The unsolved problem of "free will"

[cyborg]

That ability could/might exist in an organic computer.

What's special about carbon that imbues it with the ability to compute something silicon cannot?

 

[cyborg]

(Incidentally, I think cyborg actually made this point on page 1)

I did indeed.

If people will insist on trying to find forests by looking at trees though...

 

[cyborg]

I agree. It is just that I cannot actually prove that something cannot be both non-deterministic and non-arbitrary, or that there is no middle way between order and disorder.

I strongly suspect it to be the case.

Middle ways eh? Sound attractive in theory but they always sound like pleading with the logic not to say what it says to me. So consider this tale of an art gallery...

So we want to have the best, the ultimate art gallery in the universe. So how do we decide to do it?

We reason the ultimate art gallery will be a complete collection - no piece of imaginable art will be left out.

First we get an infinite supply of paint and canvas - we're going to need a lot so why not get the most you can ever have?

Second we're going to need some artists - but wanting to be complete and having access to advanced technology we decide that instead of commissioning an existing artist that we should also build the ultimate artist for the ultimate gallery. In order to be sure we have a complete collection we decide to make it so that this artist will always paint the same painting for any title it might have - so if we ask the artist to paint 'sky' he will always give us the same picture, we don't want any ambiguity in our art so we can be certain that we have it all.

That leads us to the final thing we will need - the muse. Again we decide to build our ultimate muse - he will simply tell the artist the title of the paintings he has to paint and our muse will know the title of every possible painting. So now we just get our muse to tell our painter every possible name of a painting and hence we can get our ultimate art gallery.

In this story the canvas is the natural numbers - the paintings represent mathematical concepts, the muse generates algorithms that encode these concepts.

Now, is the painting, the property we have constructed with our mathematical expressions, something we would say was 'hidden' on the canvas waiting to be revealed? Most artists would probably not think of it this way yet there is a tendency in mathematics to presume that somehow properties like, "even," "odd," "chaotic," "ordered," are somehow paintings that are waiting to be pulled out of the canvas when in reality their meaning waits for the observer to impose it. So how is that so?

Say we have the canvas with the 'even' painting - perhaps that might look like a checker-board pattern. But wait - isn't the 'odd' painting just the same pattern but inverted? So are 'odd' and 'even' really separate properties or does one sit in the empty spaces generated by the other? In fact couldn't we choose just either 'odd' and 'even' and then simply talk about the other one in terms of the negative space where we did not paint? And in fact for any other painting we could have isn't the negative space where we don't paint something we could consider to also be a property of the canvas?

So in our art collection we can identify perhaps smaller sub-collections of related art - but could we really say that these sub-collections are properties of the canvas itself? And if we splash a bucket of paint over the canvas and say, "that painting is randomly created," is that really the case if we can find the same painting in the gallery? If I were to paint a checkerboard I would find it very easy to do - but to paint the splashed paint painting? Very hard - but does that mean it has no title?

Let us now introduce the reverse muse - the art critic - instead of giving the names of every possible title he will look at a painting and try to find the correct name.

Now the questions you have to answer is: can the muse produce titles that the art critic cannot guess? Who 'owns' the title?

 

[Robin]

In case you didn't notice, that was a simple anecdotal aside and nothing to do with the discussion in hand, beyond staking my claim as a [insert label here]

As a what? What possible relevance does an anecdote about supernatural claims have in a thread where no supernatural claims have been made?

Let me remind you you revisited this strawman three times during your post. And if I'm not mistaken you are about to do it again....

No, of course they're not, but they all respond to the same physical laws. As far as I can see, nothing's outside of science and maths, but you seem to be suggesting that something is?

Yep. Just couldn't help yourself could you? Just quote anything that demonstrates that I have said or implied this or anything remotely like it.

My guess is that you won't and you won't have the gumption to apologise for using this idiotic tactic.

Are you serious?

Let me see. Find a dead guy. Cut out his brain. Is there now a difference between a weather system and the brain? (Other than a slightly different composition) They are both conglomerations of matter which are only subject to external influences.

Are you serious? This is your reasoning to show that weather systems and brains operate under essentially the same physical principle?

Actually you will have to explain the parallels even of a dead brain and a weather system. It is lost on me. Live brains compute, dead brains rot. Weather does neither.

Can you give me a rundown on how they differ - apart from a brain [a live one] being attached to a body, which allows it to choose things like location and energy input that a weather system can't.

Well for a start the brain appears to have some pretty serious computational abilities, it can take two tiny upside down images with gaps in them, coded into electrical impulses and construct a pretty detailed real time 3-d model of our environment and orient us within it constantly checking and refining the model.

I can't see anything in a weather system even remotely analogous to that or that could be called computational.

One system is based on the behaviour of tiny electro-chemical impulses and t he other is based on the behaviour of massive bodies of air/water etc. Again, the similarities are completely lost on me. You and Danish appear to seem them, but for some reason refuse to specify.

