Free Will Vs Determinism

[ratiocinator]

What do you mean? I am not talking of interpretation. I am talking of the experimental conditions.

Experimenters intention to install or not to install a camera does influence behaviour. Do you contest this fact?

Only to the same extent that if I decide to pick something up and throw it, that influences whether it flies through the air or not.

 

[Nakosis]

This is the topic that I find the hardest to try and talk my way through. First, let me say this: "I have free will." That means that, in terms of my own decision making, I am absolutely not a determinist of any kind.

But the question becomes "why not?" Why am I not a determinist. I can see the arguments that say, if I know absolutely everything about the state of every element of the universe at any given moment, with sufficient resources I can calculate everything that happens afterwards. But that argument leaves something out -- and that something left out is "is there anything else happening?"

So, let's look at an amplifier. An amp is a simple device -- it has access to some sound (through a microphone, say), and a power source, and some simple circuits that take the received sound, bump it up by using power provided by the power source, and produces, through speakers, a bigger sound. Simple, really.

But what if your speaker and mic are side by side, and there's no circuitry to stop them interacting. For those of us old enough to have played with these things trying to learn electronics, we know it well....there's a sudden horrible SCRREEECHH! noise, and then some of your equipment burns out!

The problem is, we ignored the power source. The mic feeds a bit of sound to the amp, the power source boosts it, the speakers emit it, the mic hears it, the power source boost it, the speakers emit it....and meltdown.

This is an issue having a great deal to do with feedback. And this is where I think that we can find free will in ourselves.

To begin, I think that the very notion of "self," or of consciousness, if you will, is caused by feedback in regions of the brain -- that it is an "emergent" feature of that feedback. And what I see happening as a result is that, the moment that there is even a faint sense of "I" (that I exist and am thinking), then the incredibly complex, interwoven, and certainly feedback-prone brain gets something added -- that "emergent" I. That's the power source that changes all the rules. That's the component that takes the upwelling urge for chocolate ice cream and squashes it with the remembrance of our increasing waistline and interest in the boy next store, and changes that urge to salad and water.

I know I'll never get this explanation right, in such a short space. The idea is too complex. But I'm also convinced that in some way I am onto something important. Tragically, I don't have the intelligence, training or wit to explain it better.

I think I have a similar view.

For example, you are standing on a cliff. What happens next is not determined until you make a decision. At the point where a decision is to be made nothing has been determined yet. When one makes a decision there is a lot of feedback that happens during that process.

Memory/experience is looked at. One can take a past event and alter events or past choices and think through how the outcome of past events could have been different. That gets fed back in. One can imagine the future, possible consequences which are likely to happen depending on the decision made.

Because of the ability to imagine alternate pasts and or futures, the reason or rationale for your choice need not have any connection to the actual past. therefore the actual past does not need to be causal in your decision. An imagined past or an imagined future is the cause of your decision.

Until you went through the mental process of imagining different possible past and future outcomes and fed the information you created back into your decision process, the outcome can not be determined. These scenarios which you imagined did not exist until you created them at the moment a decision is to be made.

 

[Skwim]

You have only 2 options everything always existed and only forms change, nothing existed and some random event started everything. Pick one and I'll show you how determinism won't work. If you want to say the universe was nothing but started with a determine event, that means an itelligence always existed to create the determined event, which is the same as saying everything always existed.

This is like bringing up abiogenesis in a discussion about evolution, it's irrelevant. But, I'll bite. How about showing me why determinism won't work if some singular random event started it all.

.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I think I have a similar view.

For example, you are standing on a cliff. What happens next is not determined until you make a decision. At the point where a decision is to be made nothing has been determined yet. When one makes a decision there is a lot of feedback that happens during that process.

Memory/experience is looked at. One can take a past event and alter events or past choices and think through how the outcome of past events could have been different. That gets fed back in. One can imagine the future, possible consequences which are likely to happen depending on the decision made.

Because of the ability to imagine alternate pasts and or futures, the reason or rationale for your choice need not have any connection to the actual past. therefore the actual past does not need to be causal in your decision. An imagined past or an imagined future is the cause of your decision.

