Biology of free will

[KingMerv00]

Because I have the sensation of making choices...

And millions of people have the sensation of communicating directly with God.

Why should I reject that conclusion in favor of concluding that it is not as it appears, and is only an illusion?

Because it appears to conflict with our understanding of causation in the universe we live in.

And how would you be able to tell if that something actually existed?

We can't in the same way we couldn't reject an all-power deity. I reject both because both lack sufficient evidence. If some clever person finds a way around this problem, maybe I'll change my tune.

I agree. It's not sufficient. However, in the absense of a better alternative explanation, it's the one to go with.

The better explanation is biochemistry and neurology.

How is this constant recalculation different from actually making a choice? That is what we are doing when we make choices: deciding which option we prefer at that point in time based on our current evaluation of the costs and benefits of each possible choice.

Calculation does not invoke a separate causal agent. It is the end result of natural processes. Making an honest-to-God choice requires something to interfere with natural processes.

I know you don't believe in supernatural free will but I have no idea how one could have free will without having something beyond the material universe.

 

[Beth]

You are making choices. But that you is not some inner observer or experiencer. It is just the result of whole brain function.

Nick

I never claimed there was some inner observer or experiencer. I agree it is a result of the whole brain function.

 

[BowlOfRed]

Why should we experience the sensation of choosing among options if, in truth, only one path is available to us?

Why should we run a computer program, if given any set of inputs it will always produce the same answer?

A program may have to "run" or evolve through many different states in order to create the desired answer. This doesn't mean that the answer is available instantaneously, or that it could be known ahead of time without the work of running the program.

That doesn't really speak to the sensations though. One way I tend to think of it is that there are different levels to think about things. To continue the analogy, when analyzing a computer program you probably wouldn't try to understand how all the voltages in all the transistors. It's true that they are the cause and part of the physical underpinning, and that perfect knowledge there would lead to the same end state, but it doesn't really aid in figuring out a program because it's too far away in level.

Similarly, at the level of consciousness, it makes sens to say you *are* "choosing". It's just that the way that choice is performed is not something that is able to be "modified" or "controlled".

One possibility is that the perceptions are a way of allowing certain intermediate states of the mind to be visible to itself as yet another input, and that things can work "better" that way.

 

[Nick227]

Yes, I agree, if there is no 'self' there is no free will either. Now, all you need to do is convince me that 'I' don't actually exist. Good luck.

When I say "illusion" I am not saying that self does not exist. It emerges from certain aspects of consciousness. Illusion simply means here that it is not what it seems. For those in low self-awareness it appears that there is an inner chooser. But in reality, choice is simply the output of whole brain function.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I never claimed there was some inner observer or experiencer. I agree it is a result of the whole brain function.

So where is your free will coming from now? What is it that has free will? If you accept the brain as a bio-computer to what do you attribute free will?

Nick

 

[KingMerv00]

So where is your free will coming from now? To where do you attribute it? What is it that has free will? If you accept the brain as a bio-computer to what do you assign free will?

Nick

Beth, this needs to be addressed before anything else.

Without supernaturalism, now is it possible for free will to arise? EVERYTHING in the universe results from the mindless cause and effect interaction of the 4 fundamental forces and matter. By what right do you claim humans are an exception?

 

[Hellbound]

Actually, I like the computer code analogy. Consider a program being written. You have at least three layers of abstraction:

1. The interface. THis is what provides external inputs to the program, and the extension fo the program that interacts with what's around it.
2. The programming language itself. This could be C, Basic, Fortran, or whatever. This is the upper-level instruction set. This sets the general rules for how the program will operate.
3. Assembly. The programming language is "short-hand", with each statement there being translated into certain specific assembly language commands for execution.
4. Physical. The actual volatages on the transitors, capcitors, and logic elements in the physical hardware.

The interface is generally not going to reference anything at the programming level directly. The program controls it, but you don't have programming language in the interface. Likewise, if you wanted the program to check inputs against other inputs, or make comparisons, or take steps to verify code, you wouldn't have it try to discern the assembly language commands being executed or look at the physical voltage, you'd use additional code to check the code.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it gets across the idea. THe inputs to our brain, both internal and external, are on teh interface level. Programming would probably relate to various conscious memories and experiences brought up by these inputs (which tehn become other inputs). Assembly level for our subconscious, and physical for the neurons and chemical parts. WHile, at the interface or even program level , it may appear that the software "makes a choice", even to the software itself, that choice is ultimately determined by the things occuring at the physical level combined with the inputs.

 

[Beth]

I think the heart of the question is:

What makes "you" choose the choice you decide on?

It may well be the heart of the question, but it's an unanswerable one for us at this point in time.

You seem to simply assume the "you" as some external entity, seperate from the neurochemical processes of the brain.

No. I think the neurochemical processes of the brain are part of me and that, to some extent, using consciousness (part of my current neurochemical processes), I can control (influence might be a better word) my future neurochemical processes. I don't see anyone arguing this point though. There does seem to be a consensus that current internal states influence future internal states.

