Are randomness and free-will compatible concepts?

[Descartz2000]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

 

[Pythagorean]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

Randomness doesn't require acting as it's own first cause.

 

[apeiron]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause.

Name some action you have decided upon that was not embedded within a context of experience.

Free-will is just what we call the state of being so conscious of that context - all the things we could do, should do, would be best to do - that we are also crisply conscious of the converse. So it is a hyper-non random state I would have thought. Our choices could not be more contextualised, more constrained by thoughts about outcomes and consequences.

In other words, our consciously willed actions are not simply triggered (which can be the case for skilled habits and automaticisms) but complexly caused, weighted by a landscape of information.

 

[JoeDawg]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause.

I'd say that is highly problematic.
Freewill, requires knowledge of the past, in order for their to be a choice. You can't make a choice without facts.
And random is pretty much, by defintion, not-caused. So referring to as a first cause is self-contradicting.

The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes?

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/

 

[Ferris_bg]

The major difference between the two is that free will depends only on information thus having some purpose and randomness lacks these two.

 

[Descartz2000]

Randomness doesn't require acting as it's own first cause.

In a sense I think that true randomness must act as its' own first cause. If we are talking about an acausal event, and there is no cause, then we are led into a paradox of there being an action, but without an initiator (a cause of some kind). If there are no variables or conditions to bring about the event, then why would the event ever emerge? If we don't want to accept that such phenomena is mystical, and occurs without logic, initial conditions, or causes, then we must turn to something like the action or event being its own first cause. I think abandoning classical logic is a mistake. I would say interpretations of first causes are in error too.

 

[Descartz2000]

Name some action you have decided upon that was not embedded within a context of experience.

Free-will is just what we call the state of being so conscious of that context - all the things we could do, should do, would be best to do - that we are also crisply conscious of the converse. So it is a hyper-non random state I would have thought. Our choices could not be more contextualised, more constrained by thoughts about outcomes and consequences.

In other words, our consciously willed actions are not simply triggered (which can be the case for skilled habits and automaticisms) but complexly caused, weighted by a landscape of information.

I do think that our consciously willed actions are simply caused by information , but this comes in many forms (genes, environment, experience, , etc). The process is not random in any way. I just think that in principle, to have 'free will' (choice to do otherwise), requires the mind or 'will' to be the first cause of biological processes. It seems more likely it is the other way around, the bio processes within the brain and body are the first cause of the resulting mind.

 

[fdesilva]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

Determinism leads to order, or is recognised by order. Randomness is expected to lead to disorder. Free will is ordering of random events in the predominantly deterministic framework to bring about outcomes, that is not predictable.

 

[wofsy]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

I think it would be impossible to know if anything is truly random.

Randomness can depend on initial conditions. The evolution of a distribution can depend on its initial distribution. If there were no initial distribution it would be hard to know how it could exist.

Could one also ask in the same way whether determinism can really exist?

Determinism can emerge from randomness - I think.

What does free will mean? It certainly involves choice but choice within a context. Maybe it boils down to what is the will.

 

[wofsy]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

Your thread question has me thinking a lot. I'm happy that you posed it.

Maybe what you are asking is related to one of Zeno's paradox's - not the one of Achilles and the Tortoise but the one of the arrow in flight. As I remember it the question is: 'Since at each moment in time the arrow just is where it is in space how then can we say that it is moving?' So movement like your idea of free will and randomness has no antecedent in itself.

 

[apeiron]

So movement like your idea of free will and randomness has no antecedent in itself.

Or rather - given Newton's inertia and Einstein's relativity - all local action requires a global framing context, whether you want to call it random, determined or willed.

 

[Descartz2000]

Your thread question has me thinking a lot. I'm happy that you posed it.

Maybe what you are asking is related to one of Zeno's paradox's - not the one of Achilles and the Tortoise but the one of the arrow in flight. As I remember it the question is: 'Since at each moment in time the arrow just is where it is in space how then can we say that it is moving?' So movement like your idea of free will and randomness has no antecedent in itself.

