Science and free will

[P.J. Denyer]

Hook a brain up to electrodes and a computer.
Present Stimuli X. Record response.
Present Stimuli X, Stimulate with electrodes. Record response
?same?different?
QUOTE]

Sounds a bit like an experiment I read about, you put your hand in this box, I'll go get my Gom Jabba.....

 

[paximperium]

Sounds a bit like an experiment I read about, you put your hand in this box, I'll go get my Gom Jabba.....

"We scientists sift people to find the human."

 

[Beth]

But is the "I" really able to make decisions or is it pre-programmed to do so?

I think it's more like a self-altering program. Does that count as being pre-programmed?

I do not believe quantum effects have any measurable effects on larger scale things like neurons and frankly, quantum effects make things random so your stuck with randomness being dumped into brain processes, no free will there since "you" continue to not have any input in this process...unless you want to claim that "Free will" lives in quantum weirdness?

Seems like a fine place for "Free will" to live. Where else would it reside? Where do numbers live? That's what I want to know.

 

[yy2bggggs]

UE and some free proponents say free will is acausal(whatever the heck that means), I believe free will is nothing more than an illusion.

I disagree that free will is nothing more than an illusion, in a "not even wrong" sense. The only relevant illusion here is that the term "free will" means something that is coherent. Nobody, for example, really has the "illusion" that they are not preprogrammed--if anything, they think they are able to control things, and think that this requires not being preprogrammed.

Where do numbers live? That's what I want to know.

On Samos.

 

[Matt the Poet]

Seems like a fine place for "Free will" to live. Where else would it reside?

That’s rather the point, isn’t it? The only thing that could scientifically show that we might have something like ‘free will’ is if we can find an active brain process that influences the process of wave-function collapse. But nobody has and, since all of the brain processes we know about operate far above the level at which that sort of thing happens, it seems unlikely that they will.

The whole ‘quantum brain’ thing seems like wishful thinking to me – people find it hard to accept that we’re the result of physical processes like everything else, so assume there just has to be quantum jiggery-pokery going on that lets us off the deterministic hook, even if it’s not remotely obvious what that could be or how it could work.

 

[paximperium]

I disagree that free will is nothing more than an illusion, in a "not even wrong" sense. The only relevant illusion here is that the term "free will" means something that is coherent.

I don't disagree here. There are no answers here, just speculation.

Nobody, for example, really has the "illusion" that they are not preprogrammed--if anything, they think they are able to control things, and think that this requires not being preprogrammed.

Just as we are aware of subconscious brain and physical processes?

Beats me, perhaps these thoughts of options and thinking of being able to control things are nothing more than a feedback mechanism? Perhaps the decision was already made, you just believe you made it. Like I say, speculation, nothing more.

 

[yy2bggggs]

Just as we are aware of subconscious brain and physical processes?

Actually, yes. Just like that!

There are things that I am introspectively aware of that I can link to the subconscious brain and physical processes via theory. The difference is in the quality of the theories.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That said, in order for us to have free will there would need to be something very, very special about things with brains that doesn’t apply to any other physical object in the universe. So it seems unlikely.

It seems to me that brains are indeed very, very special things.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

But not all believers in Free Will believe in a soul
What about them?

They believe in something like a soul, even if they don't call it a soul.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

That’s rather the point, isn’t it? The only thing that could scientifically show that we might have something like ‘free will’ is if we can find an active brain process that influences the process of wave-function collapse. But nobody has and, since all of the brain processes we know about operate far above the level at which that sort of thing happens, it seems unlikely that they will.

The whole ‘quantum brain’ thing seems like wishful thinking to me – people find it hard to accept that we’re the result of physical processes like everything else, so assume there just has to be quantum jiggery-pokery going on that lets us off the deterministic hook, even if it’s not remotely obvious what that could be or how it could work.

The fact that it is not obvious to us how it works doesn't lead to the conclusion that it can't work.

 

[Matt the Poet]

The fact that it is not obvious to us how it works doesn't lead to the conclusion that it can't work.

No, and I wouldn’t be trying to lead anyone to that conclusion.

I’m merely suggesting that what drives people to postulate and investigate it in the first place is not any obvious special connection between the brain and quantum physics – because there isn’t one – but an emotional need for there to be a fundamental physical difference between them and a pebble, rather than merely a smooth gradation of organisational complexity.

Which is no bad thing in itself, but like any emotional need, it doesn’t change the facts of the case (whatever they may be).

 

[UndercoverElephant]

No, and I wouldn’t be trying to lead anyone to that conclusion.

I’m merely suggesting that what drives people to postulate and investigate it in the first place is not any obvious special connection between the brain and quantum physics – because there isn’t one –

Not a scientific one, no, but there is a connection. The problem of explaining consciousness is a problem of explaining the relationship between the world we directly observe and a world which cannot observe but presume to be the source of our experiences. One of the main reasons we find quantum physics weird and counter-intuitive is because it also concerns itself with the relationship between observer, observed world and the status of the world when it is not being observed. In other words, there is a philosophical/metaphysical/linguistic connection between the two problems, even though there is currently no scientific connection. What I am suggesting is that somehow these two intractible problems cancel each other out - that each one holds the solution to the other like two knots on piece of string which can't be untied on their own but which dissolve into a straight piece of string when the two knots are brought together.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

They believe in something like a soul, even if they don't call it a soul.

Sounds to me like to you, the idea of a person that has a concept of free will, and not believe in a soul is something that cannot exist



And I'm still missing the answer to this one:

Free will can't just be something happening in your brain.

Why not?

