• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The unsolved problem of "free will"

cooper1958nc

Student
C
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
49
As a hardcore atheist committed to scientific materialism, and I admit not very skeptical about it, I am on occasion reminded that my worldview may be too narrow. For instance, I cannot fathom quantum indeterminacy or action at a distance, or parallel universes, or any of that. I prefer a billiard ball universe, I guess.

However, closer to home lurks the central problem of philosophy, and I admit I cannot solve it very well.

People believe they have options, i.e. a choices of what to do or not to do. The legal system, and the definition of a "meaningful" human action, assume such. The phenomenological conclusion from inspecting the "contents of consciousness" appear to agree, in that it "feels" most of the time that one can choose actions. In the macroscopic world where quantum effects are not apparent, objects in nature appear to have no such choices. Yet man is fully a natural object.

This statement of the fundamental problem of philosophy, absent the numerous citations it requires to be erudite, bears examination. Solutions to the conundrum have ranged from Cartesian dualism, occasionalism, idealism, and many other isms that in modern parlance seem silly. Roger Penrose suggested that quantum effects in the brain provide a basis for human freedom. Others have invoked the Uncertainty Principle. Personally, I believe the answer is in complexities of neural nets and in emergent properties of complex systems, not in quantum mechanics. However, no one has ever made a neural net that has exercised apparent choices.

Beyond the objective observation of choice lies the ultimately mysterious nature of the "subjective." No neural net seems to have choice, and similarly, does anyone really believe that neural net computer programs have self awareness?

So the problem of consciousness, related in some way to apparent freedom of action, haunts my billiard ball universe. Not enough for me to change.

Perhaps this discussion belongs in another area? None seemed particularly fitting.
 
This thread belongs in the "Religion and Philosophy" section, itself under "General Topics".

It seems likely to me that the experience of free will is "just" a useful illusion. You can decide something apparently freely as seen in retrospect, but how did you decide to decide? And decide to decide to decide? Etc. At some early point the mechanism is completely unavailable to conscious review. It is not something the conscious mind has access to, let alone control over, so how can it be considered "free"? We might as well try to explain it in a purely mechanistic way, to the extent our science allows.

I've not been following the Artificial Intelligence/Cognitive Science fields for some time but it seems clear to me that several more decades of research will be required before any mechanical object approaching the power and flexibility of the human brain/mind can be built. Of course, a breakthrough might happen at any time.

Regarding the "feeling" of free will, or indeed the "qualia" associated with any sensation, I don't have an answer except, "How else would you expect a sensation to be communicated to a mind?" I don't know why feelings are the way they are, but I also can't think of an alternative.

I would be surprised if quantum physics is required for consciousness (a la Penrose), but I've been surprised before. As others have noted, he's trying to explain one mysterious thing in terms of another.

But don't worry: Quantum theory is itself a physical theory! No need for ghosts.

Good luck in your quest.
 
It seems likely to me that the experience of free will is "just" a useful illusion. You can decide something apparently freely as seen in retrospect, but how did you decide to decide? And decide to decide to decide? Etc. At some early point the mechanism is completely unavailable to conscious review. It is not something the conscious mind has access to, let alone control over, so how can it be considered "free"? We might as well try to explain it in a purely mechanistic way, to the extent our science allows.
Click to expand...
I agree. I think it's probably "healthier" to live your life as though you actually do have free will, though.
 
I have a simpler answer. there is No free will. The brain is a collection of cell, which are a collection of atom, and all obey the law of physic. You don't decide anything, some electrochemical potential are higher than other , which trigger a reaction, and that's it. "We" don't decide, that would suppose that the reaction are directed by an unseen hand , the "we".

If you want to suppose a new entity named free will, then extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. Devise an experience showing this free will, then we shall discuss the results together.

But until then , Physic and biology win, we are a big sack of organic compound mixed in a lot of water. But the sack don't decide anything, the cascading reaction inside it lead to a certain state of the system changing to another. The organic sack don't "decide" if he goes one way or another, the environement interraction, and law of physik / Chemy does that.

Still I agree, it is probably better for most people to think they have a free will, the world looks less bleak that way. Heck, our own justice system would fall down on the face if we don't assume a free will, despite that there is no indication that its exists : it is ALL based on free will concept.
 
Of course it is true that one cannot trust just conscious experience to believe in apparent freedom of action. Dogs, whose "consciousness" is not accessible to us, appear to have some freedom of action, at least compared to potatoes. And probably we behave like dogs to others more sentient than us.

