Is free will a paranormal concept?

[Jeremy]

An explanation Adams specifically rejected in the linked-to discussion (apparently).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, or maybe you are misunderstanding me.

I am arguing against free will, and I attempted to dispute an argument you used earlier in the thread about copy-right being voided by a lack of free will.
I was unaware that Adams had adressed similar arguments in his blog.

 

[simonmaal]

Examples include articles published in the Jounal of Applied Behavior Analysis. I tried for a link, but my connection is fubar today.

And behavior analysis typically studies reliably observable behavior, not private events.
Other areas of experimental psych have studied sensation and perception for over 100 years, Apparently they have had no problem with measuring internal states.

Until we look at specific examples, any discussion is far too subjective for my liking. So I would appreciate it if you would cite one or two when you sort out your internet problems, please. Then I can get a true feel or where you're coming from. Thanks

 

[simonmaal]

Remember... how we know they bet on the wrong horse, was that further predictions failed to come true. That is always the bottom line.

I know where you're coming from, but this might not always be the case. Let's consider evolution for a moment: it has great explanatory power, but how strong is its predictive power? We would have to say that it needs to be strongly predictive. But what of the objections over the peppered moth study, an interesting one being this:

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html

There are questions over the methodology, but the researcher failed to predict what would happen. Does this mean the explanation (industrial melanism) is wrong? As the author of the article I cited says, no. The main problem with Kettlewell's study, to me, comes down to lack of ecological validity again. In this particular example, the original naturalistic observation was enough; the subsequent experiment was a much less reliable testbed.

First off, you must be reading different sources than I am. I have read an awful lot of Freud; I must have missed where he predicted any such thing. A source would be appreciated.

Sure:

"Object-choice, the step forward in the development of the libido which is made after the narcissitic stage, can take place according to two different types: either according to the narcissistic type, where the subject's own ego is replaced by another one that is as similar as possible, or according to the attachment type, where people who have become precious through satisfying the other vital needs are chosen by the libido as well. A strong libidinal fixation to the narcissistic type of object-choice is to be included in the predisposition to manifest homosexuality." Freud, S. (1962) Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis London, Penguin, pp. 476-7.

Freud is making some rather brave hypotheses here (note, though, how this kind of hemeneutic epistemology employs methods that are untestable). Of course, we have to remember that he didn't have access to techology such as fMRI scans; if he had, I guess that his theories would have been rather different!

Additionally, Freud's deterministic account of development (e.g. psychosexual stages) is intinsically predictive as well as descriptive. Explanation=biological drives (the pleasure principle), Prediction=oral, anal and phallic stages.

To stay within the subject matter of the thread, Freud is saying here that unconscious motives are driving our choice of sexual partner; we do not consciously choose, but our choice is made for us by a dynamic unconscious. In other words, free will is illusory.

Subsequent researchers have tried using Freud to predict... it is not pretty.
Heh...each of these problems was discovered as the result of partial failures to predict--systematic failures. These systematic failures to predict led to the inclusion of additional variables,

Indeed. But Attempts to predict (e.g. psychosexual stage theory) are not the same thing as ability to predict.

Some of the problems with the validity of experimental psych are due to cognitive psychology's attempt to explain before they can predict...as Corey suggests, not all experimental psych is created equal.

Yes, especially if that work is carried out in the laboratory. But this does not apply to all cognitive-experimental work. Asch (1952), Lewin (1947) and the Sherif's summer camp experiments were all carried out in the field. Yes, we know that a researcher can influence the findings by clever design, but I wouldn't say that criticism applies to all cognitive-experimental work.

 

[Darat]

I know where you're coming from, but this might not always be the case. Let's consider evolution for a moment: it has great explanatory power, but how strong is its predictive power? We would have to say that it needs to be strongly predictive.

...snip...

Evolutionary theory is very strongly predictive. For instance Darwin original work in which he deduced that chimpanzees are humans closest "evolutionary cousins" has been confirmed by studies of the DNA of both species. Just following on from that when I was googling for a source I came across this newspaper report that mentions further predictions:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/25/AR2005092501177.html

...snip...

When scientists announced last month they had determined the exact order of all 3 billion bits of genetic code that go into making a chimpanzee, it was no surprise that the sequence was more than 96 percent identical to the human genome. Charles Darwin had deduced more than a century ago that chimps were among humans' closest cousins.

But decoding chimpanzees' DNA allowed scientists to do more than just refine their estimates of how similar humans and chimps are. It let them put the very theory of evolution to some tough new tests.

If Darwin was right, for example, then scientists should be able to perform a neat trick. Using a mathematical formula that emerges from evolutionary theory, they should be able to predict the number of harmful mutations in chimpanzee DNA by knowing the number of mutations in a different species' DNA and the two animals' population sizes.

"That's a very specific prediction," said Eric Lander, a geneticist at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard in Cambridge, Mass., and a leader in the chimp project.

Sure enough, when Lander and his colleagues tallied the harmful mutations in the chimp genome, the number fit perfectly into the range that evolutionary theory had predicted.

...snip...

In effect evolutionary theory relies on (as far as we can currently determine ) "random" events its "resolution of prediction" is quite coarse (but is being constantly refined). So whilst we cannot say that "Species X will develop spots in Y years" we can predict that "If Species X is to survive in environment B it will evolve". (An analogy is radioactive decay in that the "resolution of prediction" can be no finer then the half-life of the isotope.)

Sure:

"Object-choice, the step forward in the development of the libido which is made after the narcissitic stage, can take place according to two different types: either according to the narcissistic type, where the subject's own ego is replaced by another one that is as similar as possible, or according to the attachment type, where people who have become precious through satisfying the other vital needs are chosen by the libido as well. A strong libidinal fixation to the narcissistic type of object-choice is to be included in the predisposition to manifest homosexuality." Freud, S. (1962) Introductory Lectures in Psychoanalysis London, Penguin, pp. 476-7.

Freud is making some rather brave hypotheses here (note, though, how this kind of hemeneutic epistemology employs methods that are untestable). Of course, we have to remember that he didn't have access to techology such as fMRI scans; if he had, I guess that his theories would have been rather different!

I have to plead ignorance not having read any Freud for a long, long time but just what is the above passage predicting?

 

[The Atheist]

Wouldn't proof of free will be as simple as being in a house with a fully-stocked pantry and refrigerator, being hungry and choosing not to eat for 24 hours?

Far too obvious.

 

[DeviousB]

I note that neither randomness nor determinism--the two explanations being tossed about here--are "free will". Arguing for free will puts one in the interesting position of arguing against both randomness and determinism. The burden of proof is on one who suggests that something more is at work.

I already answered this. I observe in myself and others the ability to make conscious choices, you assert that this perceived free-will is an illusion. Assertions are not proof, what evidence do you have that all my choices are the results of pre-determined bias?

I observe free-will. You claim that this is an illusion. Since you are the one proposing an explanation, I would suggest that you back it up.

So far the arguments seem to be "there is no mechanism for free-will" (arguments from ignorance), and "there is no evidence for an unknown mechanism" (because the phenomenon is an illusion, circular reasoning).

Yes, there is a problem with free-will under the laws of physics as we understand them. None of the laws actually provide for any mechanism that would allow it. This does not preclude there being such a mechanism. Nor does it prove that free-will does not exist. Secundum quid.

 

[Darat]

I already answered this. I observe in myself and others the ability to make conscious choices, you assert that this perceived free-will is an illusion. Assertions are not proof, what evidence do you have that all my choices are the results of pre-determined bias?

I observe free-will. You claim that this is an illusion. Since you are the one proposing an explanation, I would suggest that you back it up.

...snip..

What about Libet's work (see: http://www.consciousentities.com/experiments.htm#decisions) this shows that some apparent "decisions" are made before we are "consciously" aware we have made them. In these circumstance your "entity of freewill" i.e "conscious choices" is shown to be an illusion.

 

[DeviousB]

In Libet's work, what causes the readiness potential?

Also is every readiness potential converted into an action or does the 'conscious mind' act as a censor?

Are 'awareness' and 'choice' the same thing?

 

[DeviousB]

Also is every readiness potential converted into an action or does the 'conscious mind' act as a censor?

Apparently, this is called Free Won't.

