Free will and determinism

[GDon]

I just noticed that you skipped the most important bit from the video transcript ... Why?

Here is the part you missed.... maybe if you had not missed it you might have noticed that Dennett is in fact rebutting what you think "free-will" is...


So now can you see how Dennett is saying that biology supports the free-will that is the "Trick Magic that can be done".... and not the free-will of "woo woo Magic"???

In other words.... the STREET ILLUSIONS....

I'll make this my last response to you on this thread, Leumas. I'll put your response down to incompetence rather than deliberate obfuscation. Where on earth have I been arguing for "woo woo magic" free-wIll? I've said all along that that it is something we've evolved, and that which gets called "the illusion of free-will" is in fact actually free-will.

Dennett is saying that many people believe that both consciousness and free-will must have some "magic" or "supernatural" component in order to be real. But he argues that's not the case, and that evolutionary theory can explain their existence in a naturalistic and deterministic universe (though he argues it doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or not).

Here is a sample from a short video by Dennett, starting from about 3 mins 30 secs in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Nj_rEqkyQ

For billions of years on this planet, there was life but no freewill. Physics hasn’t change, but now we have free will. The difference is not in physics, has nothing to do with determinism or indeterminism, it has to do ultimately with biology, particularly evolutionary biology.

What has happen over those billions of years is that greater and greater competences have been designed and have evolved, and the competence of a dolphin or of a chimpanzee -- the cognitive competence, the sort of mental competence -- is hugely superior to the competence of, you know, a lobster, or a starfish.

But ours dwarfs the competence of a dolphin or a chimpanzee, perhaps even greater extent. And there’s an entirely naturalistic story to tell about how we came to have that competence or those competences...

Thanks for your time.

 

[Lithrael]

Even if there is no free will, even if everything is strictly determined, it makes sense to behave in all ways as though there is free will, because in such a deterministic universe the illusion of free will is so strong that in all ways it seems real.

I'll elaborate. I can acknowledge in such a deterministic universe that free will is not real while behaving in all ways as though it is. So in the end it doesn't matter whether it is really real or not. I will live my life as though it is.

Of course. After all, either way you think about it, the part where we perceive ourselves as having free will is one of those factors that feeds into the choices our brains setlle on.

 

[psionl0]

We know in principle that you can never do that, and yes we have empirical proof of that, see uncertainty principle

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

 

[psionl0]

How do you know???... you are asserting this DESPITE also admitting the below...

Your Galton Board YouTube showed a classic example of an apparently chaotic system that nevertheless was totally deterministic (or it would be if we were able to make all of the necessary measurements to calculate the path of each ball).

When I refer to "lack of knowledge" I mean the inability to measure the exact state of each particle in the universe. Without this ability, all of the free will discussions are unresolvable.

But you still have neglected to answer the question... are humans natural events or not???

Humans are natural events. So whether it is possible for them to have free will or not depends on whether the universe is deterministic or not.

 

[Leumas]

I'll put your response down to incompetence rather than deliberate obfuscation.

Thanks for those "compliments"...

I on the other hand will return both of them back at you... as evinced by the obfuscation of having deliberately neglected to quote the most important and pertinent part of Dennett's words in that video...

Where on earth have I been arguing for "woo woo magic" free-wIll? I've said all along that that it is something we've evolved, and that which gets called "the illusion of free-will" is in fact actually free-will.

And as demonstrated by the lack of understanding of what Dennett is saying ... and even more astoundingly the lack of understanding of what YOU are saying.

If you are saying that free-will is an illusion then you are right...

But if you are saying that the illusion is in fact the real thing then you have no idea what an illusion is.

Street magic is an illusion it is not magic... it is an entertaining and clever bit of legerdemain... but it is not magic or magical or anything other than a TRICK... a deception.

So you cannot then say that sleight of hand magic is magic.... because the word magic entails more than trickery... as understood by "many people".

Dennett is saying that many people believe that both consciousness and free-will must have some "magic" or "supernatural" component in order to be real. But he argues that's not the case, and that evolutionary theory can explain their existence in a naturalistic and deterministic universe (though he argues it doesn't matter if the universe is deterministic or not).

Yes... Dennett is saying that people (i.e. theists and other woowoo subscribers) want Consciousness and Free-Will to be more than just natural processes and want there to be something more to them than a DECEPTION Of Neurons... and when he proposes that it is indeed Legerdemain Of Grey Cells he is dismissed as not doing "real" magic although in his opinion this trickery of the brain akin to the trickery of street performers giving the ILLUSION of magic is in fact "magical" as in wonderful and more really "magical" (metaphorically) than the nonexistent woowoo magic.

