Free Will

[Polymath257]

Okay, so you are choosing between competing desires or impulses; and we know what choice implies.

I would say that the stronger desire won out and I then call that a choice. But was that choice determined by my past and my environment or was it 'free'?

In choosing the more difficult of two options, one may have to overcome considerable internal resistance. Doing this requires a mindset we may describe as a conscious determination. You don’t need me to unpack the implications of that last sentence, I’m sure.

And that mindset is determined by previous experiences, thoughts, etc.

The question isn't one of agency, but of freedom. COULD I have made a different choice? More specifically, what would have had to change in my environment or my past for me to make a different choice?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Have you ever forced yourself to do something you really didn't want to do, just for exercise? It requires a considerable effort of will, does it not, to do something like swim in icy water, or climb a scaffold if you are afraid of heights? Experiences like these give us a visceral sense of the power of the will. Of course the experience could be illusory, but sometimes you have to trust in the veracity of lived experience.

You're describing conflicting imperatives coming from different brain centers, each of which are made of neurons functioning outside of consciousness until they deliver a message to consciousness. Suppose that you've got surgery tomorrow, and can't drink after midnight. You become a little dry, your hypothalamus, which measures plasma osmolality, reports the urge to drink to consciousness. Prefrontal neocortex sends a conflicting message to not drink, and you don't.

Many posters on this thread are calling that second neural center self even though it acts outside of consciousness generating what becomes conscious ideas. Two wills from two brain centers are in a tug of war and one prevails. Do we say that one is us but not the other. This is an arbitrary choice in my mind. The hypothalamus apparently doesn't enjoy free will, and we don't choose what it tells us to want, just whether to obey it or not.

So why is one piece of neural circuitry informing the self of its output considered part of the self and not the other? We can just as easily frame this as two pieces of brain opposing one another with one being stronger, and the self the passive observer of this. If we do, where's free will now? Even if we identify with the neocortex, what's free about the way it works before sending its output to consciousness?

 

[muhammad_isa]

And that mindset is determined by previous experiences, thoughts, etc.

The question isn't one of agency, but of freedom. COULD I have made a different choice? More specifically, what would have had to change in my environment or my past for me to make a different choice?

This is all hypothetical..
Is it fair and just that we are held to account for our actions/choices?
I say yes .. if we are of sound mind.

..and that is not because of the need to have laws to protect society,
but I believe that, however we make choices, we are 'free' in the sense that we are responsible for them.

The rest is all psycho-analytical and besides the point.

 

[Polymath257]

This is all hypothetical..
Is it fair and just that we are held to account for our actions/choices?
I say yes .. if we are of sound mind.

..and that is not because of the need to have laws to protect society,
but I believe that, however we make choices, we are 'free' in the sense that we are responsible for them.

The rest is all psycho-analytical and besides the point.

To you, perhaps. I find the question of responsibility to be beside the point. We can be held accountable even if we don't have free will.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You're describing conflicting imperatives coming from different brain centers, each of which are made of neurons functioning outside of consciousness until they deliver a message to consciousness. Suppose that you've got surgery tomorrow, and can't drink after midnight. You become a little dry, your hypothalamus, which measures plasma osmolality, reports the urge to drink to consciousness. Prefrontal neocortex sends a conflicting message to not drink, and you don't.

Many posters on this thread are calling that second neural center self even though it acts outside of consciousness generating what becomes conscious ideas. Two wills from two brain centers are in a tug of war and one prevails. Do we say that one is us but not the other. This is an arbitrary choice in my mind. The hypothalamus apparently doesn't enjoy free will, and we don't choose what it tells us to want, just whether to obey it or not.

So why is one piece of neural circuitry informing the self of its output considered part of the self and not the other? We can just as easily frame this as two pieces of brain opposing one another with one being stronger, and the self the passive observer of this. If we do, where's free will now? Even if we identify with the neocortex, what's free about the way it works before sending its output to consciousness?

You are making the assumption here that because consciousness registers in the brain, it must necessarily originate there. In other words, your claim is that electro magnetic activity in the central nervous system has priority over the mental processes associated with it, and not the other way round. You are arguing that matter has priority over mind, in effect. How do you support this claim?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

My situation is worse than that: I have no idea what it even means to have 'free will' and how it could be consistent with what we know about physics.