 

[Cuddles]

To take things back towards the OP, all this is completely irrelevant. Either free will exists or the illusion of free will exists. Either it is entirely normal and is constantly used by all of us or it doesn't exist at all. Either way there is nothing paranormal involved at any point.

 

[simonmaal]

I have to plead ignorance not having read any Freud for a long, long time but just what is the above passage predicting?

Human development: it is identifying common laws of cause and effect that apply to all people. In other words, a person is born with certain biological urges that are slowly curtailed by society. Alongside this interaction, discreet stages occur throughout human development. In other words, Freud is predicting how every person will develop. This is the biggest criticism I have of Freud: he created a set of theories based on white, Western European Judaic-Christian culture and then assumed they were universal. Even his notion of super-ego, ego and ID can be related to the concept of God (the restritions imposed on our desires), the person in the middle and the devil (the base instincts of the ID).

Much water has passed under the bridge since then, but Freud has still left an indelible mark on our societies (we still use the terms 'anal retentive', 'hysterical' and so on). Anyway, I'm starting to digress here so I'll stop.

Did I answer your question there?

 

[simonmaal]

To take things back towards the OP, all this is completely irrelevant. Either free will exists or the illusion of free will exists. Either it is entirely normal and is constantly used by all of us or it doesn't exist at all. Either way there is nothing paranormal involved at any point.

I just thought I'd bring something else into the fray here:

What are your views on near death experiences?

 

[simonmaal]

Are 'awareness' and 'choice' the same thing?

This is a moral/political as well as a scientific question. It has the potential to undermine the very foundation of libertarian individualism. I mention this because I would say that this moral/political issue is likely to affect the interpretation of any data.

 

[IllegalArgument]

I just thought I'd bring something else into the fray here:

What are your views on near death experiences?

Since, you didn't ask my opinion.

NDEs are an interesting side effect of brain when it's starved of oxygen.

Penn and Teller on one episode of B*llsh!t talked to a man who had multiple NDEs.

He worked on G-force stress tests, the ones they give to pilots.

Susan Blackmore has done a lot of good research in this area. Look her up.

 

[simonmaal]

Since, you didn't ask my opinion.

No problem, the more the merrier

NDEs are an interesting side effect of brain when it's starved of oxygen.

This area of study is a nightmare, because we don't yet have the technology to study every pattern of neural activity in the detail we need to. Even worse, it doesn't lend itself to a controlled study! Can't imagine that one ever getting past an ethics committee

Susan Blackmore has done a lot of good research in this area. Look her up.

The problem is Blackmore takes a Buddhist-like position; in fact I think she is a Zen Buddhist. I'm surprised you mentioned her name! I haven't had much chance to read her work first-hand, but I'll take a deeper look after
I get my final exam out of the way on October 19th!

 

[Dancing David]

If I understand things correctly- and I may not- at the quantum level, free will (or, more specifically the absence of super-determinism), would require what Einstein called "spooky action at a distance." This involves one particle instantaneously affecting another distant particle, thus requiring action at faster than the speed of light. An alteranative to this faster than light effect is that everything has already been determined. Both options seem quite paranormal, until you do the math. Unfortunately, very few people actually understand the math! I certainly don't.

c.f.: Gribbin, J. (1990) The man who proved Einstein was wrong. New Scientist, 24, 43-45.

I think that thios points out where some of the debate is occuring, although it does not need superluminal things.

Premise: If the action of the brain is mechanical,as it were, then there is no free will.

I am in disagreement with the premise, mainly because the action of neuron is not totaly determined, it is more probablistic. So in that complex interaction there is a chance that a particular neuron will fire. there is achance that the organism will exhibit a certain behavior. granted that some of these behaviors are very likely to happen.

But there is a difference between the three position which are likely:

a. Free will exists and people are free to make choices (free will)

b. People can make some choices under the constraints of biology (partial free will)

c. All behaviors are detremined and could be predicted with absolute accuracy(determinism)

There is no need for magical intervention for free will to exist. I think that is the flaw in the argument. terrorist are not determined by thier biology to make acts of terrorism, my opinion.

