Free will and determinism

[psionl0]

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.

That's the point. In a deterministic universe, all decisions made within the brain come from "outside constraints".

 

[Leumas]

That's the point. In a deterministic universe, all decisions made within the brain come from "outside constraints".

No they do not... that is not what deterministic means... do you know anything at all about the biology of the brain or the human body?

 

[psionl0]

No they do not... that is not what deterministic means... do you know anything at all about the biology of the brain or the human body?

What facts are you making up now?

 

[Bikewer]

I admit I’ve not made up my mind on this subject. Certainly to our perception, we can choose to have Taco Bell or McDonalds for lunch, to take or turn down a promotion, or to buy a Chevy or a Ford.

I’ve recently ingested two different viewpoints on the subject. Astrophysicist Brian Greene addresses free will in his latest book “Until The End Of Time”.

Also, Robert Sapolsky addresses the idea in his published lectures on YouTube from Stanford University.

They take a slightly different tack. Greene talks about the notion that we are essentially “particles in motion”, and that these particles must obey the laws of physics. This the notion that others have expressed that if one could plot out everything… Then individual actions would be inevitable.
But Greene also tries to insert the human factors of creativity and imagination and consciousness, a more humanistic approach to the raw physics.
(I’m not quite sure about his conclusions… May have to re-read.)

Sapolsky, the behaviorist, points out that our actions are influenced by…. Everything. From our evolutionary history and genetics to our environment to our culture to our individual development and upbringing to what happened to us yesterday and an hour ago or even a few seconds before we make a decision.
As well as other things like whether we’re hungry or not.

He too feels that our actions and behavior are inevitable, and wonders how we could create an equitable criminal justice system, among other concerns.

Complicated stuff, and (IMO) far too complex to consider when trying to decide where to go for lunch…. I think we live in a sort of perceptual bubble where it seems to us that we make decisions independently of our particle’s behavior or our evolutionary history….

We are possessed of very complex brain activity that we call consciousness… And whence comes things like creativity and imagination?

 

[steenkh]

But Greene also tries to insert the human factors of creativity and imagination and consciousness, a more humanistic approach to the raw physics.
(I’m not quite sure about his conclusions… May have to re-read.)

This would be something outside physics then, i.e. the soul.

 

[Leumas]

I admit I’ve not made up my mind on this subject. Certainly to our perception, we can choose to have Taco Bell or McDonalds for lunch, to take or turn down a promotion, or to buy a Chevy or a Ford. ...

Yup... WE can... but THEY... many of them can't even eat cakes!!

 

[GDon]

This the notion that others have expressed that if one could plot out everything… Then individual actions would be inevitable.

Compatibilists would argue that this statement is not correct. Dennett talks about the brain having evolved to predict the future and so our decisions are "evitable". We are designed by natural selection to avoid situations that could interfere with our survival.

The problem as I see it is that the idea that free will requires some non-physical basis is self-refuting since no-one can describe what that basis is and what it even means. All people can do is refer back to the idea that "determinism means no free will" so therefore if determinism, then no free will.

But Greene also tries to insert the human factors of creativity and imagination and consciousness, a more humanistic approach to the raw physics.

Is there physical activity in the brain that leads to creativity? I think there is. But what if someone said it was an illusion, and that creativity needs some kind of non-physical basis to be real? I'd say that statement needs to be proven. If the only response is that "determinism means no creativity", then I'd say that's the very thing that needs to be shown.

Is there physical activity in the brain that leads to imagination? I think there is. But what if someone said it was an illusion, and that imagination needs some kind of non-physical basis to be real? I'd say that statement needs to be proven. If the other response is that "determinism means no imagination", then I'd say that's the very thing that needs to be shown.

Is there physical activity in the brain that leads to consciousness? I think there is. But what if someone said it was an illusion, and that consciousness needs some kind of non-physical basis to be real? I'd say that statement needs to be proven. If the other response is that "determinism means no consciousness", then I'd say that's the very thing that needs to be shown.

And of course I'd argue the same thing for free will.