You then misunderstand all that and want to assert that the street trickery magic the illusion of free-will is real magic free-will.... I am afraid this nonsense.

Here is a sample from a short video by Dennett, starting from about 3 mins 30 secs in:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Nj_rEqkyQ

Why are you so occupied with what Daniel Dennett says.... whom you clearly have misunderstood and deliberately misquoted.... what is so special about him... he is just another philosopher with opinions.

Although I have great respect for his body of work and for his mind... I still do not take his philosophical musings as my scriptural directives, nor his words as the be-all and end-all of opinions.

But... regardless.... your deliberate obfuscation by omitting a very important and pertinent chunk of his lecture in the previous post... is not boding well for your argument.

And even worse, is the lack of understanding of what he says... and I think even worse is that you do not understand what you are saying either.

I'll make this my last response to you on this thread, Leumas...
...
Thanks for your time.

I hope you keep your promise GDon...

Nevertheless GDon... I will not promise the same... I will indeed endeavor to point out any and hopefully all the failures in logic in all your posts GDon.

 

[Leumas]

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

No... that is not what it says... you clearly have no idea what it says... I suggest you read more books about it.

 

[Leumas]

Your Galton Board YouTube showed a classic example of an apparently chaotic system that nevertheless was totally deterministic (or it would be if we were since we are unable to make all of the necessary measurements to calculate the path of each ball).

IFTFY...
So in other words... it is a chaotic system that unless you are a god will remain to be a chaotic system.

When you become able to know all the "necessary measurements" come back and argue out of knowledge instead of carrying on with your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

When I refer to "lack of knowledge" I mean the inability to measure the exact state of each particle in the universe.

No you cannot.... if you studied more things about the stuff I mentioned to you earlier you would know... it might behoove you to dedicate more time to doing that instead of arguing about things here.

Without this ability, all of the free will discussions are unresolvable.

Okay then... go and work on acquiring that ability and then come back to wrangle out of knowledge instead of carrying on with your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.

Humans are natural events. So whether it is possible for them to have free will or not depends on whether the universe is deterministic or not.

But that is not what you said... you said that

And natural events don't do anything by "free will".

However... since you have already asserted that you do not know whether the universe is deterministic or not then yet again I suggest you stop carrying on with your argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies and just go figure it out first then come back.... all this wrangling without knowledge is utterly pointless.

I personally will carry on exalting your words below as GOSPEL TRUTH until you COME BACK and demonstrate otherwise out of knowledge instead of out of fallacious illogic.

And natural events don't do anything by "free will".

 

[psionl0]

No... that is not what it says... you clearly have no idea what it says... I suggest you read more books about it.

I don't know which books you are reading but Heisenberg originally postulated that it was an "observer effect" (interference by the measuring instrument) that prevented us from knowing precisely the position and momentum of a particle.

It is now considered to be an inherent quality of quantum mechanics.

 

[psionl0]

So in other words... it is a chaotic system that unless you are a god will remain to be a chaotic system.

You can say that if you wish but it doesn't make the system indeterministic. That could only happen if you knew the exact state of every part of the system but still couldn't accurately predict its behaviour.

Or is your argument that a coin toss is not a strictly mechanical process and is in fact an indeterministic system?

But that is not what you said... you said that

And natural events don't do anything by "free will".

I see. This is an attempted "gotcha".

Humans are the result of natural events. Chemical/nuclear reactions are not free will events but we can't make such a definitive claim about human thought processes (unless the universe is deterministic).

 

[zooterkin]

Several posts sent to AAH for bickering.

Please keep to the topic of the thread which is, as ever, not one another.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: zooterkin

 

[Leumas]

...
In an indeterministic universe, you could know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time but still not predict what happens next. Such a scenario allows for the possibility of "free will" behaviour of humans (and other animals)....

We know in principle that you can never do that, and yes we have empirical proof of that, see uncertainty principle

The uncertainty principle simply says that there is a limit to the accuracy of what we can measure. It is not some magical concept that brings in mysterious forces.

... Heisenberg originally postulated that it was an "observer effect" (interference by the measuring instrument) that prevented us from knowing precisely the position and momentum of a particle.

No ... you've got that entirely wrong... this is a common confusion that lay people who do not understand Quantum physics make... it has nothing to do with interference by measuring equipment whatsoever....

It [i.e. UNCERTAINTY] is now considered to be an inherent quality of quantum mechanics.

Slight fix there for you... it is and has always been an inherent part of Quantum physics... not only now and it does not depend on humans making errors about it then discovering they were confusing it with other things.

