The unsolved problem of "free will"

[DanishDynamite]

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.

Please, it is of little interest in this regard which inputs are the most important to a brain when it makes its decisions. The point of interest is that we agree that the brain makes the decisions and, like any other thing in this Universe, one can define an interface between "what is brain" and "what is not brain".

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.

Not understood. The brain does exactlly what it is supposed to, given the inputs its given. Or are you saying that it isn't possible to identify "the brain" as an entity and the interface this entity has to its surroundings?

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

I'm quite serious too.

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.

We agree on this part.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

Couple of quite serious errors in there:

"God", in the context you used it, is not a proper noun. Christians have for many years insisted that when "god" is used for their particular sky-daddy it is a proper noun. I personally don't buy into that - if I can call Zeus, Osiris, Thor and Vishnu "gods", I see no reason to confer respect on YHWH. As The Grammar Tyrant, I'm ensuring that privilege is being withdrawn.

Eric is actually a real person and he certainly makes no claim at being a god of any kind, although he has been to a church. Check the link, I think you may find a kindred soul there.

Finally; as far as I'm aware, Charles Darwin has no altars named for him and I wouldn't attend if there were. Darwin was a great man but he played no part in my atheism - I was atheist long before I knew or understood anything about biological evolution and Charles Darwin.

You probably need a new book, for lack of heart of another.
Expect no further indulgence, service has been provided.

All I can do is thank god that the service was provided for free, because at this time it appears quite fruitless.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Seriously, anyone who agrees that our "I" is a physical process should also be able to see that a physical process isn't imbued with some supernatural ability to suddenly stop its process and "make a decision". Like any other physical process, it will just run its course.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Darwin was a great man but he played no part in my atheism - I was atheist long before I knew or understood anything about biological evolution and Charles Darwin.

Nice to see we at least have one thing in common.

 

[Robin]

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

Again, I did not state that they were definitely different, I stated that it was not clear that they were the same

And I already showed how they might be different. Here it is again:

"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."

Note the difference. In order to model the weather we can do so with an entirely deterministic system. The unreliability of weather prediction stems from the fact that no model could be sufficiently fine grained to capture the complexity.

In order to model biological evolution we would have to deliberately introduce randomness (or pseudo-randomness) into the model. Thus the unreliability of any evolutionary model would be inherent and would exist no matter how fine-grained you could make the model.

I am not sure how I could make this possible distinction more clear.

The evidence I gave that the mind might be more like the second type of system is that the weather does not learn.

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

That is easy, just use observational data. List all the processes that you would categorise as "I". Then list processes that you would not categorise as "I" (hurricanes, computer program, biological evolution etc).

What is the feature that distinguishes the two groups? Subjective experience.

 

[Robin]

Seriously, anyone who agrees that our "I" is a physical process should also be able to see that a physical process isn't imbued with some supernatural ability to suddenly stop its process and "make a decision". Like any other physical process, it will just run its course.

Which part do you think a physical process would be incapable of?

Stopping or making a decision? Does making a decision necessarily entail stopping?

And why would the ability for a physical process to stop or make a decision necessarily be supernatural?

The CPU in my computer is making decisions all the time. And it is capable of stopping - ie shutting itself down.

I am not aware that any of this entails a supernatural ability on the part of the computer.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Again, I did not state that they were definitely different, I stated that it was not clear that they were the same

And I already showed how they might be different. Here it is again:

"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."

Note the difference. In order to model the weather we can do so with an entirely deterministic system. The unreliability of weather prediction stems from the fact that no model could be sufficiently fine grained to capture the complexity.

In order to model biological evolution we would have to deliberately introduce randomness (or pseudo-randomness) into the model. Thus the unreliability of any evolutionary model would be inherent and would exist no matter how fine-grained you could make the model.

No model of the weather or the brain can ever get fine tuned enough to make 100% predictions. For the very same reasons.

I am not sure how I could make this possible distinction more clear.

Try harder.

The evidence I gave that the mind might be more like the second type of system is that the weather does not learn.

How is this relevant to the current discussion, i.e. that the "I" is a process and hence the "free will" discussion is bogus?

That is easy, just use observational data. List all the processes that you would categorise as "I". Then list processes that you would not categorise as "I" (hurricanes, computer program, biological evolution etc).

What is the feature that distinguishes the two groups? Subjective experience.

Evidence?

 

[cyborg]

Decisions, decisions - sometimes you can't make 'em. Othertimes making them would take too long. Sometimes you can't see where they came from.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Which part do you think a physical process would be incapable of?

The supernatural bit.

Stopping or making a decision? Does making a decision necessarily entail stopping?

See above.

And why would the ability for a physical process to stop or make a decision necessarily be supernatural?

A physical process "stopping" is perfectlly OK. A physical process stopping for any other reason than physical ones, is supernatural.

