Biology of free will

[orange31]

To say the mind impacts the outcome is to say that it can change the path of electrons and atoms. How does it do that?

The brain (or mind, whatever you want to call it) changes the path of electrons and atoms- more accurately chooses the path -by deciding which synapses to fire up.

Biologists have remarked how the human species is most different from other species by our ability to adapt - and adapt rapidly -to widely different ecosystems. For instance, the ability to live in a cave versus the International Space Station. Same underlying neural hardware. 'Free will' - still undefined-(call it the mind, brain, willpower, spirit, soul, heart, gumption,etc) - nonetheless implies choice capacity. Choice capacity seems to be responsible for a big part of human advancement over the past 30,000 years. (Biologically, I believe there were no significant evolutionary changes within that period.)

 

[RVM45]

Just because a phenomena contains far too many elements to ever be Predictable has absolutely nothing to do with whether events are Deterministic or not.

Think of a bunch of Pool Balls on a table. Once the Cue Ball is in motion, everything that results is an inevitable conclusion of Deterministic Laws of Motion. Fact is, you can even take it back a step farther, and say that once the Cue is commited to its line of Motion, everything is Deterministic.

We may not be able to Predict (Assume for the sake of argument, we're really Fast--so we can ponder the unfolding nature of the shot at our leisure--just makes it easier to visualize what I'm saying...) where the Balls will go.

We may be absolutely unable to ever repeat that shot in all its complexity. Yet each Ball moved in the only way that it could, given a certain velocity and trajectory.

We can make our Pool Table 3-Dimensional. We can blow it up to the size of the Universe and we can utilize the smallest Elementary Building Block of Matter--whatever that turns out to be.....

And if we start at any instant we wish, we have nothing but Balls on Trajectories, doing the only thing they can do under the circumstances.

Some of those "Balls" are on Trajectories that will cause them to join into Carbon Atoms. Some of those Aggregates of Balls that become Carbon Atoms will be on trajectories that cause them to organize into Life.

And some Balls are on a Trajectory that will cause Life to Develop Consciousness--

But even Consciousness is only a Huge Number of Balls on Deterministic Trajectories.

Someone will bring in Quantum Mechanics--So the "Balls" are subject to a whole different and only partially understood set of mecanical principles.....

So What? That doesn't make them any less subject to whatever mechanistic principles they are subject to.

Some may argue that Quantum Weirdness builds Random Number Generators into the very fabric of Space and Time.....

Perhaps, but then its like one of those role-playing books that some folks like, where you come to decision points, and roll a die to determine which Trajectory to follow.....

But no amount of Dice Rolling will get you Free Will. It just means that one's puppet strings are pulled both by Circumstance And by Rolls of the Dice.

None of this completely rules out Free-Will--I don't think; but true Free-Will would have to be capable--somehow, someway, of stepping outside the narrowly defined limits of Time and Space.

And how it could do that--I haven't a clue.

.....RVM45

 

[Nick227]

What do you mean by ‘objective reality’ and how are you defining free will if the ability to make choices does not imply that free will exists.

for me the ability to make choices does not imply free will. It's just conscious mentation, weighing up different ideas and deciding which path to follow. It's just a computer carrying out a processing function. Theoretically, the outcome could be predicted.

People who assume that our perception of making choices (i.e. free will) is an illusion and we could not have chosen differently than we actually did.

but I don't see people assuming this. Mostly they assume they have free will because the human brain functions better this way in most situations. People who come across the idea of determinism often go into a childlike state where it's "oh what's the point of doing anything if it's all decided anyway?" And of course such an attitude does not help the human bio-computer to make good decisions.

the reality is that the brain is just consciously weighing up options. This is what choosing is, and it's useful for most minds to believe that there is free will. it takes more maturity to recognise that there is not free will but still behave as though there is.

The deal is that the explanation for the illusion that humans have free will is nowhere near as solid as the one for the illusion that the sun orbits the earth. It rests on the assumption of a determinism and the current evidence supporting QM establishes that determinism is not the case for our universe. The addition of randomness from QM is frequently discarded by posters on this forum as being unimportant for free will, but I disagree with that stance. The addition of randomness is what allows space for choices to be made and free will to emerge.