I think we live in a sort of perceptual bubble where it seems to us that we make decisions independently of our particle’s behavior or our evolutionary history….

I don't think that is the case, in that we know that our behaviour is shaped by evolutionary forces, and they are one of the factors that go into making our decisions, whether they are free will or not.

 

[GDon]

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you are standing at the end of time in a "free will" universe, looking back at all the decisions that have been made. You can see all the interactions between the atoms so you can see exactly how everything has played out.

You can see someone making a free will decision between two choices at time t. You can see every synapse that fired into making that decision, every memory and genetic influence. Would you expect to be able to see the two choices and to see the decision to select one of them as physical activities within the brain?

 

[steenkh]

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you are standing at the end of time in a "free will" universe, looking back at all the decisions that have been made. You can see all the interactions between the atoms so you can see exactly how everything has played out.

You can see someone making a free will decision between two choices at time t. You can see every synapse that fired into making that decision, every memory and genetic influence. Would you expect to be able to see the two choices and to see the decision to select one of them as physical activities within the brain?

Of course - unless you subscribe to souls or the like.

 

[Leumas]

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you are standing at the end of time...

You can imagine all you want... but this is a meaningless thought... let alone not an experiment... what is the "end of time" and what kind of anything will be there to stand or sit let alone "think"??

...in a "free will" universe...

What does this mean?

... looking back at all the decisions that have been made. You can see all the interactions between the atoms so you can see exactly how everything has played out.

Not even a god can do that....

You can see someone making a free will decision between two choices at time t.

Begging the question...

You can see every synapse that fired into making that decision, every memory and genetic influence.

Imagine all the people....

Would you expect to be able to see the two choices and to see the decision to select one of them as physical activities within the brain?

Everything the brain does is a physical activity within the brain...

It can activate actuators (limbs and voice cords)

and can read transducers (senses)

And thus can respond to and perceive the outside of the brain....

but everything the brain does within the brain is a physical activity within the brain.

 

[GDon]

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine you are standing at the end of time in a "free will" universe, looking back at all the decisions that have been made. You can see all the interactions between the atoms so you can see exactly how everything has played out.

You can see someone making a free will decision between two choices at time t. You can see every synapse that fired into making that decision, every memory and genetic influence. Would you expect to be able to see the two choices and to see the decision to select one of them as physical activities within the brain?

Of course - unless you subscribe to souls or the like.

Right, but at this point we don't need to invoke souls. We're standing at the end of time, and looking back, we can see the two choices were in the brain, subject to physical forces, and the decision engine is within the brain, subject to physical forces. We can see the decision engine come to a decision, and the brain makes the decision that results in the timeline we see now standing at the end of time.

It looks deterministic because it IS deterministic. There is no branching at any point, with A -> B -> C etc, from the start of time.

The question is what is happening in the decision engine. The standard line of incompatibilists is that there needs to be a non-physical element in order for the decision to be free, But if the two choices are part of the physical universe, and the decision engine is part of the physical universe, then the "soul" element is not needed at all. It's superfluous.

So are the two choices part of the physical universe? If 'yes', then they don't need to be part of the "soul" element in order to lead to free will, since free will is dependent on the existence of choices.

 

[steenkh]

So are the two choices part of the physical universe? If 'yes', then they don't need to be part of the "soul" element in order to lead to free will, since free will is dependent on the existence of choices.

You lost me there. It looks to me as if you are trying to define free will in a way that removes either “free” or “will” from the concept.

There are arcade machines where a ball is rolling down a course and hits a number of pins where it can go right nor left. It works like your the brain in your thought experiment because only physical forces are in operation to choose between the two choices. If there was in fact balls and pins instead of neurons in the brain, would you still argue that the decision of brain was free, and an act of will?

 

[Leumas]

Right, but at this point we don't need to invoke souls. We're standing at the end of time, and looking back, we can see the two choices were in the brain, subject to physical forces, and the decision engine is within the brain, subject to physical forces. We can see the decision engine come to a decision, and the brain makes the decision that results in the timeline we see now standing at the end of time.