The CPU in my computer is making decisions all the time. And it is capable of stopping - ie shutting itself down.

Of course.

I am not aware that any of this entails a supernatural ability on the part of the computer.

It doesn't.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Does anyone here understand the point I'm making? Anyone at all?

 

[Robin]

No model of the weather or the brain can ever get fine tuned enough to make 100% predictions. For the very same reasons.

In other words you are saying that you have definite evidence that the brain is a system that would be modelled by a non-periodic, deterministic system of equations, sensitively dependent on initial conditions and definitely not the type of system that should be modelled by an evolutionary algorithm.

Any evidence for this assertion?

Try harder.

If you are seriously unable to understand the difference between a non-periodic, deterministic system of equations, sensitively dependent on initial conditions and an evolutionary algorithm I cannot help you any further.

How is this relevant to the current discussion, i.e. that the "I" is a process and hence the "free will" discussion is bogus?

If your assertion that the brain is the same type of physical system as a weather system is relevant, then my questioning of that assertion must, by definition, also be relevant.

Evidence?

Are you sure you understand the concept?

 

[Robin]

Does anyone here understand the point I'm making? Anyone at all?

You could try just stating the point you are making. That is often known to help.

 

[Robin]

The supernatural bit.

I am not aware that anyone here has even remotely implied that a decision is supernatural. In fact the original poster went out of his way to say that this is not what he meant.

Perhaps you should quote the part where someone has said or implied this. That would definitely help.

Otherwise, I'm afraid, it sound suspiciously like a straw man.

A physical process "stopping" is perfectlly OK. A physical process stopping for any other reason than physical ones, is supernatural.

Similarly my telephone can't ring for any other reason than physical ones. The rain can't start falling for any other reasons than physical ones.

Well I'm glad we have got that red herring out of the way.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You could try just stating the point you are making. That is often known to help.

The point I'm making is the following:

The question of whether or not humans have free will is an absurd question to ask if, as I propose, there isn't really any "I" there to make the question meaningful.

"Free will" as I understand the term, is the idea that "I" have the ability to choose a course of action, no matter what. That "I" am free to choose what "I" do, anytime and anywhere.

My view is that there is no "I", and hence no "I" to supernarturally make any supernatural decisions.

Our "I" is a way of refering to a side-product of the process going on in our brains. Each of our "I"'s only exist as a by-product of each of us having functioning brains.

Assuming a supernatural influence on this "I" process which makes the output of this process not quite according to natural laws, is beyond belief. It is, well, supernatural.

 

[JoeEllison]

The point I'm making is the following:

The question of whether or not humans have free will is an absurd question to ask if, as I propose, there isn't really any "I" there to make the question meaningful.

"Free will" as I understand the term, is the idea that "I" have the ability to choose a course of action, no matter what. That "I" am free to choose what "I" do, anytime and anywhere.

My view is that there is no "I", and hence no "I" to supernarturally make any supernatural decisions.

Our "I" is a way of refering to a side-product of the process going on in our brains. Each of our "I"'s only exist as a by-product of each of us having functioning brains.

Assuming a supernatural influence on this "I" process which makes the output of this process not quite according to natural laws, is beyond belief. It is, well, supernatural.

If "you" don't exist, can "I" have your stuff?

 

[DanishDynamite]

If "you" don't exist, can "I" have your stuff?

"I" don't exist other than as a by-product of the processes in my brain. This by-product, given its current inputs and code, however doesn't find it expedient to divulge itself of its materialistic assests at this time, and certainly not to your "I" .

 

[JoeEllison]

"I" don't exist other than as a by-product of the processes in my brain. This by-product, given its current inputs and code, however doesn't find it expedient to divulge itself of its materialistic assests at this time, and certainly not to your "I" .

I figured it was worth a try...

 

[Robin]

The point I'm making is the following:

The question of whether or not humans have free will is an absurd question to ask if, as I propose, there isn't really any "I" there to make the question meaningful.

"Free will" as I understand the term, is the idea that "I" have the ability to choose a course of action, no matter what. That "I" am free to choose what "I" do, anytime and anywhere.

My view is that there is no "I", and hence no "I" to supernarturally make any supernatural decisions.

Our "I" is a way of refering to a side-product of the process going on in our brains. Each of our "I"'s only exist as a by-product of each of us having functioning brains.

Assuming a supernatural influence on this "I" process which makes the output of this process not quite according to natural laws, is beyond belief. It is, well, supernatural.

I cannot see anywhere in this thread where someone has assumed a supernatural influence on anything, so the point is irrelevant.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I cannot see anywhere in this thread where someone has assumed a supernatural influence on anything, so the point is irrelevant.

Any influence not in congruence with natural law is supernatural.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I figured it was worth a try...