I think it is similar to free will and randomness. It seems that truly free willed actions argue for no dependence on prior states, the same can be stated about truly random events, and the same goes for Zeno's arrow too. If there is no movement or acceleration of the arrow within each moment or static state, then there is no resulting outcome that has dependence on previous states of the arrow, as there is no change or movement within each moment.

 

[baywax]

I have often thought that 'true' randomness and free-will are similar in the sense that neither require previous state dependence, but both do require acting as their own 1st cause. The question is: How then might someone talk about either existing, without being led into paradoxes? (Randomness: no causal history, no dependence on initial conditions). If the two could ever be refuted, does this lead one in the direction of superdeterminism?

We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).

 

[Descartz2000]

I think it would be impossible to know if anything is truly random.

Randomness can depend on initial conditions. The evolution of a distribution can depend on its initial distribution. If there were no initial distribution it would be hard to know how it could exist.

Could one also ask in the same way whether determinism can really exist?

Determinism can emerge from randomness - I think.

What does free will mean? It certainly involves choice but choice within a context. Maybe it boils down to what is the will.

But, how can a 'truly random' event or outcome depend on its initial distribution? Unless information is unavailable in principle (for example: position and velocity), then in theory why would a future state of that event not be deterministic (at least in principle), but at the same time unpredictable? On the macro scale - events from Chaos are based on initial conditions, unpredictable, deterministic, and not truly random. It would seem that any time we introduce known (and even unknown) initial conditions, we find ourselves arguing for deterministic (in principle) events.

 

[Descartz2000]

We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).[/QUOTE

I like your view on balance and physics. Would you say there is a tit-for-tat logic among all events? If so, then is true randomness an illusion?

 

[baywax]

We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).[/QUOTE

I like your view on balance and physics. Would you say there is a tit-for-tat logic among all events? If so, then is true randomness an illusion?

I wouldn't go so far as to assign logic to any of the processes. It can be viewed as logical but that doesn't make it logical. I would gander a guess that true randomness may have been more prevalent toward the beginning of this universe. But, this sort of randomness is the kind that produces laws. After the BB, trial by error contributed to the order we see today. I think Chaos theory looks into the interconnectedness of everything.

I'm not saying we are necessarily a result of a "sequence" of events. Each of us is more like the strand in a web of states and phenomena that would begin to unravel if we were to veer in any direction other than what is required to maintain the balance of the universe. This is how the universe has come to adapt to its own existence through evolutionary trials and errors.

 

[GeorgCantor]

There is no way we have free will.

Materialism cannot account for free will and it is very unlikely that it will ever account for free will as a matter of fact. Had materialism been the true description of reality, then you'd be forced to acknowledge that either we don't have free will(which is ludicrous) or that free will is supernatural. With the gradual fall of materialism, free will might be easier to explain(though in a wider context, we'd still be pretty much in the dark).

We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles

I don't think many people would agree that free will and consciousness/awareness is the result of quantum potentials. If anything, it seems to me to be the opposite. No one knows what free will is and how it comes about, so i will not make definite statements, but free will as in free from the laws of the universe sounds somewhat supernatural. Denying the existence of free will seems way too absurd to me. Where would the illusion of free will be coming from?

we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

You deny that there is an "I" and i find that very unreasoanble.

I like your view on balance and physics. Would you say there is a tit-for-tat logic among all events? If so, then is true randomness an illusion?

I also don't believe in uncaused randomness, but free will seems to require a wholly new scientific approach. If it can't be deduced from constituent parts, then reductionism is probably the wrong tool towards free will. It could be that free will is primary/fundamental or it can simply be incomprehesible to the human way of reasoning. I have seen no evidence so far that we have no free will. The fact that we are holding this discussion is a very good testament that there is an "I" that has free will. Or are you saying we are not having a discussion and that is another illusion by the chain of events that started in the distant past?

 

[apeiron]

But, how can a 'truly random' event or outcome depend on its initial distribution? Unless information is unavailable in principle (for example: position and velocity), then in theory why would a future state of that event not be deterministic (at least in principle), but at the same time unpredictable?

There are many popular misconceptions about randomness (and determinism). An excellent recent paper on the nature of statistical models is...

