Free will and determinism

[Leumas]

In which sense are you using the word this time?

Not in this sense....

... unless part of the human programming came from outside of the universe or if more than firing synapses were involved in human decision making...

But rather in this sense...

...
We can not predict the result of a "fair" coin toss nor where a ball will land on a Galton Board. But this is not because these events are "indeterministic". It is because we don't have enough information to make such a prediction.
....
Of course, we have no way to test if the universe is deterministic or not because our knowledge is not perfect.

...we don't have enough knowledge to predict these behaviours adequately. The best we can do is apply laws of probability to these events. This is similar to how we say that the result of a coin toss is "random" even though it is actually the result of factors we can't measure.

 

[psionl0]

Not in this sense....

But rather in this sense...

So you are assuming randomness in the absence of other information. The problem is that then you conclude that the randomness is real.

Another analogy might be vehicular traffic engineering. We use statistical models to model vehicular traffic and make our plans. For the most part, this method works quite well.

Does this constitute a proof that motorists drive at random times and in random directions?

 

[Leumas]

So you are assuming randomness in the absence of other information. The problem is that then you conclude that the randomness is real.

Another analogy might be vehicular traffic engineering. We use statistical models to model vehicular traffic and make our plans. For the most part, this method works quite well.

Does this constitute a proof that motorists drive at random times and in random directions?

I can only conclude from the above that

You obviously haven't studied the fields of knowledge involved. You are just making stuff up.

I suggest you read this book.

 

[psionl0]

I can only conclude from the above that I don't understand the first thing about statistics.

ftfy.

 

[Leumas]

ftfy.

Thanks for the above vivid demonstration of a false attribution as well as a powerful corroboration for how...

You obviously haven't studied the fields of knowledge involved. You are just making stuff up.

Nicely done!!!




.

 

[psionl0]

Pure projection.

 

[steenkh]

But as pointed out earlier, the one or the other form of randomness is irrelevant for free will, because it can be discussed if the will is “free”, but it is certainly not “will” in either case.

 

[psionl0]

But as pointed out earlier, the one or the other form of randomness is irrelevant for free will, because it can be discussed if the will is “free”, but it is certainly not “will” in either case.

It is difficult to define "free will" such that it would make sense in a non-deterministic world.

All we can say is that if the universe is deterministic then any sort of free will is impossible because everything is pre-programmed.

 

[Leumas]

But as pointed out earlier, the one or the other form of randomness is irrelevant for free will, because it can be discussed if the will is “free”, but it is certainly not “will” in either case.

On our daily walks with my dear companion and friend Milou , when he was younger, I would lead him along certain paths and he would of course follow.

We now have trodden those paths many a time... so my lovely boy now REFUSES to go along those paths and instead insists on leading me through the paths not taken.

How does he do that?

When we come to a fork where we can either go the old path or another not yet taken... he stops and pulls back on the leash and refuses to go further.

When I ask what is wrong, he starts going down the new path he would like to explore. If I refuse and instead force him to take the old path he protests a little longer but then gives in.

But... the next time we are at that juncture again... he repeats the action and this time protests for longer... until sooner or later one day I give in and let him lead the way into the new path HE CHOSE to explore.

So... is he choosing??? Does he have free will???

But... before answering the above... consider this...

Every time I give my clever boy a nice meaty bone he eats the meat off and then chooses to hide the bone... ¿I guess for a rainy day?

Being in the house, he tries to hide it in the sofa... but this entails him digging in the sofa which I invariably put a stop to lest he destroy the sofa.

The other day I decided to let him carry out his actions uninterrupted to see what he does.

He went on digging and digging in the imaginary soil that is my sofa...

It occurred to me that he probably won't stop because if he desires to excavate a hole of a certain depth he would realize that he is not getting it and thus would continue digging.

But... no... he stopped after a while... I thought maybe he now realizes the futility of his digging.

But no... he proceeded to put the bone in the nonexistent hole that he just dug to a certain depth not by actually measuring the depth, but rather by a certain amount or perhaps duration of digging action.

He then proceeded to use his snout to push back the nonexistent soil that he dug to bury the bone.

I thought to myself... he surely will endlessly carry on doing this because he will see that the bone is still visible.

But no... he continued the snouting of the imaginary dirt he imagined he dug for the same amount of time he did the digging...

Then... he proceeded to use his head and jaw to pat down the loose soil that was not there... and that too he did for a certain period of time.