 

[Matt the Poet]

What I am suggesting is that somehow these two intractible problems cancel each other out

And do you have any evidence for this suggestion, beyond pleasing allegorical symmetry?

We've always flattered ourselves by likening our consciousness to the most complicated thing we know about. Freud grew up in the age of Steam, and thought of minds as collections of opposing hydraulic forces. When computers came along, the focus was on memory - storage and retrieval. Now that quantum physics has passed into popular understanding we imagine that it must be like that.

Isn't it at least possible that there's nothing special about us at all? That we're a consequence of the equations - our path a little more complex than an orbiting asteroid but no less plotted out?

 

[Beth]

Isn't it at least possible that there's nothing special about us at all? That we're a consequence of the equations - our path a little more complex than an orbiting asteroid but no less plotted out?

You believe in destiny then? That our fates are as fixed as the orbits of the planets?

 

[rocketdodger]

Not a scientific one, no, but there is a connection. The problem of explaining consciousness is a problem of explaining the relationship between the world we directly observe and a world which cannot observe but presume to be the source of our experiences. One of the main reasons we find quantum physics weird and counter-intuitive is because it also concerns itself with the relationship between observer, observed world and the status of the world when it is not being observed. In other words, there is a philosophical/metaphysical/linguistic connection between the two problems, even though there is currently no scientific connection. What I am suggesting is that somehow these two intractible problems cancel each other out - that each one holds the solution to the other like two knots on piece of string which can't be untied on their own but which dissolve into a straight piece of string when the two knots are brought together.

Why do you think they are different problems?

Might they not be one and the same?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Sounds to me like to you, the idea of a person that has a concept of free will, and not believe in a soul is something that cannot exist

I could quibble about the exact meanings of the words, but yes, something like that.

Or as Franko would have put it: "Where do you atheistssss think you get your free-willie from?"

And I'm still missing the answer to this one:

I meant that libertarian free will can't just be something going on in your brain. If free will is just something going on in your brain, then it is compatible with determinism - it's compatibilist free will, not libertarian free will.

 

[rocketdodger]

And do you have any evidence for this suggestion, beyond pleasing allegorical symmetry?

There must be an isomorphism between the thoughts of a conscious entity and the underlying physical substrate those thoughts are expressed on.

In other words, every thought we have is isomorphic to some behavior of the systems particles our brains are made of.

It is very possible that the two things UE is talking about are in fact isomorphic to each other at a fundamental level. After all, he is correct that they are the same kind of thing in some ways.

Isn't it at least possible that there's nothing special about us at all? That we're a consequence of the equations - our path a little more complex than an orbiting asteroid but no less plotted out?

If there is a connection then it simply means certain aspects of consciousness are extensions of certain aspects of quantum physics. But that doesn't really mean much since everything is an extenstion of quantum physics anyway.

So you are right -- it wouldn't make anyone any more special in any way. It would just be another notch on our belt of cumulative knowledge.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

And do you have any evidence for this suggestion, beyond pleasing allegorical symmetry?

I don't have any scientific evidence if that is what you mean, but that should have been obvious already.

We've always flattered ourselves by likening our consciousness to the most complicated thing we know about. Freud grew up in the age of Steam, and thought of minds as collections of opposing hydraulic forces. When computers came along, the focus was on memory - storage and retrieval. Now that quantum physics has passed into popular understanding we imagine that it must be like that.

Isn't it at least possible that there's nothing special about us at all?

It's possible, but I don't personally believe it. I think that the existence of the Universe and the existence of conscious beings within it are connected in some way.

That we're a consequence of the equations - our path a little more complex than an orbiting asteroid but no less plotted out?

That's what determinists believe. Could determinism be true? Yes. There is no absolute, logical reason why it is necessarily false.

 

[Soapy Sam]

In a chapter from his book "A brief tour of human consciousness" , V S Ramachandran writes about an experiment on free will, in which two scientists were experimenting on volunteers exercising free will by instructing them to do things like wiggling a finger. A full three quarters before the finger movement, they picked up an EEG potential (known as the "readiness potential") which ante-ceded the subject's sensation of consciously willing to move the finger

Supposedly this cause a huge controversy in terms of what free will is. Since the brain is sending a command before the subject's sensation of consciously deciding to move the finger, there's the controversy that this will create a sense of lack of free will in the person

But then I thought: What difference does it make if my brain is sending the command before I sense my "free willingness" to move it? It does not make me any less an owner of myself. After all, the brain that is making that choice is my brain, not someone else's. And my brain, as well as every single cell of my body, is me. So why should this posit a philosophical issue at all on wether I am the owner of myself or not?

But I would like to share this with everyone else and see if they share the same point of view, or not

Was this Benjamin Libet's work?
If a nerve impulse travels at about 150ft/sec and you are six feet tall, and I jab you on the foot and pat you on the head simultaneously, will you feel the pat on the head first?
You should. Your head is a lot nearer your brain than your foot.
But you don't, because your nervous system back dates signals from further away to correct for the longer nerves so the two events are perceived as simultaneous. It would be interesting to know if a Blue Whale does the same.
Your subconscious lies to you constantly. You can't control this. You can't control what information the brain processes and what it rejects, or which brain modules are used to process which information. If you have synaesthesia you may see numbers in colour. You can't NOT see them in colour. You can't see a symphony unless your head is wired up abnormally.
Conscious choice is not part of sensory processing. You are a prisoner oif your senses. The idea of free will is naive, supposing that all data processing is conscious , when the real figure is nerer 3%. Will is constrained by processing power, sensory accuracy, health of nerves, insulation potential of nerve sheathing, light levels, sound levels and scores of other factors. How can a creature that half the time can't remember where it parked the car have unlimited will?