Until you went through the mental process of imagining different possible past and future outcomes and fed the information you created back into your decision process, the outcome can not be determined. These scenarios which you imagined did not exist until you created them at the moment a decision is to be made.

Well put!

Of course, the determinists will say that all that "imagining" was also pre-ordained by the past, but I simply cannot bring myself to accept that. I do not accept the workings of the mind as behaving in a "particle-like" way at all.

 

[Skwim]

First, I need to differentiate our world-views, so that readers may understand what I am saying. Both of us probably believe that our actions ultimately can be reduced to the first cause. Which means that both of us ascribe to determinism.

But in your case the first cause is related to the non phenomenal material ultimates and their interactions from a time past -- billions of years past. The material ultimates are characterised by mass, charge, momentum etc., but supposedly magically they have given rise to phenomenality. In your account, this, happens mechanistically and therefore on account of cause and effect no action of ours can be of free volition. Any and all actions are therefore fully caused.

If that is the case, then how do we do science? Is there any meaning in any enquiry process? As another poster asked, If I were to give you a compelling evidence:

• would you recognize it as such?
• would you change your position?
• how would you know?

I think that hard determinism is self refuting. If our discussion and the result thereof was pre-determined at Big Bang, why we discuss? Why you discuss and raise this point? What will be will be. What is our role? What is legal system doing?

OTOH, in my worldview, consciousness: the ability to discern constitute the ontological primitive. In this case also, whatever transpires at the root consciousness level comes to pass and hence human conditions are pre-determined.

But in this case, the ontological primitive is not separated by time-space from the self. Consciousness is true NOW and HERE. So, I understand that self determination can range from pure unconscious instinctive desire driven reactions, which have binding consequences (on one hand) to self-less freedom (on the other hand). Example of first case can be an animal and example of the second case can be a Buddha. Spanning these two extremes, lie most of our actions which are governed by three factors in combination: deterministic cause-effect, random chance, and self effort.

At all stages, humans are free to employ self determination, with lesser or greater freedom. If this freedom was not available, we should not expect that we could ever rationally argue and change view. If there was no freedom, then science would be meaningless.

The fact that in double slit experiment our conscious intention can change the behaviour of photons passing through slits is the most prominent evidence that our intention matters. Plasticity of brain and our ability to change brain structures is another evidence.

There are many evidences that constitute incontrovertible proof that our consciousness (competence to discern) is not mechanism and hence not subject to determinism. OTOH, our body-mind (memory, I sense, feelings and intellect) are born of mechanism and are thus subject to determinism.

In consciousness first ontology, there is the universal non dual consciousness and there are particular consciousnesses. Metaphorically, this may be seen as a river (universal) with its many whirlpools (particulars). At body-mind level, one has some freedom over the local particular consciousness. We can decide to construct a house and a house will likely come up. But one has the potential to gain mastery over both the local and the universal consciousness, - a la Buddha or like any self realised yogi.

So, I repeat, in my understanding, self determination can range from pure unconscious instinctive desire driven reactions, which have binding consequences (on one hand) to self-less freedom (on the other hand). Example of first case can be an animal and example of the second case can be a Buddha. Spanning these two extremes, lie most of our actions which are governed by three factors in combination: deterministic cause-effect, random chance, and self effort.

Note: One may wish to see Idealism offers a more comprehensive and more parsimonious explanation of reality than materialism (posts 81 and later) for a record of diverse evidences that favour the consciousness first ontology.

...

Thanks for taking the time to reply, but honestly, there are so many interlocking concepts that need to be explained I would be here all day, and I just don't have the time or inclination to do it. But I do appreciate your effort.

.

 

[Skwim]

Your logic is brain damaged. Sorry.

Now that's quite an argument. An ad hominem fallacy to be sure, but if that's all you have, then that's all you have.

.

 

[Enoch07]

And....? Psychologists make a living trying to understand why do that sort of thing. You seem to be confusing determinism with rationality.

No, you are misunderstanding the example. It's not about rationality. The example is to show that people can/will chose options that are detrimental to themselves.