 

[IllegalArgument]

The problem is Blackmore takes a Buddhist-like position; in fact I think she is a Zen Buddhist. I'm surprised you mentioned her name! I haven't had much chance to read her work first-hand, but I'll take a deeper look after
I get my final exam out of the way on October 19th!

Most of her heavy NDE research was done years ago. Dying to Live, I think is her main book on it. It's been years, but I don't remember anything in that book, talking about Buddhism, it may pre-date her interest.

Here's she states that she is not a Zen Buddhist. I would agree she is using Buddhist ideas in her current work.
http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Zen/intro.htm

I have always been fond of her, she's quite a character in person.

Just curious why do you have a concern about her Buddhist leanings? I'm always interested in criticism of Buddhism.

 

[Mercutio]

I already answered this. I observe in myself and others the ability to make conscious choices, you assert that this perceived free-will is an illusion. Assertions are not proof, what evidence do you have that all my choices are the results of pre-determined bias?

Um...at this point, we are at one assertion each.

I observe free-will. You claim that this is an illusion. Since you are the one proposing an explanation, I would suggest that you back it up.

You assert free will. You observe choice. The behavioral literature on choice is very rich. The fact that you choose one option over another does not mean that you do so freely; by manipulating the options, we can demonstrate that we systematically and lawfully respond differently to different sets of choices.

(parenthetically...by recognizing the extent to which we are controlled by our environment, we are given the opportunity to arrange our environment to facilitate our long-term best interests. By recognizing that we are not free, we can arrange our world to be more, well, free of punishers. Practically speaking, recognizing that we are not free in the libertarian sense makes us more free in the pragmatic sense.)

So far the arguments seem to be "there is no mechanism for free-will" (arguments from ignorance), and "there is no evidence for an unknown mechanism" (because the phenomenon is an illusion, circular reasoning).

It is considerably more than an argument from ignorance. We have very good evidence of learning (changes in behavior due to interaction with the environment) in absence of conscious awareness (if you wish to argue that free will is unconscious, you are arguing for quite a different interpretation of it than the traditional), in both classical and operant conditioning. Indeed, blindsight and anterograde amnesia studies are teaching us tremendous amounts about how much we can learn without any conscious awareness. So, we have great evidence for mechanisms of learning that do not require free will. We have experiments that demonstrate that conscious awareness is not a prerequisite for learning. Depending on one's definition of free will, these experiments could have provided evidence for it, but did not. Yes, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the notion of free will, given these experiments, is edging closer and closer to unfalsifiability and pseudoscience.

Yes, there is a problem with free-will under the laws of physics as we understand them. None of the laws actually provide for any mechanism that would allow it. This does not preclude there being such a mechanism. Nor does it prove that free-will does not exist. Secundum quid.

Ah, yes...this verifies that the burden of proof is on the person who claims a meaningful place for free will. The explanation of free will being an illusion is consistent with the known laws of physics. The evidence, from blindsight and anterograde amnesia to Libet, is consistent with environmental determinism and not conscious free will. What you are arguing here is a free-will-of-the-gaps, negatively defined as that which is left over after what we can explain is explained. This is a far cry from the traditional view of an active, conscious free will that intelligently guides our decision-making. That view, I think, is long dead.

 

[Cuddles]

I just thought I'd bring something else into the fray here:

What are your views on near death experiences?

Basically the same as IllegalArgument's. I would say that there is the possibility that something paranormal could be involved, although there is no evidence for this. Was this related to the free will argument or was it a complete derail? I don't see the two as related since free will must be normal if it exists, whereas NDEs could potentially be paranormal if other paranormal things, such as an afterlife, prove to be true.

Unfortunately I haven't been able to take NDEs too seriously since I read a Gary Larson cartoon with a group of doctors standing over a patient and shining a torch in his eyes.

 

[Mercutio]

I have to plead ignorance not having read any Freud for a long, long time but just what is the above passage predicting?

It is saying that, after we observe whether someone grows up homo- or heterosexual, we may infer back as to what their object-choice was, and whether it was according to the narcissistic type or the attachment type.

It "explains" that, at this point in development, either you will grow up hetero or you will grow up homo. But at least it says why. Um...

I do not agree that this is an actual prediction. If this is considered evidence of Freud predicting, I suggest that we have two different usages of the term.