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3507

In particular, it shows how a collection of individually non-random processes will produce "random", or rather neutral, statistical behaviour.

The random vs determinism philosophical argument is a hangover from the shocks of 17th century science and maths - Descartes, Cardano, LaPlace. Modern thinking has moved on from these simplicities.

 

[baywax]

Materialism cannot account for free will and it is very unlikely that it will ever account for free will as a matter of fact. Had materialism been the true description of reality, then you'd be forced to acknowledge that either we don't have free will(which is ludicrous) or that free will is supernatural. With the gradual fall of materialism, free will might be easier to explain(though in a wider context, we'd still be pretty much in the dark).




I don't think many people would agree that free will and consciousness/awareness is the result of quantum potentials. If anything, it seems to me to be the opposite. No one knows what free will is and how it comes about, so i will not make definite statements, but free will as in free from the laws of the universe sounds somewhat supernatural. Denying the existence of free will seems way too absurd to me. Where would the illusion of free will be coming from?





You deny that there is an "I" and i find that very unreasoanble.




I also don't believe in uncaused randomness, but free will seems to require a wholly new scientific approach. If it can't be deduced from constituent parts, then reductionism is probably the wrong tool towards free will. It could be that free will is primary/fundamental or it can simply be incomprehesible to the human way of reasoning. I have seen no evidence so far that we have no free will. The fact that we are holding this discussion is a very good testament that there is an "I" that has free will. Or are you saying we are not having a discussion and that is another illusion by the chain of events that started in the distant past?

Hello Georg

I wrote most of what you have quoted here.

That is, the combination of the many states and events that I am has written it.

Whether I had any choice to write this or not is not the point. I wrote it. Its a done deal. There is no other way that could have turned out... and the proof of this lies in the fact that it is already written.

You can question whether I wrote from a state of free will but it is difficult to prove if it was an act of freewill or an act of predetermined eventuality. The process of proving either of these methods of arriving at my writing would entail a complete forensic examination of the conditions of the entire universe at the time of my decision to write it and a comprehensive excavation of all the influences on my decision, past, present and future.

 

[GeorgCantor]

Hello Georg

I wrote most of what you have quoted here.

That is, the combination of the many states and events that I am has written it.

Whether I had any choice to write this or not is not the point. I wrote it. Its a done deal. There is no other way that could have turned out... and the proof of this lies in the fact that it is already written.

You can question whether I wrote from a state of free will but it is difficult to prove if it was an act of freewill or an act of predetermined eventuality. The process of proving either of these methods of arriving at my writing would entail a complete forensic examination of the conditions of the entire universe at the time of my decision to write it and a comprehensive excavation of all the influences on my decision, past, present and future.

I don't agree with the illusion of free will as that seems to mean that a God of sorts creates this complex and realistic illusion for us. I don't really believe that waves and 'particles'(or whatever you want to call them) have somehow acquired the ability to observe themselves, to reason and to have free will. Seems like a very absurd statement to me. Either we are missing something truly fundamental in our description of, call reality or universe, or the idealism ideology is right and materialism is wrong(or materialism is valid only in certain domains, but not in others). The mind-body duality(the self-awareness and free will) seems to be greater than determinism-based science likes to acknowledge.

Do most people here believe they are hallucinating their own existence?

 

[baywax]

I don't agree with the illusion of free will as that seems to mean that a God of sorts creates this complex and realistic illusion for us. I don't really believe that waves and 'particles'(or whatever you want to call them) have somehow acquired the ability to observe themselves, to reason and to have free will. Seems like a very absurd statement to me. Either we are missing something truly fundamental in our description of, call reality or universe, or the idealism ideology is right and materialism is wrong(or materialism is valid only in certain domains, but not in others). The mind-body duality(the self-awareness and free will) seems to be greater than determinism-based science likes to acknowledge.

Do most people here believe they are hallucinating their own existence?

My premise has nothing to do with illusion or hallucination. What I'm saying is that we have the ability to observe ourselves, to reason and to make choices the same way that a comet has the ability to orbit or a sun has to produce light and heat... these are the evolved and inherent properties of these entities. There is no duality between the mind and the body, they are a product of the same thing.