And then proceeded to get off the sofa satisfied with a job well done... while his bone is there in plain sight for all to see... not at all safely hidden in my poor abused sofa....

I went ahead and took the bone and wrapped it in plastic wrap and put it in the fridge for later usage.

As far as my dog is concerned he chose to hide the bone and where to do so.

Now... consider the implication of this innate instinctive behavior... and contrast it to the "choosing" of the road not taken.

And consider that when trying to figure out whether the human animal is any more or less "free-willed". Or... is it just that the human animal is equipped with a better feedback-control-algorithm albeit just as innate?

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth;

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same,

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

.

 

[steenkh]

…

Interesting story.

I don’t see any changes in the argument for or against free will just because we are talking about animal free will vs. human free will. The laws of physics apply just as well, and if the world is deterministic, the will is not free. If the world is random, there is no will.

But in both cases, because we can never know the status of every molecule, atom, or even particle that is involved, we have a working model that says that if we assume that there is a will, and it is free, we can “understand” the actions of humans and animals, at least to some extent, because it corresponds to our feeling of having a free will.

So I subscribe to the concept of the “illusion of free will”.

As regards to the actions of your dog, I can of course not know what is behind it all, but I could imagine that something has changed about the old path that you do not sense, but it is sensed by the dog.

And I believe that dog instincts being different from human instincts, it is possible that your dog has the urge to bury the bone even when it is well aware that it is not possible to bury the bone in a sofa. So the dog performs a symbolic action of burying the bone, and gets satisfaction from an instinct that is acted on. This is probably in the same way that humans can perform symbolic actions that satisfy their needs for no apparent physical reason.

 

[GDon]

But in both cases, because we can never know the status of every molecule, atom, or even particle that is involved, we have a working model that says that if we assume that there is a will, and it is free, we can “understand” the actions of humans and animals, at least to some extent, because it corresponds to our feeling of having a free will.

So I subscribe to the concept of the “illusion of free will”.

But why is that an "illusion of free will"? Why isn't that actual free-will? What is required within the brain to make it actual free-will? And why can't the brain have that component already?

If A says "there is a tree over there", and B says "no, that is just an illusion of a tree", then we can infer that 'tree' has a common description for A and B. But if no-one knows what the shape of a tree is, then how do we know what an "illusion of a tree" looks like?

Similarly with free-will. I suggest it is meaningless to describe that we experience an "illusion of free-will" if we don't know what an expression of actual free-will looks like in the first place.

 

[Leumas]

...
Similarly with free-will. I suggest it is meaningless to describe that we experience an "illusion of free-will" if we don't know what an expression of actual free-will looks like in the first place.

That is precisely the point... "we don't know what an expression of actual free-will looks like"... but yet we keep talking about it... much like we do not know what an actual thing of the image below looks like (because it is impossible) but yet we can depict it in an image.

Human beings have never encountered or produced "what an expression of actual [XXX] looks like" where XXX can be one of an all but limitless number of illusions that humanity have deluded their minds with (e.g. Pixie Dust and Elves and Nymphs and Leprechauns etc. etc. etc.). Yet there are oodles of books and stories and tall tales written about them and millions of dollars spent in depicting them in movies and illustrations and even toys and video games.... I guess you can add free-will to the list.

 

[steenkh]

But why is that an "illusion of free will"? Why isn't that actual free-will? What is required within the brain to make it actual free-will? And why can't the brain have that component already?

If A says "there is a tree over there", and B says "no, that is just an illusion of a tree", then we can infer that 'tree' has a common description for A and B. But if no-one knows what the shape of a tree is, then how do we know what an "illusion of a tree" looks like?

Similarly with free-will. I suggest it is meaningless to describe that we experience an "illusion of free-will" if we don't know what an expression of actual free-will looks like in the first place.

I am sorry, I don’t know the difference between “free will” and “free-will”. I called “free will” an illusion because in a deterministic world, free will is not free, an in a QM random world, it is not will. I don’t see that you have addressed this point.

Of course you can call what we actually have “free-will”, but that would be the illusion I was talking about.

 

[GDon]

I am sorry, I don’t know the difference between “free will” and “free-will”.

My random spelling, I'm afraid. Perhaps appropriate in a thread on determinism!

I called “free will” an illusion because in a deterministic world, free will is not free, an in a QM random world, it is not will. I don’t see that you have addressed this point.

