Free will and determinism

[Thermal]

I ask again, because I think this is key: Free of what? Unimpeded by what?

Just answer that, in your words. This disagreement may be a definitional thing. How're you defining free will? Free of what? Unimpeded by what?

An inevitable or predetermined outcome.

 

[Chanakya]

I get the train of thought you are on, I really do. But as I've said before, it boils down to whether you think reason...that unique sense of self...is the inevitable result of previous billiard balls banging around. I personally don't. I think the process of a functional brain will result in open ended choices, that cause various synapses to fire, rather than the other way around.

So by "unimpeded", I mean "not bound by previous experience/biology". The simple evolutionary ability to think and make choices, guided by little more than your mood that day, results in free will. I can make a good choice, foolish choice, or none at all and let the cardsfall as they may. But the ongoing process of a functioning consciousness frees me from the inevitably of billiard balls I can weigh out the probability, and evaluate the most beneficial outcome, yet still choose according to what is most likely to get me laid tonight or lose a game of pool to me

But isn't that like saying, Evolution equipped us with the ability to kill by waving a wand and saying Avera Kedavra?

Evolution is a wondrous thing, but it can't result in magic! How might humans possibly evolve to the ability of going beyond precedent causes?

 

[Olmstead]

I get the train of thought you are on, I really do. But as I've said before, it boils down to whether you think reason...that unique sense of self...is the inevitable result of previous billiard balls banging around. I personally don't. I think the process of a functional brain will result in open ended choices, that cause various synapses to fire, rather than the other way around.

So by "unimpeded", I mean "not bound by previous experience/biology". The simple evolutionary ability to think and make choices, guided by little more than your mood that day, results in free will. I can make a good choice, foolish choice, or none at all and let the cardsfall as they may. But the ongoing process of a functioning consciousness frees me from the inevitably of billiard balls I can weigh out the probability, and evaluate the most beneficial outcome, yet still choose according to what is most likely to get me laid tonight or lose a game of pool to me

All of that happens because of your genes and your past experiences. Whether you weigh out probabilities or not, whether you evaluate the most beneficial outcome or not, and whether you choose one path over the other is all determined by nature and nurture. How can it be otherwise? Where else is your will supposed to come from?

Me eating healthy for the last month wasn't some great triumph of will. My brain, formed by genes and my environment, had received the type of input that eventually led to me eating healthy. The only way to change that would have been to change my brain or to change the input.

 

[Chanakya]

An inevitable or predetermined outcome.

Haha, no, that's not an impediment, is it? That's not something to be free of! At least it might be, in terms of discussing a novelist plotting her story; but IRL the outcome is in the future, the result, the outcome!

You can't be free --- or not free --- of results, that's the symptom not the cause, the result not the cause.

What is free will free of, unimpeded by?


(I'm going for "precedent causes" as the only possible answer, but I'll let you pick that answer, or not.)

 

[Chanakya]

All of that happens because of your genes and your past experiences. Whether you weigh out probabilities or not, whether you evaluate the most beneficial outcome or not, and whether you choose one path over the other is all determined by nature and nurture. How can it be otherwise? Where else is your will supposed to come from?

Me eating healthy for the last month wasn't some great triumph of will. My brain, formed by genes and my environment, had received the type of input that eventually led to me eating healthy. The only way to change that would have been to change my brain or to change the input.

I can't put my finger on it exactly, but something there doesn't sound right. Sure, your eating healthy last month is fully the result of a concatenation of precedent causes; but if that's not a longstanding habit but a change recently effected, then that is also, very much, the result of your willpower and discipline and what-have-you. Let up on it, and away goes your new healthy diet.

Hence what I said about arthwollipot's answer, over there. Know that free will, like the sun going around us, is an illusion; but in everyday matters act as if free will does operate. Because unlike hurricanes, we have this meta algorithm that can preempt these ...policy changes pursuant to understanding the nature of free will, should we give in to it.



Of course, we get to pick and choose. When it comes to offering beating hearts plucked off live humans to the monster sun god that goes around the earth, we ...don't. But most things, we act as if the sun does go around us --- while knowing full well it doesn't. Likewise, in specific technical areas, we might use our knowledge of free will being an illusion inform our actions, but in most things, including sticking to a new healthy diet, we'd be well advised to avoid complacency, and exercise our will to the fullest, even while knowing our will itself is the function of what went before.

That cuts the Gordian knot, like I'd said there. But I agree, that's axiomatic; and ideally should be broken up into a theorem, that is properly proved and explained, before formally being accepted as a broad heuristic.

 

[psionl0]

The simple evolutionary ability to think and make choices, guided by little more than your mood that day, results in free will.

But the history of the universe is responsible for which synapses fire in your brain resulting in your current mood. Ergo your choices are a function of the history of the universe.

There is no room for "free will" in a deterministic universe.

 

[GDon]

I ask again, because I think this is key: Free of what? Unimpeded by what?

Just answer that, in your words. This disagreement may be a definitional thing. How're you defining free will? Free of what? Unimpeded by what?

I think "will" needs to be defined as well.

Will: "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action"

Free will: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action, such that one can choose one option from two or more options, and that choice is unimpeded while exercising that mental faculty.

Impeded by what? That's the question I'd also liked answered! I'd argue that the physical processes leads to that mental faculty and to free will choices. I know some argue that physical processes impede the will. Neither statement has been proven AFAICS, but my view conforms to experience.

 

[psionl0]

Impeded by what? That's the question I'd also liked answered!

"Impeded" is a poor choice of words. A better way to say it would be that our choices are "controlled" by the universe.

Much as a computer makes decisions based on its inputs, so does our brain. For a given set of inputs, the computer is unable to make a different decision and if the universe is deterministic then neither can the brain.

 

[GDon]

"Impeded" is a poor choice of words. A better way to say it would be that our choices are "controlled" by the universe.

Much as a computer makes decisions based on its inputs, so does our brain. For a given set of inputs, the computer is unable to make a different decision and if the universe is deterministic then neither can the brain.

What if the computer were able to make a different decision? Then it would have free will.

It's a point that is at the heart of the issue: can a computer be designed, or a species' brain evolve, such that it is able to make a choice between A and B? I think it is possible, and something that can arise in a sufficiently complex system, with similar concepts like consciousness and self-awareness. Others don't see it possible in a deterministic universe.

I don't think there is any way to bridge that divide. But for me: I feel like I exist, that I think, that I am conscious and that when I make most decisions I "can do otherwise". Of course some would call it an "illusion", citing that free will can't exist in a deterministic universe. But that's circular logic. I think complex systems can be created/evolve that allow the thinking entity to be able to "do otherwise". But we won't be able to prove that until we develop such systems, if we ever can.

I think I'll bow out of this conversation now since it has come to a natural end. Thanks psionl0 and others for the conversation!

 

[MRC_Hans]

I feel like adding my five cents here.

Being a sentient entity entails the ability to make decisions based on insufficient data. If you come to a crossroads and don't have a map, you will decide on a road based on experience, prejudice, inference from perceived clues, whims (like which road seems nicest), etc.

While such a decision may not be strictly one of "free will" the things that lead to it will be far to complex to analyze logically. It will certainly be likely to include factors that are not logically relevant, and possibly more or less random.

I would be willing to call it virtual free will. It works because the alternative would be to either make no decision at all, or apply a a strictly logical approach based on incomplete information.

Hans

 

[Chanakya]

I think "will" needs to be defined as well.

Will: "The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action"

Free will: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action, such that one can choose one option from two or more options, and that choice is unimpeded while exercising that mental faculty.

Impeded by what? That's the question I'd also liked answered! I'd argue that the physical processes leads to that mental faculty and to free will choices. I know some argue that physical processes impede the will. Neither statement has been proven AFAICS, but my view conforms to experience.

As I've seen this term commonly used, it tends to mean, in effect, free of precedent causes, unimpeded by precedent causes, at least to some extent, some core of our will (even as there may well by overlays of conditioning over that essentially unimpeded free will, on the surface as it were).

The only answer that makes sense, at least to me, if we're to use the term 'free will' as it is commonly used --- I think, heh --- is in terms of its being free, at core and underneath the conditioning, of precedent causes. Which makes no sense to me, directly off of a materialist paradigm, and very easily reasoned. But, and more importantly, reading your posts led me to think you don't think that either, which is why I thought to explore your thoughts over this a bit more. Because it appeared to me that your differences with me (or the mainstream in this thread) are mainly definitional, not substantial.

What if the computer were able to make a different decision? Then it would have free will.

It's a point that is at the heart of the issue: can a computer be designed, or a species' brain evolve, such that it is able to make a choice between A and B? I think it is possible, and something that can arise in a sufficiently complex system, with similar concepts like consciousness and self-awareness. Others don't see it possible in a deterministic universe.

I don't think there is any way to bridge that divide. But for me: I feel like I exist, that I think, that I am conscious and that when I make most decisions I "can do otherwise". Of course some would call it an "illusion", citing that free will can't exist in a deterministic universe. But that's circular logic. I think complex systems can be created/evolve that allow the thinking entity to be able to "do otherwise". But we won't be able to prove that until we develop such systems, if we ever can.

I think I'll bow out of this conversation now since it has come to a natural end. Thanks psionl0 and others for the conversation!

Fair enough, if you don't wish to pursue this any further.

Speaking for myself, I'm no expert on this, and might well be mistaken. I was reading this thread with pleasure, and haven't yet gone beyond the first three pages. (Bookmarked at the start of Page 4.) The reason why I got into this at this point, without first reading the rest of it, is because it appeared to me that your differences were, like I said, mainly linguistic, and not substantial; and that perhaps a post or two might clear that up.

Thanks to you too, GDon, for the discussion. I've enjoyed it.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Oh crap we never defined any of this" on the 12th page of the discussion is never a good sign.

 

[Chanakya]

"Oh crap we never defined any of this" on the 12th page of the discussion is never a good sign.

Hey, Joe. Good to see you back again!

To be fair, I jumped into the discussion after having only read through till the end of Page 3. (I'm enjoying the thread, and have bookmarked Page 4, for reading through further when I have time.)

So, I mean, while this seems a definitional disagreement to me, as opposed to a substantial one, at least with GDon; but that only applies to just the three pages of this thread, not all of it! People may well have been talking about other, more substantial things in the rest of the thread that I haven't yet read.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Hey, Joe. Good to see you back again!

I lurked for a while (and me and the wife took a 10 day cruise in the Caribbean). Now that a certain toxic element is gone I will see if staying here is worth it or not.

To be fair, I jumped into the discussion after having only read through till the end of Page 3.

I doubt that matters. I can safely guess that at no point in any discussion of Free Will has anyone really actually been in a hurry to define it. Philosophical debates work best when everything is unclear.

 

[Thermal]

All of that happens because of your genes and your past experiences. Whether you weigh out probabilities or not, whether you evaluate the most beneficial outcome or not, and whether you choose one path over the other is all determined by nature and nurture. How can it be otherwise? Where else is your will supposed to come from?

Me eating healthy for the last month wasn't some great triumph of will. My brain, formed by genes and my environment, had received the type of input that eventually led to me eating healthy. The only way to change that would have been to change my brain or to change the input.

This is where the party is. We have a genetic makeup, and memories/experiences. Yes, both will factor into decision making to different degrees. But is that all there is to decision making, or free will? I don't think so. The ability to reason abstractly can lead you to a decision that is independent of experience and genetics.

The no-free-will crew is relying on an argument from incredulity. You can't think of another option, so you wave Svengali hands and declare it all an illusion. Ok. So that implies that you have an actual solid handle on how consciousness works. Great! No field of science has arrived at such a practical understanding, so let's go over your groundbreaking findings, shall we?

Can you describe how decisions are made? Specifically, mind you. Is there a chemical or electrical tipping point or critical mass achieved where experiences will amount to a preponderance and inevitably cause an un-overridable conclusion? Again, very specifically, how do the mechanics work in this process?

Yes, I'm being facetious. We simply have no idea. Not the foggiest or most remote idea. We can see specific areas of the brain being more active during a decision making process, or anything else from art appreciation and music to ******* our SOs. 99% of the time, we don't know what that activity even means, though. Is it cause or effect, conscious or unconscuous, or just referencing signals, like a search history that may or may not even ultimately factor into the decision?

So. Science has no conclusion or concurrence, lacking the most elementary data. You say you have the indisputable answers. So please, share.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again this is why "Do we have Free Will?" is a bad question, not one with one good answer and one bad answer.

Do we have personal volition? Of course. Like all bad philosophy that one doesn't pass the "If I throw a rock at your head you still duck" test. The idea that if you punch me in the face I can't get mad because you don't have Free Will is rather absurd, for reasons here and in the other thread.

Does our personal volition somehow operate without cause and effect like everything else in the universe? Again, of course not. If you decide to have a ham and swiss on rye for lunch it is because a certain sequence of neurons fired off in a certain pattern and that happened for a cause. Things don't arbitrarily just happen without a cause, that's not how reality works.

So is it true in some sense that from the moment of the big bang all of our actions (including our thoughts) were pre-ordained? Maybe. There's still some questions of randomness via chaos theory and quantum shenanigan in the margins there, but it still wouldn't be "wrong" to phrase it that way.

But at the end of the day nothing changes. Not one single factor about how we live our lives does, or indeed could, change on whether or not we have "free will."

Free Will doesn't pass the double blind. It answers no question. It's a distinction without difference. It is meaningless.

 

[psionl0]

What if the computer were able to make a different decision? Then it would have free will.

Maybe if God built the computer it would have free will too.

But this is not the reality. A computer has no ability to act against its programming whatsoever. An identical history of inputs will lead to the same identical outputs - every time.

If the universe is deterministic then the brain is nothing but a computer.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Maybe if God built the computer it would have free will too.

But this is not the reality. A computer has no ability to act against its programming whatsoever. An identical history of inputs will lead to the same identical outputs - every time.

If the universe is deterministic then the brain is nothing but a computer.

Well, the computer analogy is not so useful. Anybody who has built even primitive computer games will know you can easily simulate free will: Just let one or more of the inputs to the algorithm be a random number. It's still entirely deterministic (unless you implement a TRNG), but who can tell the difference?

Hans

 

[JoeMorgue]

And if the invisible dragon in my garage built a computer...

"Maybe God did it with his magic we can't understand" is not only not an answer, it's not even a coherent thought.

 

[Chanakya]

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.

Heh, evolution is a wondrous thing, but it isn't a magic wand!

There might be "advantages" to materializing anything we think about, but there's no way we can evolve to that capacity. We can't evolve to an ability to do magic (real magic, not Arthur Clarke's technology-magic), no matter how advantageous such ability might be.

Which is why we can't possibly evolve our way to acquiring the ability to blithely go beyond cause and effect, which is what free will amounts to.