 

[GeorgCantor]

My premise has nothing to do with illusion or hallucination. What I'm saying is that we have the ability to observe ourselves, to reason and to make choices the same way that a comet has the ability to orbit or a sun has to produce light and heat... these are the evolved and inherent properties of these entities. There is no duality between the mind and the body, they are a product of the same thing.

The comet lacks self-awareness and logical reasoning and cannot observe itself(among other abilities). You are saying that we don't have free will and therefore we are mistaken that we have free will. That's the same as saying we are imagining that we have free will and therefore, since we don't have free will, all our statements from science or whatever, are very likely false. It's quite natural for the Sun to produce light and heat, but is it natural for carbon atoms to combine and produce an LCD monitor(when they have no free will)? Or are you saying that we are just mental states experiencing something like a free will, that doesn't really exist?

If we don't have free will, why is reality so consistent with our reasoning? Or are you saying that it is an illusion that it's consistent? If it's an illusion, then you must be a theist. I don't think you understand how all our knowledge falls apart if we are simle automata(zombis) and that it would take nothing less than a god for our illusory experience of selfhood and awareness to be that consistent with reality.

What you are suggesting appears to mean that we are hallucinating that there is a self(an "I") and if there is no "I", then there is no Anything. Even "I think therefore i am" is wrong, since you are not really thinking when there is no "I".

 

[baywax]

Or are you saying that we are just mental states experiencing something like a free will, that doesn't really exist?

That's what I'm saying. I'm saying we assume we have free will because when we direct our neurons to lift our arms... our arms lift. What we're not including in this assumption is the large number of influences causing us to "direct our neurons" to do something (like lifting our arms).

Free will and randomness are not an hallucination... they are an assumption made by a small part of the entire universe... our brains. This is because our brains don't have the capability of calculating the enormous web of influences that determine our every thought and action. We wrongly believe we are separate from the rest of existence. This has nothing to do with theism. It has to do with an holistic view of being.

Read: chaos theory

Chaos theory is a field of study in mathematics, physics, and philosophy studying the behavior of dynamical systems that are highly sensitive to initial conditions. This sensitivity is popularly referred to as the butterfly effect. Small differences in initial conditions (such as those due to rounding errors in numerical computation) yield widely diverging outcomes for chaotic systems, rendering long-term prediction impossible in general.[1] This happens even though these systems are deterministic, meaning that their future dynamics are fully determined by their initial conditions, with no random elements involved. In other words, the deterministic nature of these systems does not make them predictable. This behavior is known as deterministic chaos, or simply chaos.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

When I say that our ability to observe the self is a property like the light and heat of the sun, I am simply comparing properties. Self awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons like we find in the cranial cavity of our skulls. Light and heat are some of the end products of the sun.

 

[Freeman Dyson]

We are all of us a product of a long chain of events. We are also determiners in that our actions determine a future outcome.

There is no way we have free will. We are under an impression that we do have freewill, but, after 13.5 billion years, every em wave or particle in the universe has balanced out. Therefore, since we are all but a collection of em waves/particles, we are simply part and parcel of the universal balance... the balancing act. My guess is that no matter what choice you make, it was made for you by the simple physics of balance, thermodynamics and all those other "simple" physical laws.

Some call it Karma... this is a Hindi word for "motion" or "action" and one of the first physics lessons is that "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" (Newton).

We can't simply be reduced to particles and waves. Apieron posted a good link on this.

All physicists concede that at each level of complexity new physical qualities, and laws that govern them, emerge. These qualities and laws are either absent at the level below, or are simply meaningless at that level. Thus the concept of wetness makes sense for a droplet of water, but not for a single molecule of H2O.

http://www.ctnsstars.org/conferences/papers/The%20physics%20of%20downward%20causation.pdf

 

[Descartz2000]

There are many popular misconceptions about randomness (and determinism). An excellent recent paper on the nature of statistical models is...

http://arxiv.org/abs/0906.3507

In particular, it shows how a collection of individually non-random processes will produce "random", or rather neutral, statistical behaviour.