One good reason to not make many promises. And your assumption that I have no self-knowledge is wrong. I can make reasonable predictions of my future behavior and desires. I base what few promises I make on such predictions.

I don't consider it to be a lie if I am making a reasonable prediction of my future desires.

Hmm..I disagree with Dennett in this instance. Having an atom-by-atom description *does* give the causal description, even if it is in far more detail than is useful.

For example, suppose I have a gas at high pressure and I open a valve letting out the gas. the low level description is in terms of the motion of the individual molecules and it *does* give the reason that the gas leaves the chamber. BUT, there is also a simplified, higher level version in terms of pressure that *reduces* to the atomic description but is simpler for us to understand. the atomic level description is more accurate and detailed. The pressure description is simpler, but leaves out a lot of the details. BOTH are correct.

In the same way, an atomic level description of the brain *does* contain the information required to understand how and why a decision is made. And, in fact, it is more accurate than a higher level description in terms of consciousness and desires. The higher level description is a *simpified* version of the atomic description that leaves out a LOT of details in the interests of simplicity. Both are true, but the atomic is far more detailed and correct.

It does appear as if you approach this topic from a deterministic viewpoint, but I do not honestly believe that there are good reasons to accept determinism, as used in this debate, at face value. Certainly during the time of Newtonian physics it seemed like a good default, and we could say that "If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then you will get outcome O." But Newtonian physics has been replaced by Quantum Mechanics (and Relativity, which is not relevant to the discussion). And in Quantum Mechanics, "If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then there are two different possible outcomes, namely, O1 and O2; moreover, there’s a 50 percent chance that you’ll get outcome O1 and a 50 percent chance that you’ll get outcome O2."

Now, in that second experiment, we might be tempted to ask: "why did we get O1 and not O2?" And here's a sticky-point: QM does not answer that question in any way whatever. This is what Einstein railed against when he said, "God does not play dice with the universe." But many other physicists — Heisenberg and Bohr especially — disagreed. They thought that the quantum layer of reality was the bottom layer. And they thought that the fundamental laws of nature — or at any rate, some of these laws — were probabilistic laws. But if this is right, then it means that at least some physical events aren’t deterministically caused by prior events. It means that some physical events just happen. For instance, if Heisenberg and Bohr are right, then nothing caused us to get outcome O1 instead of O2; there was no reason why this happened; it just did.

 

[Polymath257]

You are making the assumption here that because consciousness registers in the brain, it must necessarily originate there. In other words, your claim is that electro magnetic activity in the central nervous system has priority over the mental processes associated with it, and not the other way round. You are arguing that matter has priority over mind, in effect. How do you support this claim?

By pretty much all of the evidence relating to how the brain functions, how damage to the brain affects mental processes, etc.

I am not saying that the activity of the brain has priority over the mental processes. I am saying that the mental processes are the same as brain activities, just a higher level description of the exact same thing.

What evidence can you give that there is something else involved?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

To you, perhaps. I find the question of responsibility to be beside the point. We can be held accountable even if we don't have free will.

How so? I can't hold either the cue ball or the target ball accountable for their trajectories -- only the operator of the cue.

 

[Polymath257]

It does appear as if you approach this topic from a deterministic viewpoint, but I do not honestly believe that there are good reasons to accept determinism, as used in this debate, at face value. Certainly during the time of Newtonian physics it seemed like a good default, and we could say that "If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then you will get outcome O." But Newtonian physics has been replaced by Quantum Mechanics (and Relativity, which is not relevant to the discussion). And in Quantum Mechanics, "If you have a physical system in state S, and if you perform experiment E on that system, then there are two different possible outcomes, namely, O1 and O2; moreover, there’s a 50 percent chance that you’ll get outcome O1 and a 50 percent chance that you’ll get outcome O2."

