The unsolved problem of "free will"

[cyborg]

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

The proof is infinite.

 

[cyborg]

Or, I can say: "In my gallery there are paintings that have infinitely long titles - they match your critera mathematically."

 

[DanishDynamite]

Firstly, appologies for having to deal with real life issues and thus not responding as timely as some might want.

Secondly, I appologize for only responding to certain posts rather than all.

Thirdly, I appologize for my weak memory and consequences thereof.

On to my responses....

 

[DanishDynamite]

So let me get this straight. You are saying that there is no difference whatsoever between a a non-periodic, deterministic system of equations, sensitively dependent on initial conditions and an evolutionary algorithm?

There is no difference in principle between the predictability of the outputs of a brain and the predictability of any other process which uses real-life inputs (i.e. inputs with uncertainty), correct.

If that is what you are saying then we should probably stop right now. Please clarify.

All outputs of any brain is the result of the physical processes occuring in said brain.

 

[DanishDynamite]

A physical process can make value judgements and a decision without it stopping.

A physical process can do nothing but the next step, given its inputs. Which is exactly what our brains do.

 

[DanishDynamite]

That ability could/might exist in an organic computer.

There is no "ability" there. There is just physics.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You appear to have missed the point then. Let me recap:

DanishDynamite asked if it was relevant to discuss whether the weather had free will.

I said that it was not clear that weather and the brain operated under the same physical principle.

DanishDynamite asked me how they might differ.

I suggested two possible options.

I never said or implied that the models were ideal, they were, as I made clear, suggestions about how two physical systems might differ.

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. Run a set of physical equations with no randomness and you will get a valid model of how the real system behaves. Run a genetic algorithm without randomness and it will simply do nothing. 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.

But that is a side issue anyway.

I stand by my original point that it is not clear that the weather and the brain operate under the same physical principle.

If they did not then any conclusion drawn from the weather would not necessarily apply to the working of the brain.

So it would only be relevant to discuss whether the weather had free will if you were reasonably certain that the same physical principle was at work.

I don't see how anybody could even disagree with the above three paragraphs.

I think I make decisions. But I don't. Because in order for "me" to make decisions, there must first be an "I". And there is no seperate "I", no "I" seperate from a by-product of a functioning brain process.

A brain found on a trash heap contains no activity and also no "I".

Can we agree on this point? Can we agree that a brain must be active and processing in order for there to be an "I"?

 

[DanishDynamite]

Let's assume people agree that in order for a brain to generate an "I" the brain in question must be functioning and "alive".

Is there any reason to suppose the brain is made of material which isn't physical as any other matter in the body is physical? Is there?

Let's assume that people agree that there is no such reason.

If the matter in the brain is physical matter, is there any reason to suspect that this physical matter does not follow the rules of the Universe regarding how physical matter behaves?

Anyone?

 

[CplFerro]

Let's assume people agree that in order for a brain to generate an "I" the brain in question must be functioning and "alive".

Is there any reason to suppose the brain is made of material which isn't physical as any other matter in the body is physical? Is there?

Let's assume that people agree that there is no such reason.

If the matter in the brain is physical matter, is there any reason to suspect that this physical matter does not follow the rules of the Universe regarding how physical matter behaves?

Anyone?

Dear DD,

My response to your latest post is in two parts. The first part is to respond to your questions, which I do in the form of links to articles concerning an alternative to your schema.

Vernadsky and the Future of Biophysics

Biophysics and the Life Process

Toward a True Science of Life

The second part is purely metaphysical-rational. I assert there is no free will, because every event requires a cause. Every event needs a reason to be the way it is and not another way, which means that that informing reason generates that event. With human behaviour the result is no different; there must be a reason for everything one does.

Under that, whence cometh "freedom"? I choose to do what I do because of reasons within me that are powerful enough to cause those actions of mine. To say that I "chose" implied that I could do differently, but what does that possibly mean? If my choice is on a razor's edge, there must still be some small reason that is the final arbiter, and that reason becomes the immediate cause.

Will may be free in the Spinozan sense that there are higher and lower dimensions to our minds, and that the more adequately humanised an environment we occupy, the more we can make use of the higher dimension of mind, but this should not be confused with some kind of undefinable chaos within us. Likewise, we may choose for reasons entirely within ourselves, but the implacability of those reasons remain.

Cpl Ferro

 

[DanishDynamite]

Dear DD,

My response to your latest post is in two parts. The first part is to respond to your questions, which I do in the form of links to articles concerning an alternative to your schema.

Vernadsky and the Future of Biophysics

Biophysics and the Life Process

Toward a True Science of Life

I'll try to have a look at them.

The second part is purely metaphysical-rational. I assert there is no free will, because every event requires a cause. Every event needs a reason to be the way it is and not another way, which means that that informing reason generates that event. With human behaviour the result is no different; there must be a reason for everything one does.