My claim (as is Dennett's, for what it's worth) is that a deterministic world is irrelevant to the idea of free will. We have evolved to have a "free-will" engine. Our brains are wired by our hormones and habits, nature and nurture, memories and memes, and these things throw up possible options for our brain to evaluate in order to make a decision. That's free-will. It's not the "woo woo" free-will that often gets thought about where the brain has to be free of the laws of physics in order to be "free", but given that there are no constraints outside the brain, it is free in a biological sense.

Interestingly, it's also described as "free won't'. The brain receives a number of impulses and then vetoes all but one.

Of course you can call what we actually have “free-will”, but that would be the illusion I was talking about.

Then give me an example of actual free will, so that I can see the difference between that and the illusion.

 

[psionl0]

Our brains are wired by our hormones and habits, nature and nurture, memories and memes, and these things throw up possible options for our brain to evaluate in order to make a decision.

And in a deterministic world, these things are all pre-programmed. Ergo, no "free will" or "free-will".

 

[Leumas]

....
....
Then give me an example of actual free will, so that I can see the difference between that and the illusion.

You keep repeating that.... it is like asking for a an example of an actual Leprechaun so that you can see the difference between it and the fairy tale.

...
Interestingly, it's also described as "free won't'. The brain receives a number of impulses and then vetoes all but one.

Yes... the neurons react in response to hormonal and other chemical and electrical inputs... much like the balls in this device do... neither the individual balls nor the entire apparatus had any free will.

 

[Leumas]

And in a deterministic world, these things are all pre-programmed. Ergo, no "free will" or "free-will".

No... they are not... that is not what deterministic means... nor what pre-programming means.

Pre-programming can be deterministic or indeterministic... indeterministic programming is done all the time.

But you are right, there is no free will in a deterministic world... but neither in an indeterministic one.

 

[steenkh]

Then give me an example of actual free will, so that I can see the difference between that and the illusion.

An actual example of free will would be a decision that would be dependent on the state of every atom, particle, or ray that has an effect on the brain.

Actual free will in our world be it deterministic, or not, would only be possible if there was a soul that could influence the brain, but not itself being bound by physics.

 

[GDon]

And in a deterministic world, these things are all pre-programmed. Ergo, no "free will" or "free-will".

I'd argue that free-will is part of that pre-programming. If I have a choice of two options, then the processes within my brain -- all deterministic! -- can come to a decision. Since the decision is made within the brain and it is free from outside constraints, then it is free-will.

True, that's not the "magic" free-will that is usually described, and there are theological implications with having an omnipotent God create the starting points to everything. But as Dennett says, it's free enough.

I'm guessing you'll argue that it isn't free-will but an illusion of free-will. That is, the brain coming to a decision, free from outside constraints, is an illusion of free-will. Whereas, what? Real free-will is the brain coming to a decision, free from outside constraints?

So what are the constraints affecting our ability to come to a decision? The actions of neurons firing? But that's not a constraint. That's how the brain actually works to come to any decision. That it is part of a causal line stretching back to the Big Bang doesn't mean it isn't freely made in the brain. At least as far as I can see.

 

[Leumas]

I'd argue that free-will is part of that pre-programming. If I have a choice of two options, then the processes within my brain -- all deterministic! -- can come to a decision. Since the decision is made within the brain and it is free from outside constraints, then it is free-will.

True, that's not the "magic" free-will that is usually described, and there are theological implications with having an omnipotent God create the starting points to everything. But as Dennett says, it's free enough.

I'm guessing you'll argue that it isn't free-will but an illusion of free-will. That is, the brain coming to a decision, free from outside constraints, is an illusion of free-will. Whereas, what? Real free-will is the brain coming to a decision, free from outside constraints?

So what are the constraints affecting our ability to come to a decision? The actions of neurons firing? But that's not a constraint. That's how the brain actually works to come to any decision. That it is part of a causal line stretching back to the Big Bang doesn't mean it isn't freely made in the brain. At least as far as I can see.

If you could see biology and how the human organism is an inseparable part of an ecosystem and is itself an ecosystem for other organisms you would realize what a chimera that statement is.

Can you choose to not eat and drink and sleep and defecate and urinate and breathe the ambient air... and can you control the weather and sun and floods and droughts and earthquakes and tsunamis and volcanoes and and and... and can you stave off the whims and drives and caprices and desires of other organisms..... and and and and and

If not ... then the chimera you are talking about is just the consequence of an "inability to see far enough" to realize the mirage is just an illusion caused by the ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS that you failed to account for while "seeing".





.