What others are stating is that "you", the part of you that makes the choice, is itself a function of underlying neurochemical processes, which are themselves the product of chemistry and physics.

I don't disagree with this point.

Regardless of your sense of choosing, or your subjective experience, there's no evidence of anything operating beyond chemistry and physics, which are deterministic (with quantum randomness thrown in).

That quantum randomness provides space for different possible future paths from the beginning of time onward. If that randomness was not there, then the universe evolving through time would be contrained to a single path that was deterministically fixed in the instant of the big bang.

So the question is, do you believe there's some sort of free will outside of the subjective apeparance of free will?

No. I think that the subjective appearance of free will IS free will and not an 'illusion'. Why should I distrust the subjective appearance of 'free will' but not the subjective appearance that I love my kids? Why should one be considered an 'illusion' but not the other?

And do you agree that even that experience of choice is governed by chemical and physical processes?

Yes. All of our experiences and senses are governed by chemical and physical processes. Sometimes the things we experience can be illusionary, such as hallucinations or dreams. Why should I consider the sensation of making choices to be an illusion?

How would the world be different if it wasn't an illusion and we are making actual choices? If there is no difference, why assume that the universal sensation of making choices is not what it seems to be?

 

[Beth]

So where is your free will coming from now? What is it that has free will? If you accept the brain as a bio-computer to what do you attribute free will?

Nick

Myself.

 

[Nick227]

Myself.

You accept that there is no inner self which chooses? You accept that the brain is a bio-computer with inputs and outputs? If so, you presumably accept that this "myself" emerges from brain activity? Now... can you explain how an emergent property could possibly have free will?

Nick

 

[Beth]

Because I have the sensation of making choices...

And millions of people have the sensation of communicating directly with God.

Yes, that’s correct. Humans also observe that the sun appears to circle the earth. So? I agree that even universal sensations can be misleading. I'm saying that without a convincing alternative explanation for why people have that experience, it's makes more sense to accept that a universal human experience is an accurate reflection of reality than to presume it is not.

Why should I reject that conclusion in favor of concluding that it is not as it appears, and is only an illusion?

Because it appears to conflict with our understanding of causation in the universe we live in.

I think it makes more sense to assume that our understanding of causation in the universe is lacking than to assume that human senses are universally mistaken in a particular way UNLESS there is an explanation that both explains the sensations and preserves our understanding of causation. Personally, I don’t see the conflict you do between compatibalist free will and our understanding of causation, so this does not provide me a reason to assume that our sense of making choices is an illusion.

If free will (as I define it) did exist, there would have to be something beyond the material world.

And how would you be able to tell if that something actually existed?

We can't in the same way we couldn't reject an all-power deity. I reject both because both lack sufficient evidence. If some clever person finds a way around this problem, maybe I'll change my tune.

Fair enough. I feel pretty similarly about the non-existance of free will. It seems to me that we have the experience of making choices freely among the perceived available options and no good alternative explanations for why we wouyld have the experience if that wasn't what were doing. If some clever person finds a way around that problem, maybe I'll change my tune.

I agree. It's not sufficient. However, in the absense of a better alternative explanation, it's the one to go with.

The better explanation is biochemistry and neurology.

Biochemistry and neurology do not explain why we have the sensation of making choices if we are not actually making choices. It makes more sense to me that they can explain the actual phenonema of making choices than to presume that choices are not actually being made.

How is this constant recalculation different from actually making a choice? That is what we are doing when we make choices: deciding which option we prefer at that point in time based on our current evaluation of the costs and benefits of each possible choice.

Calculation does not invoke a separate causal agent. It is the end result of natural processes. Making an honest-to-God choice requires something to interfere with natural processes.

I think you need to define what you mean by choice then. The definition I gave earlier does not require anything to interfere with natural processes. At least, no more so than birds are interfering with the natural process of gravity when they take to the air.

I know you don't believe in supernatural free will but I have no idea how one could have free will without having something beyond the material universe.

Whereas I don’t understand why you feel that is required. Unless you can explain what this ‘something beyond the material universe’ does, I don’t think I will understand your POV.

It seems as if you are assuming something supernatural is required for free will to exist in order that you can then conclude that free will does not exist. I don't require a separate causal agent to make choices, just consciousness and self-control within the person making the choice and more than one perceived option to choose from. Why does free will require anything more than that?

 

[Beth]

Similarly, at the level of consciousness, it makes sense to say you *are* "choosing". It's just that the way that choice is performed is not something that is able to be "modified" or "controlled".

Why would you say that? It's not easy, but people do manage to do things like quit smoking or lose weight. I consider that a way of 'modifying' our programming and controlling what choices we make.

One possibility is that the perceptions are a way of allowing certain intermediate states of the mind to be visible to itself as yet another input, and that things can work "better" that way.

