Free will redux: What is true free will?

[President Bush]

One need only look at the words of the man himself...

Eventually a science of the nervous system based upon direct observation rather than inference will describe the neural states and even's which immediately precede instances of behavior. We shall know the precise neurological conditions which immediately precede, say, the response, "Thank you."

... He meant precisely that. A science of the nervous system based on observation should theoretically be able to describe brain states that correlate with and even precede instances of behavior. We can already do this to a very limited extent (in part with MEG and functional MRI). The level of description would necessarily be on the order of neural nets, not the gross conglommeration that comprises the EEG. EEGs do not reflect thinking. They do not reflect brain states in the way that Skinner meant. We can tell if someone is awake, asleep, concentrating on some task (only in certain instances) and disease states with EEG patterns. That is all. The only instance of EEG activity helping in this regard at all is with the mu rhythm and movement or planning for movement, but this particular rhythm is not seen in everyone. There is also a particular type of event related potential that may correlate with forming a neural network in some thinking tasks (the 40 Hz event related potential), but this work is still highly speculative.

In other words, we should theoretically be able to describe the neural activity that underlies particular experiences. The description of that neural activity we give is simply that -- a description. The description is not the experience itself, just as a description of a red ball hitting a blue ball is not the collision. The particular experience is a particular experience because it has an emotional/motivational component to it -- that is what makes an experience an experience. Computers do not have experiences (as we typically mean the term -- "subjective experiences") because they have no emotional/motivational system. Create such an entity and computers can then feel, and their thiking would be more akin to ours. We are only beginning to understand those emotional/motivational systems, though, so no one can speak in any great detail about them. We do know what happens when folks do not have properly working emotional systems -- they don't function very well. Cut out the entire mess of emotional systems and they are unconscious. Remove the ability to learn fear and they continually run the risk of falling to human predators. Remove the link between emotion and rational thought and they cannot function in the real world, cannot plan properly, cannot assign value to tasks, cannot work.

Thanks for your detailed answer, Ichneumonwasp.

In my attempt to parody Skinner's science of the nervous system, I invoked EEGs as reflecting actual thought. That this is, apparently, unsound I will apologize for. Just found the image of unprecedented EEG patterns a humorous way to pose a falsifiability of Skinner's proposition. And, following, the image of distorted and predictable EEGs a confirmation of Skinner's (apparent) tautology.

Couldn't help but notice that you appear more cautious than Skinner in your reply, qualifying your answer (twice) with the words "should theoretically" (bolded in your answer). This seems wise. To me, Skinner's "science" looks quite dogmatic with certainty (his words "will describe" and "shall know" bolded).

So I made fun of it. Soory if I, unnecessarily, ruffled some feathers.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Well, like I said, this is one of my pet peeves, so I tend to be a little harsh when it comes to misperceptions of EEG. Sorry. Even most physicians don't really know that much about it. I just don't want misinformation about EEG to propagate. Hans Berger, when he developed it, thought that EEG would be a graphical representation of human thought. He was wrong. It is what it is.

As for my reservations, I don't think I rightfully could assume any other position. When we get down to brass tacks, if we want to explain it all, we must take a final position -- is the nature of everything a monism, dualism, or moreism? I tend toward monism. Since monism is "one substance", I think most of the discussion about it is kind of silly. Whatever we say about it, everything must eventually collapse into a single view. Whether the single substance is material, mental, neutral, whatever I simply think we cannot know. I have yet to hear an argument that convinces me of any position. My own position is, therefore, "Meh".

The pseudo-intellectual way of putting this is that I think Plato did us all a great disservice outside of parlor room discussion. I think his attempt to reconcile Parmenides and Heraclitus by creating dualism sent us on a 2500 year wild goose chase. To my thinking it would have been much better had he simply said Parmenides described the totality and Heraclitus the inner workings of the totality.

