would be able to look back and see the physical processes within the brain working to evaluate those two choices, coming to a conclusion.

Is there a need for a "supernatural" component there in the decision engine? No, it's superfluous. The playing out of physical processes within the brain is enough.

Is this an "illusion of free will"? No. We can see the physical processes involved in creating the choices and we can see the decision to choose one of them occurring. The fact that this is deterministic, that physical processes are involved all down the chain, is completely irrelevant. Two choices, one decision. That's free will.

 

[psionl0]

Exactly. No need to propose a "supernatural" origin for the 2 choices, if that was ever needed. They occur as physical processes within the brain. This lays the foundation for the possibility for free will, since free will requires the existence of choices.

Not true at all. The person was only ever going to make one choice because they were programmed to make that choice before they were even made. That is what we mean by a "deterministic" universe.

 

[Leumas]

Exactly. No need to propose a "supernatural" origin for the 2 choices, if that was ever needed. They occur as physical processes within the brain. This lays the foundation for the possibility for free will, since free will requires the existence of choices.

No... it does not... I can freely will anything I want... whether I get to freely actually do it or get it or even to choose it... has no effect on the fact that I freely willed.

Wishful thinking to soar like an eagle is as much free will as choosing to eat an apple or an apple pie.

The fact that I do not choose to eat the apple pie because my sugar meter was beeping is as much of a restraint on my free will as not having feathers.

So then the two choices are evaluated by the "decision engine" within the brain. Standing at the end of time, we would be able to look back and see the physical processes within the brain working to evaluate those two choices, coming to a conclusion.

Why this need to stand at the end of time (whatever that is).... can't one evaluate the decision 1 minute after it was done???

And... as you said... the choice was the result of the one's BRAIN... which is as unfreely unwilled as not having feathers or a bad pancreas.

Is there a need for a "supernatural" component there in the decision engine? No, it's superfluous. The playing out of physical processes within the brain is enough.

There is no such thing as "supernatural"... and everything is "playing out physical processes"... whether in the brain or out of the brain... and just like the balls in the video pointed out several times already... just like those balls which had a "choice" to go left or right at every juncture... so do the brain synapses... and if the balls or the device can't be said to have had free will... so neither does the brain.

Is this an "illusion of free will"? No. We can see the physical processes involved in creating the choices and we can see the decision to choose one of them occurring. The fact that this is deterministic, that physical processes are involved all down the chain, is completely irrelevant. Two choices, one decision. That's free will.

I think the whole problem is that you are not actually clear on what "free will" is ... your above definition is utterly wrong.

A volcano has two choices... to erupt or not ... an atom of ¹⁴C has two choices... to fissure or not.... an electron in a lightning strike had many choices... a Brownian motion particle had many choices.... a part of the Sun has a choice to flare or not.... a tree has a choice to spread roots or not..... etc. etc. etc.

If you think all those natural physical processes don't entail free will... why on earth or the end of time would you conclude that the equally natural physical processes of the brain are not the same????

 

[Leumas]

Not true at all. The person was only ever going to make one choice because they were programmed to make that choice before they were even made. That is what we mean by a "deterministic" universe.

Nope... that is not at all what determinism means.... "You are quite simply and directly wrong about this"...

You obviously haven't studied the fields of knowledge involved. You are just making stuff up.

 

[GDon]

Not true at all. The person was only ever going to make one choice because they were programmed to make that choice before they were even made. That is what we mean by a "deterministic" universe.

We need to be so careful of language here to avoid confusion. A person can only ever decide on one choice, even in a non-deterministic universe. But if the person has options, e.g. a choice of two options, then deciding on one makes it free will, even in a deterministic universe.

What I'm saying is: (1) we can see the synapses firing which represent the two choices, (2) we can see the synapses firing which represent the decision making process.

Since the decision making process is free from outside influences, it is free will. The synapses are not free from the law of physics, but they don't need to be. (In fact, I'd argue that the brain has evolved to have a free will decision making engine since there are survival benefits to having one.) No-one can explain how a "supernatural" component to free will can work, and that explanation is in fact not necessary.

 

[Leumas]

We need to be so careful of language here to avoid confusion. A person can only ever decide on one choice, even in a non-deterministic universe. But if the person has options, e.g. a choice of two options, then deciding on one makes it free will, even in a deterministic universe.