Isn't that part of making a choice? Why should that be considered an 'illusion' rather than actually making a choice.

 

[Beth]

Beth, this needs to be addressed before anything else.

Without supernaturalism, now is it possible for free will to arise? EVERYTHING in the universe results from the mindless cause and effect interaction of the 4 fundamental forces and matter. By what right do you claim humans are an exception?

We have minds.

 

[Beth]

It's not a perfect analogy, but it gets across the idea. THe inputs to our brain, both internal and external, are on teh interface level. Programming would probably relate to various conscious memories and experiences brought up by these inputs (which tehn become other inputs). Assembly level for our subconscious, and physical for the neurons and chemical parts. WHile, at the interface or even program level , it may appear that the software "makes a choice", even to the software itself, that choice is ultimately determined by the things occuring at the physical level combined with the inputs.

Add a random number generator that can be used to make probabilistic decisions for the percieved availabe outputs. Now add the ability for the software to consciously self-modify the parameters of those probabilistic models used to make decisions. This system is no longer deterministic, it has freedom of choice within the constraints of it's operating environment. Combine it with consciousness and I think you have free will.

 

[Beth]

You accept that there is no inner self which chooses? You accept that the brain is a bio-computer with inputs and outputs? If so, you presumably accept that this "myself" emerges from brain activity? Now... can you explain how an emergent property could possibly have free will?

Nick

No I can't explain how free will emerges. I can't explain how conscious emerges from that either. I can only say that humans univerally have the sensation of consciousness and free will. Why should I assume these universal perceptions are incorrect just because I don't understand how it works? Unless there is an alternative explanation for why we have these perceptions and why they should be considered 'illusions' rather than reality, I see no reason to assume they are incorrect.

You said previously free will was an 'illusion' because there was no inner self which chooses. I agree there is no inner self which chooses, there is only the entire self which chooses. So why should the sensation of choice be considered an illusion?

 

[KingMerv00]

We have minds.

I don't understand how that is an answer. Minds are biochemical and thus the result of the 4 fundamental forces and matter.

 

[KingMerv00]

Biochemistry and neurology do not explain why we have the sensation of making choices if we are not actually making choices.

Biochemistry explains all sorts of complex brain functions. What makes the sensation of choice so special?

 

[Beth]

Beth, this needs to be addressed before anything else.

Without supernaturalism, now is it possible for free will to arise? EVERYTHING in the universe results from the mindless cause and effect interaction of the 4 fundamental forces and matter. By what right do you claim humans are an exception?

We have minds.

I don't understand how that is an answer. Minds are biochemical and thus the result of the 4 fundamental forces and matter.

I was being somewhat flip, yet that is the difference between us and inanimate matter isn't it. We don't think boulders 'choose' their path down the hill, but we think we do as we amble down a hill. Why? What's different about the rock and us? We have minds.

Yes, minds are composed of the 4 fundamental forces and matter just as boulders and everything else is. Yes, we don't understand how free will can arise from the particular combination and interaction of those 4 fundamental forces and matter. So? Just because we don't understand how doesn't mean we must either assume that supernatural forces are involved or that it is only an illusion that we have free will.

Biochemistry and neurology do not explain why we have the sensation of making choices if we are not actually making choices. It makes more sense to me that they can explain the actual phenonema of making choices than to presume that choices are not actually being made.

Biochemistry explains all sorts of complex brain functions. What makes the sensation of choice so special?

You've misunderstood. Let me try to make it more clear. The words "Biochemistry and neurology" are not an explanation of why we have the sensation of making choices if we are not actually making choices. They can explain how it occurs, but not why.

 

[BowlOfRed]

Add a random number generator that can be used to make probabilistic decisions for the percieved availabe outputs. Now add the ability for the software to consciously self-modify the parameters of those probabilistic models used to make decisions. This system is no longer deterministic, it has freedom of choice within the constraints of it's operating environment. Combine it with consciousness and I think you have free will.

Can I ask why the random number generator makes much of difference here? It's just a different input that the program does not directly construct, much as many external stimuli would be. If some object with an RNG has free will does it completely disappear if one is removed?

I'm sure there are some specific philosophical terms here that I'm unaware of, but I keep coming back to thinking about these things at different levels. I'm sure it makes sense to describe one pattern of functioning of consciousness as "free will", just as much as it makes sense to describe one of the perceptions of our mind as "color". I don't care if you want to describe this as an "illusion" or a "construct".

But when you look down at the physical construction of the mind/brain, these terms do not play and there is no need to assume that perception of free will is built upon a non-deterministic process.

I'm sure I got some of my ideas from reading Searle's "Minds, Brains, and Science", even though I found myself disagreeing with him in particulars.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

[wild woo speculation]

Perhaps there are an infinite number of universes each running in parallel according to a particular state of energy and matter within it (including that in our brains). What we perceive as choices are really just observations when we move from universe to universe as our state changes deterministically.

[/wild woo speculation]