Essentially all that Skinner is really saying is that there are rules that govern the stuff of existence. He says we will understand those rules. I think we might, but we might very well not, even if there are rules nonetheless. We should always keep in mind that the description of how those rules work is merely description and not the things themselves (or really more properly, the processes since when it comes to thinking and selves, etc, I don't think there are things precisely but processes and activities). That brains working constitute selves seems like a very sturdy foundation. Brains are just neurons working together. Neurons are cells. Cells are colonies of simpler organisms. Simpler organisms are conglomerations of chemicals. Chemicals are atoms linked together. Atoms are quarks and leptons. Quarks and leptons are possibly vibrating strings. Ultimately it all ends in energy. I haven't the slightest freaking idea what that word "energy" is supposed to represent. It all seems to follow rules and be some form of something that interacts with itself -- all the stuff of the universe, the internal workings of it, is based on interaction. Whether we call all that stuff "mental" or "material" or whatever to me just seems like placing a label on something that we don't completely understand. Everything else in these debates looks to me like wishful thinking.

Or, rather, all of these attempts to try and prove that "material" explanations for human thought will not work seem, to me, to fail. Individuals may not like the consequences of the "material approach", since it leads to the thought that we are not individuals from the "perspective" of the universe as a whole (we are merely relations within that universe), but I think there is a kind of grandeur in this view of life.

 

[chriswl]

Brains are just neurons working together. Neurons are cells. Cells are colonies of simpler organisms. Simpler organisms are conglomerations of chemicals. Chemicals are atoms linked together. Atoms are quarks and leptons. Quarks and leptons are possibly vibrating strings. Ultimately it all ends in energy. I haven't the slightest freaking idea what that word "energy" is supposed to represent. It all seems to follow rules and be some form of something that interacts with itself -- all the stuff of the universe, the internal workings of it, is based on interaction. Whether we call all that stuff "mental" or "material" or whatever to me just seems like placing a label on something that we don't completely understand.

I agree with everything else you've written here. But I can't accept that "mental" could be a good label for the basic stuff of the universe.

That would leave us with two sorts of mental:

1) the mind-stuff of which everything in the universe (even inanimae objects) is composed.
2) What goes on in the brains very complex creatures.

What would we be trying to say by using the same word for these two very different things?

The stuff that the universe is made out of is physical, because that's what "physical" means. That's all that physical means.

 

[hammegk]

The stuff that the universe is made out of is physical, because that's what "physical" means. That's all that physical means.

No, that means you accept materialism=Truth.

All you have to worry about is, for example, life, free-will, on up to and including HPC.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

That would leave us with two sorts of mental:

1) the mind-stuff of which everything in the universe (even inanimae objects) is composed.
2) What goes on in the brains very complex creatures.

What would we be trying to say by using the same word for these two very different things?

What would be trying to say by using the same word for these two very different things? Same thing we generally do in philosophy that Wittgenstein tried to correct -- cheat. Use language to tender magic.

Yes. I am very glad that you noticed that consequence, since that was one of my unspoken underlying points. Using this argument, if one accepts that rules govern whatever the original stuff is, means that human thought is not any more privileged than a rock (they are made of the same stuff; they simply act differently). If one accepts monism with rules governing the "behavior" of its "parts" there is only one consequence as far as free will is concerned -- from the perspective of the universe (the whole), no free will exists in the parts of the whole. Our way of thinking must be a consequence of the way that the uber-stuff interacts with itself no matter what its underlying nature. Or one must admit either that rocks think or that we are not real. There may be some entity that thinks reality, but that would be the only real entity -- the universe itself. Or one does what most people do -- deny dualism while grasping it closely to one's heart. If there is such a thing as libertarian free will it exists only in one being -- the universe. We can't possibly have it. Compatibilist free will, yes, we obviously have.

From our limited perspective I don't see that it makes all that much difference if we decide to view the universe as the dream of some uber-being or the interaction of the stuff we call energy. We're in the same boat regardless. And I don't see how we could tell the difference between the two possibilities. Yes, thought exists, but that only tells us something about how we know anything (by means of mental processes) not the ultimate nature of reality.

If one accepts monism, then Parmenides had it right more than 2500 years ago. Everything that we see is simply "illusion" compared to the Ultimate Reality and Heraclitus was the poet of that illusion.

 

[stillthinkin]

If one accepts monism, then Parmenides had it right more than 2500 years ago. Everything that we see is simply "illusion" compared to the Ultimate Reality and Heraclitus was the poet of that illusion.

*bump*
Thanks Ichneumonwasp, you seem something of a poet yourself...

So, where are the defenders of monism?

More to say... but it is late and I am overtired.