The devices you used to write the above and transmit it across the globe... made multiple such choices between numerous options on numerous levels and junctures... are they freely willing???

What I'm saying is: (1) we can see the synapses firing which represent the two choices, (2) we can see the synapses firing which represent the decision making process.

Since the decision making process is free from outside influences, it is free will.

I think this where you are getting things totally wrong.... how is it possible for a physical process that depends on physical actions and interactions be free of anything.... it is made of things that are the result of physical processes and its interaction with the environment is a physical process and its reaction to those physical processes is dependent on its physical substances that are in themselves the result of physical processes and continue to be all along the timeline of its existence.

Using words like "the decision making process is free from outside influences" is arrantly not accounting for the REALITY of anything to do with anything that is physical... let alone the brain.

The synapses are not free from the law of physics, but they don't need to be. (In fact, I'd argue that the brain has evolved to have a free will decision making engine since there are survival benefits to having one.)....

IFTFY... and with the fix... you are now right.

The words I crossed out are meaningless and have no relevance whatsoever to the rest of the statement.

And by the way... the whole nervous system... not just the cerebrum is a "decision making engine".

 

[psionl0]

Nope... that is not at all what determinism means.... "You are quite simply and directly wrong about this"...

You obviously don't have a clue about what determinism is otherwise you would a definition instead of instinctively disagreeing with every word I post.

 

[psionl0]

We need to be so careful of language here to avoid confusion. A person can only ever decide on one choice, even in a non-deterministic universe. But if the person has options, e.g. a choice of two options, then deciding on one makes it free will, even in a deterministic universe.

It is crystal clear. If a person chose A instead of B then they were always going to choose A and the synaptic sequence that caused them to choose A was always going to be that sequence.

In a deterministic universe, every past/present/future event is a function of the state of the universe at some "point" in time.

 

[Tassman]

You obviously don't have a clue about what determinism is otherwise you would a definition instead of instinctively disagreeing with every word I post.

We are programmed by genes and environmental pressures, and take our decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not freely.

 

[steenkh]

Is this an "illusion of free will"? No. We can see the physical processes involved in creating the choices and we can see the decision to choose one of them occurring. The fact that this is deterministic, that physical processes are involved all down the chain, is completely irrelevant. Two choices, one decision. That's free will.

I do understand that there are two choices, and that you could call it “will”. In fact, it is my own position. But please explain why you think that this will is “free”.

It doesn’t look very free to me when only one of the choices can be chosen because the deterministic universe has already, years before, laid out the path to this single choice. That is why we call it an illusion. It feels like you can choose freely, but you can’t because of determinism. However, nobody will ever be able to trace all the elements of the analog computation of the universe that leads to the choice, so nobody, and in particular not yourself, will know your choice in advance, so the illusion works.

Instead of looking back from the restaurant at the end of the universe, we can also take a more crude example: a magician uses a psychological trick to make you pick the card that he wants you to pick. Is your decision to pick this card free?

It is slightly different from a case where you are supposed to pick a card, but only one card out of many is within reach. In that case, most would think that the decision is not free, when the other cards are unreachable.

 

[Leumas]

...
Instead of looking back from the restaurant at the end of the universe, we can also take a more crude example: a magician uses a psychological trick to make you pick the card that he wants you to pick. Is your decision to pick this card free?...

Yup... that was on the entertainment program at the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe... scheduled to be performed by The Prophet Zarquon upon his second coming... but he was too late and did not leave enough time to perform the show before it all ended.

Thus leaving all to conclude that if even Zurquon had no control over his coming or even going... then there really was no free will after all, and all along it was just as much of a delusion as Zurquon's second and even first coming???

 

[GDon]

It is crystal clear. If a person chose A instead of B then they were always going to choose A and the synaptic sequence that caused them to choose A was always going to be that sequence.

Wouldn't that statement be the same if there were free will as well? This is where we need to be careful of language. If someone with free will chose A instead of B then they were always going to choose A over B. How could it be otherwise? How can someone with free will, who uses that free will to choose A, be able to choose B instead?

For free will to exist, option B needs to be a potential option at the time of choosing. Standing at the end of time, and assuming a free will universe, we'd see the synapses firing to show that options A and B are potential options, and then we'd see option A being chosen and acted on. The person won't chose option B, but it exists as a potential option at that time.