No, it's what has made it work in the way that it has.

You are not even wrong here. Without random mutations evolution would just not work. Full stop.

Nope. Weather predictions are only ever approximate...

What exactly is it about the sentence: "And by the way, weather models do predict the weather with reasonable accuracy, it is just that the small errors in the original variables start to diverge so the models are only accurate for a few days."
that led you to the bizarre conclusion that I didn't think weather models were approximate?

If we discounted approximate predictions from our scientific models there would not be much science left.

As above, it's less clear to me how they differ.

Unsatisfactory response. If you really believe that the weather and the brain operate on essentially the same physical principle then you should provide some reasoning and evidence.

Show me the analogous features (apart from the trivial fact that they are both physical systems. Everything is a physical system, so that would make everything the same as everything else).

Disagree. I'm quite sure there are some conclusions which do apply to both, the chief among them being that all natural phenomena obey natural laws.

Non-sequitur. The fact that some conclusions apply to both does not imply that any conclusion would apply to both.

Well, I think they both have an identical amount of "free will" in the biblical sense. If your "free will" means "able to choose between alternatives", then they don't.

In what sense does weather system have "will"?

Oops. Looks like I disagreed with all three.

Well done. Try reading and thinking next time.

 

[Robin]

Middle ways eh? Sound attractive in theory but they always sound like pleading with the logic not to say what it says to me.

You don't need to convince me. I find the idea of a middle way neither attractive nor even remotely plausible.

What I am saying is that I can't actually prove that something can both be non-deterministic and non-arbitrary.

It does not mean that I take the idea seriously even for a second.

 

[The Atheist]

You are not even wrong here. Without random mutations evolution would just not work. Full stop.

Good enough for me, tata!

 

[Robin]

OK, transaction #1:

As far as I can see, nothing's outside of science and maths, but you seem to be suggesting that something is?

Just quote anything that demonstrates that I have said or implied this or anything remotely like it.

My guess is that you won't and you won't have the gumption to apologise for using this idiotic tactic.

And as predicted you don't and don't.

Transaction #2

Here is the point you didn't appreciate about evolution, the indeterminacy is not incidental, it is one of the key features of the system, it is what makes it work.

No, it's what has made it work in the way that it has.

You are not even wrong here. Without random mutations evolution would just not work. Full stop.

Good enough for me, tata!

So let us see. You first accuse me of making supernatural claims. When challenged you refuse to either back up or retract the accusation.

Then, for unspecified reason, you take umbrage at the above exchange and leave.

I am puzzled.

Indeterminacy is one of the key features of evolution. Without randomness evolution would simply not work. Are you suggesting that without indeterminacy evolution would simply work in a different way????

What am I missing?

 

[Robin]

Once again here is the view I'm proposing:

The concept of whether someone has "free will" hinges, in my understanding, on the idea that there must be at least one someone who has this ability.

Correct so far?

And DanishDynamite where are you? I have agreed that this is correct so far.

Are you now going to complete or even progress this line of reasoning?

 

[The Atheist]

OK, transaction #1:

And as predicted you don't and don't.

No, you may well have gained an apology if your position doesn't include anything non-naturalistic, but I don't usually bother apologising to someone, who when questioned, either through misunderstanding or lack of clarity, classes it as an "idiotic opinion".

As ye sow, so shall ye reap.

Transaction #2

Then, for unspecified reason, you take umbrage at the above exchange and leave.

Umbrage? None taken, I assure you. There's very little I take umbrage at and you may have noticed that if I do, I respond in kind.

You said:

Without random mutations evolution would just not work. Full stop.

That clearly indicates to me that you have an inflexible opinion on the subject. I happen to disagree with it, so I was simply agreeing to disagree and wandering off to more productive ground.

Still am.

Indeterminacy is one of the key features of evolution. Without randomness evolution would simply not work. Are you suggesting that without indeterminacy evolution would simply work in a different way????

Yep.

What am I missing?

Pass.

 

[Robin]

No, you may well have gained an apology if your position doesn't include anything non-naturalistic,

I did not want an apology so much as evidence to back up your accusations. A shred or a scintilla would suffice. A tad even.

But you have still supplied nothing to back up your accusation that I am suggesting that something operates outside of science or mathematics.

Far from doing so you appear to have simply repeated the accusation above.

.. but I don't usually bother apologising to someone, who when questioned, either through misunderstanding or lack of clarity, classes it as an "idiotic opinion".

Don't misquote. I said "idiotic tactic". I was referring to the fact that you had implied that I had said something existed outside of science and mathematics. Unless you can back this up with evidence then it is misrepresentation. Misrepresenting someones argument is indeed an "idiotic tactic", wouldn't you agree?

Again, all you need to do is to show anywhere that I have said or implied that something happens outside of science or mathematics and I will be happy to reap the consequences of such a foolish position.