Determinism just isn't consistent enough to hold water for me. For instance drug addicts. They come in all forms poor, rich, black, white etc etc. Some are abuse victims, some are not, some were poor then became rich, some were rich then became poor, some get clean, some don't. In order to prove determinism you would have to prove a consistent line that steered all these folks into becoming an addict, and why some get clean but not others at the same time. I don't see how this is possible without free will to make choices that go against your nature/nuture/experiences.

 

[atanu]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, but honestly, there are so many interlocking concepts that need to be explained I would be here all day, and I just don't have the time or inclination to do it. But I do appreciate your effort.
.

Well.

In short, brain plasticity and observer effect, especially as evidenced in double slit experiment, are two examples of how determinism is not binding.

How about showing me why determinism won't work if some singular random event started it all.
.

I tried to answer this. In short, if we presume philosophical materialism world view, hard determinism would prevail. Yes.

But that world view need not be the correct world view.

...

 

[atanu]

I think I have a similar view.

For example, you are standing on a cliff. What happens next is not determined until you make a decision. At the point where a decision is to be made nothing has been determined yet. When one makes a decision there is a lot of feedback that happens during that process.

Memory/experience is looked at. One can take a past event and alter events or past choices and think through how the outcome of past events could have been different. That gets fed back in. One can imagine the future, possible consequences which are likely to happen depending on the decision made.

Because of the ability to imagine alternate pasts and or futures, the reason or rationale for your choice need not have any connection to the actual past. therefore the actual past does not need to be causal in your decision. An imagined past or an imagined future is the cause of your decision.

Until you went through the mental process of imagining different possible past and future outcomes and fed the information you created back into your decision process, the outcome can not be determined. These scenarios which you imagined did not exist until you created them at the moment a decision is to be made.

Nicely explained. But if our ability to ‘imagine’ is tied solely to ‘physical mechanism’ then is it not subject to hard determinism? If not, then why?

...

 

[atanu]

Only to the same extent that if I decide to pick something up and throw it, that influences whether it flies through the air or not.

In your example, you are physically intervening. In double slit experiment, you are not physically interacting with ‘the photons’ yet influencing the outcome.

...

 

[shunyadragon]

I agree with @Skwim on the fact that to have Free will you need randomness, I disagree with his statement that everything need to be random. As for random acts they don't have to be big but should be fairly frequent. For example the random mutations that drive evolution. We do know that in life, it is randomness that drives growth. As @Skwim has said we also have found randomness in the quantum world. The quantum world is present in our mind. All life had to do was to evolve a method of using this randomness and Will becomes available. I do not believe in Free will but the Will to stop. Deterministic forces drives us to a choice and we have the ability to not take that path. Once a random act is done or created it becomes reality, it can not be undone. This does not mean the random act or creation is not random it just means it is now apart of creation. This is why people can't find the random act or creation because it is part of reality for all to see.

The problem is this randomness that @Skwim describes does not exist whether there is free will or not.

Randomness does not cause anything. If it is exists, which it does not as described, it is just observed variable that has no known cause. Randomness only applies as defined to the outcome of individual events with many variables, but still the range of possible outcomes is constrained by the laws of nature. The possible variations in the outcome of individual cause and effect events is explained by Chaos Theory as fractal.

Using it in this discussion has no meaning and it is a ruze.

 

[ratiocinator]

No, you are misunderstanding the example. It's not about rationality. The example is to show that people can/will chose options that are detrimental to themselves.

Why do you think acting in a way that is detrimental to themselves is in any way inconsistent with determinism?

Determinism just isn't consistent enough to hold water for me. For instance drug addicts. They come in all forms poor, rich, black, white etc etc. Some are abuse victims, some are not, some were poor then became rich, some were rich then became poor, some get clean, some don't. In order to prove determinism you would have to prove a consistent line that steered all these folks into becoming an addict, and why some get clean but not others at the same time. I don't see how this is possible without free will to make choices that go against your nature/nuture/experiences.

However the mind works it is incredibly complicated (and probably chaotic in the mathematical sense, i.e. subject to the butterfly effect) so dismissing determinism because we can't work out all the causes doesn't work.

