What is your stance on free will?

[Willamena]

As I have said before, the presence of "I" has no effect on the argument of freedom of will.

That depends on which argument you're making. The argument for libertarian free will requires agency and does not include influences.

Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gjallarhorn]

That depends on which argument you're making. The argument for libertarian free will requires agency and does not include influences.

Libertarianism (metaphysics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, but that is after validating that free will exists. Free will is fundamentally dependent on determinism vs. indeterminism, neither of which require agency.

 

[idav]

As I have said before, the presence of "I" has no effect on the argument of freedom of will.

"I" is the only place agency even becomes a factor. I agree that reducing "I" to mere particles and chemicals eliminates free will but "I" doesn't just go away. Humans are independent agents.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

"I" is the only place agency even becomes a factor. I agree that reducing "I" to mere particles and chemicals eliminates free will but "I" doesn't just go away. Humans are independent agents.

Independent impotent agents.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but that is after validating that free will exists. Free will is fundamentally dependent on determinism vs. indeterminism, neither of which require agency.

Determinism vs indeterminism is one argument, yes.

What do you mean by "validating that free will exists"? Wouldn't arguments then be a foregone conclusion?

 

[idav]

Free will is fundamentally dependent on determinism vs. indeterminism, neither of which require agency.

Free will would be dependent on indeterminism which should allow for our agency to determine. This can't be ruled out AFAIK.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Determinism vs indeterminism is one argument, yes.

What do you mean by "validating that free will exists"? Wouldn't arguments then be a foregone conclusion?

Free will would be dependent on indeterminism which should allow for our agency to determine. This can't be ruled out AFAIK.

To address these both at once: once free will has been established, one must explain the mechanics of free will. That is where agency comes into play. Indeterminism must be shown to allow for agency to be the dominant factor though, and it fails that test hard.

 

[idav]

Independent impotent agents.

Ouch, that stings a little.

Knowledge is power. Being more aware of our influences doesn't make freedom an illusion it makes freedom that much more attainable.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Ouch, that stings a little.

Knowledge is power. Being more aware of our influences doesn't make freedom an illusion it makes freedom that much more attainable.

Reaching something fundamentally non-existent means "more attainable" is a meaningless phrase.

 

[idav]

Indeterminism must be shown to allow for agency to be the dominant factor though, and it fails that test hard.

I agree it fails majority of the time but I don't think it needs to be dominant every time. All that's required is the potential. Humans could be a fluke of nature where just a minute possibility of freedom from determinism is enough to make differences. Obviously we are mostly our biology or influences or else people would be able to control themselves or the world a bit better. However it is within our means to take more control over influences.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I agree it fails majority of the time but I don't think it needs to be dominant every time. All that's required is the potential. Humans could be a fluke of nature where just a minute possibility of freedom from determinism is enough to make differences. Obviously we are mostly our biology or influences or else people would be able to control themselves or the world a bit better. However it is within our means to take more control over influences.

By what mechanism? How many atoms are necessary to form a neuron, and how many neurons are there in the brain?

At what point can a hand draw itself?

 

[Willamena]

To address these both at once: once free will has been established, one must explain the mechanics of free will. That is where agency comes into play. Indeterminism must be shown to allow for agency to be the dominant factor though, and it fails that test hard.

If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies that x preceded it. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Doesn't seem to refute agency as an "x."

 

[idav]

Reaching something fundamentally non-existent means "more attainable" is a meaningless phrase.

Who has more control over a pool table, an amateur or a pro knowing more of the subtleties and possibilities? Which one is more "impotent"? Knowledge is power is having control over the board.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

If x is a necessary cause of y, then the presence of y necessarily implies that x preceded it. The presence of x, however, does not imply that y will occur.

Doesn't seem to refute agency as an "x."

Indeterminism can be based on agency, or it can be based in fundamental randomness.

Who has more control over a pool table, an amateur or a pro knowing more of the subtleties and possibilities? Which one is more "impotent"? Knowledge is power is having control over the board.

Neither the amateur nor the pro have any control over causality, however.

And that's all we're discussing.

 

[Willamena]

At what point can a hand draw itself?

That part's easy: "now."

 

[idav]

By what mechanism?

Redundancy helps which is how Quantum Computer scientists were able to predict an undetermined outcome and could change parameters mid processing.

The implications are pretty awesome especially if our brain is much more complex.

Physicists correct quantum errors

edit: I meant physicists not Computer scientists but I am sure they are involved.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Redundancy helps which is how Quantum Computer scientists were able to predict an undetermined outcome and could change parameters mid processing.

The implications are pretty awesome especially if our brain is much more complex.

Physicists correct quantum errors

The question Penrose raises is whether the brain is "quantum" in the sense that large-scale structures in it maintain quantum interference effects. The Planck scale is not directly relevant for this issue.

It does not seem possible for Penrose to be right. The rate at which quantum interference effects are lost ("decoherence") is frequently measured for a variety of physical systems. In part, that's because people are now trying to build quantum computers which require keeping that decoherence rate low. One of the keys to reducing deoherence is to reduce the temperature. Another is to design physical variables which are only weakly coupled to their environment. the absolute temperature of the brain is more than 100 times that of typical quantum computational ingredients ("qbits"). No parts of the brain, including the microtubules discussed by Penrose, appear to be isolated from their warm aqueous environment.

Thus the brain is very far removed from the conditions required for any coherent quantum computation.

Q & A: Is the brain a quantum device? | Department of Physics | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

 

[Willamena]

...or it can be based in fundamental randomness.

I understood it to be based in fundamental probabilities.

Is fundamental randomness a possibility?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

I understood it to be based in fundamental probabilities.

Is fundamental randomness a possibility?

The difference is minimal. Both concepts are based in randomness, but one appears ordered on a wider scale.

So, yes.

 

[Willamena]

The difference is minimal. Both concepts are based in randomness, but one appears ordered on a wider scale.

So, yes.

It's not my understanding that probability is based in randomness.