Free will redux: What is true free will?

[elliotfc]

Oh yeah, I think that the ideas that physical laws affect how the brain operates and that a human can make a decision can co-exist.

We all agree that humans can make decisions. We disagree about whether such decisions are "free". But if they weren't free...they wouldn't be decisions, right? This is more than semantics, this is how we experience life and is the foundation behind our expectations of everyone around us.

So some have a problem with the word "free". Because everything *must* be determined by physical laws. But I can give someone a crayon and ask them to draw on a sheet of paper. *Physical laws* will determine that the picture be made of crayon smudge, will be on a sheet of paper, will have geometrical aspects, and of course will be affected by muscular movement and friction keeping the crayon on the page and all that. There's your physical laws. They are undeniably there. But can free will also be there? Of course. What is the person going to draw?

So I'm offering that this isn't a you can't have one and have the other thing.

-Elliot

 

[elliotfc]

Within your brain? Aren't the inner workings of your brain the result of physical laws?

All physical things are...subject...to physical laws. Sure. That doesn't humans with brains can't freely make decisions.

-Elliot

 

[KingMerv00]

All physical things are...subject...to physical laws. Sure. That doesn't humans with brains can't freely make decisions.

-Elliot

I try to not posit the existance of entities without proof. What proof do you have that decisions are something beyond the chemical?

 

[elliotfc]

I try to not posit the existance of entities without proof. What proof do you have that decisions are something beyond the chemical?

All of my life, and everything I experience. Humans value decisions in ways that they don't value bottles of NaCl that you can find in the local chemistry teacher's cabinet.

They are, in fact, something beyond the chemical. Chemicals are often inert, they do what they do, you can predict their reactions, and all that, titrations, blah blah blah. I always thought that Asimov's Foundation books were fundamentally sily (though they were good reads). If it's just chemical, we could predict it all. Even the long-nosed mutants.

Chemicals don't make decisions, which is why I say this goes beyond the chemical. You mention entities. What entities? Are you saying that decisions are entities?

-Elliot

 

[KingMerv00]

All of my life, and everything I experience. Humans value decisions in ways that they don't value bottles of NaCl that you can find in the local chemistry teacher's cabinet.

Yes, we value human decisions. That does not mean that they aren't ultimately chemical.

They are, in fact, something beyond the chemical. Chemicals are often inert, they do what they do, you can predict their reactions, and all that, titrations, blah blah blah. I always thought that Asimov's Foundation books were fundamentally sily (though they were good reads). If it's just chemical, we could predict it all. Even the long-nosed mutants.

Weather patterns and earthquakes are chemical but we can't predict them. Does that mean the planet earth decides to have earthquakes?

Chemicals don't make decisions, which is why I say this goes beyond the chemical.

That is a circular argument. "We know that decisions aren't chemical because chemicals don't make decisions."

You mention entities. What entities? Are you saying that decisions are entities?

-Elliot

Well, you seem to be suggesting the existance of a soul.

 

[elliotfc]

Yes, we value human decisions. That does not mean that they aren't ultimately chemical.

So what is the chemical composition of a decision exactly?

Weather patterns and earthquakes are chemical but we can't predict them. Does that mean the planet earth decides to have earthquakes?

No. Only brains can make decisions. And I'm not even sure if that goes for all of nature, or just people.

That is a circular argument. "We know that decisions aren't chemical because chemicals don't make decisions."

I guess you're right, so I'll drop that point.

Well, you seem to be suggesting the existance of a soul.

Really? No offense...but maybe you're jumping to conclusions here.

*I* think that you align the concept of free will inexorably with the existence of a soul. Is that true? If so, why?

Free will is decision making. Nothing more, nothing less. That's as far as I'm going with this, and I won't go any farther. And if you take it farther...well, I'll forgive you because it's just the chemicals that are making you do that.

-Elliot

 

[KingMerv00]

So what is the chemical composition of a decision exactly?

I don't know. I doubt anyone does but it involves the complex interaction of billions of neurons. Do I need to know that exact composition of a decision to know that it is dependant on chemicals?

If a decision isn't chemical, what is it then?

No. Only brains can make decisions. And I'm not even sure if that goes for all of nature, or just people.