The notion of "free will" is often incoherent. If the mind isn't fully deterministic, the only alternative is that it involves some element that is random (or at least pseudo-random, with respect to the mind). If some choice it not fully defined by its antecedents, then some element of that choice is not because of any of its antecedents, which means it is (pseudo-random). There is no magical third option of "free will".

 

[ratiocinator]

In your example, you are physically intervening. In double slit experiment, you are not physically interacting with ‘the photons’ yet influencing the outcome.

Of course you're physically intervening, you are changing the physical setup. You do have to set up something that interacts with the photons to extract the "what way" information. Quantum effects are counter-intuitive but that doesn't make consciousness any more significant. If you put a brick in a stream, you'll change the way the water flows. There is no fundamental difference with putting a detector in a double slit experiment.

 

[Enoch07]

Why do you think acting in a way that is detrimental to themselves is in any way inconsistent with determinism?

Just doesn't add up for me.

However the mind works it is incredibly complicated (and probably chaotic in the mathematical sense, i.e. subject to the butterfly effect) so dismissing determinism because we can't work out all the causes doesn't work.

Until it can be proven, which it can't, then I'm not gonna hold it in kuch regard.

If the mind isn't fully deterministic, the only alternative is that it involves some element that is random (or at least pseudo-random, with respect to the mind).

The alternative isn't random imo. I just don't think we are able to understand what it is though, yet.

 

[ratiocinator]

Just doesn't add up for me.
...
Until it can be proven, which it can't, then I'm not gonna hold it in kuch regard.

Just personal incredulity, then.

The alternative isn't random imo. I just don't think we are able to understand what it is though, yet.

That would be a contradiction. You can't have some event happening that isn't entirely the result of its antecedents without introducing something that isn't due to the antecedents, so is due to nothing (or at least nothing relevant to the event), which means random (with respect to the event).

 

[Enoch07]

That would be a contradiction.

Not necessarily, like I said, I just don't think we are even capable of understanding it yet.

 

[bobhikes]

Thanks for taking the time to reply, but honestly, there are so many interlocking concepts that need to be explained I would be here all day, and I just don't have the time or inclination to do it. But I do appreciate your effort.

.

Sorry I've been busy and changed my mind, I've challenged you in the past and realized I have no new material, so its not worth going forward. Sorry again but I am busy this week.

 

[ratiocinator]

Not necessarily...

I gave an argument as to why not deterministic means that randomness is involved. Either the mind is a deterministic system* or it isn't.

To look at it another way, if we could rewind time to a choice (so that everything was exactly the same), either it's possible that we could have made a different choice, or it isn't. If it is, there is randomness involved and if it isn't, we have determinism.

* "...a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state."

 

[Nakosis]

Nicely explained. But if our ability to ‘imagine’ is tied solely to ‘physical mechanism’ then is it not subject to hard determinism? If not, then why?

...

Well I don't know one way or the other, though I tend to see it as hardware and software like a computer system. The hardware only provides a platform for the software to exist. The software can run on many different types of platforms. Some hardware is faster, some slower.

So even though the software needs the hardware to run, it is still somewhat independent.

Software can do a lot, although the hardware does have some limitations. Depending on the creativity of the programmer what is possible is almost limitless. At least we don't know are have reach the limits.

No one see the existence of software, mind, as supernatural. Whatever provides consciousness for us. We experience the reality of consciousness. The brain or the central nervous system is the hardware. The mind, like with software may need the CNS to operate, but we don't know, haven't reached it's limitations yet.

 

[atanu]

Well I don't know one way or the other, though I tend to see it as hardware and software like a computer system. The hardware only provides a platform for the software to exist. The software can run on many different types of platforms. Some hardware is faster, some slower.

So even though the software needs the hardware to run, it is still somewhat independent.

Software can do a lot, although the hardware does have some limitations. Depending on the creativity of the programmer what is possible is almost limitless. At least we don't know are have reach the limits.

No one see the existence of software, mind, as supernatural. Whatever provides consciousness for us. We experience the reality of consciousness. The brain or the central nervous system is the hardware. The mind, like with software may need the CNS to operate, but we don't know, haven't reached it's limitations yet.

I agree with the metaphor to a large extent. However, since the hardware-software metaphor leaves room for mind-body problem to remain unsolved, I lean towards non dualism.