If, on the other hand you refuse to supply such evidence then you are guilty of misrepresentation.

But I am still waiting for that evidence.

 

[Robin]

Well here is the rub, there is much conflated nonsense associated with the use of the word "I".

People like to ascribe magical significance to the terms "consciousness", "awareness", "qualia" and "self". They are often used in this sort of religio mystic way that has no meaning or refferent to the external reality.

So it just helps to remind people that they are a body, they have no magical transcendent self.

On the other hand some people go the other way and appear to deny that consciousness, awareness, subjective experience and qualia exist at all, although these are facts that it is by definition impossible to ignore.

 

[Taffer]

No, it requires one more thing. "the ability to make a different choice if the exact same situation arose, and the difference between the choices is not arbitrary"

Any arbitrary component in the choice process would be neither "free", nor "will".

Define "arbitrary".

 

[Robin]

Define "arbitrary".

Having no underlying reason, principle, rule or law.

Let's say x=y ~ -> f(x)=f and there is nothing at all that can account for the difference between f(x) and f then f is arbitrary.

 

[The Atheist]

I did not want an apology so much as evidence to back up your accusations.

I have to confess to seeing why you misunderstand plainly put posts. I felt you were probably due an apology, because it appears that you don't hold any supernatural beliefs. I had mistakenly thought you did, because your posting style is misleading.

Don't misquote. I said "idiotic tactic".

Tactic/opinion - I couldn't be bothered even going back to check. Now we have all that sorted you can get back to debating whatever it was you were wanting to debate. As I said, I lost interest a wee while back, but I wanted to correct another load of your misconceptions about what I said.

Tata!

 

[Robin]

I have to confess to seeing why you misunderstand plainly put posts. I felt you were probably due an apology, because it appears that you don't hold any supernatural beliefs. I had mistakenly thought you did, because your posting style is misleading.

A bit hard to take that seriously since when I challenged you to quote the part that had led you into this mistake you were completely unable to do so (and still are).

So you can't quote anything that could be possibly be misinterpreted this way and I certainly can't find it. On the contrary I have quite unambiguously said the very opposite, for example in the part you quoted:

"Nobody in the thread, as far as I am aware, has suggested that the brain is anything other than 100% natural."

I cannot see anything unclear about that or which might have led anybody to the conclusion that I thought the brain was anything other than 100% natural.

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

and

"Similarly I don't see where anybody has suggested any influence not in congruence with natural law."


and the fact that the entire discussion was centred on what type of physical system the brain was. Can't see anything in that which is even remotely open to your interpretation.

Tactic/opinion - I couldn't be bothered even going back to check.

That just about says it all doesn't it? Couldn't be bothered to check.

Please don't respond to any of my posts in future. I am only interested in serious debate.

 

[Taffer]

Having no underlying reason, principle, rule or law.

Let's say x=y ~ -> f(x)=f and there is nothing at all that can account for the difference between f(x) and f then f is arbitrary.

Ok... so how does this relate to free will?

 

[The Atheist]

"Nobody in the thread, as far as I am aware, has suggested that the brain is anything other than 100% natural."

No shortage of straw around your way either.

My first post to you:

What I don't get is what you and Robin disagree on. I'll stand to be corrected, but you appear to be on the same side here, just maybe going in different directions. Neither of you appears to be suggesting that we are more than the sum of our parts. Are you both just guilty of mis-reading each other?

Finally figured where all the confusion comes from.

 

[Dancing David]

What's special about carbon that imbues it with the ability to compute something silicon cannot?

i am an agnositc on the issue, I just say there might be the ability to make choices. That does not mean that the choices are not causal and totaly physical in nature.

We have an associative network for a brain, the firing of a neuron/cluster/system is based upon probability and past history. There are parts of the brain that are ambiguos as to wether they go one way or another. It would appear that certain internal behaviors can influence th outcome of the events in the brain (IE desensitization). So while the system is causal and physicqal, one person decides to quit drinking and another does not.

there might be free will, and I say that because when it comes to addiction there is only one way to beat it, choose not to use.

So it might or might not be free will.

When we have computers that can model the brain then maybe we will have enough data for me to say, yup or nope.

 

[Dancing David]

On the other hand some people go the other way and appear to deny that consciousness, awareness, subjective experience and qualia exist at all, although these are facts that it is by definition impossible to ignore.

yes they do, but we must remeber that qualia are not magical and unknowable objects that are free from scrutiny and science.

You have not said that, but others ure do.

All of them are behaviors that can only be defined by external behaviors, they are often rubrics that become endowed with magic powers.

 

[Belz...]

I agree. It is just that I cannot actually prove that something cannot be both non-deterministic and non-arbitrary, or that there is no middle way between order and disorder.

I honestly don't see how something could be non-deterministic, non-non-deterministic, and still something else...