Nevertheless... since as you say above.... uncertainty is an inherent property of Quantum Physics... then you now can see that the universe is indeed indeterministic since Quantum Physics is a process in the universe and if it has uncertainty then the universe is indeterministic...

And what Darat said was correct and your reply to him was wrong....

We know in principle that you can never do that, and yes we have empirical proof of that, see uncertainty principle

And of course do not forget all the topics listed below too which are more things that render the universe indeterministic.

... Chaos theory... and Quantum Physics... and fusion... and fission... and the sun.... and turbulent fluid mechanics... and electrical storms and weather.... and ... Galaxies and their collisions etc.

 

[Leumas]

In an indeterministic universe, you could know the exact state of every particle in the universe at a particular time but still not predict what happens next. Such a scenario allows for the possibility of "free will" behaviour of humans (and other animals).

No it does not whatsoever.... all indeterministic processes entail and imply... is a true randomness in the trajectory of events that cannot be rewound and replayed back with the same result... it has nothing whatsoever to do with free-will ... whatever that is?

Otherwise you would have to include volcanos and rivers and fission and fusion and galactic collisions and lightning and tornados and hurricanes and solar flares and electric arcs etc. etc. in the category of "free-willed" natural events too.... do you maintain earthquakes and tsunamis and locust swarms also have free will in an indeterministic universe???

And natural events don't do anything by "free will".

 

[Aridas]

Since the whole point of the poll is to explore the different ways that people understand "free will" it wouldn't make sense to provide a definition.

To poke back at this and provide a little answer without reviewing (much of) the thread...

This seems like it's pretty much just baiting pointlessly, then. "Free Will" is a nebulous enough set of concepts that pretty much all answers are potentially true.

To boil it down a bit further, does "Free Will" require the ability to be able to potentially choose some other option to actually be "Free Will?" Depends on the version of "Free Will" and, perhaps more tellingly, what actually counts as another option. Whether whichever version of "Free Will" is settled on is congruent with reality is another matter, of course.

To poke at the most recent bits, it looks like the discussion's currently poking a bit more at the issue of "what is choice?" On a guess, that's likely a derivative from the "choose." Personally, I tend to think of that as generally a semantics issue, in practice, but meh. I don't think that I have remaining emotional investment in whether I actually potentially could choose some other path than the one that I do/did/will.

Slightly tangentially, when it comes to the topic, I'm a little bit more interested in a likely actual application and point. For example, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent creator who knowingly created beings who literally could not actually end up acting any other way under the circumstances, how much culpability should the creator have? How much culpability should the creation have?

 

[GDon]

For example, if there is an omniscient, omnipotent creator who knowingly created beings who literally could not actually end up acting any other way under the circumstances, how much culpability should the creator have? How much culpability should the creation have?

I think the question is moot. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent creator then why assume that it couldn't create beings with free-will in the first place?

 

[Aridas]

I think the question is moot. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent creator then why assume that it couldn't create beings with free-will in the first place?

That's pretty much missing the point though, by the look of it? "Free Will" is often forwarded as a means to divert any and all culpability from said omniscient, omnipotent creator, certainly, but it looks like it's simply not actually addressing the issue at hand there. Certainly, we can say that some being(s) could have free will as one part of a larger analysis. That has very limited bearing on either question, though. In the former, the creator still knowingly caused such. In the latter, the being still did the deeds and any consequences, good or bad, are pretty well unchanged.

 

[Leumas]

I think the question is moot. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent creator then why assume that it couldn't create beings with free-will in the first place?

Except the very act of creating them... in itself... is annulling their free will.

Think about it...

Not to mention the myriad of violations of free will in the design process of this creation.

So unless this omnipotent omniscient being created other omnipotent omniscient beings who willed to be created before they even were created... then the whole creation process in itself negates free will.

 

[junkshop]

I think the question is moot. If there is an omniscient, omnipotent creator then why assume that it couldn't create beings with free-will in the first place?

An omniscient creator knows every choice their creations will make. They can't help it, they're omniscient. Therefore those choices are determined before they are made. They are are predetermined. Therefore there is no free will.

If there is free will, then there cannot be omniscience. These things cannot co-exist.

 

[Myriad]

Isn't this just all the qualia arguments all over again? Members who would (justifiably) roll their eyes if I started talking about the redness of red are nonetheless eager to debate the decision-y-ness of decisions (aka free will).

 

[psionl0]

No ... you've got that entirely wrong... this is a common confusion that lay people who do not understand Quantum physics make... it has nothing to do with interference by measuring equipment whatsoever....

That is what Wikipedia says:

"Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty."

 

[theprestige]

Functionally it's a red herring anyway.