The random vs determinism philosophical argument is a hangover from the shocks of 17th century science and maths - Descartes, Cardano, LaPlace. Modern thinking has moved on from these simplicities.

Thanks for directing me to this study. I am not a scientist, but I do read quite a bit on the subject of QM. If modern thinking has moved past some of these hangovers, it is not always reflected in the literature. However, I believe even recent work and advances on causal interpretations do seem to identify with at least some of these original notions of physics (Ex: t'Hooft, Christian).

 

[GeorgCantor]

That's what I'm saying. I'm saying we assume we have free will because when we direct our neurons to lift our arms... our arms lift. What we're not including in this assumption is the large number of influences causing us to "direct our neurons" to do something (like lifting our arms).

You cannot assume anything if you don't have free will. There is no way you could have this ability, as with no free will, there is no "I" that can assume anything. Only an existing "I" can make assumption. An actor in a movie cannot make an assumption, can they?

Free will and randomness are not an hallucination... they are an assumption made by a small part of the entire universe... our brains. This is because our brains don't have the capability of calculating the enormous web of influences that determine our every thought and action. We wrongly believe we are separate from the rest of existence. This has nothing to do with theism. It has to do with an holistic view of being.

The holistic view doesn't do away with free will, AFAIK. I think it rather confirms it, that it a genuine emergent phenomenon that cannot be reduced to its constituent parts(and hence cannot be understood in terms of our scientific tools and methods of investigation).

Read: chaos theory


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Thanks for the link, I read it but I fail to see the connection between chaos and free will.

When I say that our ability to observe the self is a property like the light and heat of the sun, I am simply comparing properties. Self awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons like we find in the cranial cavity of our skulls. Light and heat are some of the end products of the sun.

You couldn't have knowledge of these properties you listed, if there were no "You". The understanding that self-awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons, requires a Self, an "I". That "I" obviously exists. If that "I" is an illusion and doesn't exist, you are just an illusory voice in an illusory environment, perceived by an illusory GeorgCantor. That is a self-negating statement.

 

[baywax]

You cannot assume anything if you don't have free will. There is no way you could have this ability, as with no free will, there is no "I" that can assume anything. Only an existing "I" can make assumption. An actor in a movie cannot make an assumption, can they?




The holistic view doesn't do away with free will, AFAIK. I think it rather confirms it, that it a genuine emergent phenomenon that cannot be reduced to its constituent parts(and hence cannot be understood in terms of our scientific tools and methods of investigation).




Thanks for the link, I read it but I fail to see the connection between chaos and free will.





You couldn't have knowledge of these properties you listed, if there were no "You". The understanding that self-awareness is the end product of a neuro-net of billions of neurons, requires a Self, an "I". That "I" obviously exists. If that "I" is an illusion and doesn't exist, you are just an illusory voice in an illusory environment, perceived by an illusory GeorgCantor. That is a self-negating statement.

I'm sorry but I think you're missing my point.

1. the "I" you keep mentioning is a product of our physical existence. It's not proof of something we assume is "free will". Assumption takes place without free will, it is one of the many properties and products of a neuro net or "brain".

2. that which causes an "assumption" or an arm to lift is called a "brain" but the brain is, moreover, influenced by events taking place around it. And the events taking place around it are influenced by less and less proximal events but with no less influence. So that, you begin to see a rather large machine and the cogs thereof all acting in a balance that has allowed this universe to exist for 13.5 billion years.

this is where I see a similarity between what I am proposing and chaos theory. "deterministic chaos" means what I am doing right now was and is determined by events I will never know about, and done so with no intention or "grand consciousness".

 

[GeorgCantor]

I'm sorry but I think you're missing my point.

1. the "I" you keep mentioning is a product of our physical existence. It's not proof of something we assume is "free will".

How can there be an "I", if there is no free will?

Assumption takes place without free will, it is one of the many properties and products of a neuro net or "brain".

The initial condiotions from 14 billion years ago, or rather their result cannot make an assumption. It takes human consciousness and free will to make assumptions. Explain how dead matter that has no free will can make assumptions. At this point i am fairly certain that even you don't understand the implications of the point you are trying to make.