Now, in that second experiment, we might be tempted to ask: "why did we get O1 and not O2?" And here's a sticky-point: QM does not answer that question in any way whatever. This is what Einstein railed against when he said, "God does not play dice with the universe." But many other physicists — Heisenberg and Bohr especially — disagreed. They thought that the quantum layer of reality was the bottom layer. And they thought that the fundamental laws of nature — or at any rate, some of these laws — were probabilistic laws. But if this is right, then it means that at least some physical events aren’t deterministically caused by prior events. It means that some physical events just happen. For instance, if Heisenberg and Bohr are right, then nothing caused us to get outcome O1 instead of O2; there was no reason why this happened; it just did.

It seems to me that quantum mechanics only makes the problem of free will worse. Randomness isn't much better than determinism when it comes to freedom.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

It seems to me that quantum mechanics only makes the problem of free will worse. Randomness isn't much better than determinism when it comes to freedom.

Of course not! Remember the old "which ice-cream" argument. With randomness, it is no less likely than choosing either chocolate or vanilla, I instead elect to poke my right eye out!

That is why I am convinced we are missing something both very subtle, and very important.

 

[RestlessSoul]

By pretty much all of the evidence relating to how the brain functions, how damage to the brain affects mental processes, etc.

I am not saying that the activity of the brain has priority over the mental processes. I am saying that the mental processes are the same as brain activities, just a higher level description of the exact same thing.

What evidence can you give that there is something else involved?

Arguing that they are differing descriptions of the exact same thing, is not the same as arguing that the one is entirely reducible to the other.

But in any case, is the moon reflected in the water of a lake reducible to a rock in a space, or is it something equivalent but other? Which is more real, the moon, it’s reflection, the water, the light of the sun reflected between them all? And what substance do any of these things have, without an observer?

 

[nPeace]

The first quote is what you said. The second is what I'm replying to now. I wanted them in the reverse sequence but I'm still getting used to the new software. It'll do.

I gave the mathematical definition of "chaotic" to which the "butterfly affect" refers. Put more simply it's small changes having big effects. I don't see how what you said relates to that. The butterfly effect is not the same as any of the things you mention. You may mean "go[ing] contrary to what is expected". I suppose we could say that the butterfly effect can produce unexpected results but that's not how the phrase is typically used.

If it's any help, I don't see how it's related to what @ratiocinator was saying either.

I can understand your confusion, since you are applying it as you understand it, and only in that way.
However, the poster, who referred to it, was obviously applying it to the situation under discussion, so I applied it to that situation as well... as best I could.

the butterfly effect is derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a tornado (the exact time of formation, the exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations such as a distant butterfly flapping its wings several weeks earlier.

The butterfly effect concept has since been used outside the context of weather science as a broad term for any situation where a small change is supposed to be the cause of larger consequences.

Looking at it, from that perspective, I can relate to it, in the situation under discussion, and respond to it as I did.

 

[nPeace]

I was sticking to the topic. ALL of my questions directly relate to whether 'will' is, in fact, 'free'.

In other words, are your desires, wants, free?

Not true. Different children have different pasts.

Different pasts would be what... upbringing, personality traits - both inherited or learned. Yes?

The specifics and timing have a bearing on these things.

What was done to them, and how their makeup affected their responses, or reaction, etc. Yes?

Not all abused children have the same initial beliefs/desires/sensitivities, which means they all react differently to what they experience. Also, the experiences are not identical. So there is clearly enough variation to allow for decisions to be determined even if they are different in each individual. It is just that each individual is different in their initial conditions.

Are you saying that if the experience is the same, and the make up is almost identical, the results would be the same?
If no, what would cause the choices to be different?

And, precisely what happens when 'I' make a decision?

If scientists cannot even explain consciousness, and other complexities of the brain, why are you asking a regular person that question?
Do you know? Why is that important?

Exactly *how* is the choice determined by 'me'?

You use your brain which has stored knowledge, you gained through the senses tto weigh options on which you make a decision.

What is the mechanism? And, if there is no mechanism, what does it even mean to say that I determine my choice?

Please explain what you mean by mechanism.

 

[Alien826]

I can understand your confusion, since you are applying it as you understand it, and only in that way.
However, the poster, who referred to it, was obviously applying it to the situation under discussion, so I applied it to that situation as well... as best I could.

the butterfly effect is derived from the metaphorical example of the details of a tornado (the exact time of formation, the exact path taken) being influenced by minor perturbations such as a distant butterfly flapping its wings several weeks earlier.

The butterfly effect concept has since been used outside the context of weather science as a broad term for any situation where a small change is supposed to be the cause of larger consequences.

Looking at it, from that perspective, I can relate to it, in the situation under discussion, and respond to it as I did.

I agree with both the definitions you quote. That is exactly how I understand the butterfly effect. What I didn't understand was how you applied that to the home environment and the other things you listed. But this has already taken up more time and typing than it deserves, so let's drop it. What you intended to convey was perfectly clear.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

You are making the assumption here that because consciousness registers in the brain, it must necessarily originate there. In other words, your claim is that electro magnetic activity in the central nervous system has priority over the mental processes associated with it, and not the other way round. You are arguing that matter has priority over mind, in effect. How do you support this claim?

I don't see a reply to my comment here. You mentioned none of the points I made and answered none of the questions asked. But to address your post, my answer is that we treat mind as derivative of matter because we never see mind without brain. Matter appears to be necessary for mind. One can imagine other metaphysices (idealism, neutral monism), but they add no explanatory or predictive power.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I would say that the stronger desire won out and I then call that a choice. But was that choice determined by my past and my environment or was it 'free'?


And that mindset is determined by previous experiences, thoughts, etc.

The question isn't one of agency, but of freedom. COULD I have made a different choice? More specifically, what would have had to change in my environment or my past for me to make a different choice?

There may be no way of answering that question conclusively. And so we arrive at a point where what is required of us, is a leap of faith. Do we choose to believe that, complex web of interacting influences on us notwithstanding, there is always an element of choice available to us; or do we - this anyway, is how it looks to me - succumb to existential despair and consider our entire existence to be determined by external, historical, factors?

It seems to me that there is a compromise here. While I may be the "Master of my fate, and the captain of my soul", I have no control the winds or tides; so I must reach an agreement with the world. I neither seek to impose my will upon it, nor succumb entirely to outrageous fortune.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, but going through the exact same abuse is impossible, if for no other reason than no two children are in the exact same place at all times. There are *always* differences and those differences can, because of sensitive dependence on conditions, lead to very different behavior.

No. If that were true, they could not pick a number of individuals to carry out experiment. There are billions of people in the world, and thousands have common experiences, and suffer similarly.
It is not only possible. It is reality.
If you look hard enough, you will find such persons.
Even on social media, and sites inviting you to write in for advice, we see more than one person saying, I have the same exact problem, and experienced the same situation.

So, if everything were to be replayed *exactly* the same way, from conception through to adulthood, would the choices be the same?

Of course. I answer that way, based on the fact that we observe that to be the case.

Could they even potentially be different?

They actually are.
How many cases have there been, where that has been the case. Millions.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, my brain. And what drives my brain? The sum of all interactions my brain has had together with how it simulates how to do things.

From what i can see, *I* am the working of my brain. I 'choose' because my brain weighs the possibilities and computes the one to do.

The sum of all interactions my brain has had together with how it simulates how to do things.
So everything you do is subconscious?

 

[muhammad_isa]

We can be held accountable even if we don't have free will..

Of course we can..
..but would that be fair and just?

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Of course not! Remember the old "which ice-cream" argument. With randomness, it is no less likely than choosing either chocolate or vanilla, I instead elect to poke my right eye out!

That is why I am convinced we are missing something both very subtle, and very important.

Further to this: Quantum Mechanics makes it perfectly possible that much of classical physics works as always, in terms of cause and effect. But it also allows for events that appear to be causa sui, or self-caused. Do you agree? Well, why would we assume that the brain could not also generate a new idea in the same fashion? If quantum mechanics works anywhere, I've little doubt that the brain itself is fertile ground for it.

Otherwise, how on earth could we explain creativity? (And as a long-time lover of the arts, and the sciences, I have zero doubt that creativity is something that we humans do!). And creativity doesn't necessarily mean the generation of a completely new idea out of nothing -- it could be as simple as exciting a single neuron to make a connection between two presumably unrelated things, leading to a new narrative.

Maybe the "will" itself is not free -- in that it must choose between potentially workable alternatives -- but couldn't one or more of those alternatives be completely new, created causa sui as I just decribed?

In that sense, my "will" might not be totally free -- but I am.