So, you're saying that there's a QM effect which could cause the brain to function randomly? But even if this is so, and to be honest I don't know enough about QM to make a judgment, I don't see how this makes any real difference to the free will issue. If the brain is affected by randonimity, or whatever, I don't see that this means it has free will, as i understand it. Free will implies to me that there is a self that is unnaffected by influence in its choosing.

Nick

 

[yy2bggggs]

it takes more maturity to recognise that there is not free will but still behave as though there is.

Okay, that does it. I have a couple of questions.

First off--given that there is no free will, how the hell do you behave as if there is free will? Is behaving as if you can weigh options and pick one behaving as if there is free will? Behaving as if you're not a fatalist? I always thought those were, respectively, behaving as if you can weigh options and behaving as a non-fatalist. I don't know how one would act as if she had free will.

Which leads to the next question... who are you calling mature?

 

[Nick227]

First off--given that there is no free will, how the hell do you behave as if there is free will?

You don't allow your grasp of determinism to affect the process of choosing.

Which leads to the next question... who are you calling mature?

Someone who can do this.

Nick

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

You don't allow your grasp of determinism to affect the process of choosing.

<snip>

Exactly. For most problems we have to solve, considering determinism is a useless and possibly harmful input to use in the decision making process.

E.g., when deciding whether to have salad or chips with a meal, a knowledge of determinisim is irrelevant and possibly harmful if it excludes other more relevant information from being considered.

 

[Beth]

What do you mean by ‘objective reality’ and how are you defining free will if the ability to make choices does not imply that free will exists.

for me the ability to make choices does not imply free will. It's just conscious mentation, weighing up different ideas and deciding which path to follow. It's just a computer carrying out a processing function. Theoretically, the outcome could be predicted.

That last sentence is where I think the main disagreement between us may lie. You are assuming that theoretically the outcome could be predicted (I am assuming you mean a particular outcome would be predicted with 100% accuracy.) I do not think this is a valid assumption. I think the best prediction possible would be a statistical distribution with probabilities for the various outcomes.

People who assume that our perception of making choices (i.e. free will) is an illusion and we could not have chosen differently than we actually did.

but I don't see people assuming this.

I thought you had read this thread. King Merv is clearly of that opinion. There are others as well.

Mostly they assume they have free will because the human brain functions better this way in most situations. People who come across the idea of determinism often go into a childlike state where it's "oh what's the point of doing anything if it's all decided anyway?" And of course such an attitude does not help the human bio-computer to make good decisions.

If it’s all decided anyway, they have no option but to feel that way, correct? If they can choose to behave differently, that’s what I am referring to as free will.

the reality is that the brain is just consciously weighing up options. This is what choosing is, and it's useful for most minds to believe that there is free will. it takes more maturity to recognise that there is not free will but still behave as though there is.

Here, you are assuming that people can choose to behave as if there is free will. If there is no free will, if they are simply weighing up the options and the final judgment is inevitable, how could they choose to behave otherwise?

At any rate, I agree that humans behave as if free will exists. What I don’t get why we should make the assumption that the outcomes are inevitable – i.e. theoretically predictable – and that free will does not actually exist.

Free will implies to me that there is a self that is unnaffected by influence in its choosing.
Nick

Why do you think that free will implies that? Every decision that humans make is influenced by both the current mental state of the person and the circumstances they are in. To me, free will does not imply that the decision is independent of those things, only that the choice that was made could have been made differently; that the actual choice made was neither inevitable nor predictable other than with statistical models.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

Why do you think that free will implies that? Every decision that humans make is influenced by both the current mental state of the person and the circumstances they are in. To me, free will does not imply that the decision is independent of those things, only that the choice that was made could have been made differently; that the actual choice made was neither inevitable nor predictable other than with statistical models.

The path of a rock rolling down a hill is a complex enough problem that its exact path and final resting position can only be predicted using statistical models.

For example, as it rolls down the hill it could pick up dirt, or become chipped, altering its state and also altering the state of the hill it is rolling down.

Does a rock have free will?

