Are randomness and free-will compatible concepts?

[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.

 

[apeiron]

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

Qualia is definitely the wrong word to capture what I was talking about. They are the local particulars of subjective experience. I was talking about the globally general, and objective, forms or constraints.

So a failure on a number of counts. Too local, too particular and too subjective.

 

[JoeDawg]

Qualia is definitely the wrong word to capture what I was talking about.

And yet, it seems to be what someone else was referring to...

 

[baywax]

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.

Sorry, didn't mean to disregard the rest of this post. I agree that the more words we have to describe conditions and events the better. Its just that there has to be mutual agreement amongst the those discussing a matter as to the definition of the terms. Like I said earlier... the word "soul" is often bandied about yet the word as you say is far to subjectively rooted to be of any use in a conversation. Similarly "love" can be a stumbling block on the road to mutual understanding.

"Mind" is not used in neuroscience because it is, again, interpreted in many different ways by just as many people... as is "consciousness" (which must be joined to "awareness" when used in neuroscience discussions).

These are difficult items because... like i said again... everyone pretends to know what the other is saying when the definition is left up to the observer. We don't have to eliminate the words... each person needs to express how they are utilizing the word when its being used in a discussion... and even then the listener's definition will always automatically kick in when they hear the word. What to do?!

 

[apeiron]

Like I said earlier... the word "soul" is often bandied about yet the word as you say is far to subjectively rooted to be of any use in a conversation. Similarly "love" can be a stumbling block on the road to mutual understanding.

My view is that ancient greek metaphysics did a good job on establishing the maximally robust, objective and invariant terms for discussing things. They are so strong as to be mathematical. And they came for good reason as dichotomous pairs - asymmetric terms that exactly complement each other as A and not-A.

So you have "good" dichotomies such as stasis~flux, discrete~continuous, chance~necessity, substance~form. And in more modern times we have added local~global, event~context, signal~noise, and a few more.

There are also some "bad" dichotomies that have persisted, such as matter~mind, love~hate, evil~good, etc.

Good dichotomies all share the property of strong asymmetry - in scale terms especially. While weaker pairings are simpler "same scale" symmetry breakings. So for instance, love and hate, or good and evil, are the same size metaphysically. But the robust dichotomies have a breaking of symmetry across scales. Local~global is explicitly a breaking across scale and so is "very good" !

Event and context also are maximally asymmetric in this way. Discrete (the local part) and continuous (the global whole) again fit the bill. As does stasis (what stays located) and flux (the whole that is in movement).

So we are not completely helpless so far as finding good terminology for discussing meta-physical issues. Part of the job of philosophy really has always been about reducing the discussion to the most fundamental concepts, the words that really mean the most.

Soul and mind and consciousness and qualia and freewill - those are all a historical baggage of terminology that just aren't that helpful. But metaphysics already established the most robust language back in ancient greece.

And if we follow the path of maximum asymmetry - dividing our ignorance or vagueness as strongly as possible in opposing directions, not forgetting to go in different directions in terms of scale as well - then this has actually proved itself the best way to produce the necessary language.

There is a method for making the words.

 

[baywax]

My view is that ancient greek metaphysics did a good job on establishing the maximally robust, objective and invariant terms for discussing things. They are so strong as to be mathematical. And they came for good reason as dichotomous pairs - asymmetric terms that exactly complement each other as A and not-A.

So you have "good" dichotomies such as stasis~flux, discrete~continuous, chance~necessity, substance~form. And in more modern times we have added local~global, event~context, signal~noise, and a few more.

There are also some "bad" dichotomies that have persisted, such as matter~mind, love~hate, evil~good, etc.

Good dichotomies all share the property of strong asymmetry - in scale terms especially. While weaker pairings are simpler "same scale" symmetry breakings. So for instance, love and hate, or good and evil, are the same size metaphysically. But the robust dichotomies have a breaking of symmetry across scales. Local~global is explicitly a breaking across scale and so is "very good" !

Event and context also are maximally asymmetric in this way. Discrete (the local part) and continuous (the global whole) again fit the bill. As does stasis (what stays located) and flux (the whole that is in movement).

So we are not completely helpless so far as finding good terminology for discussing meta-physical issues. Part of the job of philosophy really has always been about reducing the discussion to the most fundamental concepts, the words that really mean the most.

Soul and mind and consciousness and qualia and freewill - those are all a historical baggage of terminology that just aren't that helpful. But metaphysics already established the most robust language back in ancient greece.

And if we follow the path of maximum asymmetry - dividing our ignorance or vagueness as strongly as possible in opposing directions, not forgetting to go in different directions in terms of scale as well - then this has actually proved itself the best way to produce the necessary language.

There is a method for making the words.

This is great news. Thanks apeiron!. I'm going to have to distill this concrete info and let it simmer before solidifying enough to comment further in this locale...

 

[baywax]

For the moment, let me just express my confusion about the validity of the word "meta-physics". It appears to me to be a contradiction of terms or at least of root terms.

Metaphysics means to be above or outside the physical world. Yet, we discuss it using physical terms... we contemplate it using our physical and biological bodies, including our brains. And if someone told me an idea is not physical I'd tell them they are wrong because an idea is, in its most fundimental form, an electromagnetic pulse. Metaphysicists claim that energy is evidence of metaphysical reality yet energy is in fact electromagnetic pulses and/or radiation.

How is it that a concept, completely conceived by physical means, and claimed to be above and beyond all physical realms, exist in the first place? And how do does one go about proving the existence of the metaphysical using nothing but the clumsy butterfingers of a physical frame of reference?

 

[JoeDawg]

Metaphysics means to be above or outside the physical world.

Actually, it means, this is what Aristotle wrote about, after he was done writing about physics. :)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics
The word derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) (meaning "beyond" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) (meaning "physical"), "physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the chapters in Aristotle's work that followed after the chapters on "physics," in posthumously edited collections. Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy."

 

[apeiron]

Meta makes sense if you take it as a more general level of discussion. So if physics is concerned with what is, then meta-physics could be a step up to a more general view about what could even be.

 

[baywax]

Meta makes sense if you take it as a more general level of discussion. So if physics is concerned with what is, then meta-physics could be a step up to a more general view about what could even be.

That's usually called a hypothesis isn't it?... not metaphysics..

 

[magpies]

Invsible forces like magnetism would be considered a part of metaphysics by ancient greeks I am sure.