2. that which causes an "assumption" or an arm to lift is called a "brain" but the brain is, moreover, influenced by events taking place around it. And the events taking place around it are influenced by less and less proximal events but with no less influence. So that, you begin to see a rather large machine and the cogs thereof all acting in a balance that has allowed this universe to exist for 13.5 billion years.

How come those events are so perfectly ordered as to make so much sense to "humans"? You don't believe in god do you? Because your point speaks much more in favor of god, than of naturalism.

this is where I see a similarity between what I am proposing and chaos theory. "deterministic chaos" means what I am doing right now was and is determined by events I will never know about, and done so with no intention or "grand consciousness".

OK, but how come those conditions were so pre-ordered that you'd have the sensation of free will, that you actually control your life, that there is a "Baywax" that exists, that has children, that falls in love, etc.? If the illusion of free will is THAT good, how can you tell it apart from a hypothetical true, genuine free will? And if you can't, then by that reasoning we have free will.

 

[baywax]

"God", "logic", "perfect order" "pre-order", "free will" and "I" are all anthropocentric explanations of nature. They do not necessarily correctly describe nature... they only describe nature as we comprehend it. Creating these terms for the conditions we observe does not mean our terms correctly describe the conditions. That's why I have taken this stance which is in opposition to the norm. This represents my respect for the unknown. Your tirade of questions illustrates the common inability to see beyond established yet unproven beliefs that we are some how separate from the rest of the universe in our actions and our standing as humans.

 

[ValenceE]

Hello to all,


Interesting thoughts that sound like some I had a good while back about free will, ourselves and nature as the universe in which we live in.

In a way, I can see having free will as being able to make a final choice given a set of possible decisions, even if it is weighted by the past and immediately evolving universe. It is the self, the ‘I’, that is making this choice and, if obeying its own set of rules, can generate outcomes that are not in harmony with a ‘best fit’ course, yet compatible with the natural laws.

So, in essence, this description of free will is related to the fact that I am not bound by the said natural laws, that I can choose to go ‘my’ way and not nature’s preferred way. However, this kind of free will is only apparent because, while making the alleged ‘free will choices’, I certainly am not at all free from myself and will definitely have to compose with the consequences, good or bad.

Looking at it from another angle, maybe, indeed, the only true free will would be the kind of freedom of self in complete abandonment to the natural laws that is experienced by the suns, comets and all other ‘mindless’ material objects of our magnificent universe, following the evolving path already laid out for them, behaving exactly how they were created to behave, and certainly not having regrets, second thoughts, or composing with the consequences.

Regards,

VE

 

[nickyrtr]

To me, "random" is a statement about the speaker's knowledge, not the process studied. That which I perceive to be random is that which I cannot predict at all. It may in fact be deterministic, but I do not have access to its inner workings.

In that vein, to say a being has "free will" just means that I sometimes cannot predict its decisions. I guess, then, that free will is socially defined; whether you have free will is a function of the person observing you, not an innate quality of you.

 

[GeorgCantor]

"God", "logic", "perfect order" "pre-order", "free will" and "I" are all anthropocentric explanations of nature. They do not necessarily correctly describe nature... they only describe nature as we comprehend it. Creating these terms for the conditions we observe does not mean our terms correctly describe the conditions. That's why I have taken this stance which is in opposition to the norm. This represents my respect for the unknown. Your tirade of questions illustrates the common inability to see beyond established yet unproven beliefs that we are some how separate from the rest of the universe in our actions and our standing as humans.

So you are saying we are as good as dead. No one has ever been born and nobody has ever died.

 

[apeiron]

As is being demonstrated, freewill is just such a bad term - one that mixes materialism and theology in equal measure - that its "meaning" can be debated endlessly.

A scientist would move on to terms that are situated in a useful context.

So why not talk about autonomy (as a feature of complex systems)?

Or anticipation (as a feature of standard psychology and also the more general field of anticipatory systems)?

Determined and random are useful descriptors of simple systems, not complex ones.

Freedom is a concept relevant to social systems and so should be part of an anthropological level view of the issues.

