The unsolved problem of "free will"

[Tricky]

Would anyone find it meaningful to discuss whether "The Weather" could be said to have free will or not? Why or why not?

It would depend on your definition of free will. Most people associate free will with cognitive ability, so for most people, no. If it gets down to "the ability to act in unpredictable ways", then maybe, but you will find that everything has the ability to act in unpredictable ways.

 

[Robin]

What principle does the brain work by? How does it differ from the principle by which the weather works?

What part of "It is not clear.." did you not understand?

And why does this difference, if any, matter in regard to this discussion?

Let me remind you of your question "Would anyone find it meaningful to discuss whether "The Weather" could be said to have free will or not? Why or why not?"

It would not be meaningful unless the principle behind weather systems had some relevance to the principle behind minds.

The weather is usually modelled using a complex, non-periodic, deterministic system of equations, sensitively dependent on initial conditions (sometimes called chaos), see for example Ed Lorenz "The Essence of Chaos". At the end of the book he makes some speculation that this is the principle behind the mind, as well as some casual observations about free will.

However it seems more likely that the mind is based on a self-organisational principle similar to that behind biological evolution. The weather does not "learn" anything.

Please provide some evidence that "intention" is more than a word we use describe a subset of the process which constitutes "I".

Just think about what differentiates the process that constitutes "I" from other types of processes - it is subjective experience.

 

[Mercutio]

That is certainly true, but I think we can all agree that the brain is the "central processor" of the human body and that there is general agreement as to which bit of the human body is the brain. The rest is just interface.

Interface... which implies, correctly, that the real control is not in the brain but in the environment. The CPU of a computer is useless without programming, after all. The actions of the brain are caused, not causal.

In what sense are we not meat puppets with brain controllers?

In the sense that the brain is controlled. The meat puppets include the brain. The controllers are in the environment. When we ask "Why do you do X?", we do not accept as an answer something that merely explains "the brain does X(1), which leads to X(2-127) in the rest of the body." X(1) still needs explaining.

Of course it works, just as assuming the Earth was the center of the Universe worked until we looked closer.

Heh... sorry, but your quasi-dualism is the better analogue to geocentrism. I am quite serious.

Looking forward to this.

Your timing (or mine) is horrible. But I will start, at least. Please understand that this is a briefer version.

The "I" is a learned abstraction, brought about by the physical fact that our perceptions are constrained by our sense organs. We see other people, and we note that our sensory data are most consistently interpreted as the semi-continuous experience of a person like the others we see. We do have private experience, but since none but us have access to it, we learn about our private experience through the medium of public experience. Some things are relatively easy--there are public referents for "red", or "ball", or "run"; other things are tough--no one else can know if you are actually feeling pain, or love, or relief. You learn to label some of your private feelings based on the public behavior of the people who are teaching you.

The "I" is not some magical part of you. It is not "the brain", nor "the mind", nor some part of either of those. It really is an abstraction. You learn about what "I" is the same way you learn about love, pain, or relief, or for that matter, red, ball, or run. You learn from a public language community. It may seem mysterious, but only because our language imbues the "I" with magical qualities. When we view our language with skepticism, "I" is not nearly so difficult to explain.

 

[Robin]

When we ask "Why do you do X?", we do not accept as an answer something that merely explains "the brain does X(1), which leads to X(2-127) in the rest of the body."

Nevertheless that is the form of answer that most people would give, where X(1) stands for something like "believes X is the right thing" or "determines X is the smart thing", or simply "wants to do X" and X(2-127) are the choice itself and the consequent actions.

X(1) still needs explaining.

But a technical neurological description of beliefs, rationality and desires is simply a matter of filling in gaps, it does not represent any philosophical problem.

 

[Robin]

The "I" is not some magical part of you. It is not "the brain", nor "the mind", nor some part of either of those. It really is an abstraction. You learn about what "I" is the same way you learn about love, pain, or relief, or for that matter, red, ball, or run. You learn from a public language community. It may seem mysterious, but only because our language imbues the "I" with magical qualities. When we view our language with skepticism, "I" is not nearly so difficult to explain.

That seems to be over-complicating matters. "I" is the first person perspective. The private subjective experience.

 

[Mozybyte]

Genesis 6:6 says God grieved for making man (because of the sin). This verse shows that God was not aware how man would act, even though I believe He could of if He chose to do so. This verse supports that humanity has total free will.

THY HEART is where my bible is written. Luis 1:1 (Aka Mozybyte)
This verse shows that the battle is never over, even when seemingly won (7 Seconds).

 

[Dancing David]

Would anyone find it meaningful to discuss whether "The Weather" could be said to have free will or not? Why or why not?

Then we could bribe it to change, more rain!