What is the difference between a decision and a chemical reaction so complex that you can't predict it's outcome?

Really? No offense...but maybe you're jumping to conclusions here.

*I* think that you align the concept of free will inexorably with the existence of a soul. Is that true? If so, why?

Free will is decision making. Nothing more, nothing less. That's as far as I'm going with this, and I won't go any farther. And if you take it farther...well, I'll forgive you because it's just the chemicals that are making you do that.

-Elliot

You are positing the existance of something that can alter the course of chemical events but is not a chemical event itself. How is that any different than a soul?

 

[Piggy]

It's not late, but it's late for me. Been a long week....

Paul, I read your description of "libertarian free will" on the other thread, and if the definition really amounts to something which is neither determined nor random, then I'll probably have to leave it to others to decide whether my model of free will qualifies.

As you probably know by now, I don't concern myself with schools of thought. I prefer to deal with direct descriptions of the phenomena under consideration.

To give you an idea of my stance, here is a link to a failed thread of mine which attempted (unsuccessfully) to address the issue. I was not proposing any position here, but rather attempting to pose a question for which I had no answer and see what others thought.

I like the idea of reducing the problem to one concrete but representative example -- in this case, the mundane scenario of making the decision "paper or plastic".

It's like the mouse and the candle which proved that oxygen was real and phlogiston was not, or the rotting meat that proved that spontaneous generation was a false notion.

If we can say anything about what happens during this one brief moment, we've gone a long way, and we avoid the distractions of abstractions.

I have to sleep now, but I wanted to check in because I'm so passionately interested in this topic. Maybe some folks will take the time to read my posts on the other thread in the meantime and see where I'm coming from.

Sorry that this is all I can contribute at the moment. More to come....

 

[Azure]

Free will - choice.

Do you have choice?

 

[maatorc]

A thread in the Science section got sidetracked to the question of true free will. It was suggested that we continue that topic here.I hope Piggy will regale us with his ideas about "true" or "genuine" free will, which is called libertarian free will in the philosophy biz.~~ Paul

P.C.A. -
Will is a decision of the objective waking mind to do or have a certain thing done. Will is a mental desire.
Will is only relatively free in that one can only choose to do something between those things which compete for our attention and one is capable of choosing between and doing.
Will is not absolutely free in that one can be swayed by different forces even among those things one is capable of choosing between, and one cannot choose to do something between those things one is incapable of doing.
maatorc.

 

[Zombified]

Goodness, I've been away for three years and this thread is still going.

"Free will" is a subjective notion. The End.

 

[Brainache]

I can see I'm in over my head, but here goes:

A rock rolling down a hillside can take many paths. The rock doesn't choose which path it will take. It takes one path instead of another because of many different factors(what went before).

I am not a rock.

Even if I have free will I am still limited in my choices by what has gone before.(I can't choose to be sober if I have just spent 10 hours drinking).
Living as I do in the world I have to act as if I have free will, because if I sit around waiting for the laws of chemistry to get its big *ss into the kitchen and make me a pie I will starve.

So to me the question of free will is irrelevant, because I have to act as if I have free will, whether I do or not.
Cheers
Andy.

 

[Piggy]

Free will - choice.

Do you have choice?

I have no clue.

It certainly seems that way. It certainly seems, to me, once I've made a choice, that I could have chosen some different course of action.

But is that really the case?

Perhaps not. After all, this feeling I have -- of having made a "free" choice on the basis of "my decision" -- necessarily comes with some time lag, if only some fraction of a second, after the action. Perhaps this feeling is merely a function of the reflective mind, and perhaps the action which my body performed (speaking the word "paper", for example) is entirely the result of mechanistic processes and not in any sense a "free, conscious decision" at all.

To illustrate this point, let's consider an ordinary series of apparent mental events.

I suddenly realize my mother's birthday is tomorrow and I haven't bought her a card or gift. I ask myself what I should get her. I consider several options, rejecting flowers because I know my brother will get her one of those big arrangements he always sends, rejecting chocolates because she doesn't eat sweets anymore, perhaps some gourmet coffee or a day at the spa.... The spa. Yeah, she'd like that. Yeah, she's had a lot of stress lately, definitely the spa. I'd better stop by and get her a gift certificate. Oh, cool, it's on my way. In fact, I better move into the other lane if I want to make that turn. (Piggy shifts the blinker lever, checks his blind spot, steers into the other lane.)

From my POV, it certainly seems like I'm deciding.

But is there anything in that string of mental event objects (MEOs -- a Piggyism derived loosely from object-oriented programming which provides a convenient way of treating mental events as objects nominally for the purposes of discussion) which necessarily implies a free-will choice?

I don't think so.

Where did the thought that it was my mother's birthday come from? I certainly didn't decide to think it. In fact, it's hard to see how we could, in any meaningful sense, "decide" to think any of our thoughts. That model leads to infinite regression, as I decide to make the decision to think the thought. (Ditto for physical actions? Avoiding the infinite regression is one of the big obstacles in free-will models of apparently consciously-determined action.)

No, obviously I did not decide to realize my mother's birthday was tomorrow. It must be the case that my brain is processing information and making connections in ways that are not accessible to the subjective entity which I think of as my "conscious self". And in fact, this is experimentally verifiable.

So what happened is that this notion "occured to me". It "popped into my head" as we say. Something triggered it, but I don't know what.

The next MEO is wondering what I should get her for her birthday. Did I decide to ponder this? No. That's what my brain started doing. I'm aware that I'm doing it, but it's difficult to imagine how this could be a choice of any kind.

I reject flowers and chocolates. But why did I even consider them, when I know my brother always gets her the former and she no longer cares for the latter? It seems my brain is churning away deep below deck, and I'm just along for the ride.

Coffee or the spa? Now here, it seems, I really am making a free-will choice. I consider the options and I choose.

Or do I? We've already seen that my brain is capable of non-consciously generating thoughts and, metaphorically speaking, serving them to my conscious self. When the moment comes that I "know" that yes, the spa's the right thing, did I choose, or did I become aware that I'd made a choice?

It's not at all clear.

And why did I "choose" the spa over the coffee? Could it be that the below-deck association machine -- which is also driving the car during this time -- in the process of its continual evaluation of my progress and concurrent mental mapping, dragged in an association with the spa which is on my route? It's certainly possible. Perhaps my reflection that she's been stressed lately was an after-the-fact justification. And even if not, where did that MEO come from?

Have I really made any sort of choice at all? Or does it just seem that way?

I "realize" I should move over into the other lane. I flick the blinker bar and check my blind spot. Choices? The same problems crop up.

So this feeling we have that we "consider" and "choose", that it "could have been different"... is it accurate?

I don't know.

 

[Piggy]

I hope Piggy will regale us with his ideas about "true" or "genuine" free will, which is called libertarian free will in the philosophy biz.

Sorry to dissapoint you, Paul. No regalia yet. At this point in my thinking and reading, I believe that there may very well be a meaningful model of "free will" with the potential to avoid the perennial thorny problems. But that's jumping the gun for now, and who knows, after reading everyone's input and considering further, I may have to scrap it. Plus it's 5 in the morning. More to come. More to hear and read and consider.

 

[Brainache]

So far I've seen examples of "choices" that are fairly neutral, but what about people who make truly bad choices.
Like taking heroin and doing it again and again until they are totally addicted. Once addicted the drug takes over forcing the junky to get more drugs, but the initial choice was(perhaps peer influenced) not the effect of the drug.
Was the first taste the act of a free will?
Are we to think that some people become drug addicts because of the laws of physics or chemistry?
Could a criminal use it as a defense?

 

[Piggy]

So to me the question of free will is irrelevant, because I have to act as if I have free will, whether I do or not.

I'm not with you there.

To me, this is one of the most important questions of our time.

The death of soul-theory (there are hangers-on, I know, but their arguments are merely sound and fury) and the success of the mind-as-activity-of-the-brain model has forced the question. And perhaps that model also provides an answer.

When speaking of the actions of the brain with relation to what matters most to human beings in everyday life -- thoughts, emotions, decisions, memories, plans -- it's clear that no complete meaningful model can be produced on the purely neural level. That is to say, we can't merely speak of chains of neurons.