If the chosen level of analysis is the psychological - the "consciousness" of individuals - then autonomy and anticipation are the right concepts to invoke. These are terms rooted in concrete theory.

It is muddled thinking to apply modelling concepts at inappropriate scales of analysis. If you actually studied psychology, would you expect "freewill" to be one of the topics?

 

[Zerqzee]

Free-will is meaningless without choice.

Who we will become is determined by our choices, decisions and actions. The choices, decisions and actions that we take in the now create facts that cannot be altered.

The "Now" is what exists. Reality is the cosmological temporality of tensed facts that are created in the "Now". A fact cannot be altered. Change is a constant in the "Now". The illusion of time is created by this observance of change brought about by movement. The movement is deterministic outside of our ability to choose. Choice is what gives us the ability to be creative. But it is also the ability to destroy.

Who we can be is not yet determined because we still have the ability to choose. Past facts cannot be altered yet potential still exists. We can choose to create or destroy. There is no other choice before us.

 

[Descartz2000]

Free-will is meaningless without choice.

Who we will become is determined by our choices, decisions and actions. The choices, decisions and actions that we take in the now create facts that cannot be altered.

The "Now" is what exists. Reality is the cosmological temporality of tensed facts that are created in the "Now". A fact cannot be altered. Change is a constant in the "Now". The illusion of time is created by this observance of change brought about by movement. The movement is deterministic outside of our ability to choose. Choice is what gives us the ability to be creative. But it is also the ability to destroy.

Who we can be is not yet determined because we still have the ability to choose. Past facts cannot be altered yet potential still exists. We can choose to create or destroy. There is no other choice before us.

I think relativity took care of squashing the concept of absolute time. As for choices, Libet and more modern researchers are shedding light on the myth of libertarian free-will.

 

[fdesilva]

I think relativity took care of squashing the concept of absolute time. As for choices, Libet and more modern researchers are shedding light on the myth of libertarian free-will.

Consider this. Relativity gives a view of a 4 Dimensional universe. Now this 4D structure will have a shape. Consider the possibility that this shape is flexible. Then changing this shape, (locally or universally) will correspond to free will. Such shape changing will alter the future by altering the past in a consistent manner. Have a read of this. Its is not impossible to do this
http://www.physorg.com/news170586562.html

 

[Anticitizen]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possesses 'free will'.

 

[baywax]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possesses 'free will'.

What you call "random factors" also play a part as "preceding cause(s)".

Is it so far fetched to think that our neuronet is capable of predicting every phenomenon in the universe? I tend to think its true. But, what is also true is that our neuronet relies entirely on our stomach and our ability to function in filling that belly, every day... sometimes twice or more. So, there is some built in shut off valve that stops us from accessing the information being calculated by our neuronet because that would detract from our foraging for food and fulfilling the other requirements of the "survival of the species". But, again, its silly because if we were able to listen to the predictions our brains come up with through calculated calculations... we'd be better off, no doubt.

 

[skippy1729]

Even if a truly random element exists in the makeup of the human brain, it doesn't guarantee 'free will'. It just means you wouldn't be able to predict what happens next.

Let's say the universe was completely deterministic and that you knew the motion and location of every particle and force in the universe. You use this remarkable ability to predict, with success, that I will say the word 'platypus' at 8:58 pm by extrapolating how the motion of these particles and these interactions will follow, right down to how the neurons will fire in my brain.

Now, let's say the universe was not completely deterministic, and random subatomic motions of particles (or 'probability fields' or something) cause some of the neurons in my head to fire in a way you can't predict. You're knocked off your feet with surprise when I open my mouth and say 'anteater' instead.

Does this mean I have free will? No, it simply means that the operation of my brain, and the firing of my neurons, were influenced in part by random factors instead of preceding causes.

Let's compare to video games. I'm a fan of playing first-person shooters, like Half-Life, where you engage in firefights with bad guys. Let's say you're a programmer designing how the computer-generated villains act when they attack you. It would be a very poor game if the villain took two steps to the right, fired three shots at you, and took three steps to the left, and shot at you four times... every single time you encountered them.