 

[Dancing David]

That seems to be over-complicating matters. "I" is the first person perspective. The private subjective experience.

That includes such a wide variety of events and behaviors. They are the assumption of the gorilla under the rug. If you hang out with a child in the one to five zone you will learn that they have to devlop that sense of "I" and then during the 12-16 range it gets very refined.

 

[Mercutio]

Nevertheless that is the form of answer that most people would give, where X(1) stands for something like "believes X is the right thing" or "determines X is the smart thing", or simply "wants to do X" and X(2-127) are the choice itself and the consequent actions.

Yes, that is the sort of answer most would give, and it is utterly inadequate, as any 3-year-old would tell you. I mean that literally--when asked "why did you do X?", a typical answer might be "because I wanted to" or "because I felt like it." But a 3-year-old will, of course, then ask the important question "but why did you feel like it? WHy did you want to?" We accept the "I wanted to", but it is not an answer but an avoidance of an answer. It is not even X(1), but an inference based on some of the other behaviors.

But a technical neurological description of beliefs, rationality and desires is simply a matter of filling in gaps, it does not represent any philosophical problem.

No philosophical problems. Basically, in the phraseology used by a physician friend, all it is is a plumbing problem. The neurological stuff is never "why did you do X?" but simply "by what mechanism did you do X?"

It is the belief that these "beliefs, rationality and desires" are prime movers, rather than events which themselves have been caused by environmental forces, that is the unspoken assumption that underlies so much misunderstanding.

 

[Mozybyte]

Your timing (or mine) is horrible.

Time is in fact all that there is, even if not here or there.
Time was all that there was for Zero to work with. That to where we are going is where we have been if ever so barely.

Thus our actions seem determined, when in fact it was us who did them before.
Within a particle there is an action of dispersion, that builds up as a double helix within, chaotic in nature and thus faster than the speed of light, lets call it the process of accumulation.
For every pulse which is a total inverted dispersion of that accumulation, there is an Expression "Wave" which lets say can travel at what we call the speed of light, being the maximum allowed but in fact the minimum as per the combined.
The Chaos is Faster as it works by "Accommodation" (Environment), the double helix in side, and the expression is the slower, the "Order" of all the chaos.
Hence it would be right to say that action is predetermined by the environment, at quantum that is, the "process". But at the biologic level, the timing gap has increased considerably, and within the Chaos more options are possible... At a greater complexity level, like ourselves, the delay is so great that options are Enormous, so much so that it is us controlling our environment more than our environment controlling us.

I go back to the observation of the wave leading the particle, which is the expressive order, but chaotic in nature of creation.
In other words, Free Will determines the Order, even though contained by it... It is quite Phenomenal.
The expression itself is a double helix inside out, in a way, the decoded message of the code created by the chaos within.

Now who set all this up, it's a totally different story, but I dare say that Time didn't do it alone.

Now if you can understand any of this, you are as mad as me, book yourself in.

What's more, not only do Waves Rule, but they may be doing it (as far as our mind goes) in a different Dimension... Through Zero, in one of a myriad of possibilities.
And... Protected by Firewall like securities.

You see, "Every action carries a memory not equal only by virtue of its time".
That which goes up sends an equal down, which in term is going up as the other returns down.

All very simple really.

 

[Mercutio]

All very simple really.

I agree completely, although I suspect that I am using a different definition of the word.

 

[The Atheist]

The "I" is not some magical part of you. It is not "the brain", nor "the mind", nor some part of either of those. It really is an abstraction. You learn about what "I" is the same way you learn about love, pain, or relief, or for that matter, red, ball, or run. You learn from a public language community. It may seem mysterious, but only because our language imbues the "I" with magical qualities. When we view our language with skepticism, "I" is not nearly so difficult to explain.

Now, I realise that you're using a fairly broad brush with "language", but last time the discussion headed this way, you felt that Orwell's language theory had been debunked, yet here it appears you're saying exactly what he said, just with a different outlook. Touch confused.

How does it differ from Orwell's belief that all behaviour is learned through language? As I see it the only difference is that Orwell's "language" intimated the written and spoken word, but I really think that's more that Orwell's own brain was disorganised chaos and he simply didn't even realise non-verbal communication existed in the way you do.

 

[Mercutio]

Could you point to the discussion you are speaking of? I have a tough time thinking that I would have said something like "behavior is learned through language"; if I saw the context, it might help.

 

[The Atheist]

Could you point to the discussion you are speaking of? I have a tough time thinking that I would have said something like "behavior is learned through language"; if I saw the context, it might help.

No, I was saying Orwell said that, although the word "behaviour" was a poor choice by me. You were talking about the "I", which is what I meant - the essence of what a person what he is.