This is clearly wrong. There is no reason to suspect that quantum flux is anything other than pure randomness.

Under that, whence cometh "freedom"? I choose to do what I do because of reasons within me that are powerful enough to cause those actions of mine. To say that I "chose" implied that I could do differently, but what does that possibly mean? If my choice is on a razor's edge, there must still be some small reason that is the final arbiter, and that reason becomes the immediate cause.

As it happens, there is evidence that "you" are never involved in the decision, but are just informed after the event.

Will may be free in the Spinozan sense that there are higher and lower dimensions to our minds, and that the more adequately humanised an environment we occupy, the more we can make use of the higher dimension of mind, but this should not be confused with some kind of undefinable chaos within us. Likewise, we may choose for reasons entirely within ourselves, but the implacability of those reasons remain.

Cpl Ferro

This last paragraph was not understood.

Still, a good post!

 

[CplFerro]

I'll try to have a look at them.

This is clearly wrong. There is no reason to suspect that quantum flux is anything other than pure randomness.

As it happens, there is evidence that "you" are never involved in the decision, but are just informed after the event.

This last paragraph was not understood.

Still, a good post!

Dear DD,

Oh, not another person who takes seriously the notion that the universe contains irrationality? Such things cannot coexist with rationality without infecting them, for the universe is a totality, not an array of interlocking servomechanisms. If "quantum flux" is "pure randomness" as in chaos, as in irrationality, we are living in a Gnostic universe run by the little green men under the floorboards.

But even such a case doesn't help the "free will" argument one bit, for under it we are not slaves to reasons, but slaves to chaos. There is no "real me" to make the decision, just a black-box decision-generator.

The Spinozan concept isn't that hard: Man can be brutish and unfree, or civilised and free. Civilisation frees him from his brutishness to accomplish higher ends. In that sense, then, progress is the development of ever freer will, but this freedom is not the absolute kind that you are referencing (the kind that "everyone knows" when you reference "free will").

Cpl Ferro

 

[RandFan]

RandFan: I only meant to say that the subject of free will as discussed or referred in my youthful days was in the context of religious belief only. I can't remember people really discussing it on a philosophical level. I do appreciate that type of inquiry, however.

Cool.

 

[RandFan]

The Spinozan concept isn't that hard: Man can be brutish and unfree, or civilised and free. Civilisation frees him from his brutishness to accomplish higher ends. In that sense, then, progress is the development of ever freer will, but this freedom is not the absolute kind that you are referencing (the kind that "everyone knows" when you reference "free will").

Sorta Kinda Free Will?

Words, phrases, terms and idioms are used to convey a message from one person to another. I understand, I think, what you mean but let me be pedantic and state that there is either free will or there is the illusion of free will. We don't really advance the discussion with weasel concepts.

Whether one is brutish or civilized simply changes the dynamics. Nothing more.

 

[Robin]

Finally figured where all the confusion comes from.

Let's see:
#1

Neither of you appears to be suggesting that we are more than the sum of our parts.

#2

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

Yep. The confusion is coming from your posts.

 

[Robin]

So let me get this straight. You are saying that there is no difference whatsoever between a a non-periodic, deterministic system of equations, sensitively dependent on initial conditions and an evolutionary algorithm?

There is no difference in principle between the predictability of the outputs of a brain and the predictability of any other process which uses real-life inputs (i.e. inputs with uncertainty), correct.

I am not sure why you think that this is an answer to my question (which did not even refer to the brain). Answer the question.

All outputs of any brain is the result of the physical processes occuring in said brain.

So what?

 

[Robin]

Let's assume people agree that in order for a brain to generate an "I" the brain in question must be functioning and "alive".

Is there any reason to suppose the brain is made of material which isn't physical as any other matter in the body is physical? Is there?

Let's assume that people agree that there is no such reason.

If the matter in the brain is physical matter, is there any reason to suspect that this physical matter does not follow the rules of the Universe regarding how physical matter behaves?

Anyone?

Again - so what?

 

[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?

This is the point you were making when you were interrupted. I had agreed that this was correct so far.

So what is the view you are proposing?

 

[Robin]

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.

Agreed.

 

[DanishDynamite]

I am not sure why you think that this is an answer to my question (which did not even refer to the brain). Answer the question.

I did.

What, by the way, is an evolutionary algorithm?

So what?

Indeed.

 

[Robin]

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

Let me remind you of our conversation so far:

My concept of "free will" can be boiled down to "the ability to make a different choice if the exact same situation arose, down to the quantum level".

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"

Define arbitrary

Hence my last post where I defined what I meant by arbitrary.

In other words, according to your concept of free will arbitrary choices would count as free will. I disagree, a choice must be a voluntary action, ie not arbitrary.