Reductio arguments are equally unavailing. Of course, of course, we are, like dogs and potatoes, chemical and material. That is not the question at all, at least to me, though most of humanity clings to dualism. However, matter has mysterious properties. Eighteenth century determinism (the billiard ball universe) has been superceded by 20th century physics. Having said this, I do not believe quantum effects can be invoked to explain the phenomenon. My guess would be that apparent freedom of choice is an emergent property of highly interconnected neural systems, i.e. brains. Why that happens is a profound scientific mystery, and one that seems we have not gained much ground on.

Equally, the "random variation" hypothesis does not cut it. That hypothesis, the "neural butterfly effect," says that infinitesmal random variations within the neural system (brownian motion for instance) cascade into decisions about which movie to attend.

This explanation would be more appealinig if human behaviour seemed "random." However, purely random behavior is meaningless. Random words or actions offer no information. The legal system, admittedly dualistic but offering a long term view of humanity reflected through culture, ascribes responsibility to human action only when it is *not* random, but when it is accompanied by a "knowledge" of consequences and a "choice" of behaviour. Neither would be considered a random outburst in normal parlance.

More probelmatically, mens rea, the legal term for the "conscious" state that is the sine qua non of legal responsibility, has phenomenological import. A sleepwalker lacks it. A drunk might also, but it is retroactive to the decision to drink. Consciousness *and* its handmaiden choice are assumed to be the key to responsibility. Yet most scientific analyses of the human condition, as we see in this thread, are quick to discard consciousness and get to the real meat of neurochemical reactions. I agree, lets do that. But what do to with the legal system and entire culture built on consciousness?

A very interesting idea: could a test of consciousness be devised? Either for humans or for animals. I once discussed a possible consciousness (or at least self awareness) test for dolphins. It involved showing the mammal a mirror of itself and then substituting a taped image that did not mirror in real time. Or something like that. Eventually, no one agreed it could prove much. As I indicated in the first post to this thread, the lack of a consciousness test shows, I posit, the essentially subjective nature of the expression.

But maybe that is a good discussion. Is there a test for consciousness? (And don't give me the old Turing test.)
 
cooper1958nc said:
A very interesting idea: could a test of consciousness be devised? Either for humans or for animals. I once discussed a possible consciousness (or at least self awareness) test for dolphins. It involved showing the mammal a mirror of itself and then substituting a taped image that did not mirror in real time. Or something like that. Eventually, no one agreed it could prove much. As I indicated in the first post to this thread, the lack of a consciousness test shows, I posit, the essentially subjective nature of the expression.

But maybe that is a good discussion. Is there a test for consciousness? (And don't give me the old Turing test.)
Click to expand...

That sounds more like a test for self-awareness than simply consciousness. (I think you can be conscious and not understand that the reflection in a mirror is yourself.)

They've done tests for this with a dot on the subject's face (somewhere impossible for them to see without a mirror). Self-aware animals look in the mirror, see the dot on their face, and exhibit behavior that shows they understand the dot is on their own face (reach a hand to touch the dot on their face not on the mirror). I think this is limited to only some primates and cetaceans. If I'm not misremembering, I think elephants too. Someone here probably knows better than I do.
 
Right. Will the essentially subjective nature of consciousness elude a test? And yet, legal and ethical principles demand that consciousness be assessed.
 
cooper1958nc said:
And yet, legal and ethical principles demand that consciousness be assessed.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure it's essential. The Atheist Ethicist uses "desire utilitarianism" in regard to issues like stem-cell research and abortion. No need to use consciousness, but rather the ability to have desires that may be fulfilled or thwarted.
 
Aepervius said:
I have a simpler answer. there is No free will. The brain is a collection of cell, which are a collection of atom, and all obey the law of physic. You don't decide anything, some electrochemical potential are higher than other , which trigger a reaction, and that's it. "We" don't decide, that would suppose that the reaction are directed by an unseen hand , the "we".

If you want to suppose a new entity named free will, then extraordinary claim require extraordinary evidence. Devise an experience showing this free will, then we shall discuss the results together.
Click to expand...
I (against many behaviorists) argue that the experience of desensitization and other techniques of cognitive behavioral therapy demonstrate a limited form of free will.

Also having lived with compulsions and obsessions I belive that there are levels of freedom.

The brain is very complex, it creates the perceptions and manufactures the memories that we have. There is the possibility that there is the freedom of choice in there.
 
cooper1958nc said:
Right. Will the essentially subjective nature of consciousness elude a test? And yet, legal and ethical principles demand that consciousness be assessed.
Click to expand...

Legally there are many different standards, like 'judgement' and 'understanding'.