It looks deterministic because it IS deterministic. There is no branching at any point, with A -> B -> C etc, from the start of time.

The question is what is happening in the decision engine. The standard line of incompatibilists is that there needs to be a non-physical element in order for the decision to be free, But if the two choices are part of the physical universe, and the decision engine is part of the physical universe, then the "soul" element is not needed at all. It's superfluous.

So are the two choices part of the physical universe? If 'yes', then they don't need to be part of the "soul" element in order to lead to free will, since free will is dependent on the existence of choices.

Ironically... in all of the above... neither the words "free" nor "will" occur... all you are describing is determinism.... nothing willed or free about that.

 

[Leumas]

You lost me there. It looks to me as if you are trying to define free will in a way that removes either “free” or “will” from the concept.

There are arcade machines where a ball is rolling down a course and hits a number of pins where it can go right nor left. It works like your the brain in your thought experiment because only physical forces are in operation to choose between the two choices. If there was in fact balls and pins instead of neurons in the brain, would you still argue that the decision of brain was free, and an act of will?

That has already been pointed out to him very early on in this post.... and yet again very recently in this one.... and right at the start of this thread for all in this post.

I think the problem is that most people just cannot appreciate the implications of this little device and what the Bell Curve result means for the overall system and the individual balls in it.

 

[GDon]

So are the two choices part of the physical universe? If 'yes', then they don't need to be part of the "soul" element in order to lead to free will, since free will is dependent on the existence of choices.

You lost me there. It looks to me as if you are trying to define free will in a way that removes either “free” or “will” from the concept.

My point in the thought experiment includes looking at the two choices at time t, looking back from the end of time. Do the two choices exist as physical phenomenon within the brain?

There are arcade machines where a ball is rolling down a course and hits a number of pins where it can go right nor left. It works like your the brain in your thought experiment because only physical forces are in operation to choose between the two choices. If there was in fact balls and pins instead of neurons in the brain, would you still argue that the decision of brain was free, and an act of will?

Yes I would, if there were two choices to choose from and sufficient complexity within the system to choose between them.

 

[Leumas]

My point in the thought experiment includes looking at the two choices at time t, looking back from the end of time. Do the two choices exist as physical phenomenon within the brain?

• What do you think "choices" are???
• How does the brain PERCEIVE anything let alone whatever you think "choices" are???
• What do you think perception in the brain is??

Yes I would, if there were two choices to choose from and sufficient complexity within the system to choose between them.

1. So you think the balls in that device are freely willing their paths??
2. What do you think "choices" are???
3. How does the brain PERCEIVE anything let alone whatever you think "choices" are???
4. What do you think perception in the brain is??
5. How do you think a brain reacts to inputs and how does it actuate an action in response to the reaction to the input.

 

[psionl0]

My point in the thought experiment includes looking at the two choices at time t, looking back from the end of time. Do the two choices exist as physical phenomenon within the brain?

You don't "see" choices within the brain. You see synapses firing in response to stimuli.

 

[GDon]

You don't "see" choices within the brain. You see synapses firing in response to stimuli.

It's the same thing from my perspective. In a free will universe, standing at the end of time and looking back, would we have seen the synapses firing such as to represent two choices for the brain to process?

 

[steenkh]

It's the same thing from my perspective. In a free will universe, standing at the end of time and looking back, would we have seen the synapses firing such as to represent two choices for the brain to process?

You would see the synapses firing, of course. What other options exist?

 

[Leumas]

It's the same thing from my perspective. In a free will universe, standing at the end of time and looking back, would we have seen the synapses firing such as to represent two choices for the brain to process?

I'd rather be sitting down in the Restaurant At The End Of The Universe instead...

But... I wonder if the entertainment there would include commentary on how many synapses fired with "free-will" choices a little girl had when a bomb rained down on her head from a drone she never heard missed its target because the synapses of the god-like pilot sitting 10,000 miles away fired incorrectly because the night before her synapses were overwhelmed with choices to fire about food poisoning she had because her boyfriend had his synapses freely fire about a choice between a cheap restaurant he could afford or an expensive one.