To make sense of these phenomena, we have to speak in terms of larger structures, such as the amygdala, hippocampus, corpus callosum, and so forth. These structures are not merely places where neurons hang out. Their configurations are significant to their functions -- their macro-level architecture, above the mere neural level, matters.

We know that these macro-level structures, working as a unit, give rise to at least one significant emergent phenomenon -- the subjective self, the apparent experiencer that we all feel ourselves to be. For convenience, I'll call this the "i".

For me, the crux of the issue of free will is this: Does the interaction of brain "parts" operate in a manner which can be fully described without reference to i, or is i necessary?

In other words, do these non-conscious structures send all the chemicals and impulses whizzing around in a mechanistic (presumably deterministic in some ways, presumably random in other ways) fashion, while the i experiences an illusory sense of control? Or can it be said that i is ever the "cause" of action in these brain modules?

Or put yet another way, is this emergent phenomenon of "self" capable -- in real terms -- of "pushing" actions into the loop, or is it passive?

 

[Brainache]

OK.

I get the feeling that the "i" is a product of the various different components of the brain having to average out a lot of different inputs.
If I was aware of all the inputs at once I would be paralised not knowing what to react to and what to ignore. Some kind of filter is needed to make sense of it all.
The fact that this filter creates the illusion of free will or the fact that this filter actually has free will is irrelevant.

I can't step outside my "i" and behave differently either way.

If I do have complete free will, I will make certain choices.

If I do not have complete free will, I have no control over the choices I make.

So I choose to believe that the choices I make are my own.

Whether or not the particular shape of the neurone structures within my skull determine what kind of choices I make is beyond my control. They might be different choices if my brain had different structures, or chemicals in there, or different neurons firing in different sequences.
I can't see how that means I am somehow forced to choose coke instead of pepsi.
I think the complex stucture of the brain allows many solutions to any given problem and our memories and experiences influence which solution we chose in any given situation.
If I accept that I have no free will, what is the point of doing anything?
I must act as if I have free will. There is no other way to make it through the day.

But I am not a philosopher or a scientist. So what would I know?

 

[RandFan]

If I do have complete free will, I will make certain choices.

If I do not have complete free will, I have no control over the choices I make.

So I choose to believe that the choices I make are my own.

(emphasis mine) Not necassarily. It might just be an illusion that you choose it.

I'm with you Brainache. The debate of free will was interesting to me to a point and then when I realized it makes no difference whatsoever whether I have the illusion of making choices or whether I actually make choices it ceased to be an interesting proposition.

 

[Brainache]

(emphasis mine) Not necassarily. It might just be an illusion that you choose it.

I'm with you Brainache. The debate of free will was interesting to me to a point and then when I realized it makes no difference whatsoever whether I have the illusion of making choices or whether I actually make choices it ceased to be an interesting proposition.

I wonder if it would make a difference if I said "prefer" instead of "choose".
Yeah you're right Randfan. Pointless.

 

[elliotfc]

I don't know. I doubt anyone does but it involves the complex interaction of billions of neurons. Do I need to know that exact composition of a decision to know that it is dependant on chemicals?

I'd agree that without chemicals you couldn't make decisions. I couldn't play me violin if I didn't have hands. I'm saying that decisions aren't solely entirely and exclusively chemical, just like playing an instrument is not solely the manipulation of fingers. There's a lot more to it than that.

If a decision isn't chemical, what is it then?

A process in which the brain chooses something over another thing, or other things. Or the actual moment when the choice is made. Do chemicals have something to do with that? Of course. Could a decision be made without chemicals? No, or, Idon't think so.

What is the difference between a decision and a chemical reaction so complex that you can't predict it's outcome?

Freedom. Chemical reactions don't freely decide what to do, whereas humans who make decisions can actually choose between pathways. You and I can change our minds. Several times. We can weigh outcomes and apply a variety of filters and philosophies, we can align ourselves with our strongest emotion or instinct or go against those things.

You are positing the existance of something that can alter the course of chemical events but is not a chemical event itself. How is that any different than a soul?

I dunno, what is a soul? You bring up the idea of soul, so tell me exactly what you are talking about.

-Elliot