Consciousness is a rubric for a number of different associated processes, like mind it is a term that is applied to a variety of different behaviors. It is the assumption of the gorilla under the rug, it could be just an lump of different objects.

We can not test for consciousness, we can only ascribe behaviors to consciousness and then see if the behaviors are manifest.

If something behaves as though it is conscious, then it is conscious.
 
The question of "free will" always resolves to semantics. For me, "free will" is an exact synonym of "ability to choose" and as such, it very useful to describe a phenomenon that is so widely understood that it would be ludicrous to describe it as "non-existent". For others, "free will" is some combination of forces and/or entities that control what we "think" we are choosing. That definition requires far too much hypothesizing for my taste, and I wouldn't employ it in any but deep philosophical discussions. As such, it is pretty much useless.
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
That sounds more like a test for self-awareness than simply consciousness. (I think you can be conscious and not understand that the reflection in a mirror is yourself.)

They've done tests for this with a dot on the subject's face (somewhere impossible for them to see without a mirror). Self-aware animals look in the mirror, see the dot on their face, and exhibit behavior that shows they understand the dot is on their own face (reach a hand to touch the dot on their face not on the mirror). I think this is limited to only some primates and cetaceans. If I'm not misremembering, I think elephants too. Someone here probably knows better than I do.
Click to expand...
And pigeons, with suitable training. Epstein, R (1981) On pigeon and people: A preliminary look at the Columban Project. The Behavior Analyst, 4(1) 43-55 .
 
My conclusion, after years of thinking about the subject, is that the "fundamental problem of philosophy" is philosophy's growing irrelevance in the modern world. So, the big "problem" of free will and consciousness is actually no problem at all, from a practical sense. "Consciousness" is something your brain does, nothing more or less. "self-awareness" arises from the fact that the brain is made of parts that interact with each other. "Free will" is the recognition that the brain is a self-contained system that doesn't take orders from an outside source.

:D
 
JoeEllison said:
... "Free will" is the recognition that the brain is a self-contained system that doesn't take orders from an outside source.

:D
Click to expand...
I would say "assumption" rather than "recognition". Further, "unjustified assumption".
 
There are only two ways of making a choice:

1) Arbitrarily.
2) By reasoning.

Does the first have will?
Is the second free?

I posit free will is oxymoronic.
 
It is easy, in a philosophical sense, to dismiss apparent freedom of choice through reductio appeals to determinism. Beyond that, as I argued above, statistical uncertainty, now a cornerstone of natural science, is a difficult foundation upon which to base apparent freedom.

However, the culture demands that consciousness, and freedom to act, be assessed. Legal outcomes depend on whether the perp had the "ability" to do other. Trials against cigarette manufacturers have hinged on whether the addicted person had the "free choice" to quit or not. Brain mechanics are frequently discussed, including whether the "voluntary" parts of the brain are affected by nicotine. But what are the "voluntary" parts of the brain? Are they exempt from natural law? Do they look different from the other parts? It is well and good to dismiss the philosophical analysis as irrelevant, but decisions in the real world do not think it is irrelevant.

Is the brain really "self contained," such that it does not "take orders from an outside source?" This would be, I guess, the only such device in nature. Every other part of nature is interconnected through chains of causation.

Yet without the belief in free choice, there would be chaos in the legal and ethical systems, and maybe in much more.
 
cooper1958nc said:
Yet without the belief in free choice, there would be chaos in the legal and ethical systems, and maybe in much more.
Click to expand...

Rubbish - you simply do what societies always have done; act for the greater good. It is really rather irrelevant whether or not someone had free choice to perform a 'bad' action or not - the point is that the 'bad' action occurred and something needs to be done to redress the damage done to society.

The most effective ways of doing so are not going to be based on fantasies.

People are to society as ants are to the ant colony. The ant colony does not care if its components are entirely deterministic or not - it is only sufficient that ants work towards to good of the colony and that those that are not are taken care of.

Just because our current legal system(s) are based on demonstratively false conceptualisations doesn't mean that we should consider these conceptualisations true for the sake of it. That is akin to saying we should consider a god as responsible for some phenomena if it such a thing is demonstratively irrelevant scientifically.

Conclusions can be right even if the argument is totally malformed.
 
cooper1958nc said:
As a hardcore atheist committed to scientific materialism, and I admit not very skeptical about it ...
Click to expand...
... you are the straw man that the religious trolls have been looking for all these years!

Oh boy, there's going to be lots of people who want to meet you.

---

On the charitable supposition that you're serious, I recommend the SkepticWiki article on [swiki]Free Will[/swiki].
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom