Freewill Revisited

[Subduction Zone]

So what you are saying is that you are just a mechanical man, that we are all just programmed robots who cannot make any choices. I know that is not true because I am very much aware of when I make a choice to do x or y or z. That does not mean I am free to choose to do anything I might want to do, since free will is constrained by many internal and external factors, but it means that I have some freedom to choose within certain parameters.

Please, did you not notice that in both of my posts I used the qualifier "may". There are those that argue seriously for a mechanistic universe. And of course if one believes that God is omnipotent and omniscient then by definition free will cannot exist either.

 

[Trailblazer]

Please, did you not notice that in both of my posts I used the qualifier "may". There are those that argue seriously for a mechanistic universe. And of course if one believes that God is omnipotent and omniscient then by definition free will cannot exist either.

Sorry, I missed the qualifier. It has been a bad day.
I have discussed this idea at length, that we cannot have free will because God is omnipotent and omniscient. It is complicated but there is an explanation as to how this works. I have discussed it so much that I have all kinds of write-ups on it. Maybe I will post one of those later.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sorry, I missed the qualifier. It has been a bad day.
I have discussed this idea at length, that we cannot have free will because God is omnipotent and omniscient. It is complicated but there is an explanation as to how this works. I have discussed it so much that I have all kinds of write-ups on it. Maybe I will post one of those later.

You probably get a lot of negative responses to that argument. That should tell you something.

 

[Nous]

For me to claim that I exist, have free will, I would need to define what that is and demonstrate that I fit the definition.

Would you like to know how to demonstrate the (or one) difference between a voluntary act and an involuntary bodily movement? Or would that be too troubling?

I'm assuming that your answer to my question was that you are the kind of thing that is unable to choose a true proposition rather than a false one in response to the question of whether you are able to choose your acts. If I am wrong about that, please say so. You know what "self-stultifying" means, don't you?

As codified in the Model Penal Code, criminal law is premised on the criterion that there is a distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements, and, further, that people are able engage in the former. Do you find that problematic?

 

[Nous]

Using the word choice to not exclude freewill in no way assumes any conclusion. Furthermore, I said nothing of the human mind alone. Jumping to conclusions doesn't help anyone.

I don't know what the hell is so difficult in what you have said so simply in two sentences here.

 

[Nous]

Sorry, I missed the qualifier. It has been a bad day.
I have discussed this idea at length, that we cannot have free will because God is omnipotent and omniscient. It is complicated but there is an explanation as to how this works. I have discussed it so much that I have all kinds of write-ups on it. Maybe I will post one of those later.

I never cared for the thesis of occasionalism.

 

[Curious George]

I don't know what the hell is so difficult in what you have said so simply in two sentences here.

@viole is a very intelligent poster. I do not think it is difficult. I think that freewill is one of those conversations wherein people assume much and draw conclusions based on conversation with other people regarding the subject.

I am no stranger to others misunderstanding me. I would give viole the benefit of the doubt here and assume that my phrasing could have improved. Nonetheless, after elaboration I hope my meaning is more clear.

 

[sealchan]

Would you like to know how to demonstrate the (or one) difference between a voluntary act and an involuntary bodily movement? Or would that be too troubling?

I will as soon as you can explain how to construct something that is capable of a voluntary act.

I'm assuming that your answer to my question was that you are the kind of thing that is unable to choose a true proposition rather than a false one in response to the question of whether you are able to choose your acts. If I am wrong about that, please say so. You know what "self-stultifying" means, don't you?

I had to look up self-stultifying...I can't objectively prove that I am responsible for my actions, but I try my best to be that way and present myself as such.

Sometimes I think I cultivate the impression of being self-stultifying.

As codified in the Model Penal Code, criminal law is premised on the criterion that there is a distinction between voluntary acts and involuntary bodily movements, and, further, that people are able engage in the former. Do you find that problematic?

Overall I accept it as a valuable component for society to make it a safer, more productive place. I think that, however, there are areas of abuse in that system which are being gradually addressed by advances in psychology and medicine as well as how we handle families with significantly levels of active abuse.

I fully accept the value of moral and legal laws and guidelines. I think that the human heart demands as much. But I am also talking about an objective science of free will and that I find much more problematic at this time.

Free will is poorly understood at this time so I see it more as a mythic idea rather than a rational one. I have argued previously/elsewhere of just how critical the idea is for modern civilization. You see mythic ideas seem like common sense to the people of their time, but when you try to understand them more deeply they become paradoxical and hard to describe. Free will and consciousness are the mythic ideas of this age.

 

[viole]

No, it is not obvious. I have assumed no conclusion.

But, following an algorithm an producing an output is not what we mean when we use the word choice. Were it true that humans simply followed an algorithm and produced an output then humans too would not choose.

The illusion of choice is not choice. Hence the words illusion of choice.

"Why should computers, as we might very well be a very advanced version thereof, cannot choose?"

I am struggling to understand this. I am assuming your question "why should computers cannot choose?" Means why should we conclude that computers do not choose? Well, concluding they can is an anthropomorphism which comes off as, ironically, anthropocentric. But, nothing a computer does is demonstrative of volition. It is indeed true that we may be just advanced versions of computers. But that changes nothing. I did not say that very advanced versions of computers cannot choose. My statement that computers do not choose was a contemporary one, and responsive to the context within which Sunstone was using the word.

Well, I am a compatibilist. That is, I can make sense of the concept of choice even under strict (algorithmic) determinism. For the same reason, sufficiently complex computers could also choose, since I do not think we are above Turing computability.

It is not so strange as it seems. I can also make sense of probability even under strict determinism. For instance, when I play roulette I calculate things as if it were purely random, which is not, fundamentally.

Which means, the ignorance about the functioning of our brain and the impossiblity to instrospect our mental states, does not give us a choice. Pun intended, lol.

So, in a sense saying that we do not choose, because of algorithms or determinism, is a bit like saying that water Is not wet, since single H2O molecules are not wet. And how can many non wet things make a wet one? Well, they can.

Ergo, I think we are committing a category error or applying concepts to the wrong level of abstraction.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

And of course if one believes that God is omnipotent and omniscient then by definition free will cannot exist either.

I disagree. There is no reason why free will cannot exist in the domain of an
omnipotent and omniscient God.

 

[sealchan]

Well, I am a compatibilist. That is, I can make sense of the concept of choice even under strict (algorithmic) determinism. For the same reason, sufficiently complex computers could also choose, since I do not think we are above Turing computability.

It is not so strange as it seems. I can also make sense of probability even under strict determinism. For instance, when I play roulette I calculate things as if it were purely random, which is not, fundamentally.

Which means, the ignorance about the functioning of our brain and the impossiblity to instrospect our mental states, does not give us a choice. Pun intended, lol.

So, in a sense saying that we do not choose, because of algorithms or determinism, is a bit like saying that water Is not wet, since single H2O molecules are not wet. And how can many non wet things make a wet one? Well, they can.

Ergo, I think we are committing a category error or applying concepts to the wrong level of abstraction.

Ciao

- viole

I had the idea, in response to this thread, that free will or agency, may be one of those systemic properties that arises in individual organisms with social awareness that can model the past and anticipate the future in themselves and others. The extent to which that ability exists is through a sort of mutual observation of differences between individual's responses to a given situation AND a group consensus that those differences are a result significantly of inner processes possessed by the individual. This gives rise to the perception of an agency above and beyond causality that is co-created by the individual and their social group.

Free will as an emergent phenomenon without "reductionistic" explanation based on the underlying physical systems.

 

[sealchan]

I disagree. There is no reason why free will cannot exist in the domain of an
omnipotent and omniscient God.

How can God know an outcome before it has been decided?

 

[viole]

I had the idea, in response to this thread, that free will or agency, may be one of those systemic properties that arises in individual organisms with social awareness that can model the past and anticipate the future in themselves and others. The extent to which that ability exists is through a sort of mutual observation of differences between individual's responses to a given situation AND a group consensus that those differences are a result significantly of inner processes possessed by the individual. This gives rise to the perception of an agency above and beyond causality that is co-created by the individual and their social group.

Free will as an emergent phenomenon without "reductionistic" explanation based on the underlying physical systems.

Well, for sure I am not sure how I could introduce novelty in the Universe, without breaking basic principles about the character of natural law.

Suppose I have the choice to kick a ball or not. No matter what I do, the final state of that ball was contained in the state of the Universe millions of years before my birth.

So, at that level, my choices are determined. However, I feel I can choose. And that is enough to make a working social system with accountability and such, that makes our genes prospers.

And what else is the meaning of life?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

@viole is a very intelligent poster. I do not think it is difficult. I think that freewill is one of those conversations wherein people assume much and draw conclusions based on conversation with other people regarding the subject.

I am no stranger to others misunderstanding me. I would give viole the benefit of the doubt here and assume that my phrasing could have improved. Nonetheless, after elaboration I hope my meaning is more clear.

You make me blush.

Ciao

- viole

 

[sealchan]

Well, for sure I am not sure how I could introduce novelty in the Universe, without breaking basic principles about the character of natural law.

Suppose I have the choice to kick a ball or not. No matter what I do, the final state of that ball was contained in the state of the Universe millions of years before my birth.

So, at that level, my choices are determined. However, I feel I can choose. And that is enough to make a working social system with accountability and such, that makes our genes prospers.

And what else is the meaning of life?

Ciao

- viole

Yes, but try to bring that determinism to a lab...and you will find that it may be impossible to reproduce or even calculate the outcome based on any conceivable type of mathematical formula or simulation due to non-linear feedback systems and their sensitivity to initial conditions. This creates a "faith" in determinism that cannot be strictly proven.

 

[Ponder This]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

So I've been a mess intellectually. All over the map. Normal reading has led me to meditation. Simple stuff. Stop for 5 minutes and focus on your breath... when you find yourself distracted and off on some tangent no judgement... just go back to the breath. Try to take control of what your mind focuses on. I want to focus on that time period... Five minutes.

I don't know about you but when I made real attempts at this my brain was so distracted. It stands to reason that those distractions influence our free will. For any serious people there are free meditation apps out there... headspace, waking up, others... I don't think you really need an app. So reading 21 lessons and this dude says he meditates two hours a day. Go back to five minutes.

I think we clearly don't have free will. You can make arguments that someone chose to do X, Y and Z and if only they were Catholic or Muslim they would have known better and chose differently. I agree in the sense that the people and environments we subject ourselves too and in that one sense we might have free will of some type but not the way most people think we do.

We seem to be products of our culture, genes and environment. I do not have any measurable control of any of those things so - its hard to argue I'm free.

I present to you two doors:
Door A and Door B.
I ask you to pick a door.
Questions:
Were you free to choose?
If not, what constrained your choice?

So, the dilemma of free will is that just because you are not aware of anything that constrains your choice does not mean that there are not things that constrain your choices. On the other hand, that isn't enough to say that your choice was not free.

Explanation One: You were free to choose.
Explanation Two: An additional entity constrained your choice.

Question: Is 'Free Will' a testable scientific hypothesis?
If yes, then we should be able to answer the question with science (to my knowledge this hasn't been done).
If no, then both explanations are equally valid from the point of view of science.

The simplest explanation (via Ockham's razor) is that no additional entities are involved, i.e. we have free will. so when you say that "I think we clearly don't have free will", I wonder what you actually mean by that.
(why mention Ockham's razor? because Legal Cases require justification for additional entities.)

Do you mean:
Not all my choices are free?
Some of my choices are free?
None of my choices are free?
I have no will?
I can't choose to do something that I don't want to do?
I read about a science experiment that proves we don't make decisions?

Because it is not 'clear' to me that we don't have 'free will', but you assert that it is clearly the case.

And so I think you may need to revisit the questions:
What constitutes a 'free choice'? What does it mean to exert my 'will'? And what does it mean to not exert my 'will' when I make (or don't make) a 'choice'?

 

[viole]

Yes, but try to bring that determinism to a lab...and you will find that it may be impossible to reproduce or even calculate the outcome based on any conceivable type of mathematical formula or simulation due to non-linear feedback systems and their sensitivity to initial conditions. This creates a "faith" in determinism that cannot be strictly proven.

Well, yes. So we have two choices

1) determinism and reversibility are true. With some extensions to accomodate QM. All scientific theories are based on that assumption and they deliver amazing results. It has even become the first test (unitarity) before a theory is taken seriously

2) determinism is not true because we do not like it or an ancient book written by ancient goat herders would fall apart with it

Mmh, difficult decision. Tricky. I will ponder about it during the weekend and let you know what is more rational.

And by the way. Not linear systems are eminently deterministic.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Tomas Kindahl]

I think we can choose to do things but I also believe we are not free to do what we want.

Does that make sense?

So I've been a mess intellectually. All over the map.

Of course, but that's not your fault. Let's just ignore the free-floating philosophical definitions of "free will" and examine what we want "free will" to really mean for us as individuals! Let's say we have a situation of choice and some alternatives are unavaliable to us because of societal or physical prohibitions, let's then say that the best choice is one of those unavailable alternatives, but there are multiple others that aren't. Then your description is true: we can choose between alternatives, but we aren't free to choose the best alternative because they aren't allowed.

The philosophical definitions of "free will" that we really don't need are:

1. free will is a random function (Darwin coined that definition for his models, but people didn't understand a sh*t and started to misuse the definition),
2. (judicial) free will is a term that mean we can blame individuals for their deeds, because of lack of any mitigating factor, such as insanity,
3. (theological) free will is an extension of (judicial) free will in order to blame individuals for what a (false) God is believed to be the ultimate case for.

 

[sealchan]

Well, yes. So we have two choices

1) determinism and reversibility are true. With some extensions to accomodate QM. All scientific theories are based on that assumption and they deliver amazing results. It has even become the first test (unitarity) before a theory is taken seriously

2) determinism is not true because we do not like it or an ancient book written by ancient goat herders would fall apart with it

Mmh, difficult decision. Tricky. I will ponder about it during the weekend and let you know what is more rational.

And by the way. Not linear systems are eminently deterministic.

Ciao

- viole

Rewrite 2) as determinism is not relevant because, like some ancient goat herders, we feel it essential to our sense of meaning and purpose to be, in some sense, masters of our destiny and keepers of our morality

And then I would say that both are true.

Non-linear systems are convincingly true (for me) but don't allow for a demonstration of their ability to predict. This may create perception issues for science as it tries to stake its claim in the realm of systemic phenomenon (which is vast territory). Lack of demonstrable or computable determinism may be a hard case to make to the credulous, so you have to be careful making the "best game in town" argument especially for those who think goat herder digest is better.

The trick might be in being able to create artificial examples of comparable capability (free will agents) which also do not have computably provable determinism. But in doing so you enter the realm of science fiction and AI and all the potential issues that brings up.

 

[viole]

Rewrite 2) as determinism is not relevant because, like some ancient goat herders, we feel it essential to our sense of meaning and purpose to be, in some sense, masters of our destiny and keepers of our morality

Is that an argument? Really? Our sense of meaning and purpose to be, in some sense, masters of our destiny and keepers of our morality is for you a good reason to infer that one of the most fundamental physical assumptions is wrong?

Are you sure? How is that not simple narcissistic anthropocentrism?

Aww, the poor great ape homo sapiens does not want to be a physical machine subject to the laws of physics. Otherwise it will lose all purpose and meaning.

What can I say? Man up. Or woman up. Or whatever up.

Non-linear systems are convincingly true (for me) but don't allow for a demonstration of their ability to predict. This may create perception issues for science as it tries to stake its claim in the realm of systemic phenomenon (which is vast territory). Lack of demonstrable or computable determinism may be a hard case to make to the credulous, so you have to be careful making the "best game in town" argument especially for those who think goat herder digest is better.

The trick might be in being able to create artificial examples of comparable capability (free will agents) which also do not have computably provable determinism. But in doing so you enter the realm of science fiction and AI and all the potential issues that brings up.

I told you, not linear systems are deterministic. Unpredictability does not refute determinism.

I am not sure why you even mentioned them, since they actually make my case.

Ciao

- viole