 

[Hellbound]

That last sentence is where I think the main disagreement between us may lie. You are assuming that theoretically the outcome could be predicted (I am assuming you mean a particular outcome would be predicted with 100% accuracy.) I do not think this is a valid assumption. I think the best prediction possible would be a statistical distribution with probabilities for the various outcomes.

I agree, this is where our disagreement lies. Not that we can only predict a statistical distribution, but that we don't agree this implies a measure of free will, any more than rolling a die demonstrates that the die has free will.

By this definition, then electrons (and other subatomic particles) have free will, also, as their properties can only be predicted via a statistical distribution. You're relying on quantum randomness to create free will, but for that to be a valid point you have to them ascribe free wil to particle interactions to maintain consistency. Otherwise, you're back at special pleading, requiring some supernatural or paranatural force to modify that process. Basically, what we've been saying is that even that act of "choice" is not controlled by us (though it may seem so), but by the aggregate of random molecular distributions and firings that make up our "thought", that thought which leads us to choose.

Of course, on a practical level it doesn't really matter. Consider as we do matter. Most of a wall, for example, is empty space. There's a nucleus and an electron cloud, but the actual particles don't take up much of the space that the wall occupies. However, at the level of our perception and interaction, it doesn't amtter. Mundane physics works perfectly well treating the wall as if it were completely solid , even though that's a macro-level illusion and doesn't truly represent the underlying reality.

Same with treating space as empty and flat. On the quatum scale, it isn't...even empty vaccuum is a soup fo virtual particle pairs and varying field strengths. Yet, for all intents and purposes, when you're above that scale, it doesn't make much different to the calculations if you assume it as flat and go on.

Likewise, even though our "free will", and even our "selves", are nothing more than an emergent property created by the aggregate action of uncontrolalble, random quantum interactions. Yet, at the level that we recognize ourselves as a "self", it doesn't really matter. Practically, it's best to act as if we have free will, because the appearance is there.

I hope that makes it clearer, and not murkier

 

[Beth]

The path of a rock rolling down a hill is a complex enough problem that its exact path and final resting position can only be predicted using statistical models.
For example, as it rolls down the hill it could pick up dirt, or become chipped, altering its state and also altering the state of the hill it is rolling down.
Does a rock have free will?

Not in my opinion. I think consciousness is also required.

I agree, this is where our disagreement lies. Not that we can only predict a statistical distribution, but that we don't agree this implies a measure of free will, any more than rolling a die demonstrates that the die has free will.
By this definition, then electrons (and other subatomic particles) have free will, also, as their properties can only be predicted via a statistical distribution. You're relying on quantum randomness to create free will, but for that to be a valid point you have to them ascribe free wil to particle interactions to maintain consistency.

No, I’m afraid there’s been a failure of communication. That is not how I define free will. I’m saying that randomness is a necessary requirement for free will to exist. I’m not claiming that it is sufficient or that it creates free will.

Otherwise, you're back at special pleading, requiring some supernatural or paranatural force to modify that process. Basically, what we've been saying is that even that act of "choice" is not controlled by us (though it may seem so), but by the aggregate of random molecular distributions and firings that make up our "thought", that thought which leads us to choose.

The aggregate of random molecular distributions and firings that make up our "thought" are part of us, are they not? Why do you say that we are not making a choice when, by your own description, it is us making the choice? Are you assuming the ‘self’ is somehow detached from the aggregate of random molecular distributions and firings that make up our "thought"?

As far as us having control of the choice, it seems clear that we have more control walking down a hill than a rock does rolling down it. We are able to modify the aggregate of random molecular distributions and firings that make up our "thought” such that we can choose our path down the hill. The rock cannot.

Likewise, even though our "free will", and even our "selves", are nothing more than an emergent property created by the aggregate action of uncontrollable, random quantum interactions. Yet, at the level that we recognize ourselves as a "self", it doesn't really matter. Practically, it's best to act as if we have free will, because the appearance is there.

I’m in agreement that free will and our “selves” are emergent properties. What I don’t get is why you consider it only the appearance of free will rather than being free will?

Would you say a bird only 'appears' to fly because it's really nothing more than the aggregate of random molecular distributions and firings that cause it's wings to move?