 

[GDon]

I do understand that there are two choices, and that you could call it “will”. In fact, it is my own position. But please explain why you think that this will is “free”.

If there are two choices, and you can consider either choice, then it is free will. Isn't that what free will is? You might be able to call the choices an "illusion of choices". But if the choices can be seen in the synapses, then how are they illusions?

It doesn’t look very free to me when only one of the choices can be chosen because the deterministic universe has already, years before, laid out the path to this single choice.

I agree. But the deterministic path includes synapses that fire to represent two possible choices and a "decision engine" that has evolved to decide which choice to make, to avoid a bad future.

Again: this type of free will is not the "magic" free will that usually gets discussed, but as Dennett puts it, it's "free enough".

Instead of looking back from the restaurant at the end of the universe, we can also take a more crude example: a magician uses a psychological trick to make you pick the card that he wants you to pick. Is your decision to pick this card free?

It depends on whether you have two possible choices. If there are two possible choices, it is certainly free will.

 

[GDon]

We are programmed by genes and environmental pressures, and take our decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not freely.

Dennett would argue that our brains have evolved to be able to make decisions to avoid the future. In that case, we are programmed by genes and environmental pressures to have free will (though not the "magic" free will that usually gets discussed in these types of threads).

 

[psionl0]

We are programmed by genes and environmental pressures, and take our decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not freely.

That sound similar to my view on determinism.

 

[psionl0]

Wouldn't that statement be the same if there were free will as well?

Not necessarily. In a probabilistic universe, we wouldn't know which choices would be made until after they have been made. Even if we knew the exact state of the universe at some time, we wouldn't be able to predict which synapses will fire in a human brain.

Note that a non-deterministic universe doesn't necessarily imply free will. It is tempting to suggest that if a person is making choices independently of the state of the universe then they are exercising "free will" but this is more of a "God of the gaps" argument.

 

[steenkh]

If there are two choices, and you can consider either choice, then it is free will. Isn't that what free will is? You might be able to call the choices an "illusion of choices". But if the choices can be seen in the synapses, then how are they illusions?

Nobody has claimed that the choices are illustrations, only the free will decision is an illusion.

I agree. But the deterministic path includes synapses that fire to represent two possible choices and a "decision engine" that has evolved to decide which choice to make, to avoid a bad future.

Certainly, but the “decision engine” is bound to make the same decision over and over again if the same situation occurred over and over again: it is not free.

Again: this type of free will is not the "magic" free will that usually gets discussed, but as Dennett puts it, it's "free enough".

That is what I have meant: you can change the definition of “free” to mean “free enough”, and then you can claim that we have free will. “Free enough” equals “illusion of free”.

 

[steenkh]

The fun part of this entire discussion is that I have had an exactly similar discussion with Christians on an atheist forum. They think that their god is omniscient, and so his universe becomes deterministic, but they just couldn’t see that humans do not have a free will in this kind of magical universe.

In their case it is of course worse, because they believe that their god punishes “sinners” forever for the choices they made, even though it would be impossible for them to make other choices.

The real universe is more forgiving.

 

[I Am The Scum]

If there are two choices, and you can consider either choice, then it is free will. Isn't that what free will is?

I just want to be clear about how you're using language right now: Would you say that a tossed coin, in-flight, has two "choices" or "potential options" on how to land?

 

[Leumas]

We are programmed by genes and environmental pressures, and take our decisions either deterministically or randomly – but not freely.

That sound similar to my view on determinism.

No it does not... you state that randomness does not exist... and that the brain is PRE-programmed.

And in a deterministic world, these things are all pre-programmed. Ergo, no "free will" or "free-will".

That's the point. In a deterministic universe, all decisions made within the brain come from "outside constraints".

Not true at all. The person was only ever going to make one choice because they were programmed to make that choice before they were even made. That is what we mean by a "deterministic" universe.

That's the problem. There is no evidence that "underlying randomness" exists - much less that it controls the universe.
We use statistical formulae in QM much like we do with coin tosses but that only assumes that randomness exists. It doesn't prove that randomness exists.

Your confusion is that you believe that QM proves that randomness is real.
Randomness is something that is assumed by QM and you can't assume something is true to prove it is true.

Are you denying that randomness has been proven true?

Of course. It is just assumed in the absence of other information.

So how does it prove that randomness is an actual thing? Is it just because the formulas predict behaviour that you conclude that randomness is real?