So, you cook up an algorithm to plug in some random behavior, using random data variables as a seed - the temperature of the video card's CPU, the time in milliseconds, whatever.

Success! You, as a player, cannot reliably predict the behavior of the enemies! The game is fun again!

However, you wouldn't, not for a second, consider those computer-generated baddies to possesses 'free will'.

In 25 words or less, what you are saying is:

"The existence of fundamental randomness is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for 'free will'".

Skippy

 

[Anticitizen]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

 

[baywax]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

I think what people believe is that their entire body is separate from the rest of the universe and therefore they are able to make independent decisions based on this "island's" separateness and independence. Of course... that is completely ridiculous. This is why I imagine that free will is really for "amateurs" and that the "professionals" are aware of the interconnectedness of their own physicalness and that of the rest of the universe. Thus, rather than attempting free will.. they work with what they can perceive is affecting them and that which they are affecting.

 

[Anticitizen]

I think we're probably on the same wavelength, for the most part, but I must ask for clarification on your last sentence.

 

[Descartz2000]

Actually, I don't believe in 'free will' at all in the sense that most people mean when they use the term. I don't believe in a mind-body duality, that there's a component of the mind independent of physicality; other than a notion that a mind is what the brain 'does', not what the brain 'is' (that is, it's a process, not a thing).

Good point. I like the idea of seeing the mind in terms of what the brain does, rather than an entity of some form that is distinct and separate from sufficient causes.

 

[baywax]

I think we're probably on the same wavelength, for the most part, but I must ask for clarification on your last sentence.

Sorry... I mean that someone who isn't fooling their self with the idea that they are separate from the rest of the universe (and acting out of free will) will take the effects they have and the effects the rest of the universe has on them and use this knowledge to try and make a better way in life. This does not mean they're using free will.. it simply means they are following the grain rather than going against it. The fact that they have the capacity to see the interconnectedness of all things is something that is attained not through free will but by the grace of nature's ways.

 

[baywax]

Good point. I like the idea of seeing the mind in terms of what the brain does, rather than an entity of some form that is distinct and separate from sufficient causes.

Yes, I don't see the advantage in calling the functions of the brain "mind". Its like using the word "soul" and pretending everyone knows what you're talking about.

 

[apeiron]

Yes, I don't see the advantage in calling the functions of the brain "mind". Its like using the word "soul" and pretending everyone knows what you're talking about.

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.

To think you can do away with one view or term, and just make do with the other, is what creates so much confusion. Instead, we need terminology that does full justice to both aspects.

Again, this is why I say freewill is a bad and misleading term (capable only of spawning endless debate about the paradoxes it creates). If you talked instead about anticipation or autonomy, then you can get on with actually understanding something interesting about the brain/mind as a system.

Randomness vs determinism is a debate about the properties of un-organised substances. Collections of stuff, ensembles of materials, that have only the simplest kinds of form or globally coherent behaviours.

Complex systems have complex behaviours and you have to find the right ways to talk scientifically about them.

It is a mistake repeated so often. Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

 

[Anticitizen]

The way we use words is always significant. It is a key fact that we seem to need two words to capture the two essential aspects of the brain/mind.

Brain is talking about the local substances out of which the brain/mind is made. Mind is talking about the global form, the specific kind of organisation that shapes that collection of substance between our ears.

Like how a disc made of vinyl is what a record is, but music or a song is what it does.

Or various chemicals or physical structures is what pigments are, but color is what they do...

Is there a specific word that exists to describe such 'intangibles' that are irrefutably 'real'? If not, someone should coin one.

 

[JoeDawg]

Like how a disc made of vinyl is what a record is, but music or a song is what it does.

Or various chemicals or physical structures is what pigments are, but color is what they do...

Is there a specific word that exists to describe such 'intangibles' that are irrefutably 'real'? If not, someone should coin one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia

 

[Anticitizen]

Thanks :)

 

[baywax]

Is the development of a human about nature or nurture, genes or society? Clearly it is how two kinds of thing interact that is the interesting story.

Like the chicken or the egg debate.

Except that without "nature" there is no "nurture" or society. This should provide a clue with regard to what the fundamental material is in human development.