You said:

You learn about what "I" is the same way you learn about love, pain, or relief, or for that matter, red, ball, or run. You learn from a public language community.

You seem to be saying that those emotions/perceptions are learned from the language - both verbal and non-verbal - of the community, which is very much the same as Orwell's position, as I see it.

Have I read your statement correctly?

 

[Robin]

Yes, that is the sort of answer most would give, and it is utterly inadequate, as any 3-year-old would tell you. I mean that literally--when asked "why did you do X?", a typical answer might be "because I wanted to" or "because I felt like it." But a 3-year-old will, of course, then ask the important question "but why did you feel like it? WHy did you want to?" We accept the "I wanted to", but it is not an answer but an avoidance of an answer. It is not even X(1), but an inference based on some of the other behaviors.

It is not inadequate, it is just incomplete. There is no reason to doubt that "I wanted to" is the authentic proximate cause of the choice. Question a person further and it will depend on their self-knowledge and self-honesty. If you ask "why did you want to?" then most people will accept that there was a determinant of the desire. I wanted bacon for breakfast because I enjoy bacon. I enjoy bacon because it tastes good. It tastes good because the effect of it on my taste buds produces pleasurable sensations in my brain. Taste buds produce pleasurable sensations in my brain because my brain and physiology are tuned to link pleasure to effective sustenance (rather than, say, poison). My brain and physiology are tuned that way because evolution selected in favour of that adaptation. (Others might say "Because God made me that way" but that is just identification of another determinant).

Most people would accept that desire, rationality, belief etc are things that happen in your brain and that your brain is a physical object that works according to the laws of nature.

In other words most people will accept that there are determinants for desires, rationality and beliefs and that ultimately those determinants are the environment.

So there is no "unsolved problem of free will" in the sense that our experience of choice accords perfectly with deterministic nature.

No philosophical problems. Basically, in the phraseology used by a physician friend, all it is is a plumbing problem. The neurological stuff is never "why did you do X?" but simply "by what mechanism did you do X?"

It is the belief that these "beliefs, rationality and desires" are prime movers, rather than events which themselves have been caused by environmental forces, that is the unspoken assumption that underlies so much misunderstanding.

I would have to agree with that completely.

 

[Mozybyte]

I agree completely, although I suspect that I am using a different definition of the word.

Observer determined, and expressed in view of the observer, guess it's the question and the problem right there.
Like I said, the more words we speak the more nothing comes out, but for the signing which has voluminous amount, and where it should all be.

 

[The Atheist]

Observer determined, and expressed in view of the observer, guess it's the question and the problem right there.
Like I said, the more words we speak the more nothing comes out, but for the signing which has voluminous amount, and where it should all be.

Oh my god, it's Eric.

 

[Mozybyte]

Oh my god, it's Eric.

Fancy defining one self with such poverty and disability, as by the disbelief on the belief of others, unknowing what it is that one doesn't see. One could presume that you teach sheep in the art of pasturing. Whatever it is it must be an easy job, forgoing substance or understanding bar the grunts and their performance.
And no, I don't think that your God (spelt right) is called Eric, if every Sunday you keep turning up at the altar of Charles Darwin.
You probably need a new book, for lack of heart of another.
Expect no further indulgence, service has been provided.

 

[DanishDynamite]

It would depend on your definition of free will. Most people associate free will with cognitive ability, so for most people, no. If it gets down to "the ability to act in unpredictable ways", then maybe, but you will find that everything has the ability to act in unpredictable ways.

Let's use your definition: "ability to choose". In what sense might a human be shown to have this atribute but a hurricane would not?

 

[DanishDynamite]

What part of "It is not clear.." did you not understand?

Understood.

Let me remind you of your question "Would anyone find it meaningful to discuss whether "The Weather" could be said to have free will or not? Why or why not?"

It would not be meaningful unless the principle behind weather systems had some relevance to the principle behind minds.

The weather is usually modelled using a complex, non-periodic, deterministic system of equations, sensitively dependent on initial conditions (sometimes called chaos), see for example Ed Lorenz "The Essence of Chaos". At the end of the book he makes some speculation that this is the principle behind the mind, as well as some casual observations about free will.

However it seems more likely that the mind is based on a self-organisational principle similar to that behind biological evolution. The weather does not "learn" anything.

We are not discussing the concept of "learning". We are are discussing the concept "free-will", in particular as a concept ascribed to the process of "I" held by many to be generated in the brain.

So, given that a hurricane is a process just as the "I" and any associated attributes is a process, how are they significantly different?

Just think about what differentiates the process that constitutes "I" from other types of processes - it is subjective experience.

In my case, yes. I'm asking for evidence.